Lose weight by eating at maintenance calories for goal weight?

Options
abetterluke
abetterluke Posts: 625 Member
edited October 2015 in Health and Weight Loss
Has anyone been successful doing this? Just thinking logically if I were to set my calories to whatever the maintenance calories would be at my goal weight of 160lbs *eventually* (i know it's not necessarily quick) I would reach that weight right?

The main reason I bring it up is that I've been very tired and haven't had much energy the last week or so and I'm wondering if it's because my calories are too low? I'm 5'8'' and currently weight 230ish. 30 years old.
«1

Replies

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Options
    You would. It would be mind-numbingly, excruciatingly slow as you approached your goal weight, but it's theoretically possible if your logging is sufficiently accurate.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    That's what I do! I'm a little over 2/3 of the way to goal. It has been slow. 23 lbs in 13 months. And it's even slower now for the last 10 (or so) lbs. But, I think it has been great for me. I am eating the way I plan to eat from now on. I don't have a separate plan for maintenance. I'll just keep on keeping on.

    I would imagine the speed with which you lose would depend on starting point, but the closer you get to goal the slower it will likely be.
  • msujack
    msujack Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    Definitely possible, following the math. You might be under-fueling yourself in the mean time though without knowing what MFP says you should net per day. Also, maintenance numbers might leave you less room for error in your cal count. I am 230lbs and goal is under 200. I have a 1770cal/day goal, if I go over once in awhile, I still lose weight at a decent clip. Not sure what your maintenance number is now compared to the number at goal, but the buffer would be smaller than the deficit calculation buffer.
  • spzjlb
    spzjlb Posts: 599 Member
    Options
    It seems like a very sage and sustainable method, if you are patient and careful to not go over. After losing 30-ish lbs, I'm sort of doing that now to drop my last 2-5 lbs. I love the previous post:
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    That's what I do! I'm a little over 2/3 of the way to goal. It has been slow. 23 lbs in 13 months. And it's even slower now for the last 10 (or so) lbs. But, I think it has been great for me. I am eating the way I plan to eat from now on. I don't have a separate plan for maintenance. I'll just keep on keeping on.

    I would imagine the speed with which you lose would depend on starting point, but the closer you get to goal the slower it will likely be.

  • abetterluke
    abetterluke Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    msujack wrote: »
    Definitely possible, following the math. You might be under-fueling yourself in the mean time though without knowing what MFP says you should net per day. Also, maintenance numbers might leave you less room for error in your cal count. I am 230lbs and goal is under 200. I have a 1770cal/day goal, if I go over once in awhile, I still lose weight at a decent clip. Not sure what your maintenance number is now compared to the number at goal, but the buffer would be smaller than the deficit calculation buffer.

    I guess I should have specified...I would set my calories at maintenance but try to eat at least a couple hundred under each day. Often times I do that even now.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    it would be excruciatingly slow, particularly as you approached your goal weight...and you would have very little margin for estimation error.

    in theory and as per the math, it would work...but i'm not sure anyone, even the most meticulous person in the world could be accurate enough to pull it off.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    it would be excruciatingly slow, particularly as you approached your goal weight...and you would have very little margin for estimation error.

    in theory and as per the math, it would work...but i'm not sure anyone, even the most meticulous person in the world could be accurate enough to pull it off.

    Why not? Why would it be any harder than eating at maintenance once you reach goal?
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    it would be excruciatingly slow, particularly as you approached your goal weight...and you would have very little margin for estimation error.

    in theory and as per the math, it would work...but i'm not sure anyone, even the most meticulous person in the world could be accurate enough to pull it off.

    Why not? Why would it be any harder than eating at maintenance once you reach goal?
    Because maintenance is typically a range. No one stays at X.Y pounds every day forever. It would basically come down to the luck of eating less than you logged if your TDEE is 2005 and your calorie target is 2000.

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    it would be excruciatingly slow, particularly as you approached your goal weight...and you would have very little margin for estimation error.

    in theory and as per the math, it would work...but i'm not sure anyone, even the most meticulous person in the world could be accurate enough to pull it off.

    Why not? Why would it be any harder than eating at maintenance once you reach goal?
    Because maintenance is typically a range. No one stays at X.Y pounds every day forever. It would basically come down to the luck of eating less than you logged if your TDEE is 2005 and your calorie target is 2000.

    Sorry, I don't understand. I realize that once you are close to goal you are unlikely to have a deficit every day, just as you are unlikely to eat exactly at maintenance every day when trying to maintain. But why would it be harder on average, or over time to eat X calories with 8 extra lbs on your body, than to eat X calories without the 8 extra lbs. (8 being some random close to goal example)
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    it would be excruciatingly slow, particularly as you approached your goal weight...and you would have very little margin for estimation error.

    in theory and as per the math, it would work...but i'm not sure anyone, even the most meticulous person in the world could be accurate enough to pull it off.

    Why not? Why would it be any harder than eating at maintenance once you reach goal?

    because people tend to fail at making appropriate changes to diet as per real world results and they think X is the magic number because some calculator told them it was. the weight loss progression would be so slow at some point that it would be extremely difficult to determine if any of those changes would actually need to be made...it's much easier to determine such things in maintenance.

    also, most people suck and maintenance too in case you haven't noticed...
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    it would be excruciatingly slow, particularly as you approached your goal weight...and you would have very little margin for estimation error.

    in theory and as per the math, it would work...but i'm not sure anyone, even the most meticulous person in the world could be accurate enough to pull it off.

    Why not? Why would it be any harder than eating at maintenance once you reach goal?
    Because maintenance is typically a range. No one stays at X.Y pounds every day forever. It would basically come down to the luck of eating less than you logged if your TDEE is 2005 and your calorie target is 2000.

    Sorry, I don't understand. I realize that once you are close to goal you are unlikely to have a deficit every day, just as you are unlikely to eat exactly at maintenance every day when trying to maintain. But why would it be harder on average, or over time to eat X calories with 8 extra lbs on your body, than to eat X calories without the 8 extra lbs. (8 being some random close to goal example)
    Because the range of measurement error that would allow you to lose weight with eight extra pounds, while not eating less than what maintenance would be at your target weight, is much larger than if you're one pound from target and the difference between current maintenance and target maintenance is a handful of calories. Because the range at which weight loss can occur is larger, measurement errors are relatively less important in achieving that weight loss.

  • pstegman888
    pstegman888 Posts: 286 Member
    Options
    But if you are 230 and you are eating as if you were 160, and feeling weak and fatigued, then you are most likely not eating enough. This is a recipe for failure, as you are likely to quit or binge if you feel terrible all the time. If you enter your current stats in MFP and set it for 1 lb loss per week, you should get sufficient calories so you can feel satisfied and still lose at a steady sustainable rate. My starting weight & height are close to yours, and I'm losing a steady 1 lb per week without starving or feeling unwell. 16 weeks, 16 pounds. I started at the MFP recommended calories, but now that my body has adjusted to it, I've been able to go under by a few hundred extra without adverse effects. It might seem logical to go with the 160 maintenence calories, but is it practical and sustainable?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    it would be excruciatingly slow, particularly as you approached your goal weight...and you would have very little margin for estimation error.

    in theory and as per the math, it would work...but i'm not sure anyone, even the most meticulous person in the world could be accurate enough to pull it off.

    Why not? Why would it be any harder than eating at maintenance once you reach goal?

    because people tend to fail at making appropriate changes to diet as per real world results and they think X is the magic number because some calculator told them it was. the weight loss progression would be so slow at some point that it would be extremely difficult to determine if any of those changes would actually need to be made...it's much easier to determine such things in maintenance.

    also, most people suck and maintenance too in case you haven't noticed...

    I have noticed, which is exactly why I chose this method. I'm not at goal yet, so I can't say you are wrong. But I have successfully eaten this way for over a year without feeling deprived or hungry or like I was "on a diet", so I am very hopeful that I will eventually reach my goal.

    But the goal was fairly arbitrary so if I don't I'm not sure I'll be disappointed. For the past few months I have lost only inches but no weight. But that is cool with me. As long as I'm getting smaller I'm a happy camper.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    Options
    As long as your caloric intake is lower than the amount of energy that your body burns, you'll lose weight.

    If you have a lot to lose, your goal weight maintenance is as good a goal as any. If you have a whole lot of weight to lose, you might even start with a higher daily calorie goal than that.

    How much you lose over time depends upon the deficit: the difference between what you eat and what your body uses.

    There are three approaches:

    1. Keep the same calorie goal the whole way through. Your weight loss will get slower and slower as you get closer to goal because your daily deficit is getting smaller and smaller. Smaller bodies use less energy so the same calories will give a smaller deficit with a smaller body.

    2. Keep the same deficit all the way through. Your calorie intake will have to keep decreasing in order to maintain the same deficit. This only works up to a point since daily calorie intake shouldn't go below 1200 calories for women or 1500 calories for men.

    3. Do a bit of both 1 and 2 so that, as you lose weight, you reduce your daily calorie goal some but not enough to keep the same deficit all the way through. Weight loss will be faster than using approach 1 but slower than using approach 2.
  • abetterluke
    abetterluke Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    pstegman888 wrote: »
    But if you are 230 and you are eating as if you were 160, and feeling weak and fatigued, then you are most likely not eating enough. This is a recipe for failure, as you are likely to quit or binge if you feel terrible all the time.

    I'm not eating at maintenance for 160 right now. I'm actually eating about 500 cals under what I should be eating for 160.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    It's the approach used on fat2fit, if memory serves.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,649 Member
    Options
    There is nothing wrong at all with that approach especially if you consider it a ballpark.

    Calories at maintenance are just as fluid as anything else in life. Calories at maintenance for a lightly active person of that weight? Are you necessarily a lightly active person while trying to lose weight? Will you potentially be less active after 10 years at maintenance? That, by itself a good 250 Cal of deficit... and something to keep in mind over the next 10 years if you don't want to regain weight.

    Anyway: the beauty of the idea is that you take out the dichotomy of: I am eating to lose weight vs I am eating to maintain. And it also makes sure you're eating above BMR which a lot of people aren't doing when set to losing 1.5 and 2lbs a week.

    And yes, things will slow down as you approach target weight... as they should ;-)

    Obviously you may have to tweak when you're 1 or 2lbs from goal.
    And yes, if you have 200lbs to go maintenance calories may be too few to go down to right away.

    But there is nothing wrong with the approach and more often than not it yields a reasonable caloric target in the 10% to 20% range of deficit off of TDEE.
  • BigDog
    BigDog Posts: 272 Member
    Options
    Thanks abetterluke for suggesting this...

    I'm going to give it a try and see how it goes for a while. I'm also going to set my weight to my goal waight in my Endomondo account (sport tracker app) so, on paper anyway, I am burning calories at that level too. That should give me a bit of wiggle room. (at least until I get closer to goal)
  • daniwilford
    daniwilford Posts: 1,030 Member
    Options
    This wouldn't work for me because I needed to lose 20% of my body weight at faster pace for health reasons. Before dropping below two hundred, I lost 2 lbs a week like clock work. If I had been eating at my maintenance for my goal weight, my loss would have been much slower. Now that I am much more active I can still lose at a reasonable rate with eating my inactive goal/maintenance calories. I find it easier to create a larger part of my deficit with activity now than earlier in the process.
  • abetterluke
    abetterluke Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    BigDog wrote: »
    Thanks abetterluke for suggesting this...

    I'm going to give it a try and see how it goes for a while. I'm also going to set my weight to my goal waight in my Endomondo account (sport tracker app) so, on paper anyway, I am burning calories at that level too. That should give me a bit of wiggle room. (at least until I get closer to goal)

    I changed my calories up to 2000 (maintenance for 160 when I calculated it was like 1959 or something...would rather have it rounded). We'll see how it goes.

Categories