5'4-5'5 women what are your maintenance calories?

etherealanwar wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

My maintenance seems to be in the low 2000 area even before exercise, i.e., net, at 5'5", 130-something (varies by day), age 63. I get around 6000 steps most days, and do some fun activity (rowing, spin class - mostly) for around 45 minutes 6 days a week in Spring/Summer/Fall, and less than that, but at least 3 days a week sometimes more in Winter (still spin, a little machine rowing, rest varies - swim, walk, weight train, etc.).

The NEAT thing above matters (fidgeting, according to actual research, can burn up to a couple hundred calories a day!) I suspect it also helps to have a bit more muscle mass than average, though I'm far from a bodybuilder/powerlifter, to eat foods with a higher TEF (not that I'd do it for its effect on TDEE, it's about what one likes eating), and generally a bunch of other stuff that individually may add a totally trivial number of calories daily (<25-50), but that add up.

That's really great, I wonder why it can vary so much from person to person? Of course I don't know for sure what my maintenance will be like when I reach goal but mfp is predicting my current maintenance quite well (just 50 calories lower than it really is). I do plan on starting a weightlifting program when I reach my goal though but I've heard that weightlifting doesn't add much exercise calories. Do I need to include some cardio as well perhaps?

<snip reply to T.Toad>

There are as many reasons for variation as there are people, I'd bet.

If I were you, I'd start the weight lifting (or other strength training, such as a bodyweight program) sooner rather than later. It will help you preserve existing muscle, so you don't lose any more muscle than the minimum alongside fat loss. It's easier/faster to maintain what you have, vs. build new, especially for women. I've never seen anyone who started strength training during weight loss say "I wish I'd waited", but I've seen a bunch who waited say "I wished I'd started sooner".

If you're new to weight training, it's even possible that you can gain a little muscle even in a small calorie deficit (no guarantees), and you certainly can gain useful strength (through central nervous system/neuromuscular adaptation, basically recruiting and using existing muscle tissue more efficiently).

This is a good thread:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you

(Truth in advertising: I don't weight train much. I think it's a good strategy, but I don't enjoy it, and I'm lazy/hedonic. I'm fairly strong because my cardio-of-choice is somewhat strength-promoting.)

The issue is not so much that strength training burns calories by doing it, but that having more muscle - which takes a long time, BTW - burns very slightly more calories than not having it. Also, I suspect those who are stronger do more things that burn more calories because those things just feel easier, but I can't prove that.

Cardio burns more calories just by doing it, but my calorie burn is high for my age/size even before adding exercise calories. In one sense, I don't know why, but I think some of the above discussion applies. Women, especially, I think, have a way of repeatedly undereating to lose weight, getting fatigued/weak in subtle ways as a consequence, doing even less and resting even more because of the subtle weakness/fatigue, eating even less to keep losing weight, etc., which is a bad down-spiral when repeated over years and decades.

The effect of a short bout of this is small, but it accumulates. I suspect one reason I have a higher calorie burn is that I stayed obese'n'happy for decades (and very active even while obese, which built/retained muscle). Most women I know who are my age (63 tomorrow) did a bunch more yo-yo dieting/regain than I did during those decades, and were more inactive.

I've read a few things that hint that "high calorie flux" may contribute to a higher TDEE over time, but I'm not 100% convinced. However, in theory, it could be part of the reason that "reverse dieting" improves TDEE over time for some people. (Though anecdotally, it seems like sometimes that works because some people are more sensitive to subtle activity changes that come with reduced/increased calories, and affect daily burn though daily life calorie expenditure.) The "calorie flux" idea, in brief, is that eating lots of calories but expending lots of calories, over time, leads to an overall higher daily calorie burn. Not sure I buy it, outside of the basic "burn more, eat more; eat more, more energy; more energy, more active daily life" idea that's much simpler.