I was just reading a blog where the author states, "there is no such thing as maintenance". She basically says that wherever your calories/food intake was during dieting is where you have to keep it due to downward shifts in metabolism and the body eventually adjusting to your lower energy intake.

I would love any opinions or experiences! It is discouraging to see the NWCR states their average successful story only consumes 1400 calories a day.

I can track the post down if anyone is interested.

Thanks for any and all input!

I'm kind of new to maintenance but while losing my last 10 pounds I was at 1200 calories a day. I've been maintaining for about 6 weeks now and I'm eating 1750 calories....In fact I am slowly losing still so I might end up raising that level even more. I'd say 1400 is a low average, unless you're a shorter person. I am 5'6"

I don't count calories but use the old version of the UK Weightwatchers points system. Taking into account their old points formula I'm on 1995 cals/day before counting 'free' vegetables - so the real typical calorie intake will be a bit higher. I tend to have more points at weekends, fewer in the week. I was losing weight (slowly toward the end) on 1540 plus veg.

I think that is a crock, if you kept eating at your dieting level wouldn't you continue to lose ?

I guess it depends on what you were losing at. I lost most my weight between 1600-1800 and now maintain at 1600-1900, but have reasonable flexibilty on the weekends probably pushing my average to 2300ish. Age, height and activity play a big part in it too. I wouldn't panic, likeliness is you'll be able to eat more than your losing cals.

Possibly, but not necessarily, it really depends on how many calories you're eating and how many calories burning (and of course that can change).

I have experienced (so do believe) that drastically reducing calories can drastically reduce metabolism (the more you restrict calories, and the more times you do it, the fewer calories per pound of body weight you burn), but I don't think the downward process is universal to everyone, nor that the process is unlimited. You can eat zero calories, but you can't burn zero calories, so the idea that your dieting level will be your maintenance level is ridiculous.

If you're eating 500 calories, it's extremely unlikely (I'd venture to say impossible) that you could ever maintain a healthy weight at that level.

However if you're dieting at 2200 calories, you may stop losing before you reach your goal weight, at which time you'll have to decide whether to reduce your calories further or change your goal weight.

What about if you're eating 1500 or 1800 calories? Can you maintain a healthy weight at that level? Will you have to increase or decrease calories to maintain your goal weight?

I don't think that eating 500 calories would allow me to maintain my 306 lbs, but it could result in my body becoming more efficient at burning calories. Meaning my end (maintenance level) calorie level could end up a lower calorie level than if I cut my calories less drastically.

What I think that means is that if I chose to lose weight eating 500 calories, my maintenance calories may be lower than if I lose the weight eating 1000 calories, which may be lower than if I lose eating 1800 calories.

Is that true? I don't know. But I do know that I don't stick to extremely low calorie diets, so even if I'm wrong eating 1800 - 2200 calories makes more sense to me than eating 1000 calories or even 1500.

My goal is to end up maintaining at my losing calories. I don't want to get to goal and have to learn another way of eating. I want to learn the habits I need to maintain forever. It's why I decided to diet at 1800 - 2200 calories. It's what I hope my ending calorie level to be. Now eventually I will stop losing, and if that happens before I reach my goal weight, I'll have to reduce my calorie level. But I'd rather do that, than get to my goal weight and try to guess how much more I can eat, and try to learn how to eat a little more without falling into the trap of eating too much.

To me, it makes more sense to get to goal weight by following the plan I hope to follow forever (and adjusting along the way if I need to) than knowing from the start that I'm going to do something different "when I get there."

That's always been my obstacle, the "carrot" dangling in front of me was getting to eat more when I got to goal weight, instead of learning habits to follow forever.

Planning to make forever changes (and adjusting gradually) removes that "some day, when I'm thin enough, I'll get to eat more," mentality that always eventually results in my deciding that I can't wait until that some day.

Hi, as your weight will decrease you need in calorie will decrease. I calculated BMR and it is 1600 at the moment and I consume about 1200 for a deficit of 400 calories. But if I loose another 10 pounds my daily needs are not the same and will have to recalculate then.

THIS^^!

But to add to this, in the unfortunate event that you prompt your body to work more efficiently at burning fewer calories, most times you can increase that rate in which your body effectively burns calories by building muscle (weight training) and gradually and very slowly increasing your daily calorie count. This is a much harder process than just starting off at the "higher calorie" range as suggested above.

Of course there is "such a thing as maintenance." It's the point where you are eating just enough calories to maintain your body mass, no more and no less.

Where many people -- and evidently the original blogger -- get confused is thinking about the "calories out" side of the equation. "Calories out" has four components: basal metabolic rate, the thermogenic effect of food (the energy it takes to process food), the energy spent on exercise, and the energy spent on non-exercise activities (NEAT).

Thing is, none of these are constant. When you lose weight, your BMR goes down. This is common knowledge in dieting circles. It's also why most calorie-need estimators ask your weight, which for all intents and purposes is the biggest factor driving BMR. (Muscle mass matters too, of course, but weight has greater, um, weight.) But the other three components of "calories out" shift around, too.

Take, for example, NEAT. Often when people take up a diet and exercise, they burn fewer calories through NEAT than they did before. This can be an unconscious process -- their body thinks "restricted food" and starts compensating elsewhere, with less fidgeting, less tossing and turning during sleep, etc.

It can also be what I'd call a semi-conscious process. We've probably all been guilty of coming home after a particularly intense workout and sitting on the couch "recovering" for a couple of hours with the remote control in hand. If we hadn't worked out, we might have instead used that time to clean the house or go shopping or take the dog for a walk or some other activity that expends NEAT energy. Studies using bodybugg technologies show that the downward compensation in NEAT from exercise cuts way into total calorie expenditures. So, although [exercise + couch-surfing burns] more calories than [couch-surfing], it doesn't burn nearly as many additional calories relative to [no exercise + daily activity] as exercisers would like to believe. (This also partly explains the "I burned 3500 calories on the stairmaster this week but didn't lose a pound" effect. It's the total daily caloric expenditure that determines whether you lose or gain, and that includes NEAT.)

The drop in metabolism is also a factor, but again not as much as Teh Internets would have you believe. The Minnesota study, where a lot of the myths about metabolism effects originated, put subjects on a drastic low-calorie diet for 6 months: I think it was between 600-800 calories per day. Their metabolisms dropped by something like 30%. But, most people don't and can't eat 600 calories a day for 6 months, and the drop in metabolism from a less extreme diet is more on the order of 10%-15%. This is still significant, but hardly the "shutting down of the body" that some people -- usually the 6-meal a day crowd, another whole set of myths -- believes.

Moreover, even a couple of weeks of maintenance level eating will reset metabolism. Feel free to point this out the next time your SO says, "we can't afford a vacation this year."

So, yes, caloric needs drop when people diet. But none of this should be interpreted as "there's no such thing as maintenance." There is, it's just that finding maintenance levels of caloric intake and expenditure is an ongoing and dynamic process, not something you can just get by plugging your weight into an on-line calculator.

I've gone on and on, but it bothers me when misinformation gets spread around. yeah, I know that between Faux News and Teh Internets, it's a losing battle ...

//b. strong,
Kim

Loved your post Kaw, good explaination.

kaw, you are a woman after my own heart with your statements. There is so much misunderstanding and exageration about calories, metabolism, etc that I sometimes cringe when I read these boards.

As for calories during maintenance changing or not, well, if you were losing 0.1lbs a week by the time you finished, then yeah, probably there won't be much difference, but if you were losing at .5-1 (or more), then um, more food is needed.

And yes, the metabolism needs time to "reset", aka adapt to the new weight and habits. Once the body starts getting more food on a regular basis, after an initial potential regain (small), the body adjusts to having more energy available and uses more. As far as I'm concerned, our bodies are just like how we behave - in times of plenty, we are wasteful, and when the pickings are slim, we scrimp and save. Our bodies do the same. If we are eating as much as we need, our bodies don't need to "scrimp and save" (reduce metabolism).

I spent several months this summer maintaining (not because I wanted to) and then regained close to 10 pounds over the holidays. As painful as it was MENTALLY, my body certainly benefited from it (both the maintenance, and the regain). Since the new year I've actually lost all the weight I gained during the holidays (I think I'm reaching the slow-down stage now) and actually have slightly smaller measurements than before. And I've NEVER needed to restrict my calories so extremely to lose weight. And if I wanted to stay right where I am, well, I've been here, and I can eat a LOT at this weight.

Here is the post if anyone is interested! Sorry about the delay, am traveling and couldn't get to it till this morning.


The Myth of a Maintenance *Phase*
No matter the diet plan, when you embark, most of what I would call responsible plans (e.g. not unsustainable quick loss diets) tout some sort of plan for long term success ... the true goal and measure of success: MAINTENANCE.


It is the most elusive of outcomes for weight loss plans. Millions of folks have lost trillions of pounds in a seemingly infinite number of ways. But regardless of all that, the recidivism rates -- those who gain back and often add a few more pounds -- remains discouragingly high.


Having lost a lot of weight (60+ pounds) several years ago but put it all back on and several pounds more (perhaps as many as 40 - I don't know my weights so ...) , this was a huge issue for me in finally committing myself to losing the weight this last go round. My thinking was this: What was the point of losing weight if I was only going to gain it back again? ... again! I never had trouble losing weight. I just could never keep it off. I've probably lost well over 500 lbs in my lifetime ....


I've obviously read a lot of weight loss success stories, trials and tribulations of ongoing "losers" (and gainers), and fair share of weight loss studies over the past year or so, not to mention my own experiences with just about every possible weight loss program except for the package deals (never could muster the $$ for those, but I've done the Lean Cuisine equivalent of them).


One thing I've noticed is that, almost invariable as one gets closer to goal (or some lower weight), losses naturally level off. In other words, maintenance is basically keeping on doing what you're doing. How many people have you seen lose rapidly all the way down then need to eat more to keep from losing too much weight? I'm sure there may well be a person or two that does, but it is not the norm.


I had to laugh a little when I read The New Atkins in order to review it. One of my criticisms was the word count on the maintenance phase section. Folks who climb the "rungs" in OWL (Ongoing Weight Loss) and actually achieve OWL are few and far between. Most Atkins "success stories", and indeed many long term low carbers, eat at induction levels perennially.


Here's the rub. Reduce calories to lose weight and metabolism IS going to be lowered. Does it come back a bit eventually? I don't know. The short term studies aren't promising on that, but perhaps over a few years the news gets better? Couple that with the FACT that a body that is 20, 50, 100 lbs or more lighter just requires fewer calories to begin with and it can get exasperating. Especially for us women, we can be talking rather few calories to maintain.


Most CRD's hold out the "maintenance" where you supposedly can eat a little more so as not to continue losing. Atkins even advised a "pre-maintenance" phase before "maintenance" where more carbs could be added to slow weight loss and maintain it.


I maintain that there's no such thing. Once you get where you're going, dietary changes may be possible, but increasing intake to any degree will lead to weight gain.


You want to lose weight and keep it off? My suggestion is to let go of this notion that once you've reached goal you can relax things even just a bit and keep it off. Nope. It's not fair, but as time goes on, you may even need to be more restrictive just to maintain (and/or exercise a bit more, etc.). Why? For the reasons I stated above.

I currently eat 2300-2500 calories a day to maintain my weight, so I would think most women should eat at least 2000 calories a day. My mom is 57 years old 120 pounds, and I’m pretty sure she eats more than 2000 calories. I find it hard to believe that anyone could live a happy energetic life eating 1400 calories a day, forever.

Well evelove, all I can say in response is, Kill me now!

Jay