Without knowing your age - I kept it the same as mine, 24 - my calculator says you can eat no more than 1655 without exercising to maintain. To lose a pound a week at 145, you'd have to eat no more than 1209. Again, without exercise so you'd be cutting it close.

I am so confused.

I calculated that at 145 to lose a pound a week, you are allowed 1500 calories.

But to maintain at 135, you are allowed 1900.

I don't understand!

When losing weight, you need a calorie deficit (and/or burn exercise calories). Maintenace requires no surplus and no deficit. So in a nutshell, you will start eating your deficit.

The amount you came up with seems quite low, even if you aren't exercising. Are you just checking bmr and not multiplying by activity level?

For me, lifting 3 times a week it's about 2200 to maintain. I eat at 1630 to lose. I'm 164ish lbs and 5'4. As I get more muscle I will be able to eat more.

My numbers or the OP's? My thread is displaying kind of weird...

Just in case, I use this: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

Weight: 135
Height: 5'6"
Age: 24 (guessed)
Sedentary RMR: 1655
Sedentary BMR: 1726

Weight: 145
Height: 5'6"
Age: 24
Sedentary RMR: 1709
Sedentary BMR: 1778

I've never really understood the difference between RMR and BMR... I use RMR just because the number is a bit lower and I'm still trying to lose with really a minimal amount of exercise. Too freaking cold out...

To lose weight, you have to eat less than your body needs (so it will use your fat stores for energy). To maintain, you have to eat as much as your body needs. Hence the difference in calories.

F.

If you continue to eat less calories you will continue to lose. To maintain your loss add more calories.

Technically you're right. A lb of muscle uses about 6 calories per lb per 24 hour period. (While a lb of fat uses 2.)

If you by miracle of genetics and hard work manage to put on 20lbs of muscle in the next 2 years you can eat 40 more calories per day if you don't lose any fat.

The idea that muscle burns a lot of calories is wrong.

I know building muscle is difficult, especially for women. I lift and I plan on doing it long term so I'm hoping to build over the years through some bulk and cut cycles once I get to my goal weight.

Has me wondering then why there is this new push to gain more muscle - to do strength training as much as doing cardio? This whole notion of burning more fat for longer.

I do a mix of both as I enjoy both, but I'm starting to wonder if cardio, in the end, will give me more bang for the buck and it's not like you don't gain muscle while running or walking, or swimming, etc.

I'm weighing in maintaining between 137-139. I've been able to eat around 2300, working out about 30 mins a day alternating cardio and lifting. Obviously if I wanted to lose more I'd have to create a deficit, therefore having to eat below that 2300.

And this whole maintenance calorie thing is interesting.

I know some women (who exercise) who have to drastically increase their caloric intake to keep from continuing their weight loss.

I know other women (who exercise) who stay at the lower calorie range (around 1600) to be able to keep the weight off. Basically, very slowly got to a stable weight and just stayed there.

Wonder why that is?

Quite honestly, I don't see how I'll ever be able to eat more than 1600 calories a day with exercising 4-5 times a week for an hour. I barely lose with 1400 calories and 5-6 days a week of exercise.

I suspect this will be the case.

If what JohnP is saying is true, then muscle is really about making you more insulin sensitive, rather than actually giving you MORE calories to consume.

The thing is, I do think the body is a tricky thing and what works for "normal" (whoever they are) people is very different that may work for you or I (I also have IR with PCOS).

I suspect that I won't be able to eat 2200 and maintain, regardless of my exercise.

I think to maintain, I will be at 1600 or lower, despite my activity level and height. That's what I eat to maintain 163-165. If I want to lose weight, I have to eat a lot less (and low carb at that).

If what I'm saying is true? Sheesh ...

My math was wrong though. 20lbs of muscle burns 120 calories.

That's not to say that weight training isn't extremely beneficial, it is. A large number of reasons but increasing your BMR isn't one of them.

I think this happens because we have been overweight and lost weight - and our metabolism is permanently changed because of it. It's really what makes the regain so likely...

If you read the refuse to regain website ( http://www.refusetoregain.com/ ), by a doctor who specializes in obesity, she refers to people as "never been overweight" - and they have a very different metabolic profile than those that are "previously overweight". POs can never eat like NBOs because of the metabolic changes we've been through.

Exercise can help some, but I think it depends on the type - and I think the weight bearing / muscle building has a better effect...

It's science that's still in its infancy, really...