Is this what maintenance looks like?
AmyC2288
Posts: 386 Member
Goal is set for loss of .5lbs/week as I'm within 15-20 lbs of goal weight and on the shorter side so don't have a large calorie allowance.
Those of you who are maintaining, I know you have a "range" you fall into for weighing. To me, it would appear that I've unintentionally entered into maintenance. It's hard to tell if it's that or not because I'm only looking for .5 lbs loss per week avg. or if it's actually happening but being masked by normal fluctuations.
Any feedback is welcomed
I'm 5'5''-30 yrs- SW 208 CW 165- Desk Job- Exercise 4-5x per week-using a food scale to weigh.
0
Replies
-
No that is what losing half a pound a week looks like. You can see you are consistently trending downwards. It looks like the last couple of days, you had a bit of a jump upwards but that is likely temporary from some sort of water retention.
I suggest you get an app like Libra and log your weight in there so you can see the trends it creates for you. You can enter all of these when you download it and it will show you what your trend has been. I am confident it will be downwards.6 -
Libra for reference
0 -
You have a water weight bump. That's it. Where are you in your menstrual cycle?
http://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations/2 -
Thank guys. @quiksylver296 I'm at the tail end right now actually. Have been using Libra for a while and do typically see a small increase right before (around the 10th or so) which didn't happen this month. I guess it just decided to show later than usual for some reason. Also, thanks for the article. Was a good read.
@pinuplove - Are you set at -.5lbs as well? I imagine once you're down into the 130's things get incredibly slow. How frustrating that must be! I really didn't think I would struggle as much as I am with switching to -.5lbs per week. Yes I get a few more calories, but if I want to burn a significant number of calories by working out, the level or energy I have to put into the workout is so much more than what it used to be. It's like- I have to work out way harder which makes me more hungry which negates the extra calories I have been given (am I making any sense?) *facepalm*
3 -
Thank guys. @quiksylver296 I'm at the tail end right now actually. Have been using Libra for a while and do typically see a small increase right before (around the 10th or so) which didn't happen this month. I guess it just decided to show later than usual for some reason. Also, thanks for the article. Was a good read.
@pinuplove - Are you set at -.5lbs as well? I imagine once you're down into the 130's things get incredibly slow. How frustrating that must be! I really didn't think I would struggle as much as I am with switching to -.5lbs per week. Yes I get a few more calories, but if I want to burn a significant number of calories by working out, the level or energy I have to put into the workout is so much more than what it used to be. It's like- I have to work out way harder which makes me more hungry which negates the extra calories I have been given (am I making any sense?) *facepalm*
I'm not set for anything, lol. I'm within a healthy weight range and while a few more pounds would be nice (125 is probably my lower limit) I'm not working very hard for it at this point. My weight loss over the last few months has averaged 1 pound per month.
Keep in mind, accuracy is VERY important when your deficit is so small. Just a few daily little errors or one 'F-it' day a week can easily wipe it out. I get you on the working out thing. The calories I earn don't really offset the increase in hunger it causes.1 -
I'm also at .5lb a week goal and my day to day is all over the place, so I look at that number on the top of Libra, that shows my loss so far for this year. Even with fluctuations (right now I'm higher than I was at last week, due to water retention etc), it's still showing a yearly trend that puts me at .5lb a week or slightly greater, when averaged out over the weeks of the year so far.
Your current yearly trend is a little over 7lbs, divided by 11 weeks = a little over .5lb averaged out weekly. You're right on track 5 -
Thank guys. @quiksylver296 I'm at the tail end right now actually. Have been using Libra for a while and do typically see a small increase right before (around the 10th or so) which didn't happen this month. I guess it just decided to show later than usual for some reason. Also, thanks for the article. Was a good read.
@pinuplove - Are you set at -.5lbs as well? I imagine once you're down into the 130's things get incredibly slow. How frustrating that must be! I really didn't think I would struggle as much as I am with switching to -.5lbs per week. Yes I get a few more calories, but if I want to burn a significant number of calories by working out, the level or energy I have to put into the workout is so much more than what it used to be. It's like- I have to work out way harder which makes me more hungry which negates the extra calories I have been given (am I making any sense?) *facepalm*
I'm not set for anything, lol. I'm within a healthy weight range and while a few more pounds would be nice (125 is probably my lower limit) I'm not working very hard for it at this point. My weight loss over the last few months has averaged 1 pound per month.
Keep in mind, accuracy is VERY important when your deficit is so small. Just a few daily little errors or one 'F-it' day a week can easily wipe it out. I get you on the working out thing. The calories I earn don't really offset the increase in hunger it causes.
That's awesome- I can't wait to be where you are!
I've been at this a year and still catch myself slipping on weighing things- the other day I realized I had been using the banana weight with peel included...
. I have even started tracking my sugar free gum as I realized I was eating about 20-25 cals per day in them.
Yes- the bolded is a much simpler way of putting what I was trying to say lol. Glad someone else gets it!0 -
I'm also at .5lb a week goal and my day to day is all over the place, so I look at that number on the top of Libra, that shows my loss so far for this year. Even with fluctuations (right now I'm higher than I was at last week, due to water retention etc), it's still showing a yearly trend that puts me at .5lb a week or slightly greater, when averaged out over the weeks of the year so far.
Your current yearly trend is a little over 7lbs, divided by 11 weeks = a little over .5lb averaged out weekly. You're right on track
Good idea! Thank you, that does make me feel better!1 -
You can also adjust the number of days Libra uses to calculate your trend and see how that affects it. Lengthening the look-back period should help with the green-to-red trend flips if they really bother you. I believe @AnnPT77 turned me on to this. I knew it was an option but never really paid much attention to it. I have my smoothing days set to 20 now and forecast set to 30.4
-
You can also adjust the number of days Libra uses to calculate your trend and see how that affects it. Lengthening the look-back period should help with the green-to-red trend flips if they really bother you. I believe @AnnPT77 turned me on to this. I knew it was an option but never really paid much attention to it. I have my smoothing days set to 20 now and forecast set to 30.
I'm glad to know that helped someone!
I tend to think that the "right" setting depends a bit on one's personal psychology/personality. I used the default 7 & 7 for quite a while in maintenance: Maybe would've been better off with them being longer, sooner. I'm now at 30 days smoothing, 60 days forecast. Now in year 3 of maintenance, I found myself being a little self deluded, if I decided I needed a little weight reduction, when I hit a goal weight for a few days in a row. Because I'm an uneven eater, planning in semi-regular big indulgences, I'd look at that projection based on 7 days slight down-trend, and take it as license to enjoy myself in ways that weren't really sensible quite yet. 60 days forecast days keeps my attention on the actual long-term trend.
Loosely, the smoothing days affects how bumpy vs. linear the line in the past is; and the forecast days affects how much recent days vs. further-back days affect the angle of the projection line.5 -
You can also adjust the number of days Libra uses to calculate your trend and see how that affects it. Lengthening the look-back period should help with the green-to-red trend flips if they really bother you. I believe @AnnPT77 turned me on to this. I knew it was an option but never really paid much attention to it. I have my smoothing days set to 20 now and forecast set to 30.
I'm glad to know that helped someone!
I tend to think that the "right" setting depends a bit on one's personal psychology/personality. I used the default 7 & 7 for quite a while in maintenance: Maybe would've been better off with them being longer, sooner. I'm now at 30 days smoothing, 60 days forecast. Now in year 3 of maintenance, I found myself being a little self deluded, if I decided I needed a little weight reduction, when I hit a goal weight for a few days in a row. Because I'm an uneven eater, planning in semi-regular big indulgences, I'd look at that projection based on 7 days slight down-trend, and take it as license to enjoy myself in ways that weren't really sensible quite yet. 60 days forecast days keeps my attention on the actual long-term trend.
Loosely, the smoothing days affects how bumpy vs. linear the line in the past is; and the forecast days affects how much recent days vs. further-back days affect the angle of the projection line.
I don't think I ever quite understood exactly what each of those did, so thanks again!0 -
@pinuplove
@AnnPT77
@zeejane03
@quiksylver296
While I have an abundance of wisdom here... I've been toying with the idea of changing from sedentary + eating back exercise cals to lightly active (maybe even active?) and not eating back exercise cals. I am NOT a math person- so trying to work everything out to see if it makes sense makes my head spin. Conservatively, I log anywhere from 800-1200 intentional calories burned each week and I'm very consistent.
If I were to switch, it asks how many times per week are you planning to exercise. Would I just leave that 0? Also, would I still leave the part that asks "What is your goal" at .5lbs loss per week?
Is this a terrible idea? LOL1 -
Do you have a fitness tracker or have any interest in getting one? I have a FitBit and used it while losing and now maintaining, and I find it to be incredibly helpful in maintenance to really understand what my upper limit of calories should be. It might take some of the guess work out of what you’re trying to figure out here.2
-
@AmyC2288 The little box for number of workouts per week has exactly zero effect on how anything here is calculated
Sounds like you're wanting to move to a TDEE calculation vs the NEAT formula MFP is based on. I did exactly the same thing around the middle of last year. I just bumped up my activity level and adjusted accordingly after I had a few solid weeks of data. I liked having a set calorie goal for each day.
I'd leave your loss goal at .5 lb per week.
(Disclaimer - I haven't logged my food in several months, but this method did work for me while I was still logging. I just got lazy
) 2 -
Libra for reference
I am confused that the Libra graph would not show this as a downward graph with a small uptick during the last 3 days.
This is a trending weight full lb down in the ten days depicted, i e a loss that is FASTER than 0.5 lbs a week.
You should also compare with your trending weight at the same point of your cycle a "month" ago....0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Do you have a fitness tracker or have any interest in getting one? I have a FitBit and used it while losing and now maintaining, and I find it to be incredibly helpful in maintenance to really understand what my upper limit of calories should be. It might take some of the guess work out of what you’re trying to figure out here.
I actually had some interest in a fitbit last year and instead of dropping a ton of money on one I bought a basic knock off one on Amazon for $35 to see if it was something that would actually be of use to me and that I would consistently use. I honestly hated it...I really hate having something around my wrist (always have), but I could get past that. I just didn't find it particularly useful in anyway. It ended up just being one more thing to keep up with- remembering to charge it, remembering to put it back on after shower or sleep (I couldn't sleep in it!!), then getting annoyed if I left it at home...yeah it just didn't work out for me. I was so glad I didn't spend the money on the real deal!0 -
@AmyC2288 The little box for number of workouts per week has exactly zero effect on how anything here is calculated
Sounds like you're wanting to move to a TDEE calculation vs the NEAT formula MFP is based on. I did exactly the same thing around the middle of last year. I just bumped up my activity level and adjusted accordingly after I had a few solid weeks of data. I liked having a set calorie goal for each day.
I'd leave your loss goal at .5 lb per week.
(Disclaimer - I haven't logged my food in several months, but this method did work for me while I was still logging. I just got lazy )
THANK YOU! I feel the same about having a set calorie goal each day- I'm okay with a few weeks of gathering data to see how it all plays out- just wanting some validation that this isn't a terrible idea before giving it a go!2 -
I use TDEE because I hate trying to hit a moving target of calories, depending on how much exercise I've done.2
-
Libra for reference
I am confused that the Libra graph would not show this as a downward graph with a small uptick during the last 3 days.
This is a trending weight full lb down in the ten days depicted, i e a loss that is FASTER than 0.5 lbs a week.
You should also compare with your trending weight at the same point of your cycle a "month" ago....
All valid points. The line graph does show a tick upward with the grey projected line down. I usually go by the trend weight as shown above and don't pay much attention to the graph. Perhaps I need to use both-although they do seem to contradict as the line trend is going down but the data trend is going up.
One month ago at the same point in my cycle I was 166.8 so -1.3 lbs between now and then. It's been 4 weeks so that is an average loss of -.3 lbs per week.1 -
Libra for reference
I am confused that the Libra graph would not show this as a downward graph with a small uptick during the last 3 days.
This is a trending weight full lb down in the ten days depicted, i e a loss that is FASTER than 0.5 lbs a week.
You should also compare with your trending weight at the same point of your cycle a "month" ago....
All valid points. The line graph does show a tick upward with the grey projected line down. I usually go by the trend weight as shown above and don't pay much attention to the graph. Perhaps I need to use both-although they do seem to contradict as the line trend is going down but the data trend is going up.
One month ago at the same point in my cycle I was 166.8 so -1.3 lbs between now and then. It's been 4 weeks so that is an average loss of -.3 lbs per week.
I compare trend weight to trend weight. Accounts for any outlier individual weights on a given day.1 -
Libra for reference
I am confused that the Libra graph would not show this as a downward graph with a small uptick during the last 3 days.
This is a trending weight full lb down in the ten days depicted, i e a loss that is FASTER than 0.5 lbs a week.
You should also compare with your trending weight at the same point of your cycle a "month" ago....
All valid points. The line graph does show a tick upward with the grey projected line down. I usually go by the trend weight as shown above and don't pay much attention to the graph. Perhaps I need to use both-although they do seem to contradict as the line trend is going down but the data trend is going up.
One month ago at the same point in my cycle I was 166.8 so -1.3 lbs between now and then. It's been 4 weeks so that is an average loss of -.3 lbs per week.
I compare trend weight to trend weight. Accounts for any outlier individual weights on a given day.
Ahhh! Makes sense!1 -
@pinuplove
@AnnPT77
@zeejane03
@quiksylver296
While I have an abundance of wisdom here... I've been toying with the idea of changing from sedentary + eating back exercise cals to lightly active (maybe even active?) and not eating back exercise cals. I am NOT a math person- so trying to work everything out to see if it makes sense makes my head spin. Conservatively, I log anywhere from 800-1200 intentional calories burned each week and I'm very consistent.
If I were to switch, it asks how many times per week are you planning to exercise. Would I just leave that 0? Also, would I still leave the part that asks "What is your goal" at .5lbs loss per week?
Is this a terrible idea? LOL
It's not a terrible idea. If you do that, I'd suggest you use a TDEE calculator outside of MFP to get a calorie goal, because they're designed for this. Sailrabbit has 3 different formulas available, more if you have an accurate body fat percent number. Then manually set MFP to that calorie goal (i.e., if you know a number you want to use, you can override MFP's calculation. Just make sure it doesn't get overwritten if you make future profile changes.)
If you do that, apply a "sniff test" to see whether it seems likely to be close to you - basically rough-estimate your TDEE based on whatever recent logging data you have (up to 4 weeks, toward the longer side of that is better), using intake and weight loss.
To be more specific about why I suggest using a TDEE calculator:
MFP's profile setting about how many times a week you plan to exercise as no-zip-zero effect on calculating your calorie goal. It affects some motivational messages, and the exercise log pages in some of the MFP environments (web for sure) will show you progress against your weekly exercise target. That's it. It doesn't change your calorie goal.
Also, the TDEE calculators usually use different activity multipliers than MFP does, for similarly-named activity levels, in my understanding. Often, they offer more granular activity levels (a larger number of levels, with smaller differences between each adjacent one).
If you wanted to use MFP to get a goal, you'd somehow guess your exercise activity into the activity setting (sedentary, lightly active, etc.) as you've described; and set your goal at "maintain" (not lose).
ETA: Or, as nutmegoreo suggests, use an activity tracker, if that's accurate for you.2 -
I look for the trend of my trend weight so to speak.
And if you have a regular cyclical event comparing to a month back for insight probably makes sense.1 -
Those data points, graphed with a trend line.
Looks like a download trend to me
3 -
Thank you, Dan! It does indeed look like a downward trend- I'll take it!0
-
@pinuplove
@AnnPT77
@zeejane03
@quiksylver296
While I have an abundance of wisdom here... I've been toying with the idea of changing from sedentary + eating back exercise cals to lightly active (maybe even active?) and not eating back exercise cals. I am NOT a math person- so trying to work everything out to see if it makes sense makes my head spin. Conservatively, I log anywhere from 800-1200 intentional calories burned each week and I'm very consistent.
If I were to switch, it asks how many times per week are you planning to exercise. Would I just leave that 0? Also, would I still leave the part that asks "What is your goal" at .5lbs loss per week?
Is this a terrible idea? LOL
It's not a terrible idea. If you do that, I'd suggest you use a TDEE calculator outside of MFP to get a calorie goal, because they're designed for this. Sailrabbit has 3 different formulas available, more if you have an accurate body fat percent number. Then manually set MFP to that calorie goal (i.e., if you know a number you want to use, you can override MFP's calculation. Just make sure it doesn't get overwritten if you make future profile changes.)
If you do that, apply a "sniff test" to see whether it seems likely to be close to you - basically rough-estimate your TDEE based on whatever recent logging data you have (up to 4 weeks, toward the longer side of that is better), using intake and weight loss.
To be more specific about why I suggest using a TDEE calculator:
MFP's profile setting about how many times a week you plan to exercise as no-zip-zero effect on calculating your calorie goal. It affects some motivational messages, and the exercise log pages in some of the MFP environments (web for sure) will show you progress against your weekly exercise target. That's it. It doesn't change your calorie goal.
Also, the TDEE calculators usually use different activity multipliers than MFP does, for similarly-named activity levels, in my understanding. Often, they offer more granular activity levels (a larger number of levels, with smaller differences between each adjacent one).
If you wanted to use MFP to get a goal, you'd somehow guess your exercise activity into the activity setting (sedentary, lightly active, etc.) as you've described; and set your goal at "maintain" (not lose).
ETA: Or, as nutmegoreo suggests, use an activity tracker, if that's accurate for you.
Thank you so much @AnnPT77 . Lots of good info here...I have been wondering about this for a long time but didn't understand how the logistics of it all would work. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions