Titration of Calories for Weight Loss?

pattyebricker

About 50 years ago, I read a weight loss book by a Doctor that suggested titration of calories for weight loss. His theory was that you gained the weight slowing adding calories on a daily basis and that you should lose it in reverse. For example if you weigh 250lbs, your first goal should be 240lbs. His plan was to multiply 240 x 10= 2400 calories per day until you reach 240lbs. Next your goal would be 230 lbs x 10= 2300 calories per day until you reach that goal weight. This would continue until you reach your ultimate goal weight. The calorie deficit would be so small, that it would hardly be noticeable, therefore you would not get hungry. You are eating at a calorie deficit for your weight. This was not a quick weight loss plan. Of course, he recommended that you eat foods that were high in nutrients and that you begin exercising and increase your exercise as you lose.

MFP has most of us at a beginning calorie goal of 1200 calories, which is a huge drop from what we are use to eating.

QUESTION: What do you successful MFP people think of this old idea? Would it work or would it take too long?

BigT555

i think it would work, but for certain people only. for one, someone who is 400 lbs isnt going to necessarily be in a deficit at all if they have a very sedentary lifestyle. secondly the driving motivation for many people is seeing the results, i know personally i got a rush everytime i stepped on the scale the first few months because i was seeing a fast and steady drop in weight, if some dont see this then they may think what they are doing is ineffective and just give up. another problem i see with this is that once you get down to a certain weight you would be eating too little, causing some muscle loss. i've actually upped my calories since i started losing weight, since the difference in TDEE isnt great enough to offset the fact that as we get closer and closer to our goal we need to decrease the deficit in our diets

so, based on these i would say it would be a good way for someone who is overweight but not morbidly obese, has an active lifestyle, and only until they got within say 40 lbs of their goal weight

3dogsrunning

For some people at certain weights it might work. IMO, it is over generalized. People at the same weight have different activity levels. I know for me, I would be too active for the numbers. I know where I need to be to lose weight and it is higher than that formula would give me.
There are also tons of 120lb females who eat/need more than 1200 can lose weight.

MFP doesn't have most of us starting at 1200 calories - a lot of people choose the incorrect information and end up at 1200 calories plus a lot don't understand how MFP is designed to work - log and eat back your exercise calories, so even at 1200, if you exercise regularly you would be eating more regularly. .

If people would stop choosing 2lbs a week when it isn't a realistic goal for a lot, fewer people would be at 1200.

handyrunner

For some people at certain weights it might work. IMO, it is over generalized. People at the same weight have different activity levels. I know for me, I would be too active for the numbers. I know where I need to be to lose weight and it is higher than that formula would give me.
There are also tons of 120lb females who eat/need more than 1200 can lose weight.

MFP doesn't have most of us starting at 1200 calories - a lot of people choose the incorrect information and end up at 1200 calories plus a lot don't understand how MFP is designed to work - log and eat back your exercise calories, so even at 1200, if you exercise regularly you would be eating more regularly. .

If people would stop choosing 2lbs a week when it isn't a realistic goal for a lot, fewer people would be at 1200.

I have to agree here...its sounds good in theory and definitly makes it simple... but activity levels would dictate. My TDEE-20 is still higher than what this says I would need, for the amount of running and lifting I do.

SingRunTing

The theory seems solid. Maybe not the math of weight x 10 = calories. However, this method would be so slow that I feel like a lot of people would give up.

Yes, MFP puts you at lower calories when you are losing fast at the beginning (2lbs a week, assuming you should actually be losing 2lbs a week). I think this helps people stick to it longer when they see the results faster. Obviously, there is a tipping point where losing too fast = unhealthy and probably hungry all the time.

jeffpettis

For some people at certain weights it might work. IMO, it is over generalized. People at the same weight have different activity levels. I know for me, I would be too active for the numbers. I know where I need to be to lose weight and it is higher than that formula would give me.
There are also tons of 120lb females who eat/need more than 1200 can lose weight.

MFP doesn't have most of us starting at 1200 calories - a lot of people choose the incorrect information and end up at 1200 calories plus a lot don't understand how MFP is designed to work - log and eat back your exercise calories, so even at 1200, if you exercise regularly you would be eating more regularly. .

If people would stop choosing 2lbs a week when it isn't a realistic goal for a lot, fewer people would be at 1200.

^^^ This ^^^

If I were to go by this I would be eating 1580 calories... I can eat about 700 or 800 calories more than that and still lose about a pound a week...

I think that this theory is WAY too generalized and doesn't take into account the person's age, height, gender, etc., all of which will make a big difference in the person's energy requirements.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

aylajane

I think the concept is great, just the practice of x10 is wrong.

If a 250 pound person would look up their TDEE for their age, sex, activity level BUT for a weight of 240, then eat that TDEE, that would work. I think 10 pounds is a little too small a goal though, since that last pound or two would be incredibly slow.

The concept is sound - eat like a 225 pound version of yourself (instead of your current 250 pound version) and you will eventually become a 225 pound version of yourself. Then start eating like a 200 pound version of yourself.

None of this generic x10 stuff though. Would have to always account for changes in activity every time you readjust your goal.

pattyebricker

Thanks for the replies. I will go with you guys.

TutuMom41

This would work. I lost 70 lbs all in 5 lb increments. That way I never had more than 5 lbs to loose and it never seemed daunting. good luck

TutuMom41

I also think the best way to have permanent weight loss is to calculate the calories needed to be the weight you want to be using your activity lvl and how many calories it would take to maintain your goal weight. If you eat that way every day you will eventually reach your goal and you will do it by living a lifestyle you can maintain. It is much slower than using 1200 calorie diet but I think much more reasonable for permanent results.

fallingtrees

I also think the best way to have permanent weight loss is to calculate the calories needed to be the weight you want to be using your activity lvl and how many calories it would take to maintain your goal weight. If you eat that way every day you will eventually reach your goal and you will do it by living a lifestyle you can maintain. It is much slower than using 1200 calorie diet but I think much more reasonable for permanent results.

This is sensible, and what I try to do. This way you're learning to maintain your final weight.

Also, I don't think MFP recommends 1200 calories for most everyone. It recommends you don't go below that, which makes it tough for a petite person to lose without a lot of exercise.

WalkingAlong

Also, I don't think MFP recommends 1200 calories for most everyone. It recommends you don't go below that, which makes it tough for a petite person to lose without a lot of exercise.

A petite person can't even theoretically lose more with a lot of exercise on the MFP plan because it expects you to eat back all your exercise calorie burn. Though, nonsensically, a petite person with no 'exercise' but a very active lifestyle is not expected to 'eat back' and is able to lose more quickly than one who 'exercises' instead of 'being active'.

I agree that the OP's plan's disadvantages are that you'd need a lot of patience and willingness to track your food closely for months and even years, often without seeing results for long spans at a time. I don't know many people willing to do that (in the world, not here in the calorie tracking/slow-weight-loss-worshipping site).