Lose weight by eating at maintenance calories for goal weight?
abetterluke
Posts: 625 Member
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.
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.
0
Replies
-
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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 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?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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 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?
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)0 -
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...0 -
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.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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 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?
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)
0 -
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?0
-
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.0 -
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 2.0 -
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.
0 -
It's the approach used on fat2fit, if memory serves.0
-
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.0 -
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)0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
It really doesn't matter how you do the math. As long as the end number puts you somewhere less than your body requires to function, you're going to lose weight.
Theoretically, if you set the number at maintenance for the goal weight, you would eventually reach it. Depending on how heavy you are at first, you might get dizzy or pass out. If you're really heavy, you need more calories. As you approach that goal weight, it's going to be slow going...but it could be done.
It kind of seems like you're making it harder than it needs to be. Plug your info into the MFP and follow it. It's easy and it works.
0 -
It kind of seems like you're making it harder than it needs to be. Plug your info into the MFP and follow it. It's easy and it works.
See in my mind it seems like this is the most simple way. Why eat a different amount than I'm eventually going to eat anyway? If I plug it in for 2lbs per week MFP puts me less than 1500 cals. I've been eating 1500 cals and I'm tired and have very little energy most of the time. That's what triggered this question in the first place. Maintenance for my goal weight is about 2000 cals.
So by doing it this way I'm actually eating more.
0 -
That works. Weight loss is a marathon, not a sprint.abetterluke wrote: »It kind of seems like you're making it harder than it needs to be. Plug your info into the MFP and follow it. It's easy and it works.
See in my mind it seems like this is the most simple way. Why eat a different amount than I'm eventually going to eat anyway? If I plug it in for 2lbs per week MFP puts me less than 1500 cals. I've been eating 1500 cals and I'm tired and have very little energy most of the time. That's what triggered this question in the first place. Maintenance for my goal weight is about 2000 cals.
So by doing it this way I'm actually eating more.
That 500 calorie per day difference bumping you up from ~1500 to 2000 calories per day means that your starting point deficit-wise is about 1 pound per week.
One thing you might think about doing is changing your MFP goal to 1 pound per week since that's your current goal. As you lose some weight, you can decide if you want to stay at that 1 pound per week (which would reduce your daily calories) or reduce your rate of loss to 0.5 pounds per week so that you stay at about the same calories.
You don't need to decide right now. After you eat at 2000 calories for a while, you may be more comfortable with eating slightly fewer calories to increase your deficit or you may not.0 -
Now, while as I've said these are all valid methods, I personally go by:
Eat between -10% and -20% off of your TDEE (up to -25% while obese, declining % as you enter the normal weight range for your body) as long as you continue to net above your BMR.0 -
Personal preference. Mine was to control my rate of loss by varying my calories as I lost. Yours would be to set your calories and let the rate of loss vary. I would agree with the others that once you get near your goal that it will become staggeringly slow. The difference between my TDEE at my starting weight and my current are only off by 120 calories so instead of losing those last 10 pounds at a half pound a week, it would have been more like a half pound every 2 weeks.
Still personal preference.
0 -
I inadvertently did it that way.
I am small, and only had 30 lb to lose, so my calories to lose we're 1200 and my sedentary maintenance is 1200.
( don't get concerned anyone, I am 62 and my TDEE is 1400, BMR 960, and have maintained healthily for 6 yr)
The loss went: first 6 months, 20 lb, 2nd 6 months 10 lb. It was very, very slow, but I didn't want to eat any less than I was.
Cheers, h.0 -
abetterluke wrote: »It kind of seems like you're making it harder than it needs to be. Plug your info into the MFP and follow it. It's easy and it works.
See in my mind it seems like this is the most simple way. Why eat a different amount than I'm eventually going to eat anyway? If I plug it in for 2lbs per week MFP puts me less than 1500 cals. I've been eating 1500 cals and I'm tired and have very little energy most of the time. That's what triggered this question in the first place. Maintenance for my goal weight is about 2000 cals.
So by doing it this way I'm actually eating more.
Makes sense when you say it that way! Eat more now. If you decide, later, that you want to cut back, you can. 0 -
This thread made me really curious so I checked and this is actually what I'm doing! I found a comfortable calorie level and what do you know it's actually the BMR for about my ultimate goal weight (somewhere in the 130-140 range). I checked the BMRs and I'm eating almost exactly the one for 138lbs. No wonder I feel comfortable here! It's sort of like the "ideal consumption" for someone my height. I found that out through trial and error (I got too hungry still at 1300 but at 1600 I would get to the end of the day and have leftover calories, and it tempted me to overeat which triggered some binging).
I know I will need to reduce it as I go, but my goals are to also learn more about nutrition and fitness (praying my knee gets better so I can get back in the gym!) so learning more I should be able to work out satiety and comfort at a lower level as I make progress. It's a neat idea, I think it could be really helpful (especially for those of us, like me, who started at 1200 and found it really, really hard) to find a sort of "optimal" range.0 -
This thread made me really curious so I checked and this is actually what I'm doing! I found a comfortable calorie level and what do you know it's actually the BMR for about my ultimate goal weight (somewhere in the 130-140 range). I checked the BMRs and I'm eating almost exactly the one for 138lbs. No wonder I feel comfortable here! It's sort of like the "ideal consumption" for someone my height. I found that out through trial and error (I got too hungry still at 1300 but at 1600 I would get to the end of the day and have leftover calories, and it tempted me to overeat which triggered some binging).
I know I will need to reduce it as I go, but my goals are to also learn more about nutrition and fitness (praying my knee gets better so I can get back in the gym!) so learning more I should be able to work out satiety and comfort at a lower level as I make progress. It's a neat idea, I think it could be really helpful (especially for those of us, like me, who started at 1200 and found it really, really hard) to find a sort of "optimal" range.
I think you mean TDEE not BMR. TDEE would be maintenance calories. BMR is what you burn in a comatose state.
ETA: that's great you've found a happy balance!0 -
This thread made me really curious so I checked and this is actually what I'm doing! I found a comfortable calorie level and what do you know it's actually the BMR for about my ultimate goal weight (somewhere in the 130-140 range). I checked the BMRs and I'm eating almost exactly the one for 138lbs. No wonder I feel comfortable here! It's sort of like the "ideal consumption" for someone my height. I found that out through trial and error (I got too hungry still at 1300 but at 1600 I would get to the end of the day and have leftover calories, and it tempted me to overeat which triggered some binging).
I know I will need to reduce it as I go, but my goals are to also learn more about nutrition and fitness (praying my knee gets better so I can get back in the gym!) so learning more I should be able to work out satiety and comfort at a lower level as I make progress. It's a neat idea, I think it could be really helpful (especially for those of us, like me, who started at 1200 and found it really, really hard) to find a sort of "optimal" range.
I think you mean TDEE not BMR. TDEE would be maintenance calories. BMR is what you burn in a comatose state.
ETA: that's great you've found a happy balance!
Oh oops! I checked BMR, but oh well. Somewhere in that ballpark, anyway, lol. I guess maintenance sans exercise, because I can't exercise at the moment. I'm really glad too!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions