I don't see much disagreement between the posts of evelove, kaw and kaplods. You are all essentially saying that it takes fewer calories to maintain a lower body weight than it does to maintain a higher one, and that to some extent (whether it is 15% or 30% is debatable) your metabolism becomes more efficient when you lose weight. Some of us here seem to be fortunate enough to be able to maintain a lower body weight at a calorie intake we're content with, and many of us (myself included) are stuck in a devil's bargain where we require fewer calories to maintain our new, desired lower body weight than we are content with eating. Those for whom the latter is true have a choice: either chronically eat an unhappy-making calorie intake or gain weight until your daily calorie burn matches your desired calorie intake.

Joyfulloser- I wish it were so! The latest research shows that a pound of muscle burns about 10 cal/DAY more than a pound of fat. The average woman weight lifter adds 4-8 pounds of muscle to hr frame. The difference in daily calorie burn is rounding error.

I tried raising my daily calorie consumption from 1300 (which once upon a time resulted in ~1 pound/week weight loss but for the last 2 months has been maintenance) to 1500 AND GAINED 2+ POUNDS IN 8 DAYS. It sucks so bad I have cried about it. I still haven't decided whether to accept the weight gain (and all the pounds that might follow) and stay at 1500 cal, or drop back to 1100 calories until I get back to 124 and then hope that 1300 cal will result in maintenance again, even though that isn't my ultimate weight goal either. I am unwilling to stay permanently at 1100-1200 cal/day in order to maintain at my truly desired goal weight of 118.

Like BrightAngel says, if 1400 cal/day is the average for all maintainers, then half (probably mostly younger and bigger/taller) are above that and HALF ARE BELOW.

I've eaten an average of 1350-1400 calories a day for the last year. While I understand that that's not an extensive amount of time over the course of a lifetime, I feel pretty confident in saying that I could very happily (and energetically ) eat at that calorie level for the rest of my life. It's even easier when I think in terms of averages - some days I'm very satisfied with only 1100-1200 cals, so it makes the occasional push to 1800 or even 2000 cals possible.

I would love if maintenance allowed me to eat up to 1600 or 1700 cals a day, but I don't know if it's going to work out that way for me. I'm short, for one, and have been overweight/obese my entire life. Even with moderate weight training and an active job (teaching 20 hours a week, with walks across campus) it could very well be 1400 is my maintenance level. I've decided that's ok for me.

But that's where we're all different - I've also decided that I'm NOT willing to maintain on anything lower than 1300-1350. I know that others do it well and it works for them, but at this point I'd rather gain a few pounds back (and also try increasing my exercise).

When you eat extra food the food comes with water weight. There's not way an extra 200 cals a day made you gain 2lbs of fat. 2lbs of fat would require 7000 cals OVER your maintenance (an extra 875 cals a day over maintenance!). Your extra 200 cals over 8 days is only 1600 over. On Calorie Count people lost on low calories too but increased their maintenance gradually by 200 a week and got to 1800 or more.

It shows that fear is holding people back. If the scale goes up, either put it away and stick with measurements or know that the gain is temporary. Many people out there are stuck on lower calories when their maintenance is really higher than they think.

I'm not a maintainer yet, but I thought that 1500 was my maintenance on days I don't exercise. Recently I ate 1800 a day VERY sedentary without exercise and the scale stayed the same. Even days at 2200 VERY sedentary without exercise and the scale stayed the same. I know it's scary to think of gaining the weight back, but it won't happen overnight. I'll definitely be increasing my cals 200 a week until the weight loss stops. If lost the fat once then I can do it again.

I wonder if it depends on quite how low you are aiming. My official goal was BMI 25 and I'm trying to stick close to 23. I might have struggled more and seen more of a slowdown if I'd been aiming for 20 or below.

My own (slight) slowdown in weight loss within the last couple of months before goal was accompanied by my being more lax, eating out more etc and actually sped up slightly in the last couple of weeks when I was close to the official goal and stuck strictly to my allowance. When I reached that goal I increased my intake and carried on losing weight for months during that process. In the end I found I had to eat more than Weightwatcher's projected maintenance level in order to maintain, otherwise I kept on losing slowly.

I suspect I'm one of the lucky ones - even so, I could definitely eat more and if I just listened to my appetite without counting my intake I would probably gain weight back, just as I did in the past. But that doesn't alter the fact I'm eating more than I was when dieting. I'm sure that what the article says will apply to some people but I know (from being around other dieting boards as well as here) that there are some other maintainers in existence who are eating the maintenance level they expected and a minority who are above it.

Are those BMI calculators pretty accurate? Cuz I just checked mine today and it said 21....which I find hard to believe with the amount of fat still on my hips and belly

So it's not that low, then in your case. I'm tall, but I'm also 47 in a few week's time so I can't call myself young .

Some of them round down or up the figures and some don't. The NHBI one would show your BMI at 21.8. I don't think the BMI charts are about aesthetics and it's more useful to think of it as a loose indicator of your chances of staying healthy, and even then the healthy range might vary based upon ethnicity.

Ok, thanks for explaining that

"There's no way an extra 200 cals a day made you gain 2lbs of fat. 2lbs of fat would require 7000 cals OVER your maintenance (an extra 875 cals a day over maintenance!). Your extra 200 cals over 8 days is only 1600 over."

I wish these calculations were actually true. The 2 1/2 pounds of "water weight" I gained from eating at 1500 cal/day (plus one true "binge" day of ~2300 cal) is still not gone. Not one single ounce of it, despite having moved back to 1300 cal/day 6 days ago. This is clearly regained fat, despite what the calculators would say.

Today was my first day on 1100 cal, which I am planning to "zig zag" with 1300 cal at least until I get back to my prior non-goal weight (124).

I wanted to thank those of you that convinced my wife to try a higher calorie diet than the one that made her body go into starvation mode. I had been trying to convince her for months. Even though she should realize that with my 28 year record of ALWAYS being right I would be right again, nothing I said could get her to listen to me. She upped her calorie count by about 150 a day and she's losing weight again. She really values and appreciates the folks on this board. You have provided her with great support. She will be a lot happier now. Now if one of you can just suggest that she should take me to Hooters for our anniversary

Jay

To expand on my DH's comments (bless his I-told-you-so heart). I raised my daily calories to ~1450 (from ~1300) 5 days ago, on Saturday. Coincidentally or not, I am down about 1 1/2 pounds today compared to last Friday's weight. We shall see if today's weight is a fluke or a true drop over the next few days.

Neurodoc - Our stats are so similar (which doesn't necessarily mean anything to us as individuals, I know) that I'm really interested in how things go for you. I'm eating an average of 1300-1350 a day now, down from 1400-1450 where I lost most of my weight. I'd love to hear more how things go for you.

In any case, yay for being down a pound and a half!

Neurodoc, good to hear the calorie increase is going well for you so far. Hope it keeps up.