Lost Weight on Maintenance Calories

vickysm959

Hi everyone. I am losing weight on maintenance calories and this didn't really come as a surprise as I am going to bed hungry, especially on more sedentary days when MFP lowers the calories.

My ultimate goal is to maintain weight without tracking calories but my fear is that I will gain weight this way, as I am prone to binge-eating...

Does anyone have advice on how to up my calorie goal on MFP and what to set my macros to (in grams)? Or advice on how to maintain by intuitive eating? I am really in a rut.

sijomial

Your given goal is just an estimate made up of two estimates with another two estimates applied afterwards - it's not surprising it won't be accurate for many. Think of it as a start point from which to adjust.

You can fine tune your calorie goal manually in whatever increments you think are suitable, as you get closer to finding your balance it may well make sense to make those increments smaller. How fast you are losing is a reasonable guide to how big the first adjustment might be. Then give it some weeks to settle out, look for the trend and ignore fluctuations out of line with your calories.

Don't think of managing your eating as black and white options of logging everything or intuitive eating. There is a whole range between those two extremes from relaxed but consistent logging, careless logging, sporadic logging, rough estimates, mindful eating with or without any logging.....

My place on that spectrum is that I can eat mindfully without logging food but find estimating my exercise helpful as it's very varied and often very high calorie burns.

Intuitive eating is a very lofty goal, especially for anyone who has ever been overweight or had a difficult relationship with food. Maybe too lofty an ambition for many? I prefer to think of ways of managing my calorie balance and weight as tools and not a separate goal.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that I can only eat intuitively if I want to overeat by about 500cals a day (and no I don't want to!!). I don't see that I have to put a few minutes of thought into my food choices and quantity as any kind of failure.

Macros are very personal in terms or needs and wants and you haven't volunteered information about your circumstances or preferences. If you intend maintaining without logging you wont be tracking macros either so why start now? (For me I keep my protein needs in mind but don't need to do anymore than that, when I did track food only calories and my minimum protein goal were all I concerned myself with as the rest of my nutritional needs took care of themselves.)

vickysm959

Thank you for taking the time to answer my post thoroughly!

I have started off my measuring my food intake by cups instead of grams (takes much less time), and by eating when I am hungry, but still making sure to prepare healthy meals with good macros. I am aiming for over 15% protein and trying to eat less fat.

I don't think upping my calories by 100 or 200 will cut it as I am now underweight, and don't want to risk losing any more... but if this doesn't work out and I overeat, I will do that.

AnnPT77

Couple of things:

If cups is quicker than grams, I'm pretty sure there are easier ways to use a scale than what you've been doing (not that you have to use one - but speed should not need to be the reason for switching). If you want to consider what I mean, the thread below will explain (ignore the joke-y clickbait title, which is particularly inappropriate in this case):

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10498882/weighing-food-takes-too-long-and-is-obsessive

The thread below discusses various ways to figure maintenance calories.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10638211/how-to-find-your-maintenance-calorie-level/p1

That should give you some options for setting calorie goal to maintain. As far as macros, the MFP default macros are usually acceptable for most people, as a starting point, and you can adjust from there based on your satiation, energy level, etc. IF you want to be a little more technical about it from the start, this is a good thread:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819055/setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets/p1

I'm afraid I can't help with intuitive eating, because 30 years of obesity (10+ of it while very active athletically) tells me that I completely s**k at intuitive eating. I expect to be calorie counting for a long time to come: Best 10 minutes a day I spend, in terms of the payback to my health and happiness.

Speaking as a concerned old internet auntie type: If you're struggling with a history of binge eating, and extreme worry about regain, I'd encourage you to talk with a counselor or therapist who specializes in those things. Just as we consult dietitians for nutritional advice, or personal trainers and physical therapists for exercise advice, there should be no stigma associated with consulting a counselor, psychologist, or other professional for issues that interfere with our thought processes and feelings. There are people here who've achieved excellent results from quite short-course counseling/therapy. There are community-based counseling options, and even some online (virtual) but individual options. (I've productively consulted a psychologist, but for issues unrelated to eating.)

Wishing you all the best!

PAV8888

Going to bed hungry... makes it more likely, not less, that you might enter a restrict-binge cycle.
Being underweight... makes it more likely, not less, that you might enter a restrict-binge cycle.

I would not be overly worried about dialing in my maintenance calories exactly if I were already underweight, right? I mean remaining underweight would not normally be a desired status, and maintenance means remaining!

If and when you start to consistently gain weight because of your regular (not binge) eating... there is a lot of room between being under-weight and, say, being at a minimum BMI of 20. (That's an interesting number since it is the old bottom of the healthy range before it was lowered in consideration of less tall individuals and individuals of Asian origin. You will also notice that it figures as a cut off for various recommendations when it comes to weigh during pregnancy. It is also arbitrarily adopted by various programs that deal with EDs and the need for weight regain)

In any case, if you do start gaining consistently such that it is reflected on a trending weight app over 4-6 weeks including a full hormonal cycle... you can always adjust, right?

So, yeah, the estimate of your maintenance calories doesn't matter if it is resulting in continuing weight loss. And at this point of time, based on your current status, it sounds that, rationally, weight restoration would be a better goal than maintenance.

Just a couple of extra thoughts to consider in addition to the great points discussed above!!!

cupcakesandproteinshakes

PAV8888 wrote: »

Going to bed hungry... makes it more likely, not less, that you might enter a restrict-binge cycle.
Being underweight... makes it more likely, not less, that you might enter a restrict-binge cycle.

I would not be overly worried about dialing in my maintenance calories exactly if I were already underweight, right? I mean remaining underweight would not normally be a desired status, and maintenance means remaining!

If and when you start to consistently gain weight because of your regular (not binge) eating... there is a lot of room between being under-weight and, say, being at a minimum BMI of 20. (That's an interesting number since it is the old bottom of the healthy range before it was lowered in consideration of less tall individuals and individuals of Asian origin. You will also notice that it figures as a cut off for various recommendations when it comes to weigh during pregnancy. It is also arbitrarily adopted by various programs that deal with EDs and the need for weight regain)

In any case, if you do start gaining consistently such that it is reflected on a trending weight app over 4-6 weeks including a full hormonal cycle... you can always adjust, right?

So, yeah, the estimate of your maintenance calories doesn't matter if it is resulting in continuing weight loss. And at this point of time, based on your current status, it sounds that, rationally, weight restoration would be a better goal than maintenance.

Just a couple of extra thoughts to consider in addition to the great points discussed above!!!

Thats interesting about the bmi cut off changing. I thought it used to be 20.

PAV8888

TL;dr based on all I googled it seems that 20 was never an official underweight cut off. The "official" cut offs seem to have mostly been at 19. At some point in the 1989 to 1990 era there was an age based desirable BMI definition which suggested that 35yo+ people should desire BMIs of 21 or higher. Separately, wikipedia has at least one reference that: "BMIs under 20 and over 25 have been associated with higher all-causes mortality, with the risk increasing with distance from the 20–25 range."

cupcakesandproteinshakes wrote: »

Thats interesting about the bmi cut off changing. I thought it used to be 20.

Not sure as to your comment above; but if you "remember" normal BMI starting at "20", then you were remembering the same thing I was remembering!

However, my google foo could not find confirmatory references for my memories!

I stumbled on lots of references to the old overweight cut offs of 27.8 for men and 27.3 for women, but not to discussions where a change to the underweight cut-off from 20 to 18.5 took place. Currently the normal range is 18.5 to 24.9.

The cut offs discussed below were at times at 18.7, 19.2, and19, before consistently settling at 18.5. A brief interlude set desired BMIs for adults older than 25 at 20+

1980 Guidelines for Americans have ranges that suggest BMI 18.7 as the underweight cut-off: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/1980 DGA.pdf

1985 Guidelines for Americans have ranges that suggest BMI 19.2 as the underweight cut-off: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/1985 Full DG Report.pdf

1990 guidelines for americans merged the male and female ranges, and introduced separate 19 to 34 and 35 and over cut offs. So, while the 19 to 34 ranges suggest an underweight cut off of 19.0, the 35+ ranges suggest BMI 21! as the entry level for the "normal" weight range! https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.pdf

This was probably based on the 1989 Committee on Diet and health which came up with desirable bmi's changing with age:
19-24 for 19-24 yo
20-25 for 25-34 yo
21-26 for 35-44 yo
22-27 for 45-54 yo
23-28 for 55-65 yo
24-29 for >65yo

1995 guidelines have a harder to read graph, with 5ft 8 at 125 being a clear intersection and implying a bmi of 19 as the bottom of the healthy weight range: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.pdf

2000 guidelines clearly use BMI 18.5 as the cut off.
2005 guidelines mention 18.5-24.9 as the healthy range but display weight/height combos starting at 19.
2010 and 2015 set underweight as below 18.5

mtaratoot

That's very interesting about different guidelines at different ages @PAV8888. It may or may not be valid with respect to health risks, but it's not so different than the "Smart BMI" calculator that takes age into account.

Thanks for sharing that. I wonder why they added the age factor, and even more than that I wonder why they took it off.

PAV8888

@mtaratoot there are probably two or three factors.

One seldom mentioned is that we lose a cm or two as we get older. This means that even with the same mass and same fat to lean mass ratio our BMI would increase, though not, I think to the level indicated by the 1989 progression.

I think smartbmi has some good points and there is quite a bit of research that indicates lack of clearcut overall risk increase when one considers the bmi 25-27 range for 30+ adults, and even more so in the 65+ range.

The age factors have probably been removed for simplification. Same as the separate BMI ranges for women/men or for different ethnic groups.

mtaratoot

I always wonder if I it's more appropriate as a Vintage Person to use my previous height or my current compressed height in the BMI. I use current just because I can measure it. It does make the BMI go up.

PAV8888

I use current too. I am a good 1.5 cm less than where i used to be... which is, unfortunately, in line with expected projections It adds about 0.4 to my BMI

spiriteagle99

I've used my former height, which is probably wrong, but I'm healthy either way.

To the OP - I lost 10 lbs after starting maintenance, and dropped from 131 to 121 lbs. Partly it was because I have a faster metabolism than some my age, so the MFP number was too little for me, and partly because I do a lot of exercise. (Running and walking mostly.) I have settled into a 120-125 maintenance window for the past several years. I don't weigh what I eat, but I do log it. I also log my exercise. If I'm hungry, I eat, even if I'm over on calories. It seems to all even out. Since you can afford to gain back some of the extra weight you lost, then try eating a bit more to hunger. Not by binging, but by asking yourself, what am I hungry for and how can I best satisfy that? For me, sometimes it's a piece of fruit I want (sweet tooth) and sometimes cheese or a piece of bread and cheese (protein). I avoid binging by not having a lot of junk food in the house. If I really want something that is high calorie, I try to buy one serving, not a box full.