Drifting down to goal... this is what I was told to do
 

We have 3 Dieticians at my job... I'm a RN who works in ICU through a Nursing agency.
Anyways, my friend Helen who is a very sweet lady tells me how great I look. I haven't worked for 2 weeks because my Mom was getting sick again and I decided to take some time off and see what I could do. So she sees me and says that I definitely look like I've lost more weight! I did... I had lost 5.5 lbs. in those past 2 weeks.

I tell Helen what I'm doing but after talking with all of you here on this Forum I realize that I would like another approach to losing weight. Her suggestion was get off of the Weight Watcher Plans totally and just count calories. What she said was interesting. She asked me my height, what I wanted to REALLY weigh and then she did her calc. Well, she says that I should eat what I need to eat to "Maintain" my weight in the future. She says why diet? Just let your weight drift down but exercise! If you get out and go to the gym in a year's time you should be at goal. That's in 80 lbs. I weighed today and lost a half pound. TOM will be here soon so I'm fine with any loss, trust me!

I was wondering if there is any calculator that does estimate how long it would take to achieve a weight loss counting calories. I think I might be ok with a year to get these 80 lbs. off if I really stick with it. As of today I have 55 lbs. off in 28 weeks.

I use DietPower for recording my food and exercise and their goal setter is all based on how much you want to lose and by what date. I am not sure of what type of calculator you are referring to other than doing the simple match that can be done in Excel.

I think your friends approach to some extent makes sense. All I can say is that weightloss is just not that simplistic. I wish it were as simple as setting a limit of say 1500 calories, sticking to it and being assured you will be at goal on a given date.

I have said it before but the weight will start coming off slower. Your body is going to be changing alot as you lose weight and it is far too soon to really know how your weightloss will progress. I would worry about today and take it one day at a time.

The one thing that I agree with your friend is there is no reason to set a higher calorie limit today and keep reducing it as you go. I have always gone with a more of a fixed number that I stay on throughout the diet. Not everyone agrees but it works for me.

Lori

Thank you for that website. I should have added that Helen is one of the 3 Dieticians btw. Yep, she says stick with the calories and get off of Weight Watchers. Her statement was backed by other patients she works with but she couldn't answer the length of time.

Thank you for this website which I will check out right now. If it answers my question I will tell my Dietician friends at work.

Has your friend Helen ever had to lose a substantial amount of weight? And what will you do if you find you aren't "drifting down"?

I'm not saying what she suggests won't work--just that sometimes things look simple "on paper" and turn out not to be satisfactory in real life.

Also, I'm a little confused about what she's suggesting. What does it mean to "eat what you need to eat to 'Maintain' your weight in the future"? If that means no special foods, no really heavy restrictions... well, that's what calorie counting is anyway. :) I assume you still need to have a target number of calories for the day... That's what "diet" means for me: Calorie restriction... In my own experience, exercise alone, without watching food intake, doesn't work.

Well, if you want to try what she suggests, why not? You'll know within a couple of months whether it's working for you. :)

Jay

I'm a bit confused as to what Helen is suggesting as well.

Any calculators on maintaining weight loss and weight LOSS in general are only estimates. There is no one or nothing that can tell us for SURE just how many calories we need in order to lose a certain amount of lbs per week. As is there is nothing to tell us for sure the amount of calories needed to maintain weight loss. It's all basically trial and error.

I'd have to agree with the terminology of why "diet". I mean you do plan on keeping the weight off forever. Therefore you want to find something that you can do forever - a lifestyle change - NOT some diet. Watching your calories for the long run IS a lifestyle change. Incorporating better eating habits IS a lifestyle change. NOT a diet, per se'.

But weight loss can only occur when you create a calorie DEFECIT. By either eating less then "normal" or moving more (LOTS more) or prefably - a COMBINATION of both.

I agree with Jay. I could exercise 24/7. There's only so much calories exercise could burn off. Unless of course you're running marathons everyday. If I don't monitor/restrict my calorie intake - then I just don't lose weight. Period.

My take on what her friend is saying is to determine the maintenance calories she would need at her goal weight and set that as the calorie limit today. The assumption is that this would be less than what she is eating today and create the necessary calorie deficit.

By using your future maintenance calories today you start developing the skills to live within that limit for a lifetime.

I am not sure whether we all agree if this makes sense or not but the one thing that I hear all of us saying is that weightloss is not that simplistic.

Ah, lorilove! That makes sense! I get it now (assuming that's what Helen meant).

That might work--but eventually the loss would slow down, I think. Also, metabolism isn't so simple--one person's maintenance level might be someone else's gain or loss level.

But, as I said, it won't hurt to try it!

Jay

I was very intrigued with the idea of eating what was stated as a range between 1600-1700 calories per day and what was told to me is that this is calculated per my body's frame size and height. Also, this is for a sedentary person so I asked to give me the worst scenario and this was the calculations I was given. Both Dieticians didn't like me going down to 1200 calories thinking the energy level will drop, the fatigue feeling will set in and also that I couldn't do this long term. I was asking for permanent calories to sustain a 120-125 lb. perm. weight. What a different way to attempt to lose weight I thought.

I think the number of calories sounds good and the basis for how it was calculated makes sense. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

I just think the idea that you set the calories today and this will be the solution for the next xx months until you lose 80lbs is oversimplifying what may or may not happen during your weightloss journey.

I say follow what has been recommended to you and focus on you plan today taking it one day at a time.

Lori

This is exactly how my doctor (who specializes in weight loss) has counseled me and so it is also what I am doing. It makes so much sense to me now and I wish I had thought to do this before. I have been great at losing weight during my lifetime, but horrible at maintaining it. It never became a lifestyle. This method is producing a lifestyle for me -- one I can maintain. It just makes sense.

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes!

I agree with lorilove that weight loss isn't that simple--and also, I think that weight loss will tend to slow, and daily calories may need to be adjusted. But try it! The worst that can happen is that it won't work, and then you just try something else. :yes:

Jay

My understanding is that your friend is saying eat whatever your maintenance calories would be if you didn't exercise. Then, when you add exercise, you'll be creating a deficit. In theory it works (calories out > calories in), but for me personally I've found that I really need to watch what I eat no matter how much I exercise.

There used to be some posters here who did this, I can't remember who. They were following a book called Calorie Queens: Living Thin In A Fat World, written by Jackie Scott and Diane Scott Kellum. I don't see anything wrong with doing that. At you current weight, you will automatically be creating a deficit if you eat at the calorie level you would need to maintain at your goal weight. When you get closer to your goal, you won't be creating a very big deficit, so you should expect weight loss to slow to a crawl at that point, but you can worry about that and tweak then if you need to.

All in all, it's just plain old calorie counting, which we all know works. You may be eating at a higher calorie level than many of us, which would mean a slower weight loss, but most of us have to do some trial and error to find the right calorie level to lose at anyway.

Good luck.

I agree with the others - it will work, but you may want to keep a log and tweak the calorie count as needed. One of my greatest frustrations as a calorie counter has been that I WANT it to be simple science and math. I WANT to be able to say, "if I just stick to my plan of 1400 calories, and exercise 5 hrs per week, I will lose 2 lbs. per week". All the math and science say that this will happen. But, the reality is - our bodies are much more complex and science doesn't have all the answers. Some weeks I do lose those 2 lbs. Other weeks, I don't lose anything. But, since this is a lifestyle change and not a diet, I don't get upset like I did in the past when the scale doesn't budge. So it takes me longer to get to my goal. In the scheme of things, an extra month, six months, or even a year doesn't really matter.

Changing to healthy habits and eating healthfully for the rest of my life is the real goal.
I think I need to embroider that on a pillow ;)

Yes...in fact I have just had to raise my calorie level because I was feeling a bit too hungry and exercising more than we originally thought I would. I think this is true for any health plan. The thing I like about this idea (eating/exercising the same way you will have to eat/exercise once you are maintaining) is that it trains me to eat/exercise the way I will need to for the rest of my life. Hopefully, this means that I will have an easier time in maintenance than I might have otherwise.

I love the idea, I often wonder why doctors suggest a 500 less than you goal weight to lose anyway? What is the hurry?

Why not just eat at what it takes to maintain? If I eat a caloric level of an 185 person, and get active I will "drift down" to 185 pounds. I believe this isn't recommended because it's a slower process and most people don't have the patience to do it like that.

I bet that people wouldn't be as hungry on their programs, I bet most people could actually stick to such a calorie level because they will have to keep the weight off anyway. Of course it wouldn't be for everyone, but it's a approach that could really "cure" the obesity problem in this country in my opinion. :)

I think this is a great idea, you just have to be willing to be patient...and the last 10 lbs would take a looooooooong time.

The benefits of this is you would probably lose less muscle than a lot of people do who create a larger deficit. But the truth is you will have to adjust based on your activity level and your bodyfat %. How you eat will also make a difference.

I think it is a great place to start though. One of the most concerning things I have seen on here is people who are very overweight STARTING at 1200 calories...you have no where to go after that. My philosophy is eat as much as you can to still lose SOME weight and take it nice and slow.

OK - to try and answer your original question VERY ROUGHLY taking one calculator and some estimates....lets say you ate 1700 cals a day on a sedentary lifestyle (what about.com thinks would maintain you at 150lbs)

Right now 230 lbs without exercise you would lose about 0.87 lbs/week - add exercise and this is a very reasonable rate of loss...if you are active at work which as a nurse I think you must be and I could easily see you losing 1-2 lbs a week
at 200 lbs ..0.54/wk
at 175lbs.. 0.27
at 160lbs..0.11
at 155lbs..0.06
at 151lbs..0.01/wk ( in otherwords to lose that last 1 lb would take almost 2 years WITHOUT exercise - but fortunately we have exercise!)

In reality no one is going to eat precisely 1700 every single day and burn precisely the same calories every single day

I always liked caloriesperhour.com to calculate how much time it would take to lose weight and stuff like that, they have lots of nice little calculators

losing weight slowly is the best way.. but most of us dont want to wait that long lol. Losing weight slowly almost guarantees you wont gain it back, whereas losing it quickly you run a high risk of putting those pounds back on... I unfortunately learned that the hard way :(

From my reading and hearing others' experiences and talking to doctors and all that good stuff (you learn a lot about diet and nutrition and such when you've been overweight since about age 5 and obese for your entire adult life), those who have been overweight and then lost weight typically require fewer calories to maintain the same weight as those who were never overweight at all. That is, if 2 women (let's make them identical twins, so same build, same height, same genes, all that jazz) both weigh 150 pounds, but one has never weighed more than that while the other used to weigh 250 and lost 100 pounds, the one who lost the 100 pounds will have a lower maintenance calorie level than the one who never weighed more. So if you're eating at the suggested maintenance level of someone who hasn't lost any weight to reach that point, then it's likely not a low enough calorie level for you to actually reach that weight (unless you do a lot of weight training and build up a lot of muscle, which is difficult for most women to do).

I hope that all makes sense :dizzy:

I think we are basically all saying the same thing. The actual number of calories for you to successfully lose weight and then to maintain is going to be personal to you. There are lots of estimates and guidelines that we can give but in the end you will need to work with this number to find out what is successful for you. This number may also change over the course of your weightloss journey.

You have to start somewhere and the formula that has been provided you is at least a reasonable place to start. Just don't get so fixated on this number that this is the only solution. It may work for the full 80lbs and then it may not.

There is no possible way to tell today. Best of luck.

Lori

It seems like this equation can give you a good jumping off point. The word choice 'drift' is a strange one though, in my opinion. Reducing calories and sticking with it, whether or not you call that a diet (I don't like to either), takes planning and effort - it's an active thing. 'Drift' is so passive! Usually we've been 'drifting' with not so favorable results before we start paying attention and taking charge of our health.

Whatever you choose to do, and whatever you choose to call it, good journey to you! The time to start is now!

Jill - your post is absolutely fascinating! I've never heard that before. Do you have any links to where I can learn more about that?

Scenestealer, I posted about the slowed metabolism of reduced obese people here: Some Answers About Genes, Environment, Obesity and Maintenance. In a nutshell, a large weight loss results in a reduced metabolism due to lowered levels of leptin and other hormones. Our bodies conserve energy in an attempt to return to the status quo of what we used to weigh.

In practical terms, it means that I burn about 20% fewer calories than another woman of my weight, height, and age when I'm at the gym, even if we do the exact same workout.

A good book that discusses the science of obesity (and why maintenance is so challenging) is Rethinking Thin by Gina Kolata, New York Times science writer.

Thanks so much, Meg! Your post was really fascinating, and I am definitely going to look for that book.

Even still, if I was to believe that ex fat people needed fewer calories to keep the weight off said ex fat person would still have a certain caloric level to maintain your weight loss. I still believe whatever that is it's a good caloric level to shoot for. Said ex fat person would have to get use to it anyway.

One more thing, I will have to see some hard and strong studies to believe the x fat people need fewer calories.

I believe keeping the weight off is hard because people go back to their old eating habits, and/or eat too much of the good stuff. Another reason could be they ruined their metabolism through excessive calorie chopping during their weight loss and their bodies can't wait to get some food to build back up their stores.

My mind can be changed but it'll take some strong evidence. I hope to do my own study when I get to goal weight. ;)

kimmieone, the article by Meg and the book she recommends do contain some scientifically investigated stuff about this. :)

My personal belief is that metabolism can be changed with regular, consistent exercise/activity to build muscle, endurance, stamina, etc. But I don't think there are any studies about this... not that I know of, I should say.

Jay

Jay, I don't know of any studies about building muscle to increase metabolism either, but I have my personal experience, for what it's worth. Right after I finished my year of weight loss, I had my RMR tested and it was 1395. After a year of intense weight training, I was retested and my RMR was 1600. Muscle rocks! :carrot:

Interesting, there are clinical trials underway to see if leptin injections can work to reverse the metabolic slowdown caused by weight loss. The theory is that if reduced leptin levels cause the slowdown, then perhaps leptin supplementation will counter it. I don't know of any results being reported yet.

kimmie -- I'm another who also likes to see good, solid evidence. But the problem is that there aren't a lot of great studies out there that have been done on people. Science just takes so darn long!!

But the work done on the biochemical side to date is very interesting. You state that people gain the weight back predominantly because they go back to old habits. I agree. The question is WHY do people go back to old habits? Some of the work on our biochemistries suggests that formerly obese people have different chemical makeups. For instance our levels of leptin may tend to be lower, making us feel more hungry and less satisfied with the food we eat! So, we may go back to old habits in part because our bodies "encourage" it.

Of course it's much more complicated than one hormone or chemical. And frankly, it's somewhat depressing. But it's also fascinating!!!

I tried to post here yesterday, but got kicked out of the site. Anyway, what I was going to say is this:

Last Jan. I made a goal to lose 45 lbs. by my 45th birthday, I didn't make that goal, but I did succeed at getting 25 lbs. off and keeping it off. I've made this years goal to be 146 by my 46th, but most importantly to maintain if I get there before then.

I think losing weight slowly is the best way, even though we all want to lose it as quickly as possible. DH and I have made exercise a regular part of our routine and eating healthier, we're not saints, but I think learning to get back on track after slipping away from your healthy plan is a big part of learning to maintain.

Let's face it, we can lose the weight, keeping it off is the challenge. I can see where "drifting" to your goal weight has merit. I also believe incorporating exercise/activity into your daily life, making it a habit is huge.

I agree, but again, just subjectively. I USED to struggle to lose weight on 1800 calories a day and now I seem to lose weight on 2000-2100, but I never had my metabolism tested on either end.

What a fascinating conversation! I like the idea of using 'maintenance calories' to reach goal weight, but also think that the weight loss is probably slower. It's definitely something I am willing to try though.

As for the lowered RMR after a big weight loss - it probably depends on the individual. MEG definitely has something right though - more exercise = more muscle = higher RMR.

Hope to see you all around on the 2008 threads.

This is fascinating! Thanks for posting a link to your article Meg. Your story and pictures are also inspiring!

Yes, thank you, lorilove.

People, if you want to weight 150 you need 12* (I'll explain in a moment) calories per pound to maintain your weight of 150. Therefore you would need 1800 calories per day to maintain a weight of 150 (12x150=1800).

*In my calorie counting book it says to figure out how many calories you need to maintain a weight by the amount of activity you do in a day:

Sedintary: 10 calories per pound
Moderate active: 12 cals per pound
Very active: 14 cals per pound.

Hey! :wave:

As with most numbers like this, they are based on averages and therefore won't work for everyone. The best way to find out what your maintenance level is is experience--if you are eating 1800 cals a day and gaining, then you know in your case that's the wrong number. :)

At my age and activity level, my maintenance calories are right around 1600 if I don't exercise.

Jay

I love DietPower and FitDay :)