I would wager that most long-term maintainers (5+ years or so) eat between 1500-1900 on an average daily basis, more or less depending on activity. You really can't eat below your BMR (which is around 1100-1300 for most women) on a daily basis for years without experiencing some side effects (such as losing bone density or muscle loss). Just my opinion.

Just wondering, do you have any facts to back up your opinion???

I can't find the actual data right now, but if I recall correctly, and Lord knows I could be wrong, the National Weight Control Registry conducted a survey amongst successful maintainers and their daily calorie average was around 1350 calories. And amongst that average is of course the high end - the 1800 folks and the low end - the 1200 calorie folks. THERE IS NOT ONE CORRECT ACROSS THE BOARD NUMBER. Like Meg has so brilliantly stated, we are all laboratories (or was it experiments?) of one.

Former morbidly obese people like myself, who happen to barely reach 5 feet tall just don't have the same caloric needs that *most* people do.

If one is doing strength training, then there IS no bone density or muscle loss. The strength training MORE than makes up for it. So what kind of side affects could possibly come from maintaining a healthy weight, eating nutrient rich foods and exercise?

I am CERTAIN that I've extended my life by losing the weight and now maintaining that loss. I won't even get into the difference in the QUALITY of that life.

Regarding formerly obese people always needed to eat less/exercise more than never obese people, it doesn't appear to be true for me. And, personally, I think that it isn't true for more people than one would think.

I believe that if you don't cut calories dramatically the way most dieters seem to insist on doing, your body will adapt on the way down and you can eat a "normal" amount. I think that dieters are damaging their metabolisms far more during their diets than they are when gaining weight in the first place. After cutting calories so drastically to lose weight it takes time for metabolism to adjust to eating more, and the result is weight gain during the adjustment period. People believe they can't eat as much now that they are reduced obese, but really they just need time to let their body adapt. Unfortunately, it takes time and patience and maybe a little weight gain in the interim, which, if you were fat and now aren't, is anathema.

I can only use myself as an example, of course, but I can rarely get myself to eat below 2000 (there's always SOMETHING extra I end up eating) and frequently, multiple times a week eat well over that. I don't have a very strenuous workout schedule and maintain my current weight (~150) even when I do my damndest to sabotage myself. My body is used to lots of food. If I lose another 10-20 pounds, the amount less I would need to eat would probably still put me at 2000 or so, and 2000 is considered the healthy calorie intake on food packages, so clearly that is in the ballpark of a "normal" person's intake.

So while nothing is true for everyone, I think the problem of the reduced obese is not caused by having once been obese, but by eating too little during the weight loss process. Your body is very adaptable. If you feed it well (meaning more calories, not just nutrient balance) during weightloss, it adapts more faborably for you when you are done

Robin's right, the National Weight Control Registry surveys of maintainers (a year or longer) reports about 1400 daily calories among the women members. But it lumps together all ages, heights, start and finish weights, and activity levels. As we know from our informal surveys here in Maintainers, there's a tremendous range of maintenance calories, from probably under 1200 to over 2500. So the only take away message is -- wow, we're really all different!

Any one who has been maintaining a weight loss for any amount of time knows exactly how many calories they can eat for maintenance, weight gain, and weight loss. If you track your food intake and weigh yourself regularly, there isn't any mystery to how this works. It's hard to imagine that any long term maintainers are under-eating their calories because of a lack of knowledge of what their maintenance levels are. We all get tons of feedback about our own unique maintenance levels every time we stand on a scale!

There's a great deal of scientific research into the biochemical and hormonal effects of a large weight loss on metabolism. If anyone is interested, I would highly recommend checking out Rethinking Thin, by Gina Kolata, and Breakthrough Your Setpoint, by George Blackburn, MD for a good roundup of studies. Listening to a lecture given by Dr. Rudolph Leibel of Columbia University was eyeopening to me. He has a number of research papers on leptin, metabolism and weight loss that can be accessed through MedLine and has ongoing clinical trials at Columbia testing to see if leptin supplementation can reverse the metabolic slowdown caused by weight loss. It's fascinating stuff and I'm so happy that some research is being devoted to life after weight loss.

That's an interesting idea, Tarisaande! I know that currently I don't seem able to tolerate eating as low as I did originally to lose weight.

I sure wish someone would do a controlled study of these things--but in the meantime we each seem to have to find our own way...

Jay

Hmm, seems like I have offended you, sorry if I did. No, I don't have any facts. I also don't live in the US so I don't read any national weight control registries done by the US. I do however, strongly believe that eating below the BMR (the caloric intake required to maintain your body at rest) is bad for you.

You can most certainly experience muscle loss while strength training if you are not eating enough to sustain your body. Absolutely. It is very common among those who do not enough enough while weight training. Muscle is one of the first things to go.

Again, I'm sorry if I offended people, I have no experience in maintaining for the formerly morbidly obese - only maintaining for those who do strength training.

No, no, no - not at all - no offense taken. I was just truly interested and curious to know if you had any data to back up your opinion.

Though in all honesty, I take most surveys, studies, statistics, data, facts, reports, findings, info and what have you, with never mind a grain of salt, but a cup full of it.

Because I believe we're all different and it is our own responsibility to not rely on what *normal* does, but to find out what works for us, regardless of what any one else says or does.

Amen to that :-) Either way, we're all doing great

Robin -- I find myself agreeing whole heartedly with what you said in the last paragraph, but somewhat queasy about the paragraph before that.

To me, you've suggested that we should never pay any attention to research. I agree that we need to look at the research on weight loss, maintenance etc especially with a sharp skeptic's eye. The problem is that we want answers that the research isn't necessarily designed to answer, and may even be unable to fully answer.

But dismissing all research (which is what you seemed to do, to me), is, I believe potentially dangerous. After all, medical research has given us lots of medical treatments, psychological research has helped us better understand human and animal attitudes and behaviors, etc.

No research ever applies to every person, true. But well-designed research gives us a lot of information about people as a whole.

I want to reiterate that healthy skepticism is needed and that I agree with your ultimate point, but I want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I pay a lot of attention to research in a number of areas. I never pay very close attention to any particular study, as all of them are flawed. But often research evidence mounts on a particular topic that is studied from different angles, by different researchers using different methods. I do start paying a lot of attention as that research converges on a result.

For example, it is very hard for us to demonstrate that smoking cigarettes causes cancer in people. But from many decades of both experimental research on animals and correlational studies in people, the evidence really does suggest this is the case. That doesn't mean that every person who smokes will develop cancer, but does suggest probabilities.

So, I hope you'll accept my (hopefully) gentle comment about finding a healthy balance between skepticism and evidence...

150% taken. I didn't mean to sound as if I was disregarding research, though I could see where you may have taken it that way given my strong word usage. I do tend to try to use some strong language trying to get my point across now, don't I ??? Research definitely has value and can be quite useful, though I do believe that weight loss/gain/maintenance/obesity and all things related, is a broader (grayer) area then that of most medical diseases and conditions.

I should have just left it at a grain of salt, not an entire cup....

Yeah... I guess if research showed that I was doing something dangerous, I might just want to consider that... Or if it showed that I was not doing something that would be helpful, likewise.

I think it's great to personalize one's plan, but we have to start SOMEwhere that's based on facts, research, studies... How else would we have known about the undeniable correlation between obesity and risk of type II diabetes, for example?

I also wonder what weight gain really means in maintenance. Does it really mean one is "eating too much"? Or is it that the body needs time to adjust metabolic rate, as Tarisaande was saying? Oh, someone give me a research grant!

Jay

Wow, I'm amazed the *average* is that low. I never ate that low even to lose.

Like Meg said, it's also worth noting that the average for all members of the registry includes members like me who are actively trying to lose weight.

Jessica, add to that the fact that the calorie counts are all self-reported and --

Aside from the curiousity factor, other people's calories aren't very relevant to our own situations. In the end, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me how many calories Robin or Jessica or Megan or any of our wonderful maintainers eat in a day. I know what works *for me* and I know that as long as I stay at that calorie level, I will never become obese again. Works for me!

I think/hope we'll start seeing these questions better addressed in research. The answers we get from research depends on the questions, and the questions depend on our assumptions. I think the questions are starting to change.