Maintaining help
sannklinger
Posts: 34 Member
I am trying to maintain my weight. I’ve lost 186 pounds so far. I am struggling figuring out how much to eat now that I’m not trying to lose anymore. I find myself not eating enough calories because I’m afraid of gaining weight back. Suggestions please!
8
Replies
-
how many calories have you been eating to lose weight, and what was your rate of loss?3
-
Great job on your loss! You've been doing this for a long time (I assume), so you know that water weight fluctuates, and "real" weight take a while to come and go, so there's no need to panic. Try adding 100 calories a day to your budget, and see how that goes for a few weeks. Or switch your MFP settings to "maintain" and see what they say you should eat. That might be higher than you're expecting/comfortable with, so increase more gradually if you want.
1 -
I was at 1200 calories a day and losing 2 pounds a week. When I set mfp to maintain I about had a heart attack.
2 -
I really am at a loss with no idea how to eat anymore. I’m a little worried for myself. I am 5’8 and 140 pounds now. I wear a size 4-6 so I don’t want to lose anymore at all but I’m so scared to gain any that I continue around 1200 calories and let myself have a splurge once a week1
-
Step 1: Don't make the mistake of trying to maintain after losing weight, switch into a reverse diet for long term success.6
-
You won't put on a lot of weight quickly, you'll have plenty of time to "catch yourself" and correct if/when it starts to go up. Are you still losing with your 1200 and weekly splurge? Maybe try 1300 and a weekly splurge?
Have you thought about seeing a therapist to help you talk about this tremendous life change you've gone through? Therapy is awesome.
2 -
-
I realize everyone goes about maintaining 'their own way'. I was also on 1200 calorie and up'd it to 1500 calorie for Monday through Friday morning. Friday lunch through Sunday... I took off... meaning I didn't weigh or log my food, I rarely got in the gym on the weekend and I ate what I wanted... within reason, no gorging myself. Come Monday morning I would get right back to it... so back to my healthier choices with weighing and logging my food, back to my gym workouts, etc. Basically I would be losing the 'weekend gain'. I reached my goal of more than 100 lbs loss in 8 months and 4 days back on Sept 15, 2017 and have been in maintenance since... until Wednesday when I decided to drop a little more weight. I have done well with maintaining this way... Sure, I was always in a bit of a loss mode.... but it has worked effectively allowing me to have freedom on the weekend for more than 15 months. My weight could go up 5 to 6 lbs on Mondays after my weekend, but be back right back in check by Wednesday or Thursday at the latest. Often, the gain was more sodium from the foods I don't typically eat during the week. This may or may not work for you... I just thought I would share it as it has worked wonderfully for me. Wishing you all the best in finding what works best for you.5
-
gallicinvasion wrote: »
Sure, when you lose weight, your metabolism slows down to adapt to the weight loss. Look up "Adaptive Thermogenesis". Reverse dieting takes advantage of adaptive thermogenesis, but in the opposite direction. Basically you very slowly increase your calorie intake over the course of 4 to 8 months. By the end of the reverse, your maintenance calorie intake will be hundreds of calories higher than it was after your weight loss, which makes maintaining your weight much easier, or your next weight loss cycle much easier because you can eat more while losing weight. Most people don't know about reverse dieting, and of those who do, many do not have the stomach for it because it requires a small amount of weight gain (usually less than 5 pounds) but people are SO SCARED of gaining even a single pound after losing weight that they can't commit and bail on the process that could have set them up for long term success.13 -
sannklinger wrote: »I was at 1200 calories a day and losing 2 pounds a week. When I set mfp to maintain I about had a heart attack.
Why? When you know that you need a deficit to lose weight?
I would change you settings to lose 1lb per week, then after 2 weeks add 100 cals per week until you have added 500 cals total.
Doing it gradually should stop the fluctuations being too great, but expect a little bounce from glycogen and extra food.4 -
sannklinger wrote: »I really am at a loss with no idea how to eat anymore. I’m a little worried for myself. I am 5’8 and 140 pounds now. I wear a size 4-6 so I don’t want to lose anymore at all but I’m so scared to gain any that I continue around 1200 calories and let myself have a splurge once a week
Binge and restrict cycles are not a happy, healthy or even likely sustainable way to maintain long term.
You trusted calorie counting to lose and the logical part of your brain will recognise that calorie counting will also work to maintain. You must also know you can't regain the fat without a sustained and prolonged calorie surplus.
Recognise that you are allowing an irrational fear (weight gain without a surplus) to supersede a very rational fear of continuing to lose weight that you shouldn't.
Suggest you start to walk up your calories steadily. If you can't do that then seek professional help earlier rather than later.7 -
Thanks for all the insight! I am starting today upping my calories a little. Still going to log my food but I changed the settings to maintaining. We will see how that goes for a week or so.1
-
sannklinger wrote: »I really am at a loss with no idea how to eat anymore. I’m a little worried for myself. I am 5’8 and 140 pounds now. I wear a size 4-6 so I don’t want to lose anymore at all but I’m so scared to gain any that I continue around 1200 calories and let myself have a splurge once a week
Have you had any adverse side effects from eating 1200?3 -
sannklinger wrote: »I was at 1200 calories a day and losing 2 pounds a week. When I set mfp to maintain I about had a heart attack.
Did you have any negative side effects from eating 1200?4 -
So I'm 5'7", in my sixties, retired and live in a tiny condo so I don't really even have a lot of housework to do - no lawnwork, etc. I do walk for an hour a few times per week.
I maintain at 140 pounds on 1900ish total calories (non exercise days) and I eat 2100-2300ish on exercise days, depending on how long my walk is. One day per week I eat way over that (by anywhere from 500 more to 1500 more) and I've been maintaining on that for many years.
The first year is a little bit of a juggling act, but you do need to get your calories up. Are you tired, fatigued, irritable, sleeping a lot, having difficulty concentrating? How is your hair, skin and nails. 1200 is way too low - but you may have been logging food sporadically or not accurately so it's possible you've been eating more than 1200. I would gnaw off an arm at anything less than 1500. :noway:3 -
sannklinger wrote: »I was at 1200 calories a day and losing 2 pounds a week. When I set mfp to maintain I about had a heart attack.
If you were losing 2 Lbs per week then you need about 1,000 calories more to maintain weight. You're likely to have a bump in weight initially which is attributable to glycogen replenishment and more food and inherent waste in your system.2 -
@sannklinger - CONGRATS on the loss!
I only lost 75 pounds and I had the same fears about regaining the weight but after 18 months of losing weight, eating more food volume was not an option (i.e. eat the same foods I ate while losing, but more of it).
My solution was to eat more luxuriously. Peanut butter and (more) bacon crept back onto the menu. Instead of lean chicken breast, I might eat a some ribeye steak. Enjoy yourself and finding the luxurious foods that you can now add to your diet in moderation.
3 -
sannklinger wrote: »Thanks for all the insight! I am starting today upping my calories a little. Still going to log my food but I changed the settings to maintaining. We will see how that goes for a week or so.
How much is a little? You need 1000 cals extra to get to maintenance.0 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »
Sure, when you lose weight, your metabolism slows down to adapt to the weight loss. Look up "Adaptive Thermogenesis". Reverse dieting takes advantage of adaptive thermogenesis, but in the opposite direction. Basically you very slowly increase your calorie intake over the course of 4 to 8 months. By the end of the reverse, your maintenance calorie intake will be hundreds of calories higher than it was after your weight loss, which makes maintaining your weight much easier, or your next weight loss cycle much easier because you can eat more while losing weight. Most people don't know about reverse dieting, and of those who do, many do not have the stomach for it because it requires a small amount of weight gain (usually less than 5 pounds) but people are SO SCARED of gaining even a single pound after losing weight that they can't commit and bail on the process that could have set them up for long term success.
Please don't listen to any of this.
This is not how adaptive thermogenesis works. Adaptive thermogenesis is a very temporary situation largely influenced by incoming food and trends to the average after a matter of days.
Basal metabolism is nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions. This increases and decreases by a near undetectable rate in the same manner as a fire works - add fuel and get a hotter fire, but quicker burn - add less fuel and you get lower heat.8 -
Take a look at the National Weight Control Registry and their findings.
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
Several veterans of MFP have registered here and a common element is setting a "higher" goal than just weight. You need some hobby or activity encouraging a healthy weight, so that this becomes secondary and automatic.4 -
Great feedback!!!!0
-
gallicinvasion wrote: »
Sure, when you lose weight, your metabolism slows down to adapt to the weight loss. Look up "Adaptive Thermogenesis". Reverse dieting takes advantage of adaptive thermogenesis, but in the opposite direction. Basically you very slowly increase your calorie intake over the course of 4 to 8 months. By the end of the reverse, your maintenance calorie intake will be hundreds of calories higher than it was after your weight loss, which makes maintaining your weight much easier, or your next weight loss cycle much easier because you can eat more while losing weight. Most people don't know about reverse dieting, and of those who do, many do not have the stomach for it because it requires a small amount of weight gain (usually less than 5 pounds) but people are SO SCARED of gaining even a single pound after losing weight that they can't commit and bail on the process that could have set them up for long term success.
Please don't listen to any of this.
This is not how adaptive thermogenesis works. Adaptive thermogenesis is a very temporary situation largely influenced by incoming food and trends to the average after a matter of days.
Basal metabolism is nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions. This increases and decreases by a near undetectable rate in the same manner as a fire works - add fuel and get a hotter fire, but quicker burn - add less fuel and you get lower heat.
Though it is true that much more research is needed on reverse dieting, flat out saying that it is BS is foolish. I'll be the first to say that anecdotal evidence is no substitute for empirical data, but to completely dismiss it and not even say "hey we don't know how well it works, or why exactly it might work, but let's see", is closed minded and arrogant...5 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »
Sure, when you lose weight, your metabolism slows down to adapt to the weight loss. Look up "Adaptive Thermogenesis". Reverse dieting takes advantage of adaptive thermogenesis, but in the opposite direction. Basically you very slowly increase your calorie intake over the course of 4 to 8 months. By the end of the reverse, your maintenance calorie intake will be hundreds of calories higher than it was after your weight loss, which makes maintaining your weight much easier, or your next weight loss cycle much easier because you can eat more while losing weight. Most people don't know about reverse dieting, and of those who do, many do not have the stomach for it because it requires a small amount of weight gain (usually less than 5 pounds) but people are SO SCARED of gaining even a single pound after losing weight that they can't commit and bail on the process that could have set them up for long term success.
Please don't listen to any of this.
This is not how adaptive thermogenesis works. Adaptive thermogenesis is a very temporary situation largely influenced by incoming food and trends to the average after a matter of days.
Basal metabolism is nothing more than a series of biochemical reactions. This increases and decreases by a near undetectable rate in the same manner as a fire works - add fuel and get a hotter fire, but quicker burn - add less fuel and you get lower heat.
Though it is true that much more research is needed on reverse dieting, flat out saying that it is BS is foolish. I'll be the first to say that anecdotal evidence is no substitute for empirical data, but to completely dismiss it and not even say "hey we don't know how well it works, or why exactly it might work, but let's see", is closed minded and arrogant...
I did not say it was BS. I clarified a stated misconception of adaptive thermogenesis.
Without data there is nothing to dismiss other than an uninformed opinion.
This is neither "closed minded" or "arrogant", but rational.3 -
Take a look at the National Weight Control Registry and their findings.
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
Several veterans of MFP have registered here and a common element is setting a "higher" goal than just weight. You need some hobby or activity encouraging a healthy weight, so that this becomes secondary and automatic.
Good link brother! I will also add, that gaining a few pounds after such a massive loss is not always a bad thing. The body is very depleted after a loss like that. I maintainedish for 17 months then decided it was time to let my body drift up a little. I am having to remember this. I lost 220, if I regain 20 and feel better.... then so be it. Nest wishes.3 -
also wanted to add... AT is most likely real. To what degree... we don't know. There have been so few HIGHLY controlled studies in it. We will have to wait and see what the research will reveal in the future.psychod787 wrote: »Take a look at the National Weight Control Registry and their findings.
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
Several veterans of MFP have registered here and a common element is setting a "higher" goal than just weight. You need some hobby or activity encouraging a healthy weight, so that this becomes secondary and automatic.
Good link brother! I will also add, that gaining a few pounds after such a massive loss is not always a bad thing. The body is very depleted after a loss like that. I maintainedish for 17 months then decided it was time to let my body drift up a little. I am having to remember this. I lost 220, if I regain 20 and feel better.... then so be it. BEST wishes.
1 -
psychod787 wrote: »
also wanted to add... AT is most likely real. To what degree... we don't know. There have been so few HIGHLY controlled studies in it. We will have to wait and see what the research will reveal in the future.psychod787 wrote: »Take a look at the National Weight Control Registry and their findings.
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
Several veterans of MFP have registered here and a common element is setting a "higher" goal than just weight. You need some hobby or activity encouraging a healthy weight, so that this becomes secondary and automatic.
Good link brother! I will also add, that gaining a few pounds after such a massive loss is not always a bad thing. The body is very depleted after a loss like that. I maintainedish for 17 months then decided it was time to let my body drift up a little. I am having to remember this. I lost 220, if I regain 20 and feel better.... then so be it. BEST wishes.
Adaptive thermogenesis is most certainly real, but not in any long term way with a meaningful impact. We already have this data with an expected 20% margin of error. If data exists outside this, then it is most likely due to experimental error.1
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
- 427 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