Eat for the weight you want to be

novalh42
novalh42 Posts: 102 Member
edited October 5 in Health and Weight Loss
I read an article that basically says you should eat for whatever weight you want to be. For example if you want to weigh 130 you should eat the calories that would be needed for a person to maintain 130 calories. I found it to be very interesting and it makes sense. Also, if I go by what that article says I am actually not eating enough calories. Here is a link to that article if you are interested. Let me know what you think. BTW there is nothing to buy or anything...just information.

http://www.debramoorhead.com/blog/index.php/how-i-lost-25-pounds-in-one-month/
«1

Replies

  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    In general I don't like this concept, but I haven't read the article yet.

    It's far more accurate to figure out your own energy needs (TDEE) and eat less than that by a given %.
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,219 Member
    That might work if you are close to your goal. If you have 100 pounds to lose then you would burn out quicker. I have to agree with the comment about figuring out your TDEE and reducing that number by a specific percent.
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    I disagree. You need to eat at a slight calorie deficit that you can be comfortable with.

    I tried this theory before and was so miserable I quit trying for 6 months before finding MFP.
  • LilMissFoodie
    LilMissFoodie Posts: 612 Member
    I agree that is one of the best approaches. It usually (unless you are very overweight) means that your deficit is much smaller so you will lose weight more slowly but you also put much less risk on your body and it's easier to stick with because of the higher calorie goal.
  • LilMissFoodie
    LilMissFoodie Posts: 612 Member
    Wow, I'm really surprised to hear people talking as though you would have fewer calories. You get that your goal would be about 2000 cals (for a woman), right? Not the close to 1200 goals that some people on here have.
  • JennaM222
    JennaM222 Posts: 1,996 Member
    Interesting article, thanks for sharing!
  • Pollywog39
    Pollywog39 Posts: 1,730 Member
    Interesting!

    If I put in the weight I'd LIKE to be, which is around 135, I can eat a LOT more calories than MFP says I should...........

    I think I'll stay where I am, though. It seems to be working pretty well :wink: :wink:
  • melizerd
    melizerd Posts: 870 Member
    You have to pick something that works for YOU and stick with it. MFP will not give you the same numbers as any of the other 352646 forums/calculators out there. I stay here because this works for me. Would other programs? Probably.

    I had a lot of weight to lose (over 80lbs) and there's NO way I could have eaten for the weight I wanted to be, work out, build muscle and still continue to lose weight and function as a person (LOL).

    Everything is just a guideline and not everyone's body works the same. I do believe in starvation mode but I think that it takes longer than a week to happen. I also believe that there are a LOT of people UNDEReating and that's why they aren't losing.
  • pelleld
    pelleld Posts: 363 Member
    Wow, I'm really surprised to hear people talking as though you would have fewer calories. You get that your goal would be about 2000 cals (for a woman), right? Not the close to 1200 goals that some people on here have.

    Not sure where you're getting 2000 calories for a woman. I'm at maintenance now and my calories are only 1410.
  • lupa01
    lupa01 Posts: 162 Member
    I haven't read the article but I think it may be the same one that I read last year, and that I did do and lost 25 pounds in four months, which was the most weight I had lost in years. I basically did the same thing that I'm doing now, which was keeping a journal, and I wanted to get to 135 pounds. I always thought the concept was a good one and makes perfect sense. I did not feel deprived, and I actually had more calories than I have now on MFP. The concept is really almost the same as MFP when you really think about it. So if you do it, you may as well stick with MFP in my opinion. I do, however, think that if you have to lose, let's say, over 100 pounds you should still start out with at least 1500-1800 calories, no matter where you are trying to be. But if you need to lose around 50, it is definitely doable.
  • ElizabethRoad
    ElizabethRoad Posts: 5,138 Member
    My maintenance for my current weight would be 1790. For the weight I want to be, 1700. A deficit of 90 calories per day would not get me there any time soon. And with such a small margin, it would be entirely possible to go over my calories by taking an extra bite of something. No thanks!
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,262 Member
    Wow, I'm really surprised to hear people talking as though you would have fewer calories. You get that your goal would be about 2000 cals (for a woman), right? Not the close to 1200 goals that some people on here have.

    Not sure where you're getting 2000 calories for a woman. I'm at maintenance now and my calories are only 1410.
    probably meant for the average women. To have your maintenance calories at 1410 your BMR would need to be under 1000 for small, which is not normal especially if someone actually exercises. there is always the exception of course, but i think 2000 is about right for an active young to middle aged woman.
  • SunshineKisses_2012
    SunshineKisses_2012 Posts: 471 Member
    Bump for later
  • anda2oo5
    anda2oo5 Posts: 77
    This is interesting, thank u for sharing!:wink:
  • jayme890
    jayme890 Posts: 2
    Thanks for posting this! A great way to reframe the way I think about weight loss.
  • sari_o
    sari_o Posts: 2
    I found that article very interesting. I've been stuck at the same weight for a couple of weeks now even though I've been staying within my recommended calorie intake. When I used a few other calorie calculators putting in my goal weight (15 lbs less than my current weight) and wanting to maintain that, it recommended 300-400 calories more than I'm eating now. So it makes me wonder....have I stopped losing weight because my body is getting too few calories? Or is that just wishful thinking? ;o)
  • kyle4jem
    kyle4jem Posts: 1,400 Member
    OP:
    I read an article that basically says you should eat for whatever weight you want to be. For example if you want to weigh 130 you should eat the calories that would be needed for a person to maintain 130 calories.
    Weirdly enough... having looked into nutrition and the science behind calorie consumption, I came to the conclusion that eating to my TDEE for my ultimate goal weight would be the best way to adopt a true lifestyle change, learn to eat within my calories and lose weight slowly and steadily and hopefully not leave me with too much loose skin to have to deal with.

    Currently my TDEE is 2288kc and according to MFP's calculations to lose 1.5lbs a week I should be consuming 1480kc. I have my lifestyle set as sedentary although I now exercise gently for at least 20-40mins every day, burning supposedly 300-400kc in the process. I rarely if ever eat back more than 50% of these bonus calories.

    According to Mifflin-St.Joer-method (the same used by MFP), my TDEE for my goal weight of 65kg is 1858kc (sedentary) or 2129 (lightly active). Now If I were to eat say 1800kc a day I'd still be about 500kc a day lighter than my current TDEE (before exercise) so that's still 1lb a week for about the next 6 months anyhow.

    That's why in the new year I'm planning to move into maintenance and eat to my goal weight. I'll probably struggle, because 1500kc seems to be my weekday average without feeling hungry or thinking that I'm missing out. Having 300 extra to play with might allow me a drink in the evenings which would be nice.

    Of course I'll have to be good in January to make up for the mega-fest that is Christmas/Hogmanay week :devil:
  • starrlight23
    starrlight23 Posts: 105 Member
    This is interesting. I think that I am going to try it since even going by what mfp says doesn't work for me
  • Ali_TSO
    Ali_TSO Posts: 1,172 Member
    So to get to 180, I need to be eating 2700 cals? Somehow I think that's wrong.... :)
  • shakybabe
    shakybabe Posts: 1,578 Member
    I want to be about 60kg that worked out at about 1800, I can't see how I'd lose on that. MFP has me at 1200.
  • _Peacebone_
    _Peacebone_ Posts: 229 Member
    I think that this makes total sense. It isn't about being on a diet. It is about a lifestyle change. If you eat for the weight you would like to be, the theory is you will slowly lose weight until you reach that point. It may take years, but eventually you'll reach your goal weight, and you won't have to change your eating habits to maintain the weight loss.

    Thanks for posting!
  • bopper
    bopper Posts: 352 Member
    I heard somewhere that if you want to weight 120 pounds then you should eat 1200 calories. So if you want to weight 130 pounds you eat 1300 calories. Sounds kind of crazy to me. I am on maintenance and my calories are around 1600.
  • Debadoo2018
    Debadoo2018 Posts: 38 Member
    I found that Debra Moorhead site when I was trying to figure out what calorie count I should use. I think it makes sense, but it is confusing because MFP had me at 1200 (which I thought was too low) and doing "what I want to weigh" had me at 1733 calories, which I thought was too high. I just picked something somewhat in the middle - 1400 - and seeing how this works.
  • psych101
    psych101 Posts: 1,842 Member
    If you're interested in this kind of concept then I would fully recommend the Fat2Fit Radio website and podcasts.
  • lupa01
    lupa01 Posts: 162 Member
    I haven't read the article but I think it may be the same one that I read last year, and that I did do and lost 25 pounds in four months, which was the most weight I had lost in years. I basically did the same thing that I'm doing now, which was keeping a journal, and I wanted to get to 135 pounds. I always thought the concept was a good one and makes perfect sense. I did not feel deprived, and I actually had more calories than I have now on MFP. The concept is really almost the same as MFP when you really think about it. So if you do it, you may as well stick with MFP in my opinion. I do, however, think that if you have to lose, let's say, over 100 pounds you should still start out with at least 1500-1800 calories, no matter where you are trying to be. But if you need to lose around 50, it is definitely doable.

    Ok, just read the article and it is NOT the one I read last year.lol The one I read stated that in order to determine the amount of calories for your ideal or goal weight is to multiply the number of pounds that you want to be by 100 and that is the number of calories that you need to eat. For example, a goal of 135 pounds would be 1350 calories a day, and that is what I did. So I stand corrected. Not sure I would want to do what this article is saying after all. Seems like it would be too many calories and that you would plateau very easily, imo.
  • pelleld
    pelleld Posts: 363 Member
    Wow, I'm really surprised to hear people talking as though you would have fewer calories. You get that your goal would be about 2000 cals (for a woman), right? Not the close to 1200 goals that some people on here have.

    Not sure where you're getting 2000 calories for a woman. I'm at maintenance now and my calories are only 1410.
    probably meant for the average women. To have your maintenance calories at 1410 your BMR would need to be under 1000 for small, which is not normal especially if someone actually exercises. there is always the exception of course, but i think 2000 is about right for an active young to middle aged woman.

    my BMR is 1122. I am 48 years old, 5'3" tall and weigh 115. According to mfp my maintenance cals are 1410, I get more if I exercise (which I do 6 days per week) and I do eat them back.
  • cah1255
    cah1255 Posts: 41 Member
    has anyone tried this yet? results??
  • martinabbi
    martinabbi Posts: 3
    Multiply your calories needed per day (from #2 above) by the following percentages, depending on your activity level:
    Light activity: 50% to 70%
    Moderate: 65% to 80%
    Heavy: 90% to 120%
    If you sit at a desk for your job, and workout 30 minutes per day, this would be light activity. If your job involves more motion and you are active in addition to your workout (you take stairs, walk to work, do alot of housework, etc.), this would be moderate. Heavy activity would be for construction workers, athletes, etc. Most Americans are in the "light activity" level.
    Say you weigh 150 pounds. Divide by 2.2 to get 68 kilograms.
    68 times 24 hours = 1632 calories needed per day for basic function.
    Let's say you're activity is light:
    1632 times 50% = 816
    1632 times 70% = 1142.
    _______________________________________________
    thecoupondoc
  • indigopurple
    indigopurple Posts: 4
    This is really interesting and makes a lot of sense to me. I think this is probably why plans such as slimming world which give you such a lot of freedom over healthy stuff still works. I can actually have 400 more calories a day to get down to what is a very low goal weight for me. I think I am going to give it a try.
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,364 Member
    Blah there's so much i don't understand yet. What's a (TDEE)? I see people talking nubers and %'s on here....but it's all gibberish. I just go to the gym and do my thing, and try to eat below what MFP says my calorie goals are. Now i'm wondering if I am doing the wrong thing, when I see these percentages and such,
This discussion has been closed.

Categories