Deficit vs. Maintenance calories - Why?

Options
mlbish624
mlbish624 Posts: 33 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I've been reading the discussion boards but not posting for several weeks now, and I've been wondering something about your collective approach to calorie counting: The vast majority of you are choosing to eat at a deficit, say 500 below your TDEE, and then switch up to "maintenance level" when you reach your goal weight.

What about this alternative strategy: Back calculate the "maintenance calorie level" of your goal weight, and then choose that as your long-term calorie target? I guess that might take a lot longer, but I see other benefits to it. For example, it would allow someone to make one change to their eating habits that they'd be able to stick with pretty permanently (assuming consistent levels of activity). Does anybody do that? Is there a flaw in my logic?

Not looking to criticize anyone's approach--we all have different things that work for us. But I haven't seen it discussed in this way, and I think it would theoretically be equally valid, with certain benefits for someone looking to make a permanent change in their habits.

Thoughts?

Replies

  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,483 Member
    Options
    It is a valid approach but for some it would be too great a deficit to be maintainable, and for others it would mean a very slow rate of loss.

    At 130lbs, 5'1, and 54yo. I was given 1200 to lose 1 lbs a week. I got the same calories for maintenance at 105 lbs.
    I inadvertently lost weight that way because I wouldn't drop my calories any lower. It took a year to lose 30lbs.

    Cheers, h.
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    Options
    Some do it that way. I think for many though, wanting to lose weight at a faster pace plays a part.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    I didn't want to lose super-quickly, but I wanted to lose faster than eating at maintenance would have had me losing. That is why I chose a higher deficit. Since my deficit was moderate, not high, I was still able to build the skills that I'm using to maintain.
  • mlbish624
    mlbish624 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    for some it would be too great a deficit to be maintainable

    I hadn't even considered this possibility, but that would definitely be true for those who have a lot to lose.

  • CoachJen71
    CoachJen71 Posts: 1,200 Member
    Options
    I did that. The deficit was too high and I loss muscle mass. (Also, eating back 50%of exercise cals while wearing a Fitbit didn't help.)
  • mlbish624
    mlbish624 Posts: 33 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    Interesting. Yes, the time thing would be a problem.

    When I (re-)started on mfp, I didn't have a goal weight. I used a couple different TDEE formulas (I don't eat back exercise calories), and arrived at a calorie goal that I thought would allow me to lose weight, but also enjoy my life. 1700. I figured, eat at 1700 for a (long) while, see where it takes me. It's worked, I've lost about 18 pounds since Easter. Which is slow, but reference the enjoying my life part. :) But I also think it's something I could maintain for the long term, which means I might not ever have to "switch up to maintenance" if it isn't warranted.

    I guess it works for me because I don't have a set idea of how much I want to lose. And admittedly, I didn't even use my own alternative suggestion.

    diannethegeek, I love your geeky post! I was (really and truly) looking for a nerdy discussion about the various philosophies, and you didn't disappoint. :)
  • mlbish624
    mlbish624 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    I wanted to lose faster than eating at maintenance would have had me losing. That is why I chose a higher deficit. Since my deficit was moderate, not high, I was still able to build the skills that I'm using to maintain.

    I like it. Me too.

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,637 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    mlbish624 wrote: »
    What about this alternative strategy: Back calculate the "maintenance calorie level" of your goal weight, and then choose that as your long-term calorie target? I guess that might take a lot longer, but I see other benefits to it. For example, it would allow someone to make one change to their eating habits that they'd be able to stick with pretty permanently (assuming consistent levels of activity). Does anybody do that? Is there a flaw in my logic?
    Not looking to criticize anyone's approach--we all have different things that work for us. But I haven't seen it discussed in this way, and I think it would theoretically be equally valid, with certain benefits for someone looking to make a permanent change in their habits.
    Thoughts?

    It is perfectly valid subject to the concerns voiced above.

    After finding MFP and starting to educate myself a bit I eventually used a variation of this approach. I calculated my TDEE at BMI 22 with 3-5hrs a week of moderate exercise and found a value (2300).

    And then adopted it as my baseline eating goal while losing weight.

    By virtue of higher weight and activity levels this has certainly generated enough of a loss to get me close enough while I also got more comfortable with this level of eating and happy to be more active.

    Yes, there is no doubt that if I want to actually push through to BMI 22 I may have to tweak things or continue at an incredible slow and ever slowing pace.

    However I am absolutely not unhappy with where I'm at, and I've certainly found having that number in mind to be helpful, and the general approach to be useful in minimizing adverse effects.
  • mlbish624
    mlbish624 Posts: 33 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    mlbish624 wrote: »

    Yes, there is no doubt that if I want to actually push through to BMI 22 I may have to tweak things or continue at an incredible slow and ever slowing pace.

    LOL, I guess even if it's technically a healthy approach, the idea of asymptotically approaching one's goal weight or BMI may not be so great for the psyche!
  • csuhar
    csuhar Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    I've actually heard of that (and even tried it) before. "Eat for the weight you want to be" was how it tended to be summed up. But I think it's more prevalent in the "gaining" world, though, where they're specifically looking to have a surplus and they might not be so worried about the actual progress of their weight.

    When losing, people tend to like the 500 calorie deficit because that, theoretically, keeps the loss at a stable and predictable rate.

    When I tried it, myself, I ran into the issue mentioned, previously, in that progress was very slow due to my being close to my goal weight.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    That's the way I lost (eating at goal weight maintenance). It took a little over a year to lose 30 lbs. I did stop losing at a little above my goal weight, but it was just an arbitrary number I picked so I haven't adjusted to continue losing. I have been maintaining at about the same weight for several months now.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,637 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    mlbish624 wrote: »
    LOL, I guess even if it's technically a healthy approach, the idea of asymptotically approaching one's goal weight or BMI may not be so great for the psyche!

    Hmmm, I guess it might depend on each individual psyche!

    100 days and 18lbs translates to an estimated tdee of about 2330, and a daily deficit of about 27% or 630 Cal a day. This is actually fast, suitable perhaps for someone who is obese, but possibly sub-optimal by about 7% for someone who is at an overweight or normal weight.

    You may want to consider eating a little bit more and losing at a little bit slower pace to minimize lean mass loss and potential adaptation.

    Feel free to contrast this to ~25lbs lost over the period of a year with an estimated TDEE of about 2896 and a daily deficit less than 4.25% or about 121 Cal a day.... (http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10415832/i-need-to-lose-weight-1200-cal-1500-cal-or-2775-cal-50-carbs-and-165g-sugar#1)

    I can assure you that in spite of the slow loss my psyche is absolutely fine :smiley:
    <and yes, my previous losses were faster and future losses, if any, will be slower>

    (The benefit, of course, is that I plan on changing... nothing if I get to maintenance. I plan to continue doing what I do today... indefinitely).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    As others have said, people do do it. At this point I only want to lose about another 5 lbs, so there's really not a meaningful difference between maintenance then and now, so it wouldn't work for me. It could have worked when I started (I was at most lightly active and MFP claims my maintenance at goal and lightly active, no exercise, is 1650), and I would have lost on that, but when I had lots to lose I wanted to lose more quickly at first, and I don't think that ended up being a bad thing (I raised calories throughout my weight loss rather than lowering them). Also, that 1650 isn't really my goal maintenance, since I also got a lot more active, and when I started I couldn't have anticipated what my maintenance would end up being. In fact, my real goal maintenance wouldn't have worked for me, because with exercise it's not much different than it was when I started (around 2200, maybe a bit less).

    What I'm doing now (or plan to if I ever manage to convince myself to log again) is to use my lightly active, no exercise maintenance as my goal and then create a deficit with the activity I do. So 1650 calories.
  • adamyovanovich
    adamyovanovich Posts: 163 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    I had a bad habit of drinking alcohol, My maintain is 3500 cal at my highest weight, Once i quit drinking alcohol i learned i didnt eat nearly as much when i was hungover all the time and on a regular daily basis. I made some better choices, but my goal weight is 2000 cal a day and that still lets me lose half a pound a week. So im eating 1500-2000 a day, 1750 on average is what MFP tells me, a 1500-2000 cal deficit daily. Its been 53 days and im down 28 pounds, so its working for me. It also lets me learn what 2000 calories is and i wont have to change that my entire journey as long as i stay under that ill get to 200 pounds.
  • Rogstar
    Rogstar Posts: 216 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    For me and my goals, it doesn't make much difference right now it seems. This question made me think though, so I put some numbers in a TDEE calculator.

    Currently (5'-7", 210) BMR ~1680, TDEE with desk job/5 workouts (30mins) a week is ~2100.

    If work towards a goal weight of 140lbs (I don't have a concrete goal in mind, other than to get to 159 for "healthy" BMI), my BMR is ~1360 with a TDEE as above @ 1730.

    Whether or not I go by current TDEE-500 (1lb a week) or maintenance TDEE, I'll be 1600-1700 cals/day. But, that will change later as my current TDEE reduces and I'm losing at a snail's pace (You are doing well...your 18lbs isn't that slow, I've only dropped ~12lbs since the beginning of April!)

    So, I feel that it's better to re-evaluate calorie input/output as you go with current statistics every so often. This month I want get back to kickboxing (in addition to walking) after taking a month off and sitting just under maintenance, so I may or may not need to eat more. In a year, I may be back to running consistently (if I start enjoying it more!) and for longer times, so I may need to eat more while training. Or I might break an ankle and have to cut out on-my-feet movement, so I'd have to reduce my calorie intake appropriately. It's going to change so much based on my then-current goals that I don't think I can say "I need to eat @ 1730 every day until I hit 140lbs". I need to make sure that my caloric intake is currently appropriate for myself at any given time.

    Thought provoking!
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    mlbish624 wrote: »
    What about this alternative strategy: Back calculate the "maintenance calorie level" of your goal weight, and then choose that as your long-term calorie target? I guess that might take a lot longer, but I see other benefits to it. For example, it would allow someone to make one change to their eating habits that they'd be able to stick with pretty permanently (assuming consistent levels of activity). Does anybody do that? Is there a flaw in my logic?

    There's nothing wrong with your approach, for anybody who has time to take it. Like you said, there are benefits too.

    I ate at a deficit (above and beyond maintenance at my target) to lose the weight. Eventually I got tired of counting calories and stopped. The counting had already done a lot to change my ideas about portion size, meal balance across the day, calorie vs nutrient density vs satiety value of foods, etc. When I switched to maintenance, I more or less continued doing the same things, but with slightly larger portions. It's been working for several months. :smile: I say this to point out that the learning you're talking about can happen either way.

    I'll also say that my exercise levels vary from day to day. I don't think that matters much to your point, but I'll throw it out there in case it does.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    Options
    Due to adaptive thermogenisis,, if you diet for a prolonged period of time, by the time you hit your goal weight, your maintenance level has likely decreased slightly. Not to mention that it could be a very slow progress dependent on how much you have to lose. 250-1000 calorie deficit daily and then move to your new maintenance is, in my opinon, the best way.
  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    Options
    As it turns out, my calorie goal is pretty close to the maintenance for my goal weight. I figure its just the amount I *should* be eating, and I'm learning how to budget what I've got.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    Options
    It works in theory. In practice, my TDEE now is just maybe 100 calories under my TDEE then... so I wouldn't have lost anything.

    I'm way more active however. But I did something similar and just ate around 1700 the whole time.

Categories