Dumb question
tomatoey
Posts: 5,446 Member
I am eating the same amount I did when I maintained 124 lbs - 2100-2300 (I logged then and now). Currently, I'm 142 lbs. I'm exercising at about the same intensity, I'd say, although I'm not able to do the kind of metabolic workouts I did back then and I can't lift heavy. (I now do intervals on a stationary bike; stuff on the elliptical; and mostly bodyweight resistance. I work hard at the cardio, and I should be burning more at what I'm doing, because I'm heavier, right?)
If I reduce my intake, lose the weight, and then return to to a higher intake - I don't get it, how does that work? Why didn't I gain weight during the time I was maintaining? Why aren't I losing at my target weight maintenance calories?
(I gained weight because I just stopped counting, ate too much stuff, and did not exercise (injury). I would estimate I ate at around 2400-2600 ish in that time.)
If I reduce my intake, lose the weight, and then return to to a higher intake - I don't get it, how does that work? Why didn't I gain weight during the time I was maintaining? Why aren't I losing at my target weight maintenance calories?
(I gained weight because I just stopped counting, ate too much stuff, and did not exercise (injury). I would estimate I ate at around 2400-2600 ish in that time.)
0
Replies
-
You didn't gain when you were maintaining because you ate your maintenance calories... you then gained because you ate more than your maintenance calorie needs.
If you aren't losing now you are either eating more than you should be or you are being impatient.0 -
You didn't gain when you were maintaining because you ate your maintenance calories... you then gained because you ate more than your maintenance calorie needs.
If you aren't losing now you are either eating more than you should be or you are being impatient.
I know why I gained. I'm asking: "if I'm now eating what was maintenance for me at 124, why is there no loss". Obviously I'm eating too much.0 -
I don't know, it's very confusing. It's so easy to put on but so hard to take off. I feel like I can't hardly eat anything when I am at goal! It goes back on so easy. I've reached goal or very near goal only to put it back on quick and I lost at the standard 1 pound a week!0
-
You didn't gain when you were maintaining because you ate your maintenance calories... you then gained because you ate more than your maintenance calorie needs.
If you aren't losing now you are either eating more than you should be or you are being impatient.
I know why I gained. I'm asking: "if I'm now eating what was maintenance for me at 124, why is there no loss". Obviously I'm eating too much.
Because you are either impatient (how long have you been logging?) or you are eating more than you realize. Or your TDEE/maintenance needs are not as high as you think they are.
Was 2100 cals maintenance gross or net? Your exercise levels are not the same as they were back then. Meaning your TDEE is clearly not going to increase in the way you'd assume it would had your energy output remained the same.0 -
You should be losing weight if all things were equal.
Are you sure you are just as active now as then?
Many times when heavier people don't move around as much a day, 200-400 cal could be lost that way.
Also, if indeed exercising at the same intensity, meaning pace is the same, but carrying more mass - you would actually be burning more calories in the exercise, and moving around daily.
So I'd have to run your numbers to see what your likely daily burn is now, and at goal weight, to see how much deficit you have in place.
When this close, it's likely not much, so inaccurate food logging could wipe it out, along with not moving as much daily.
Do you log by weight all that you eat?
Calories is per gram, not cup or spoon, for accuracy.
I'm not sure what you mean by reduce intake, lose weight, and then higher intake.
You go higher, but not as high as your could at higher weight of course.
That would just cause you to slowly gain fat back.0 -
You should be losing weight if all things were equal.
Are you sure you are just as active now as then?
Many times when heavier people don't move around as much a day, 200-400 cal could be lost that way.
Hmm, maybe not. During my weight loss, I ran, and did workouts by Zuzka Light (BodyRock back then), Jillian Michaels (the ones with weights), and "Spartacus" style metabolic workouts (if you remember those, also with weights). Once I got to my goal weight, I stopped running and just did those workouts + heavy lifting.
Now, it's intervals on the bike, elliptical & bodyweight resistance (plus some loaded stuff using the cable machine). I push myself every time, but you're right, they're probably not as demanding.Also, if indeed exercising at the same intensity, meaning pace is the same, but carrying more mass - you would actually be burning more calories in the exercise, and moving around daily.
So I'd have to run your numbers to see what your likely daily burn is now, and at goal weight, to see how much deficit you have in place.
That's would I'd have thought, that I'd be burning more, even doing what I'm doing. But probably not.When this close, it's likely not much, so inaccurate food logging could wipe it out, along with not moving as much daily.
Do you log by weight all that you eat?
Calories is per gram, not cup or spoon, for accuracy.
I'm not weighing my food, however, I'm using the same measuring cups that I used when I lost 54 pounds and maintained for four years. But maybe it's worth being more granular this time.I'm not sure what you mean by reduce intake, lose weight, and then higher intake. You go higher, but not as high as your could at higher weight of course. That would just cause you to slowly gain fat back.
I just mean, if I eat say 1800 now to lose, then go back up to 2100-2400, which was the amount I ate while losing and during maintenance, why wouldn't I gain when I increase my calories? But yes, I guess all that will have changed if I'm actually burning much less than I did.0 -
If you eat 1800 and lose weight, you have a deficit between eating level and daily burning level.
When you reach goal weight, you still have a deficit, just not as much. So you can eat that much more to maintain.
So now when you eat 2100-2400, you maintain again.
Your issue was it sounds like, you kept eating that much, despite the fact exercise changed and lessened a lot.
You must always eat at appropriate level for your weight and amount of activity - life lesson.
That's true even in a diet. Too many in a diet increase activity and eat the same amount, or even less, thinking that will turn out good. Except for eating slightly less as mass drops, it's not.0 -
Well, when I gained, it was because I was both eating more than my maintenance calories, and not exercising at all due to injuries (I probably also expended fewer NEAT calories).
I think you're right, though, the problem here is the output.0 -
I am eating the same amount I did when I maintained 124 lbs - 2100-2300 (I logged then and now). Currently, I'm 142 lbs. I'm exercising at about the same intensity, I'd say, although I'm not able to do the kind of metabolic workouts I did back then and I can't lift heavy. (I now do intervals on a stationary bike; stuff on the elliptical; and mostly bodyweight resistance. I work hard at the cardio, and I should be burning more at what I'm doing, because I'm heavier, right?)
If I reduce my intake, lose the weight, and then return to to a higher intake - I don't get it, how does that work? Why didn't I gain weight during the time I was maintaining? Why aren't I losing at my target weight maintenance calories?
(I gained weight because I just stopped counting, ate too much stuff, and did not exercise (injury). I would estimate I ate at around 2400-2600 ish in that time.)
So you think by eating at the maintenance level you would need when you are 18lbs lighter you would lose weight?
Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure that would give you an extremely low cut and hence extremely slow loss0 -
I am eating the same amount I did when I maintained 124 lbs - 2100-2300 (I logged then and now). Currently, I'm 142 lbs. I'm exercising at about the same intensity, I'd say, although I'm not able to do the kind of metabolic workouts I did back then and I can't lift heavy. (I now do intervals on a stationary bike; stuff on the elliptical; and mostly bodyweight resistance. I work hard at the cardio, and I should be burning more at what I'm doing, because I'm heavier, right?)
If I reduce my intake, lose the weight, and then return to to a higher intake - I don't get it, how does that work? Why didn't I gain weight during the time I was maintaining? Why aren't I losing at my target weight maintenance calories?
(I gained weight because I just stopped counting, ate too much stuff, and did not exercise (injury). I would estimate I ate at around 2400-2600 ish in that time.)
So you think by eating at the maintenance level you would need when you are 18lbs lighter you would lose weight?
Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure that would give you an extremely low cut and hence extremely slow loss
Right, that's what I'm thinking. And, I'm wondering why it is that during the cut, you lose, but during maintenance, when you eat more, you stay at goal weight.
(Setting aside the likelihood that I'm probably not burning as much as I did during my previous loss or maintenance period)
0 -
It was less perplexing the last time around, for some reason0
-
I'm struggling to see why you're confused ...it's the equation of eating fewer than you burn that uses up the body's fat stores. Your maintenance calories at a lower weight with more exercise / possibly more muscle could easily be higher than now and eat up the small defecit you think you haveI am eating the same amount I did when I maintained 124 lbs - 2100-2300 (I logged then and now). Currently, I'm 142 lbs. I'm exercising at about the same intensity, I'd say, although I'm not able to do the kind of metabolic workouts I did back then and I can't lift heavy. (I now do intervals on a stationary bike; stuff on the elliptical; and mostly bodyweight resistance. I work hard at the cardio, and I should be burning more at what I'm doing, because I'm heavier, right?)
If I reduce my intake, lose the weight, and then return to to a higher intake - I don't get it, how does that work? Why didn't I gain weight during the time I was maintaining? Why aren't I losing at my target weight maintenance calories?
(I gained weight because I just stopped counting, ate too much stuff, and did not exercise (injury). I would estimate I ate at around 2400-2600 ish in that time.)
So you think by eating at the maintenance level you would need when you are 18lbs lighter you would lose weight?
Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure that would give you an extremely low cut and hence extremely slow loss
Right, that's what I'm thinking. And, I'm wondering why it is that during the cut, you lose, but during maintenance, when you eat more, you stay at goal weight.
(Setting aside the likelihood that I'm probably not burning as much as I did during my previous loss or maintenance period)
Also I've always found it impossible to do the same weight loss plan twice successfully ...that's why I'm not stopping logging
0 -
All the posts are good, but also - check some stuff:
1) I broke my leg in October and gained 4lb from inactivity, pain meds and stress.
2) I saw my blood pressure skyrocket due to side effects from some medication I was taking. Going off them, eventually my weight loss began again.
3) I had a cold and was taking OTC meds - ditto the blood pressure, also reactions to Motrin, antihisamines, aspirin.
There are occasional barriers to weight loss that just call for patience.0 -
-
I'm struggling to see why you're confused ...it's the equation of eating fewer than you burn that uses up the body's fat stores. Your maintenance calories at a lower weight with more exercise / possibly more muscle could easily be higher than now and eat up the small defecit you think you haveI am eating the same amount I did when I maintained 124 lbs - 2100-2300 (I logged then and now). Currently, I'm 142 lbs. I'm exercising at about the same intensity, I'd say, although I'm not able to do the kind of metabolic workouts I did back then and I can't lift heavy. (I now do intervals on a stationary bike; stuff on the elliptical; and mostly bodyweight resistance. I work hard at the cardio, and I should be burning more at what I'm doing, because I'm heavier, right?)
If I reduce my intake, lose the weight, and then return to to a higher intake - I don't get it, how does that work? Why didn't I gain weight during the time I was maintaining? Why aren't I losing at my target weight maintenance calories?
(I gained weight because I just stopped counting, ate too much stuff, and did not exercise (injury). I would estimate I ate at around 2400-2600 ish in that time.)
So you think by eating at the maintenance level you would need when you are 18lbs lighter you would lose weight?
Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure that would give you an extremely low cut and hence extremely slow loss
Right, that's what I'm thinking. And, I'm wondering why it is that during the cut, you lose, but during maintenance, when you eat more, you stay at goal weight.
(Setting aside the likelihood that I'm probably not burning as much as I did during my previous loss or maintenance period)
Also I've always found it impossible to do the same weight loss plan twice successfully ...that's why I'm not stopping logging
I know why I gained, I have been eating too much and am still eating too much.
Why, when I was at maintenance, could I eat more than while I was losing?
Losing = eat less, lose weight
Maintenance = eat more than while losing, do not gain
^^ confusing0 -
I am also confused as to how this is confusing
Lets say you burn 2100 cals a day
To lose weight you eat 1600 cals (for roughly a pound a week because 3500 cals = a pound, so eating 500 less cals a day for a week equals 3500 cals less than you burn)
You have now lost all the weight, you may be burning slightly less calories now that you have dropped some weight, so lets say you now burn 1950 cals a day.
To maintain your weight you must eat the amount of calories you burn in a day, this means that you must eat 1950 cals to maintain your new weight.
So
To lose weight = Eat LESS than you burn
To maintain = Eat the SAME as you burn
To Gain = Eat MORE than you burn.0 -
Ok, now I don't understand why I wasn't understanding either. Even though I did it. Thank you.0
-
Well, when I gained, it was because I was both eating more than my maintenance calories, and not exercising at all due to injuries (I probably also expended fewer NEAT calories).
I think you're right, though, the problem here is the output.
You gained irrespective of not exercising. You gained because you ate more than your maintenance. If you were using MFP net method then exercise wouldn't affect your baseline maintenance needs. If you used TDEE then you should have adjusted for the lowered energy output. In either case, lack of exercise didn't make you gain weight... eating above maintenance did.0 -
double post0
-
I am eating the same amount I did when I maintained 124 lbs - 2100-2300 (I logged then and now). Currently, I'm 142 lbs. I'm exercising at about the same intensity, I'd say, although I'm not able to do the kind of metabolic workouts I did back then and I can't lift heavy. (I now do intervals on a stationary bike; stuff on the elliptical; and mostly bodyweight resistance. I work hard at the cardio, and I should be burning more at what I'm doing, because I'm heavier, right?)
If I reduce my intake, lose the weight, and then return to to a higher intake - I don't get it, how does that work? Why didn't I gain weight during the time I was maintaining? Why aren't I losing at my target weight maintenance calories?
(I gained weight because I just stopped counting, ate too much stuff, and did not exercise (injury). I would estimate I ate at around 2400-2600 ish in that time.)
So you think by eating at the maintenance level you would need when you are 18lbs lighter you would lose weight?
Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure that would give you an extremely low cut and hence extremely slow loss
Right, that's what I'm thinking. And, I'm wondering why it is that during the cut, you lose, but during maintenance, when you eat more, you stay at goal weight.
(Setting aside the likelihood that I'm probably not burning as much as I did during my previous loss or maintenance period)
Because you need to eat at maintenance to maintain your weight and a calorie deficit allows weight loss..... No one maintains on their deficit value unless they are eating at their estimated maintenance for their goal weight, which would still likely need to be adjusted once they reach goal.
0 -
Well, when I gained, it was because I was both eating more than my maintenance calories, and not exercising at all due to injuries (I probably also expended fewer NEAT calories).
I think you're right, though, the problem here is the output.
You gained irrespective of not exercising. You gained because you ate more than your maintenance. If you were using MFP net method then exercise wouldn't affect your baseline maintenance needs. If you used TDEE then you should have adjusted for the lowered energy output. In either case, lack of exercise didn't make you gain weight... eating above maintenance did.
Yes, ana, I know, that part was not confusing, thank you. The exercise DID make a difference, in that the total energy balance favoured loss and maintenance0 -
I am eating the same amount I did when I maintained 124 lbs - 2100-2300 (I logged then and now). Currently, I'm 142 lbs. I'm exercising at about the same intensity, I'd say, although I'm not able to do the kind of metabolic workouts I did back then and I can't lift heavy. (I now do intervals on a stationary bike; stuff on the elliptical; and mostly bodyweight resistance. I work hard at the cardio, and I should be burning more at what I'm doing, because I'm heavier, right?)
If I reduce my intake, lose the weight, and then return to to a higher intake - I don't get it, how does that work? Why didn't I gain weight during the time I was maintaining? Why aren't I losing at my target weight maintenance calories?
(I gained weight because I just stopped counting, ate too much stuff, and did not exercise (injury). I would estimate I ate at around 2400-2600 ish in that time.)
So you think by eating at the maintenance level you would need when you are 18lbs lighter you would lose weight?
Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure that would give you an extremely low cut and hence extremely slow loss
Right, that's what I'm thinking. And, I'm wondering why it is that during the cut, you lose, but during maintenance, when you eat more, you stay at goal weight.
(Setting aside the likelihood that I'm probably not burning as much as I did during my previous loss or maintenance period)
Because you need to eat at maintenance to maintain your weight and a calorie deficit allows weight loss..... No one maintains on their deficit value unless they are eating at their estimated maintenance for their goal weight, which would still likely need to be adjusted once they reach goal.
This part has been understood, finally. Cheers.0 -
Well, when I gained, it was because I was both eating more than my maintenance calories, and not exercising at all due to injuries (I probably also expended fewer NEAT calories).
I think you're right, though, the problem here is the output.
You gained irrespective of not exercising. You gained because you ate more than your maintenance. If you were using MFP net method then exercise wouldn't affect your baseline maintenance needs. If you used TDEE then you should have adjusted for the lowered energy output. In either case, lack of exercise didn't make you gain weight... eating above maintenance did.
Yes, ana, I know, that part was not confusing, thank you. The exercise DID make a difference, in that the total energy balance favoured loss and maintenance
The exercise only made a difference if your intake reflected a TDEE approach. If you used net approach then removing exercise does not make you gain weight.0 -
Well, when I gained, it was because I was both eating more than my maintenance calories, and not exercising at all due to injuries (I probably also expended fewer NEAT calories).
I think you're right, though, the problem here is the output.
You gained irrespective of not exercising. You gained because you ate more than your maintenance. If you were using MFP net method then exercise wouldn't affect your baseline maintenance needs. If you used TDEE then you should have adjusted for the lowered energy output. In either case, lack of exercise didn't make you gain weight... eating above maintenance did.
Yes, ana, I know, that part was not confusing, thank you. The exercise DID make a difference, in that the total energy balance favoured loss and maintenance
The exercise only made a difference if your intake reflected a TDEE approach. If you used net approach then removing exercise does not make you gain weight.
Yes, I took a TDEE approach0 -
-
Well, when I gained, it was because I was both eating more than my maintenance calories, and not exercising at all due to injuries (I probably also expended fewer NEAT calories).
I think you're right, though, the problem here is the output.
You gained irrespective of not exercising. You gained because you ate more than your maintenance. If you were using MFP net method then exercise wouldn't affect your baseline maintenance needs. If you used TDEE then you should have adjusted for the lowered energy output. In either case, lack of exercise didn't make you gain weight... eating above maintenance did.
Yes, ana, I know, that part was not confusing, thank you. The exercise DID make a difference, in that the total energy balance favoured loss and maintenance
The exercise only made a difference if your intake reflected a TDEE approach. If you used net approach then removing exercise does not make you gain weight.
Yes, I took a TDEE approach
In that case you should have lowered your maintenance goals. So not exercising didn't make you gain weight, eating above your new maintenance made you gain weight.0 -
You didn't gain when you were maintaining because you ate your maintenance calories... you then gained because you ate more than your maintenance calorie needs.
If you aren't losing now you are either eating more than you should be or you are being impatient.
I know why I gained. I'm asking: "if I'm now eating what was maintenance for me at 124, why is there no loss". Obviously I'm eating too much.
If I compare my estimated TDEE at 142 and 124 and adjust it for the difference in likely body fat percentage, the difference is somewhere between 0 and 100 calories. So eating at your 124 maintenance is going to lead to, at best, a very slow loss, and possibly none.
I suspect that's why.0 -
Well, when I gained, it was because I was both eating more than my maintenance calories, and not exercising at all due to injuries (I probably also expended fewer NEAT calories).
I think you're right, though, the problem here is the output.
You gained irrespective of not exercising. You gained because you ate more than your maintenance. If you were using MFP net method then exercise wouldn't affect your baseline maintenance needs. If you used TDEE then you should have adjusted for the lowered energy output. In either case, lack of exercise didn't make you gain weight... eating above maintenance did.
Yes, ana, I know, that part was not confusing, thank you. The exercise DID make a difference, in that the total energy balance favoured loss and maintenance
The exercise only made a difference if your intake reflected a TDEE approach. If you used net approach then removing exercise does not make you gain weight.
Yes, I took a TDEE approach
In that case you should have lowered your maintenance goals. So not exercising didn't make you gain weight, eating above your new maintenance made you gain weight.
I maintained perfectly within +/- 2 lbs for four years. I gained last year, after injury kept me from working out, during which time I also ate too much.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You didn't gain when you were maintaining because you ate your maintenance calories... you then gained because you ate more than your maintenance calorie needs.
If you aren't losing now you are either eating more than you should be or you are being impatient.
I know why I gained. I'm asking: "if I'm now eating what was maintenance for me at 124, why is there no loss". Obviously I'm eating too much.
If I compare my estimated TDEE at 142 and 124 and adjust it for the difference in likely body fat percentage, the difference is somewhere between 0 and 100 calories. So eating at your 124 maintenance is going to lead to, at best, a very slow loss, and possibly none.
I suspect that's why.
Roger that
0 -
You have to be missing some basic concept to still have a question like you are asking.
I'm thinking you believe you understand the concept, but you really don't.
Might reread what has been written if you still don't understand why you can eat more at maintenance than when losing weight, and not gain.
Just to confirm you know - you can eat below maintenance and lose, above maintenance and gain - and you can eat at maintenance and, well, maintain.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.2K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions