Sustainable maintenance effort vs. original goal weight?

Options
2

Replies

  • MadisonMolly2017
    MadisonMolly2017 Posts: 10,995 Member
    Options
    Panini911 wrote: »
    You get a lot more calories while gaining up to the higher weight, but once you get there, your maintenance won't be all that much higher unless you're talking about putting on a significant amount of weight.

    this is what I am wondering? shouldn't maintenance calories in theory be the same regardless of what weight you maintain? (ok assuming a 10lbs range, i do remember that more body weight requires more calories to function but does that change dramatically over 10lbs?)

    BMI 23.2. 155. 1831

    3rd GW: still had more fat - front waist
    BMI 22.5. 150 1806

    To create a 5 lb range for maintenance:
    BMI 22.3. 148 1802
    BMI 22.0 147 1798
    BMI 21.7. 145. 1790

    For me, 10 lbs will be -41 calories daily.
    So yes, basically the same.

    Eye-opening!
  • walktalkdog
    walktalkdog Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    Maintenance for me is a real struggle.

    Stats: female, age 61, 5'7", began at 167 pounds November 1, 2017. Goal weight range is 153-155.

    I have reached 154 a few times, but it's very difficult for me to sustain it. I am committed to reaching it and maintaining it; I don't think it's an unrealistic weight. Am constantly retooling and re-evaluating my approach.

    Weekends are challenging for eating within my calorie allottment. I allow myself drinks two nights a week. I have a solid exercise regime.

    I have a deskjob and am post-menopause, which is notorious for making weight loss difficult.

    There is always room for improvement, of course, which is why I'm always looking for helpful tidbits on the message boards.

  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,345 Member
    Options
    psychod787 wrote: »

    50 years of adorableness! Lol

    Are you flirting with me again? :smiley: people will start to talk :wink:
  • SummerSkier
    SummerSkier Posts: 4,803 Member
    Options
    psychod787 wrote: »

    50 years of adorableness! Lol

    Are you flirting with me again? :smiley: people will start to talk :wink:

    I was just about to tell you two to get a room or take it to the singles hang out! B):p
  • Panini911
    Panini911 Posts: 2,325 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    wow i didn't realize the difference was that much on small changes in actual weight. bleh that's depressing maybe i need to go back to 130 :P

    ohh! this could ne why when i updated my weight the other day i lost 10 calories a day :p i was due to a downgrade :p
  • MadisonMolly2017
    MadisonMolly2017 Posts: 10,995 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Panini911 wrote: »
    You get a lot more calories while gaining up to the higher weight, but once you get there, your maintenance won't be all that much higher unless you're talking about putting on a significant amount of weight.

    this is what I am wondering? shouldn't maintenance calories in theory be the same regardless of what weight you maintain? (ok assuming a 10lbs range, i do remember that more body weight requires more calories to function but does that change dramatically over 10lbs?)

    Bodyweight is one of the big factors in your caloric needs.
    There's a small metabolic increase in needs as you gain some weight reflected in a higher BMR but also most of your activity and exercise will also burn slightly higher to move a greater mass around.

    Thread seems to have gone off on a bit of a tangent as I wouldn't think people are regaining some small amounts of weight just to eat more but rather just finding it hard to maintain at a lighter weight and searching for a weight where it might feel easier for that individual.

    The extra mass you need to move does account for some as well, although even at 50 MPW of running, an extra 10 lbs adds up to an extra 315 calories/week, or 45/day. Within the range or error for most logging. For me at ~3000 cal/day to maintain at that amount of activity, that's an extra 1.5%... ouch

    Having gotten down to be fairly lean for my running race weight (5'10", 148 lbs), the thing I noticed the most was that hunger at that weight was MUCH more of a challenge than at 160 lbs, probably due to hormonal changes as BF% drops. It took months for that to adjust and not feel ravenous.

    @The_Enginerd but so encouraging to me that the ravenous hunger did ebb after months. (I always think it will go in forever.) thanks
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Panini911 wrote: »
    You get a lot more calories while gaining up to the higher weight, but once you get there, your maintenance won't be all that much higher unless you're talking about putting on a significant amount of weight.

    this is what I am wondering? shouldn't maintenance calories in theory be the same regardless of what weight you maintain? (ok assuming a 10lbs range, i do remember that more body weight requires more calories to function but does that change dramatically over 10lbs?)

    Bodyweight is one of the big factors in your caloric needs.
    There's a small metabolic increase in needs as you gain some weight reflected in a higher BMR but also most of your activity and exercise will also burn slightly higher to move a greater mass around.

    Thread seems to have gone off on a bit of a tangent as I wouldn't think people are regaining some small amounts of weight just to eat more but rather just finding it hard to maintain at a lighter weight and searching for a weight where it might feel easier for that individual.

    The extra mass you need to move does account for some as well, although even at 50 MPW of running, an extra 10 lbs adds up to an extra 315 calories/week, or 45/day. Within the range or error for most logging. For me at ~3000 cal/day to maintain at that amount of activity, that's an extra 1.5%... ouch

    Having gotten down to be fairly lean for my running race weight (5'10", 148 lbs), the thing I noticed the most was that hunger at that weight was MUCH more of a challenge than at 160 lbs, probably due to hormonal changes as BF% drops. It took months for that to adjust and not feel ravenous.

    Giving me hope and well l...
  • elisa123gal
    elisa123gal Posts: 4,287 Member
    Options
    So, if I'm understanding this right... when it comes to maintenance calories..a 10 to 20 pound difference in gain from goal weight is really only a few calories more a day? So, is the winning strategy to lose 3 to 5 pounds below your goal weight and use those pounds as your buffer since your daily calories are just about the same when you go to maintain?

    Also..seems like exercise calories are key if you want to keep it off. You'd need those calories for treats and meals out.
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    So, if I'm understanding this right... when it comes to maintenance calories..a 10 to 20 pound difference in gain from goal weight is really only a few calories more a day? So, is the winning strategy to lose 3 to 5 pounds below your goal weight and use those pounds as your buffer since your daily calories are just about the same when you go to maintain?

    Also..seems like exercise calories are key if you want to keep it off. You'd need those calories for treats and meals out.

    Pretty close. It depends on your starting and ending points, but yes, a 10 pound difference can equate to something on order of only 50 calories per day.

    I don't know if what you describe is ideal but I think it's what happens for a lot of us. My first year of "maintenance" was really a very very slow loss (on order of a half pound per month or so) and I ended up spending the year at the very bottom end of my target range. And I didn't start maintenance until I was about 5 pounds below my target weight.
  • wendyheath32
    wendyheath32 Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    I set my target weight at 159 lbs and I'm 5 foot 11. I'm currently 150lbs as I found even eating the amount mfp set for me and including the exercise calories I would loose weight. But I had been maintaining between 152 and 159 for 7 months. I recently decided to lose a little more but if it's not as sustainable as my current then I'll rethink
  • Jambalady
    Jambalady Posts: 155 Member
    Options
    This was a very enlightening thread. I never realized there was so little difference in maintenance calories when we're talking about the last 5-10 pounds. I think the sustainability question really boils down to the reduced calories you have to sustain to actually get down those last 5-10 pounds, and not once you are already there. For example, at 5 ft and 116, in order for me to get to 110, I would have to eat at 1600 calories for 4-5 months with very to no room for error to get to 110 lbs. And there is really zero room for error, so even being very diligent, you would have to eat at reduced calories for many months to get to that magic number and I'd pretty much be miserable every day. Or I can be fine at 116 and consider it my maintenance. At 116 I can eat 1900 vs a maintenance of 1863 at 110 (39 measly extra calories for 6 full pounds). So for me, it would be, is worth the misery of eating at 1600 vs 1900 for months for those few pounds? Having typed it out, I would say, probably not.
  • Panini911
    Panini911 Posts: 2,325 Member
    edited March 2019
    Options
    hollyhom wrote: »
    This was a very enlightening thread. I never realized there was so little difference in maintenance calories when we're talking about the last 5-10 pounds. I think the sustainability question really boils down to the reduced calories you have to sustain to actually get down those last 5-10 pounds, and not once you are already there. For example, at 5 ft and 116, in order for me to get to 110, I would have to eat at 1600 calories for 4-5 months with very to no room for error to get to 110 lbs. And there is really zero room for error, so even being very diligent, you would have to eat at reduced calories for many months to get to that magic number and I'd pretty much be miserable every day. Or I can be fine at 116 and consider it my maintenance. At 116 I can eat 1900 vs a maintenance of 1863 at 110 (39 measly extra calories for 6 full pounds). So for me, it would be, is worth the misery of eating at 1600 vs 1900 for months for those few pounds? Having typed it out, I would say, probably not.


    haha I've been slowly loosing for like 10months now and 1600 calories would be a dream ;) i'm at 1400 for 0.5pds/week to lose the "last 5" - but I keep pushing back my goal so the last 5 are never the last 5...