mainenance calories
 

I know this has been part of discussions regularly so apologize for recycling a topic. I started seeing a new doctor last week (I call her the witch doctor because she's a naturopath. then again I have a weird sense of humor ;) ) and she was concerned about my calorie intake vs. exercise. She thinks I should still be losing (I'm not trying to) but I'm not. I think, based on everything I've read here and elsewhere, including Thin for Life, that maintenance after a lifetime of obesity has its own rules that are different than for someone who has never been seriously overweight.

My daily caloric intake is between 1300 - 1500 and I get at least an hour of cardio in at least 5 days a week, at least one 90 min. yoga class, work with hand weights, and some targeted stretching/strengthening for my back & abs. At that level I maintain. If I change either of those things I gain (I learned that the hard way by regaining 6 lbs in the fall).

What do other maintainers do?

Cyndi, do you mean she thinks you should be losing more weight, that you're not at a healthy weight? Or does she think that you should be losing more weight based on your calorie and exercise levels? I think you mean the latter.

I do think the once obese (as I was, morbildy obese in fact) have a whole different set of rules, then non-obese folks. Meg's got a great sticky on it in fact. Explains perfectly why we're different. How our bodies are just WAITING to pack those pounds right back on. Righ back. I'll search for it.

I have to keep my calories waaay down, not even 1400 calories, in order to just MAINTAIN my loss. Much less then other folks are eating. While still frequently exercising. I hear of people maintaining on 1800 calories, 2000 or even higher. Sadly, this is not the case with me.


I'm glad that this woman *thinks* you should still be losing. But you have proven that to not be the case. And I think it's perfectly "normal" for YOU. And YOU is all that matters here. No one can tell anyone what one should or should be losing at or maintaining at. We've said it dozens of times, "we are all experiments of one". As we all know, we've got to figure out the "correct" numbers all on our lonesome. Which is what you have apparently done!

One thing though, you may want to increase your strength training. Adding muscle will allow you to burn more calories, and therefore consume more calories. And look sleeker while doing so. :strong:

Yup, maintenance calories for a "reduced obese" person don't follow the rules. Our active metabolisms (the calories we burn through activity, exercise, and everyday living) are about 20% lower than a person of the same height, weight, age, and gender who was never overweight due to our different biochemical/hormonal status. There's a lot of discussion about the science of weight loss and metabolism in Gina Kolata's Rethinking Thin and we had a book discussion about it in the Maintenance Library if anyone's interested. :)

In a nutshell, it means that the person next to us on the treadmill is burning more calories than we are, even if we're putting in exactly the same effort. It stinks, but what can we do? :p

The average maintenance calories for members of the National Weight Control Registry are about 1400, with an hour of daily exercise. That's an average and of course, there's a lot of individual variation. And we sure see that here in the Maintainers forum! I think there's probably a 1000 calorie range that our members are maintaining in. :dizzy: No wonder there aren't any "rules" about maintenance!

For me personally, I maintain on about 1400 calories and 90 minutes of daily exercise, divided between cardio and weightlifting. Like you, I most definitely gain if I increase my calories or decrease my exercise, as I've learned the hard way over the past seven years. But I'm 54, post-menopausal, and hypothyroid, so I probably tend toward the lower end of the maintenance calorie range.

ETA: just read Robin's post -- this is the sticky she's talking about: Some Answers About Genes, Environment, Obesity and Maintenance

Robin - She's reading it as an indicator that something may be off somewhere. I do use hand weights, usually 5 lbs but am hesitant to add more because of a few bad disks that I don't want to annoy. I'm all about the muscles these days and occasionally get caught admiring them :o I'm still experiencing a sense of awe about my body - the way it looks, what it can do - it just amazes me.

Thanks for the feedback. I knew I had researched this all thoroughly when I started but wanted to verify with the experts :)

I think your experience is similar to the experiences of other formerly obese people. Doesn't mean something is off, but I would be interested to hear what she thinks might be "off". You have found what works for you, it sounds like. Keep us updated, if you don't mind.

Cyndi, Meg was kind of enough to find that sticky. Read it. My mouth hung open when I first read it. VERY interesting.

Yeah, there's nothing *off* about it. Thems just the facts. Yay us!!! We get to consume less. Oh well, it's worth it. ANYthing is better then being obese gain.

It is kinda sad though, that the medical profession is not aware of these factors. We really are on our own. Just one more reason I am so grateful to 3FC.

I'm with you on admiring those muscles. Oh how I love them! I feel the same way about my body - how it looks and what it can do - amazing to me. Simply amazing. So yes, lower calories and all - so be it. :D

You know, I must say I was shocked when I first started reading the maintenance forum here (I've been mostly a lurker for a long time :D). Technically, I've never been obese (though almost) and I'm able to maintain at about 2000 calories a day and no exercise (uh... not that I'm proud of that part). I lost 37 pounds 13 years ago, maintained for 5 years, regained about 12 and have maintained for almost 8 years. But when I regained those 12 I was eating like a cow, way more than 2000 a day. I've been trying unsuccessfully to lose those 12 pounds for years. I feel like a huge whiner every time I come to this forum because these amazing ladies are working way harder than me just to maintain.

The sad reality is that there are very few of us "reduced obese" and even fewer studies done about us. After I lost my weight, I had all sorts of questions for my PCP ranging from excess skin to metabolism. She apologetically couldn't answer a one of them. I was and am her ONLY patient to have lost this much weight, let alone kept it off. She now routinely recommends that her obese patients have WLS because she's given up on trying to convince them to lose weight with diet and exercise. How sad is that?

Meg, this is exactly the case with me. I also had lots of questions, she was not able to answer a one of them. In fact, now, she asks ME questions.

My doctor actually told me that she didn't think it was possible for me to get off all the weight that I needed to without surgery. Not possible? Not possible? It saddens me and angers me.

I weighed 200 lbs at my highest weight. For about 3 years I maintained at around 1800 calories a day (plus a weekly treat meal) with no exercise. I am glad I enjoyed those 3 years, because I think now that I'm 39 that fun ride is ov-ah! For the last year, for the first time I've struggled with 5-7 lbs I've never had to really fight before. I've now added exercise to try to get back under my goal weight of 130.

My doctor also thinks I should be wasting away on what I eat and the amount of exercise I do. She routinely explains STARVATION MODE to me (hahahah!) and I routinely explain that I'm NOT starving on 1350-1450 calories, that is my maintenance range with a lot of cardio and weight training. Like Meg, after nearly seven years, I'm quite sure that I gain on more food or less exercise. The sad fact is that as I get older, that number gets a little lower every year. And my body has hit the point where I can't really increase the amount or intensity of the exercise without injury :( BTW, my doctor is female, 38 years old, 5'11" and thin.

Mel

Wow how fascinating. I didn't know that. Do you think this would still apply if you lost weight at a young age (say, younger than 25) and were only 'obese' by about 3 or 4 pounds before slimming down, Meg?

I like to think of it with a positive slant. We are the true Energizer Bunnies. We can keep going and going and going while those never-obese folks are fainting because they have run out of fuel. :D And if there ever is a food shortage, we've got it made!

Jay

Mazza, I don't know but it's a good question. I'm not sure it's ever been studied?

I know from reading Rethinking Thin and various studies that our bodies have about a 30-40 pound weight range that they feel comfortable in -- - what we usually call our "set points". It seems that we can manipulate our weight within this 30-40 pound range fairly easily, but when we try to go outside this comfort zone, our bodies tend to fight back with increased appetite and decreased metabolism, all based on biochemical and hormonal cues. Our bodies try to defend their weight and return to their norm, which works great in times of famine but not so good for those of us trying to achieve a healthy weight today.

There's no doubt in my mind that my body would be quite comfortable at 250 pounds and would like very much to go back there. Ironically, it's not normal for my body to be a "normal" weight! Which is why I need to exercise more and eat fewer calories than a never-obese person to maintain my current weight.

Obviously this is an area that's crying out for more research. The complexities of obesity and the roles of genes and environment have only begun to be unraveled.

Mazza, I was almost what you're describing. I lost weight when I was 25/26 and I was 5 pounds below "obese". That doesn't apply to my case.

Wow, that big a range? I thought for me it was more like 10-15. This is interesting.

I maintain at about 1400 calories, I can occaisionly have a treat, but still have to watch those darn calories.

Clara, there's a good discussion of weight ranges in Rethinking Thin. I highly recommend the book, though it's somewhat depressing in its conclusions for weight loss and maintenance. However, better to know what we're facing than to be ignorant and caught off guard, IMO.

This topic was recently discussed in a New York Times article titled For the Overweight, Bad Advice by the Spoonful, written by Gina Kolata, author of Rethinking Thin:

When we seek to lose and maintain a weight loss outside of our weight ranges, we're fighting Mother Nature, plain and simple. And our bodies have a vast arsenal of hormonal and biochemical weapons to keep us fat. I think we've all experienced how shockingly fast we can regain weight with only a slight calorie increase. For many of us, a regained pound is a lot less than the 3500 calories that's supposed to be a diet truism.This is why permanent weight loss is never "EZ, Quik, and Painless" and why it's a battle we'll be fighting for the rest of our lives.

BUT ...

I know everyone here will agree with me that the rewards of weight loss are totally, 100% worth every bit of planning and effort! I may be fighting Mother Nature -- but I'm winning! :D

I lost my weight at 29 a couple years ago and I maintain at 2000-ish calories with only walking as my exercise. Of course, the holidays gave me problems, but I know I was eating way more than 2000 cals. I'm still getting the hang of this.

That said, I'm sure I'll have to drop my calories and add in some light weight training once I get over 40.

I may not be the "norm", but I don't feel I'm fighting my body. My holiday weight gain was due to some mild depression I was fighting then. Now that I'm on the other side of that the weight has come off fairly easily. I'm not bragging here, but I think that nothing (even scientific research) is 100% true for everyone.

Perhaps, part of it is that my goal weight is not very low? I'm not skinny by any means, but I'm comfortable with my body at this weight and it's within a healthy range.

Zenor, there's so much that we don't know about obesity and science is only beginning to piece the very complicated picture together. We who are living it probably know a lot more than most doctors and scientists! But there are many, many unanswered questions. And, of course, individual variance! :)

But something has to be going on -- something biological, within our bodies. We have over 85,000 registered members here at 3FC and Suzanne 3FC tells me that the average member needs to lose 100 pounds. How many succeed? And of that number, how many can maintain that loss? The numbers are very small, perhaps only in the dozens.

So what are we to make of it? Are we weak-willed, lazy, ignorant, and lack self-discipline? I don't buy it. We have a forum full of intelligent and insightful women with tremendous character and strength. Does someone who has the motivation and strength to lose 100 pounds suddenly become unmotivated and weak when it's time to maintain? Or are we dealing with complex biological issues that affect our bodies in ways we're only beginning to understand?

Unfortunately, it seems like we're the orphans of the medical and scientific communities, at a time in which obesity is becoming epidemic. It seems like doctors have thrown up their hands and are sending their patients for weight loss surgery as a first resort. And too little research is being done into the causes and cures for obesity. So far as I know, the National Weight Control Registry is the only on-going study of successful maintainers. I've often said that someone ought to come study us for some real answers!

Many questions, too few answers.

Good heavens, I certainly do go on, don't I? :lol:

Cyndi, are you 136 now? I am just making sure I reading your stats correctly. I eat 1500 a day, run three miles every day and do 30DS about 3 days a week. I am still losing but VERY slowly. I know I should reduce my calories if I want to be pencil thin--probably to 1200. I think your calorie intake and your exercise regimen sound spot on as to what is to be expected.

Do you suppose that these realities are why so many of us can't follow "intuitive eating"? There is tremendous emphasis nowadays on listening to "the wisdom of the body" and "stop when you don't feel hungry anymore" and "eat only as much as your body needs". I've read quite a few people here, though, say that try as they might they can't follow that dictum. Do you suppose they actually are able to follow it, but that their bodies honestly are telling them to eat that much, to keep their bodies that large? Just a thought...but interesting to contemplate.

Thanks to everyone for your insight, experience & thoughts about this. It really validates the reading I did (much of it here) while losing to prepare for maintenance. I will pull some of this information to share with my doctor. Maybe she will be prepared the next time someone comes in with a similar issue.

I discovered this fall that it's harder to re-lose those 6 lbs than it was the first time. So I do what I know I need to do and I'm fit and healthy and have no complaints. I would choose my life now over the way I was two years ago ANY DAY!

At the risk of being controversial (and potentially hijacking a perfectly good thread, for which I apologize in advance), I guess I have trouble believing that so many of us are "set" to be morbidly obese. Overweight, sure, I'd buy that, an extra 20 pounds or so has a definitely advantage in a paleolithic sense. But at 100 extra pounds, a hypothetical paleolithic soccer mom is toast. Tasty sabertooth tiger food. Personally, I could barely waddle myself around the block when I was 289.

So what gives? Frankenfoods? Improved mass marketing that is next to irresistible and overwhelming to our primitive brain? Cities that are unsafe to walk in, neighborhoods with garage doors on the houses instead of doors for actual people? I just find it extraordinary that we think it is normal that we eat bags of chips and cookies, 2000 calorie restaurant meals, never get any exercise whatsoever, and think morbid obesity is a normal set point. Our collective biology hasn't changed at all in the last century, but our "set points" sure have. Something else is going on. Personally, I have no ideas what the causative agents are, and which are just along for the ride.

Any thoughts?

Anne

I love the image of the paleolithic soccer mom. :lol:

I blame the food, mostly. Cheap, calorie-filled but nutrient poor, mass produced, processed, etc.

I think I posted this last summer after I went to a conference, but one of the speakers was talking about the obesity epidemic. He stated that our biggest premodern stress was perpetual threatened famine and so it is wired into us to fear famine. Modern folks (well, those of us in developed countries with reasonable resources anyway) experience stress of a different kind but our bodies read the relief of that stress to be munching.

I guess it is a combination of the food and lack of movement. I find it humerous that I pay money to go lift and push heavy stuff, when my great-great-great-grandmother likely lifted and pushed heavy stuff as a matter of course. Our bodies are meant to be active beings, but we have convenientized our world in ways that kills our health.

Don't get me wrong---I'm glad to have a car, washing machine, dishwasher, computer :love:, antibiotics, surgeries and MRIs.

Who has seen Wall-E? I'm actually a little surprised that there hasn't been a thread on Wall-E, or if there was I missed it. But I was really struck by the state of the humans on the ship (and the state of the earth left behind) but I also fear that those producers might have ESP. America, as a nation, is eating and consuming itself to poor health---physical, emotional and environmental.

Now I'm going to be a little controversial (yes, really!). I think that America is at a serious crossroads. We want to be fiercely independant people, yet we also want to be taken care of. Can we have it both ways? I don't know.... How do we marry personal independance and a culture of social responsibility?

DH and I had a good-natured arguement about this last week. He was horrified at some of the calorie counts of certain menu items and said "It should be illegal to sell a single dinner item that has more than 1800 calories." Now, I think he was just horrified.

But my position was, "Why? Illegal, really? It is an individual's choice to eat it or not eat it and how do we know if someone is eating it after a marathon or whatnot?"

How do you legislate common sense? There is a bill in my state legislature right now to ban texting while you are driving. I am stunned that anyone would be stupid enough to text while they drive. But I guess some people do.

Coming from a public health perspective, I believe you educate people, give them tools and then....cross your fingers? Legislate? Regulate? Say do what you're gonna do but pay for your own health care?

Heck if I know!

I can see, maybe, the argument that poor food quality can make people gain and change set points. But what about the maintainers who eat clean, unprocessed, mostly whole foods, and STILL have bodies that, were they to eat intuitively, would put them at an unhealthfully obese weight? Do we have to start looking at things like soil quality, animal feed, etc?

Meg, I was just reading some reviews of that book on amazon and omg, I'm glad I'd never heard of it before I tried to lose weight or I might not have even tried! It sounds so pessimistic (realistic?). Anyway, thanks for the recommendation.

Yes! My body wants me to eat more. I try to eat around 1400 per day, but realistically it's ending up around 1500-1600 because when my stomach growls, I eat. I am more than willing to have really slow weight loss if it means that I can eat more at maintenance by doing it this way.

My body wants to be bigger, I think. Although I wonder if my set point might be changing. I seem to hover around 140 now without too much effort. Maybe there are several set points, and that is where we plateau. I had one around 225, then 200, then 175. Those were specific weights that I had an enormously difficult time crossing and staying below. But once I got low enough under them, then the weight loss proceeded as before.

Just my 2 cents here. I think it's easy for people with ten or fifteen pounds to lose, and never more than that, to advocate intuitive eating. I think once someone is beyond a certain point with weight gain, learning how to eat intuitively is just not going to be the best approach. I don't have any data, though. :dunno:

wndranne, I think any 289 pound paleolithic soccer moms did get eaten. But there aren't any large predators of that sort around now. Besides, we have to get to the neolithic period, once agriculture is just beginning, to start seeing statues of really large women, like those on Malta and in Turkey. Agriculture brought with it a surplus of food, especially grains.

midwife, if you've been educated in public health, I'm sure you find that people are incredibly frustrating to work with. Think of how many young people start smoking and continue to smoke, in spite of a total blitz of information about the dangers... You can talk until you're blue in the face... And just have to hope that a few of them will listen!

Jay

And even then they were women in the ruling classes - those that didn't have to work their behinds off just to stay alive. :)

On that note, I'm off to the gym to do my fleeing from the sabertooth tiger..... :lol:

Nothing new to add - I found Rethinking Thin very eye-opening when I read it (about half-way through my weightloss journey). It made me more determined than ever to change my lifestyle in such a way that I would lose this weight for good. I maintain on about 45-60 minutes of exercise 6-7 times per week and about 1500 calories. That being said - I have a sedentary job and I am post-menopause (51 years old). I have been overweight most of my adult life and my most recent loss is 93 lbs.

Eating clean is my saving grace - I can eat plenty of high-quality foods and still stay within my calorie limit for the day.

I loved Jay's analogy of the Energizer Bunny - while I occasionally get in a funk about being "different", I really feel blessed that I can eat 1500 calories and still maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle. Unlike other addictions - I get to eat (within limits) and can truly ENJOY food! I think calorie counting was a true life saver for me - no foods are forbidden, just must be consumed within certain parameters.
Anne (wndranne) posted a quote that has become my "mantra" through this process - "I figure I can eat (1) anything I want, (2) as often as I want, and (3) in whatever quantity I want. But I only get to pick two of these three if I want to manage my weight, and more importantly, my health."

I personally think it's probably a multitude of factors. I don't think science has even scratched the surface.

I think that it is probably both our food supply and genetic wiring. This is completely anecdotal, but I have a friend who spent a lot of time in Austria. Austrians are very particular about their food and how it is grown/raised. Their food supply is very pure (according to my friend.) My friend said that while she was there, she lost weight eating foods heavy in cheese, butter, carbs, etc. (many of the things we are lead to think are bad.) She attributes it to the fact that she had no cravings while there. She thinks that if your food is that pure, your body doesn't crave more because it's getting the nutrients it needs from this pure food. Just a thought. I'm sure that's not the entire picture, but I'm sure no one would disagree that our food supply is tainted in many ways in the US.

So, I have never fallen into the obese range in my life...just overweight, and I really haven't done very much yo-yoing. I lost 50 pounds once before, kept it off for four years and put it back on slowly during and after three babies...now, after that third baby has been weaned, I have lost 50 pounds again. I found that I did not have much difficulty getting it off, and I seem to be able to maintain on about 1800-1900 a day with an hour or so of exercise 5 days a week. I had assumed that my "luck" was due to carrying a pretty high percentage of lean muscle mass...naturally I think, although obviously I've built some too. Perhaps, however, it is more due to not yo-yoing much and to not having quite hit obese. This thread is very interesting...

I did find one unusual thing...I do seem to have very specific set points. 182, where I started this time, is definitely one...I was eating A LOT, but I seemed to just sit there...and last time I lost 50 lbs. that is where I was sitting ten years ago as well. 155 was another one...it is the only "plateau" I had during my weight loss...both times I lost...and I remember sitting there between babies as well...I wasn't dieting, but I naturally lost to about that point with the first two kids...not so much on kid number three. :) The most interesting set point, however, was this last one...I actually tried to stop losing at 136-138...but even with increasing my calories quite a bit, I kept losing until I hit 132...and then Bam! that is where I stopped, and I have been pretty dead steady for around a month now. It is the exact same place(within two pounds or so) of where I ended up last time...it is actually a little thinner, perhaps, than I had intended...but this seems to be where I settle.

I have been out of Weight Watchers for several years after being a lifetime member at one time. Seems like I remember beingh told that if I stayed within so many pounds of my goal weight, I could return to meetings for no fee. Can anyone tell me what the maximum amount of weight is before you can check in free again?