I haven't adjusted my target calories though I've lost 45 pounds, have been nursing less and started exercising. So, the other day, I poked around to figure it out again. According to the powers that be, at goal, I should be able to consume 2007 calories if I'm moderately active (which seems to best fit me). My daily calorie intake has been in the 1600-1700 range recently. Even over the course of my entire diet, I've only averaged 1771. This got me to wondering if I could flip this formula and see what my intake and activity level would translate into for weight. For my height and a moderate activity level, 1771 calories translates into 106 pounds! That's 20 pounds UNDERWEIGHT! To get UP to 126 pounds (the minimum for my height), I'll need to take in nearly 1900 calories. I've been pretty happy with how I've been eating, but it looks like I may have to increase my calories to keep from becoming too thin! Has anyone else seen this?

One thing that continues to amaze me is how a few calories can translate into so many pounds. When I first started this journey, I figured out that a measly 150 calories (one glass of milk, one soda, one snack!) was all that separated my starting and goal weights!

I think you're probably misinterpreting the data.

The way you lose weight is to eat fewer calories than your maintenance weight. That doesn't mean that the amount of calories you're eating now should be your NEW maintenance calories.

In other words, just because you are currently eating 1600 calories to lose, it doesn't mean you have to continue to eat 1600 calories for the rest of your life and live 20lbs underweight.

It means when you reach your goal (or get close to your goal), you start adding back calories slowly to get to your *new* maintenance weight.

For example:
At my current weight, my maintenance calories are 1907.
At my goal weight, my maintenance calories will be 1685.
Currently to lose, I'm eating 1500.
(and remember, all of these numbers are estimates because we're all different)

If I were to get to a place where my maintenance calories were 1500, then I'd have to weigh less than 100 pounds, which is obviously not healthy. But I'm not going to eat 1500 calories for the rest of my life. When I'm close to my goal weight, I'll start adding back calories until I'm around 1700 and can maintain at my goal weight.

.

2007 calories for a nursing Mom actually seems kind of low to me. Does your calculation take that into account? I remember when I did Weight Watchers while nursing I always got to add 10 points and I still lost weight.

La Leche League and other breastfeeding information usually recommends that you take in NO LESS than 1800 per day. So, if she is eating 1771 per day, and was nursing full time (the baby not on any solid food) it would burn approximately 500 calories a day.

That would be like a NON-nursing mom eating 1271 per day losing weight.



In WW, they DO add 10 Points, which equals out to about 500 extra calories to whatever level of Points would normally having you lose weight.

When I was nursing, I ate about 2000 a day...when I would have normally been on about 1500 at that point if I hadn't been nursing.

Oh, ok - that makes sense. I sure did love having those extra 10 points/500 calories when I was nursing

As to the question about nursing, my milk supply has remained ample throughout. Early on, I was still doing some pumping, so I'm quite sure of the volume! Some women can eat anything and be thin. Me, I could nurse a day care center. I have at least 160 ounces frozen in the freezer from overflow when I was pumping JUST when I missed the occasional nursing session. As I'm a stay-at-home mom, that wasn't frequent. With my first, I still worked full-time, so was pumping twice per day at work. My frozen supply got to over 300 ounces before I just stopped pumping as much! Nursing my children would be of first importance. I'm still doing it though my son is well past a year now. I nursed my daughter until about 20 months. Neither child has ever had an ounce of formula. DS still hasn't had any cows milk, though he gets some water and juice now. So, somehow, the 1771 calories were sufficient for me. I think I averaged a little higher early on, probably closer to that 1800 minimum. My first priority was ensuring my supply remained sufficient. It did, so I stuck with those levels.

PhotoChick - I'm pretty happy with eating at the levels I've been eating at. I eat a variety of fairly normal foods and even have some splurges. So, I'm thinking I'd be perfectly happy eating at these levels indefinitely. But, according to the charts, doing so would make me 106 pounds! I don't want to be 106 pounds! If I naturally ended up at 126 pounds - the minimum for "normal" for me - that I could live with, though it's not a goal. But, 106 pounds would be yucky!

Heheh. I can understand that. But really the difference between 1700 calories and 1900 calories is pretty small. It's a tablespoon of peanut butter everyday. Or a cup of coffee with cream. Or a small latte.

I would suspect that you won't have a problem finding 200 - 250 calories or so to add back without making you feel like you're having to revamp your eating all over again.

.

Actually, a tablespoon of regular peanut butter is only 95 calories, so you could have that on 1/2 large banana for the 200 calories. Makes a big difference to the tummy.

Ooops. You're right.

.