Disappointing Realization of Maintenance Calories
Replies
-
I am not your age but I used to be a nutrition advisor in a weight-loss counselor (Im also a recovering food addict and I get both ends of the spectrum!).
What I tried to encourage women over 50 and 60 was to really learn to enjoy their very most favorite healthy fat and high-protein foods for satisfaction and to feel full.
So really enjoying a meal similar to say, a really thick homemade turkey burger with all the toppings but with a lettuce wrap.
To do veggie noodles forever with meatballs and sauce.
Carb slash: lettuce wrap sandwiches and tacos.
Use avocado on crazy vegetable burrito bowls.
Finding a way to make flavors amazing so you don't miss so many things.
My strongest advice was to skimp on or give up pasta bread and crackers pretty much all together unless you really enjoy exercising, because there's such an easy thing to ditch when you want to dump carbs and cals. Unless its a keto recipe, bread isnt always the best "bang for your buck". My maintenance cals are only 1200 or so and doing it right was always a deliberate act, lol.
Hope you find something that works for you!3 -
I am actually rather looking forward to the time when I will reach maintenance and eat according to that. I don't think I have ever done so, therefore this will be an entirely new experience - eating what my body needs to live properly and healthily, not what my brain wants!4
-
I know many of you may disagree with me, but I have to agree with Emily Enough, above, generally speaking.
As an almost 60-year-old woman, it was hard to lose the weight that had slowly crept in over a few decades.
The one thing that made the biggest difference was pretty much giving up alcohol in the weight loss phase (now I enjoy a bit in maintenance).
The other was cutting waaaaaaaay down on grains/starches and eliminating any obvious sugar. So, bread, pasta, corn, potatoes....were had in very small portions—-maybe 1/4 cup serving—and instead I focused on non-starchy veg, protein, and healthy fats. (Olive oil, real butter, full-fat dairy, in measured amounts.)
I believe whatever benefits there may be for a Ketogenic diet may be had with a lower carb diet.
The biggest boon for me was satiety. I was/am rarely hungry because I don’t require a steady supply of carbs every few hours. This allows me to wait until I have good options to eat and a I’m not at the mercy of whatever is available.
Personally, I would never be interested in things like OneMealADay made of low-quality lunch meats and pickle juice, as I’ve seen some do. Not for me. I like real, nutritious foods. Not going to waste precious calories on Easy-Mac and hot dogs unless I’m having a junk food treat, which I do on occasion.
But a nice piece of wild salmon, or grass fed beef, with fresh veggies, and a bit of rice, topped off with a few teaspoons of olive oil? There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a perfectly healthy meal. Even if the fancy varieties are unaffordable, it’s still better than skrimping on pizza.
I feel great eating this way, and my skin is glowing. No carb comas nor crashes, and my body composition is changing on its own without the bloat that too many processed carbs can bring.
Carbs are not the enemy. But too many refined starches are just like sugar to the body. They drive up insulin, which causes the body to store fat. Exactly the opposite of what we want.
There is solid science behind it, and as a skeptic, I’m living proof. The idea that we need 6+ servings a day of grains is counterproductive, from a metabolic, weight-loss point of view. 200+ grams of carbs per day just keeps the insulin flowing.
The only way to know if this works for you is to try it! Try a few days, or a month, with only fresh veg for carbs and see how you feel.
Unless you’re a serious athlete just burning up those carbs like crazy, they may just be making your weight loss a lot harder than it needs to be, and we want everyone here to succeed.4 -
I should add here that my labs/bloodwork are, and have been, excellent eating this way. Lost fat and retained muscle, cholesterol and triglycerides are excellent.
As are all my other bio markers for health at 59+.2 -
I do disagree with some of the couple of posts above, but I didn't click "disagree". Some people have some kind of issue with carbs (spikes appetite, main carb sources calorie dense but not nutrition-dense, insulin resistant, etc.). They should reduce carb intake, in all likelihood.
Outside of that, carbs are not demonic. Insulin (in a normal, healthy body) is involved in fat storage, but de novo lipogenesis (your body turning something else, like carbs, into fat) is an unusual thing, especially in a calorie deficit. The body wants to store fat as fat, first, before converting other intake: It's efficient, and natural selection biases toward efficient.
I'm 64, vegetarian (ovo-lacto), and maintain fine eating 200g+ of them most days (lost fine eating 150g-ish at age 59-60), getting good overall nutrition (enough protein, fats, plenty of veggies/fruits, even alcohol now and then) . . . and my labs/bloodwork have been fine, too.
I'm not discounting anyone else's experience as being true for them. I'm simply saying that those things are not universal, not even among older women.15 -
I do disagree with some of the couple of posts above, but I didn't click "disagree". Some people have some kind of issue with carbs (spikes appetite, main carb sources calorie dense but not nutrition-dense, insulin resistant, etc.). They should reduce carb intake, in all likelihood.
Outside of that, carbs are not demonic. Insulin (in a normal, healthy body) is involved in fat storage, but de novo lipogenesis (your body turning something else, like carbs, into fat) is an unusual thing, especially in a calorie deficit. The body wants to store fat as fat, first, before converting other intake: It's efficient, and natural selection biases toward efficient.
I'm 64, vegetarian (ovo-lacto), and maintain fine eating 200g+ of them most days (lost fine eating 150g-ish at age 59-60), getting good overall nutrition (enough protein, fats, plenty of veggies/fruits, even alcohol now and then) . . . and my labs/bloodwork have been fine, too.
I'm not discounting anyone else's experience as being true for them. I'm simply saying that those things are not universal, not even among older women.
I read the post a couple of above yours at the gym and was waiting til I got home to post. You beat me to it. And, just to own it, I did click disagree for the reasons you mentions.
Carbs, refined or not, have no magical fat gain properties outside of a calorie surplus. Maintenance or deficit calories = no net fat storage. Calorie surplus = fat storage. And as you accurately stated, the first thing to be stored will be fat. Only once any dietary fat has been stored and glycogen reserves are topped off will the body then go through the non preferred metabolic process of de novo lipogenesis. All of this assumes a person with a normal healthy response to insulin. If one is insulin resistant, that is a whole other ball game.
Interestingly, protein is also very insulinogenic but hardly ever gets stored as fat. Insulin is critical to good health and getting nutrients to cells. We need to stop the demonizing of it and characterizing it as a "fat storage" hormone. It only aids in the storing of fat short term after a meal or in a calorie surplus.
As always, it comes down to context and amount. If someone is eating a high proportion of their diet in refined carbs, that's probably not going to be great nutritionally. For some, reducing refined carbs and/or carbs in general makes it easier to comply with their calorie targets.
Some things mentioned above, grains, potatoes and starchy carbs are very satiating for some and help them to stay on track. It's going to be very individual and that is the key, finding what works for you and is sustainable.11 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »I should add here that my labs/bloodwork are, and have been, excellent eating this way. Lost fat and retained muscle, cholesterol and triglycerides are excellent.
As are all my other bio markers for health at 59+.
I am glad for you. But don't mistakenly attribute why. I am 68 and also have excellent blood markers. I eat starchy carbs, grains and even a few refined carbs as part of my diet. I've lost close to 40 lbs, am at a healthy body weight and lift weights 3 to 4 times per week as well as walk an average of 4 to 5 miles per day.
I attribute my good blood work and metabolic markers to weight loss and exercise along with an overall healthy diet. I have a protein target I hit and then eat whatever I want. We should get a minimum of fat for health but I never have trouble hitting fats. For the rest, i eat mostly high fiber carbs because I find them satiating. But I'll eat starches and some refined carbs too.
It wasn't always so. When I was heavier, I was pre-diabetic. Weight loss and exercise are the 2 best things one can do to improve metabolic markers.8 -
I find it amazing that a post stating basically that it’s easier to maintain on a low calorie budget if you focus on nutritionally dense instead of calorie dense foods gets nothing but “disagree” here. C’mon, people. Can we get off the “all calories are equal when trying to lose weight” horse for long enough to admit that for MOST people, a big chunk of lean meat is more filling than a single bite of fatty hamburger? Can anyone here be honest enough for two seconds to admit that?
It’s not courting orthorexia to admit that a diet full of takeout and fast food probably isn’t the easiest way to stick to a 1200 calorie budget. 1200 calories goes fast. Those calories have to count, or it’s really not much food at all. When carefully curated, 1200 calories can equal three modest meals and a snack, and contain enough nutrition to keep someone healthy. Or it can be a single side of large fries plus a soft drink. I know which one is more likely to make me feel better, long term.
I’m not seeing anyone advocating banning fries completely. Long term, most people will stay sane eating the fries once in a blue moon. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But on an everyday basis, it’s easier to eat low calorie if you eat nutritionally dense foods.12 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I find it amazing that a post stating basically that it’s easier to maintain on a low calorie budget if you focus on nutritionally dense instead of calorie dense foods gets nothing but “disagree” here. C’mon, people. Can we get off the “all calories are equal when trying to lose weight” horse for long enough to admit that for MOST people, a big chunk of lean meat is more filling than a single bite of fatty hamburger? Can anyone here be honest enough for two seconds to admit that?
It’s not courting orthorexia to admit that a diet full of takeout and fast food probably isn’t the easiest way to stick to a 1200 calorie budget. 1200 calories goes fast. Those calories have to count, or it’s really not much food at all. When carefully curated, 1200 calories can equal three modest meals and a snack, and contain enough nutrition to keep someone healthy. Or it can be a single side of large fries plus a soft drink. I know which one is more likely to make me feel better, long term.
I’m not seeing anyone advocating banning fries completely. Long term, most people will stay sane eating the fries once in a blue moon. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But on an everyday basis, it’s easier to eat low calorie if you eat nutritionally dense foods.
While that aspect may've been why some clicked "disagree", I don't think that's the whole story. I didn't click "disagree", as I said. I believe in eating mostly nutrient-dense foods, and that's especially vital for aging folks on low calorie budgets, among other sub-populations.
While much of the post was sensible, there's some misinformation in there.7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I find it amazing that a post stating basically that it’s easier to maintain on a low calorie budget if you focus on nutritionally dense instead of calorie dense foods gets nothing but “disagree” here. C’mon, people. Can we get off the “all calories are equal when trying to lose weight” horse for long enough to admit that for MOST people, a big chunk of lean meat is more filling than a single bite of fatty hamburger? Can anyone here be honest enough for two seconds to admit that?
It’s not courting orthorexia to admit that a diet full of takeout and fast food probably isn’t the easiest way to stick to a 1200 calorie budget. 1200 calories goes fast. Those calories have to count, or it’s really not much food at all. When carefully curated, 1200 calories can equal three modest meals and a snack, and contain enough nutrition to keep someone healthy. Or it can be a single side of large fries plus a soft drink. I know which one is more likely to make me feel better, long term.
I’m not seeing anyone advocating banning fries completely. Long term, most people will stay sane eating the fries once in a blue moon. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But on an everyday basis, it’s easier to eat low calorie if you eat nutritionally dense foods.
Usually I find your posts very reasonable. But, honestly, I'm confused by this one. Where did anyone advocate for takeout or fast food or mention fries or fatty hamburgers?11 -
As I said, I figured people would disagree with me.
I'm really not some oddball, advocating some unhealthy, woo idea demonizing carbs. Really, I'm not. It's simply biochemistry. Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage. You don't need to take my word for it. (In fact, I would hope that you wouldn't.)
Many people feel and function much better on a higher protein, lower carb diet. That's a fact. I happen to be one of them. I am certainly not some kind of anomaly.
What I have been advocating is a diet that focuses on quality protein and fresh vegetables. Why people balk at that, instead of one based on grains/starches, is beyond me. It's a healthy diet. Fish and vegetables? Is that BAD? If so, how? Would I be better off, or healthier, eating bread, pasta, and muffins? If so, why? I'd need to see the science behind that.
And I'm also saying that people can be healthy on a wide range of diets. What works for me might not work for you.
It's up to the individual, to use trial and error to figure out what works for them.
The science has been leaning toward higher fat/lower carb for a decade now, with the continuing rise in obesity, despite our "eat more grains" food pyramid.
Does it make sense that too many starches, which are processed by the body as SUGAR, are causing problems? In many people, the answer is probably "yes".
If you're doing great on a high-starch diet, and have no heart disease, coronary artery disease, Type II diabetes, etc, and you're over 50, that's wonderful! But many people are not, and their diet is to blame. But for many people who are struggling with weight and metabolic issues, reducing their overall carbohydrate intake could be very beneficial.
If what you're doing is working---great! If it's not working so well, diet is not a One Size Fits All type of thing. Try something different.
It's worth looking into.
5 -
I do wonder what they're disagreeing with, exactly.
That carbohydrates affect blood sugar? That insulin drives fat storage? That cutting down foods which spike insulin might be a reasonable weight-loss strategy?
That you can be healthy while eating predominantly quality proteins and fresh veggies? That I had episodes of hypoglycemia on a high carb, low fat diet which resolved when I changed my diet?
These are all facts, not opinions.
3 -
I am similar to you though a little taller. I have been here seven years and don’t feel like I’m dieting at all. I learned to eat the food I love, stop eating when I’m full, and not eat food I don’t care about. I also learned high calories food to be mindful of. When I’m hungry I eat. Doing that I’ve stayed within 10 lbs of my goal and am at the weight I was at 25. BMI 23.
Basically I choose what I love to eat first and don’t feel deprived. And I really focus on flavor and eat smaller portions.2 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »I do wonder what they're disagreeing with, exactly.
That carbohydrates affect blood sugar? That insulin drives fat storage? That cutting down foods which spike insulin might be a reasonable weight-loss strategy?
That you can be healthy while eating predominantly quality proteins and fresh veggies? That I had episodes of hypoglycemia on a high carb, low fat diet which resolved when I changed my diet?
These are all facts, not opinions.
You asked, so I'll answer. First:That insulin drives fat storage? That cutting down foods which spike insulin might be a reasonable weight-loss strategy?
This is a plain incorrect understanding of the role of insulin and pretty much completely ignores the info I posted above. Insulin is necessary for survival. It is not a demon and it does not drive fat storage in energy balance or deficit. Protein also triggers an insulin response but you are not advocating cutting that. And BTW, insulin doesn't "spike". It is released as a normal biological response to eating food. It's role (as I stated in a post above) is to get nutrients into cells. A function critical for survival. Fat storage only results from energy surplus. No amount of insulin can cause fat storage without an energy (calorie) surplus (in non insulin resistant people). It all comes down to energy management for weight loss and health. There is no magic storage of fat from carbs due to insulin without an energy surplus. (Those with insulin resistance and fighting a whole different battle.)That you can be healthy while eating predominantly quality proteins and fresh veggies?
An accurate but incomplete statement. Fats are also critical to health in at least a minimum amount. Also, some if the foods you've criticized, eg. potatoes, starchy veggies are still fresh veggies. A fact that you choose to ignore while demonizing them. And they have good nutritional value and can, for some people, be very satiating.That I had episodes of hypoglycemia on a high carb, low fat diet which resolved when I changed my diet?
Good for you. I don't think anyone is challenging your personal experience.These are all facts, not opinions
This is just plain incorrect. Research Blue Zones. These are places in the world where the population eats predominantly high carb diets. They show some of the best health markers and longevity in the world. Also, there are many folks that do just fine on a higher carb diet. Some don't. It is very individual and it is a mistake to think that because it was right for you, it's right for everyone. If you feel there is some proof of your position as being factual, feel free to post the peer reviewed studies and meta-analyses that prove it. I can tell you though, I read every study and meta-analysis I can get my hands on regarding dietary composition and it's impact and health and weight loss. I have seen nothing to date that supports your position.
You have found what works for you. That is a very good thing. But, you misunderstand the reasons and the mechanisms. You found a way of eating that helped create a calorie deficit and lost weight. If you had an issue with carbs previously, you may have been insulin resistant. You found a way of eating that worked for you to feel satiated while keeping your weight at a healthy level and possibly overcame insulin resistance. Great! But everyone is not you.15 -
BUT it is a lot harder to stay slim now than it was when I was young.4
-
ThinnerLiz wrote: »As I said, I figured people would disagree with me.
I'm really not some oddball, advocating some unhealthy, woo idea demonizing carbs. Really, I'm not. It's simply biochemistry. Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage. You don't need to take my word for it. (In fact, I would hope that you wouldn't.)
Many people feel and function much better on a higher protein, lower carb diet. That's a fact. I happen to be one of them. I am certainly not some kind of anomaly.
What I have been advocating is a diet that focuses on quality protein and fresh vegetables. Why people balk at that, instead of one based on grains/starches, is beyond me. It's a healthy diet. Fish and vegetables? Is that BAD? If so, how? Would I be better off, or healthier, eating bread, pasta, and muffins? If so, why? I'd need to see the science behind that.
And I'm also saying that people can be healthy on a wide range of diets. What works for me might not work for you.
It's up to the individual, to use trial and error to figure out what works for them.
The science has been leaning toward higher fat/lower carb for a decade now, with the continuing rise in obesity, despite our "eat more grains" food pyramid.
Does it make sense that too many starches, which are processed by the body as SUGAR, are causing problems? In many people, the answer is probably "yes".
If you're doing great on a high-starch diet, and have no heart disease, coronary artery disease, Type II diabetes, etc, and you're over 50, that's wonderful! But many people are not, and their diet is to blame. But for many people who are struggling with weight and metabolic issues, reducing their overall carbohydrate intake could be very beneficial.
If what you're doing is working---great! If it's not working so well, diet is not a One Size Fits All type of thing. Try something different.
It's worth looking into.
The bolded is just not true. Acutally, lower fat diets have been proven to have a slight advantage for fat loss. So small as to be statistically irrelevant but a slight advantage. Lower carb diets have not.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/?fbclid=IwAR1DFikPeiksul4Px_xeejVyrzqg-fyxUC-BlOm7GpJdlvj04JCl4fiJXo8
You misunderstand the causes for the rise in obesity. The root causes are more sedentary lifestyles and greater food availability resulting in calorie intake that is mismatched with calorie expenditure. People have eaten high carb diets for eons without growing obese until modern times. And statically, while people began to eat higher carb in the 70's and 80's, they never reduced fat intake. So, a net gain in calorie intake overall paired with more sedentary lifestyles.9 -
BUT it is a lot harder to stay slim now than it was when I was young.
Interesting. I found it so when I had an office job and was more sedentary. I'm pretty sure it was the fact that I was far more active when I was young that made the difference. Since retirement, I am again very active. I am at the same weight I was at age 30 (now 68). I walk a lot and weight train 3 to 4 days per week. I am more conscious of managing my intake.
More effort that when I was young? In some ways yes, and in some ways not really.4 -
While I'm still not clicking "disagree" on others' recent posts here, @mmapags is saving me a lot of typing. I agree with everything he's said this afternoon/evening.
I'm a little confused about the categorization of foods: I don't eat a lot of bread, rice, wheat pasta. I don't eat a lot of what most people would call highly processed foods (another confusing term).
I do eat a lot of carbs (200g+ range most days, at 5'5", age 64, weight mid-130s pounds).
I'd find it very difficult to get all the vegetables/fruits I prefer, let alone all the protein I want (as a vegetarian) on low carbs. I have whole rolled oats every day, and a tablespoon of blackstrap molasses (added sugar!
) in it; occasionally have an Ezekiel pita or tortilla (not daily) or a couple of spelt/flax crackers. That's about it for routine grains/added sugar, other than some lightly sweetened kefir some mornings. The rest of the carbs are generally veggies, fruits, and protein sources (beans, dairy, etc.) - both eugars and starches in those.
I'm not arguing with how anyone else chooses to eat, or saying anyone else should eat like me. But I also don't see how all these starches or sugars are causing a problem: For sure, it's not showing up as negative high cholesterol/triglycerides, cardiovascular conditions, or anything like that; and my weight is stable.
I'm totally on board with "most people would do best if they avoid excessive amounts of low-nutrient-dense but calorie-dense and non-satiating foods", but that's not a synonym for "carbs".7 -
I got tired of finding the scale periodically to adjust the calorie budget. So I just set it for what I knew was my ideal weight, where my body naturally kept me without effort in my 20s and 30s whenever I was healthy. That kept weight loss at a safe level also, declining with my weight. Also no surprises at maintenance. I knew what I was going to need for calories at that point, because that's what I was eating all along. I've heard other people say they used the same approach, so it's an alternative to consider.
I do look at weekly totals more than daily, so don't worry if I go over one day since I will likely be under another day.
Eating a lot of veggies and some fruits can make a big difference when our bodies need few total calories - non-starchy veggies especially don't have many calories but have vitamins and minerals that we can absorb better than from supplements. Joel Fuhrman recommends in Eat to Live that we aim for 2 lbs of cooked or raw non-starchy veg/mushrooms per day... So I don't think most of us have to worry about overdosing.
I often can't really get much out of the house for medical reasons, but one exercise I can always do more or less is walk in place. No extra time involved, since I'm reading or watching tv/videos or playing games. That can really add up and it can be done for short periods while waiting for something else to happen and does not require special clothing or equipment or sweating. I find a side step easiest most of the time, I don't do exaggerated marching up and down when I do the "marching" mode. I do have a Leslie Sansone mp3 for a 15 minute walk in place routine on my phone in case I get the urge for something more vigorous that works more muscles with a variety of steps, but usually I just do my own walk in place faster. So just moving that way whenever you can might help.
Definitely I need to get a certain number of steps in per day either walk in place or regular walking in order to avoid certain physical problems, which is an incentive. Pedometers make it easy to see how I'm doing - the Misfit tracker picks up mainly regular steps but my Walker Lite on the phone picks up walk in place quite well, as long as the speed is high enough.
Anyway, 1400-1500 calories a day is actually a lot of food once you figure out what portions are needed for you to enjoy your food without harm. We can't eat much junk at that level, but if you just cut up your favorite junky food into smaller portions - you can still enjoy it regardless. Half an ounce or less of anything is often enough for me now. The first few bites are best, anyway. Same goes for starchy veg and grains - just think smaller portion-wise. I find that 1/3 of a baked potato is a lot of potato for me now. Likewise half a cup of rice is enough rice.
I freeze a lot of such portions so don't need to eat the same thing all the time, and also will portion out items stored at room temperature sometimes if I need some help keeping to one portion (also means I can't use the excuse that I have to finish it off before it spoils...).1 -
1- your stomach adjusts
2- eat out/drink less often
3- track macros/calories until you eat intuitively
4- be more lightly active (walking, standing); it adds up
I find maintenance super easy. It’s losing that’s damnation for me3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions