Calories to maintain PT 2

[ItsTheWooo]

First thread only got a couple of replies, so, I'm trying again :)

How many carbs and calories do you consume to maintain weight?
How active are you?
How strictly do you count your calories as well? (meaning how sure are you that your counts are reasonably correct and represent your average intake)

Thanks ;)

[Qmass]

I vary between 20 and 30 carbs a day to maintain. A typical day is 27 carbs. On a rare day, I might get into the mid 30's, but I've only done that about 5 times in two years. One day I had 40.

If I eat around 30 for a few days, I notice the scale creeping up, so I cut back.

I don't count calories, but I try not to eat high calorie foods too often (like beef no more than once a week).

I walk to work 5 days a week. It's a 3 mile round trip, uphill both ways, and I walk fast. But that's all I do.

I've been maintaining since May 2005.

I wish I could eat more carbs, but it doesn't look like I can. Then again, when I reach 30 in a day, it usually means I've eaten a lot of cheese, and sour cream, and atkins cereal or LC ice cream, so it could be a calorie issue as much as anything.

FINALLY - I find the whole thing easier to stick to when I eat under 25 a day. When I start eating more than that, I want to eat MORE!

[BKM]

I eat probably 50-100 carbs/day - I just make sure they're typically "good" carbs (steel-cut oatmeal for breakfast, lots of fruit, heavy breads) - and I even occasionally have pizza (but never any sugar).

I also eat somewhat low-calorie - don't count calories anymore, but have always been a light eater. When I have counted (via FitDay) I averaged 900-1200 calories/day - guess the half-and-half, butter, and cream adds up! Fast!

Right now I'm working at getting 6 pounds off, so the carbs have been reduced to perhaps 30/day (don't count, just make low-carb choices) and my snacking has been cut out - also am eating lighter in the evening.

What this means is that right now, I'm eating scrambled eggs for breakfast, along with a bowl of berries and 2 mugs of coffee (splenda sweetened with half-and-half). Lunch today was a packet of tuna and an apple. Supper tonight will be a large salad and a hamburger patty.

And if that doesn't work, I'll whittle it back even further - perhaps eliminate the apple, then the berries. Once I get back to where I belong, I'll watch my food for a while, then go back to eating more carbs (carefully!).

I think I have to be vigilant, for the rest of my life - not really sure why I gained the weight this time, was not paying attention AND I hurt my back and had to stop my normal exercise regime.

I am at the point now that I don't even think about high-carb options - and where I work we have a kitchen full of free junk food (chips, cookies, Marie Callendar pot pies, corn dogs, mini-pizzas, etc., etc.) - I just automatically choose low carb....

[featherz]

I've been maintaining for about a year and a half now - I'm 38, about 125# and eat around 1800-2K/day with one higher day in the 3K range. I do both weight training and cardio but not to excess. I'm a BFL'er so I don't really count carbs but I am roughly 40/40/20 on my macros.

[taming]

I've been maintaining in a range of 110-112.5 or six months now. My average daily intake is 1600 calories with 45 net carbs. I've recently, after finally getting medical clearance, resumed going to the gym. I'll be interested to see what that does to my maintenance food levels. I think I would like to lose 5 more pounds, but I'm not being really focused about it now--preferring to see if, slowly over time, the increased activity will take care of it.

BTW, I am only 4'11 1/2 and I am 53. so as a young woman, Woo, YMMV.

[Enomarb]

I didn't reply to the original, but here it goes. No idea how many calories or carbs I eat and don't care- not part of my plan. I walk 4 days/wk for at least an hour, and lift weights twice/wk.
I am 5'5", size 6, and 50 yrs old post-hysterectomy.

[Judynyc]

2) Do other maintainers maintain their weight by feeling totally in control of what and how much they eat? Maybe this "thing" I keep trying to get rid of is actually just part of weight loss and I need to accept it. It might very well be possible that I can't be thin without always having a voice there telling me not to eat stuff (even LC food). :/ That would suck, but if I knew it was normal and part of the process I would at least be forced to face reality and either accept it or gain weight... instead of kidding myself and trying to do the impossible (maintain weight without consciously under eating all the time) .

3) Is it possible I'm really NOT losing control, and this IS normal eating? Perhaps the only thing abnormal about my eating is how I feel about it. I do recognize my perceptions could be really screwed up, and the way and amount my body is eating is actually normal (not excessive or obesity inducing). My calorie levels are never higher than 1800, even if we assume I am under counting by a margin of over 10% (I try to overestimate).
Then again, I DO feel very very full right now... sluggish and overfed. That I feel so sluggish and overfed and still kinda want more food is what bothers me the most.


Sorry!! I had not even seen the first thread Nora!! I went to read it and brought over the above.

While our plans are not the same, I think that in Maintenance, they surely must be similar. I still have not counted calories. I have used to meal plan chart that taught me how to eat properly and I now know it by heart and see it in my head as my day of food choices goes by. I don't eat by it perfectly now but I did while in weight loss mode. My choices now are based on what the scale tells me in the morning. If its up a bit, then I have a no grain/starch day but will still eat my 2-3 fruits with all the protein and veggies that I already eat.

I have come to accept the fact that I will always have to be hyper vigilant about my weight and my food choices. In the past, this was a death sentence for me as I alwasy hated to be restricted in any way. Very immature attitude now that I look back at it. But that was in the past and today I do what I have to do to keep what I've worked so hard to attain.

I alwasy focus on my 2-3 fruits a day and my 2-3 starches/grain per day. Thats what my plan calls for and thats what I do. Protein and veggies are always there, its the fruit and grain/starch , good carbs, that I track carefully.

I think its important to get into a routine for me, which helps me to not have so many choices. I know that 3 times a week, I have salmon for dinner....2 times a week, I have my turkey chili.....other times I'll have a salad with my precooked chicken breast cut up into it. I have my choices of snacks always on hand. I am always very well prepared...just call me a Girl Scout.... :lol:

I find that if I slack off a bit about having the right foods on hand, thats when I screw up. I cannot get lazy about food shopping and I'm always in the store getting fresh veggies.

I have pizza(very thin crust) once a month now, I can have a whole grain bagel once every couple of weeks...thats just how it is and will be for me from now on. It works for me this way as I can have my treats and not have it effect my weight.

Nora, I am kind of surprised to see you have so much trouble in your maintenance. My perception of you is that you know how to eat LC....but its sounding like to you have forgotten? What were you eating as you neared your goal weight? Did you experiment with OWL?

edited to add that I'm 55 yrs old, menopausal and do 4-5 hours of walking 5 days a week and pilates a couple of times a week.

[nicnoc]

I eat around 60carbs each day. I am not v.active - I walk the dog,do the housework,but sit in an office all day.
I too eat thin crust pizza now and again.
I dont count calories (never have). I am 5ft 7 and have maintained 128 lbs for about 2 years.

[Jonahsafta]

50-100 carbs...dont do calories.

[ddaniels]

Hey all, I just found this thread. It's very interesting to read just how different people's carb and calorie allottments are in maintenance. Although I know some of this is affected by age and activity level, I suspect genetics may play a bigger part than we sometimes allow. So, for those who are trying to maintain a weight that is within their genetic range, perhaps they can be a bit more relaxed about things. But maybe those who wish to maintain a little lower than their genetics have programmed them for will always need to be more vigilent? A speaker at a recent conference I was at said that weight is affected 85% by genetics and the rest by food, exercise, etc.

Also, I DON'T think "genetics" means that if everyone in our family is "fat" then we are destined to be "fat" as well, because families can be overweight because they have passed down a family culture of overeating, etc., not because they are all biologically programmed to be "fat."

So, I wonder if part of finding peace in mainteneance is making peace with living within our genetic range, even if it's not a range we prefer.

[Jonahsafta]

Opps...I forgot....Im 51, menopausal, fairly active usually...
In the old days, I became obsessed with calorie counts...so I dont do them...to much like "dieting " to me...and my goal isnt to diet but to live out a healthy lifestyle.....

[ItsTheWooo]

Thank you all for your feedback.
The general impression I'm getting is that most of you don't count that strictly.

Judy, you mentioned that you thought I had maintenance down... for awhile I really did too. I wasn't counting, just eating my foods, and my weight was not changing. I felt very secure.

As you may or may not know in the past I've struggled with keeping my weight at a healthy elvel and eating well enough of food. Because of the past my weight had fallen too low, and I was underweight. The work I had been doing to eat normally meant I had been steadily gaining weight in small chunks, but mostly maintaining for long periods. At the point in time (when I lost control) I was satisfied maintaining a "better fed" weight of around 111/112 (meaning that was my weight when I was eating more plentifully and carbs weren't that low... today that weight is about 114/115).
This weight, despite being healthier than previous weights, was still too low and was borderline underweight. However, it was not so low that it was such a dramatic deviation from normal. I would have to make a conscious effort to dramatically change my diet and to gain more weight.

At first it was a success. I was eating more snacks. I was eating lots of nuts. I started using dressings with calories. I was gaining and felt better, buildilng muscle. It was healthy gain. I put on some fat too but mostly in good areas. Then I got so startled by the change that I just felt like I was out of control of my weight and eating. I started to struggle more with unstable sugar and hunger because I was not so mindful of carb levels. Without the strict control governing my eating (or lack of it), I felt a little helpless and alarmed. I was gaining but I felt like I had no control over the process for this reason. I was afraid the gain would never stop. Eventually this lead to me losing control over what I ate, and I started eating more junkfood and carbs in the holiday season. This lead to binging like-behavior, and for a while I topped out at 125 (this was a bloated weight but still it scared the hell out of me because of how little control I had).

So then I started cutting and going back, and I lost weight and got back down to around 112 on a steady downward trajectory. Then I realized I was slipping back into bad old habits and thoughts, and I put on more weight. Presently my weight is around 114/115 which is a low but normal weight for height.

ANYWAY...
Right now I count everything in fitday and have been since the end of december. I realize now that I do best if I count what I eat. Realistically I don't think I can maintain my eating habits if I don't keep track. Even if I have periods of maintenance and steadiness without counting, it is always artificial and therefore prone to adulteration by life changes. If a change or upset happens in my life, my comfortable maintenance groove suffers and I get thrown out of control. The sanctuary of my comfortable familiar is violated, and I wind up losing control. The only way I can resist being thrown out of the loop by change (like when I tried to gain) is if I write down everything I eat and have hard data to reference. This loss of control would not have happened if I were counting my food, I know it. I would have felt secure and confident, and I would be logically aware of the impact of my choices.

This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way. I hope most of you are different and find you can keep up your comfortable maintenance grooves even when stuff changes up, but I realize now that I have to always closely watch myself and stay accountable of my choices. If "other stuff" changes, so does my eating, therefore, I need an extrenal, objective reference point to ground me at all times (food journal).

I've come to accept this in the recent months. I now view writing down my food as no more confining as having to keep track of my perscriptions if I had some kind of chronic disease. It's just a problem I have, and I have to take care of it. No biggie. Before I thought it was really bad and a sign of being disordered or something, but now I realize it only has the significance I attach to it. If I associate weight control with fear and dread and life or death then yes obviously a food journal would encourage disordered thinking that already existed. However if my thoughts about weight and food are relatively more impartial and logical and rational as not wanting to be obese, then a food journal is no more than a tool and a very effective one. The problem was how I thought, not what I was doing. Fortunately "how I thought" is rapidly getting better and better, now that I am working on physiological and psychological triggers/real problems.


Sorry for that long tangent.
Anyway I am cultivating this data because I am curious to discover what a normal food intake level is for myself. Right now I appear to maintain weight eating around 1600 or so cals. I don't work out a lot, I am a little over 5'5 and 23 years old. I was wonderig if that is normal or if it is a sign my weight is still too low and my metabolism isn't working right. I have symptoms of energy/metabolism problems too and recently have been wondering if I have some kind of adrenal fatigue problem too.

Thanks for the feedback everyone, it really helps.

[ItsTheWooo]

Hey all, I just found this thread. It's very interesting to read just how different people's carb and calorie allottments are in maintenance. Although I know some of this is affected by age and activity level, I suspect genetics may play a bigger part than we sometimes allow. So, for those who are trying to maintain a weight that is within their genetic range, perhaps they can be a bit more relaxed about things. But maybe those who wish to maintain a little lower than their genetics have programmed them for will always need to be more vigilent? A speaker at a recent conference I was at said that weight is affected 85% by genetics and the rest by food, exercise, etc.

Also, I DON'T think "genetics" means that if everyone in our family is "fat" then we are destined to be "fat" as well, because families can be overweight because they have passed down a family culture of overeating, etc., not because they are all biologically programmed to be "fat."

So, I wonder if part of finding peace in mainteneance is making peace with living within our genetic range, even if it's not a range we prefer.

I agree with this view. I think my weight is on the extreme low end of what is genetically natural to me. It seems whenever I get down to the 112 range, I can stay here with reasonable comfort.
If I get lower than that, I experience much more profound symptoms of physiological distress. The weight I am now I can "tolerate" it and maintain it without a huge huge effort.

I think there is a difference between your genetic comfort zone of weight, and your genetic tolerance zone of weight. For me, my "tolerance" zone means maintaining the weight is realistically possible. My "comfort" zone means maintaining the weight is easy and comfortable and I have considerable wiggle room.

It's a difference of extremes. A physiologically tolerable weight is like an environment with just the bare minimums of oxygen, pressure, food, heat, water etc to sustain life. An intolerable weight is more like going out of the atmosphere or deep under water - you are deviating so far from normal environment that you just can't do it.
A physiologically comfortable weight is more like conscious choice. It's like choosing to live at high altitude or a lower one which is a bit more hospitable.
It's more an issue of how much you prioritize indulging in food vs being lower weight, and far less of how you can just keep your body working effectively (which is a question you really have to think about when you're talking about "tolerance" of weight)

I guess you could say the first "tolerable" weight is actually the extreme low end of your genetic range. However I think it should have special distinction because, such a weight cannot be maintained without considerable restrictive eating and focus on food. There is nothing "comfortable" about it. It is more appropriately called "tolerable" (possible, but not comfortable)


I do think there is wisdom in making peace with our range. I think in the long run if you accept your weight, you would find that much more enjoyable than being able to fit into 1s and 2s and 3s.

[ddaniels]

I totally agree with what you are saying here, and I really like the distinction you've made between the genetic comfort zone of weight versus the tolerance zone of weight.

I guess you could say the first "tolerable" weight is actually the extreme low end of your genetic range. However I think it should have special distinction because, such a weight cannot be maintained without considerable restrictive eating and focus on food. There is nothing "comfortable" about it. It is more appropriately called "tolerable" (possible, but not comfortable)

I think you've hit a very big nail on the head!

When we think of weight and health, we are usually focusing on physical health, but there is the mental health price we pay if we try to live too low in the range. Maybe our physical health is not compromised, we may retain our menses, etc., but, emotionally, it is difficult to live well at that range. Excessive mental energy must be expended to think about and monitor all things food and weight related in order to keep ourselves in that range. That's energy that could be better spent enjoying life or whatever. So, the question, I think, should not so much be, "How low can I go and still get away with it. " but, "What weight range allows me to be healthy and happy and reasonably relaxed, both physically and emotionally?" Personally, I'm willing to "spend" 10 extra pounds on my emotional health, because I value that part of my health as much as I value not getting diabetes or other weight related illnesses.

[taming]

I understand how the basic facts of how a particular individual's metabolism (absent damage done to it by yo yo dieting etc) works can be genetically determined. I understand how body types (ectomorphic, endomorphic, mesomorphic) is a genetic thing as well. Is that what folks here are talking about when they say that normal weight is a matter of genetics? I'm not understanding this whole part of the discussion.

[ItsTheWooo]

I understand how the basic facts of how a particular individual's metabolism (absent damage done to it by yo yo dieting etc) works can be genetically determined. I understand how body types (ectomorphic, endomorphic, mesomorphic) is a genetic thing as well. Is that what folks here are talking about when they say that normal weight is a matter of genetics? I'm not understanding this whole part of the discussion.

I, and I believe ddaniels as well, define "genetic weight range" as the nebulous array of genetic traits and factors that affect our body's absolute size and composition (measured as weight). It is the thinnest and the fattest you can become by manipulating your environment to favor the expression of genetic traits that promote thinness or fatness.

I don't think any one is saying normal weight is a matter of genetics, although, some people have an easier time obtaining normal weight for genetic reasons (narrow range).

I think the confusion here is that people think of weight range as restrictions, when ironicaly it's really about possibilities. No one is supposed to be fat. That obesity is a relatively new problem shows that normal weight is entirely possible for most people. Those of us who become obese are not supposed to be fatter... it's just it's easier for us to be that way, providing the environment permits obesity, than it is for people who have a smaller range. Seeing as our default environments are extremely triggering of sensitivity to weight gain, those who have the biggest ranges will "suffer" the most. When it comes to genetics and weight, the difference between thin people and fat people is not where the range is (i.e. 130-200 vs 100-170). The difference between thin people and fat people is that fat people have genetic factors which make the size of the range much larger (i.e. 100-250 vs 100-150).

For whatever reason - sensitivity to high sugar diets, slower metabolism, a hormonal profile favoring building fat over muscle, whatever - our ranges are bigger. Because we have more possible weights we can be, we have to pay much more close attention to our choices since we are so sensitive to environmental changes that affect weight. It's harder, but normal weight is possible for almost all of us if we are careful to err in favor of it.

I hope this has helped clarify what we are talking about when we say "genetic weight".

[ddaniels]

For whatever reason - sensitivity to high sugar diets, slower metabolism, a hormonal profile favoring building fat over muscle, whatever - our ranges are bigger. Because we have more possible weights we can be, we have to pay much more close attention to our choices since we are so sensitive to environmental changes that affect weight. It's harder, but normal weight is possible for almost all of us if we are careful to err in favor of it.



Another way to look at this genetics issue is using height as an example. The correlation between genetics and height is 1.00, meaning, your height is *almost* totally determined by genetic factors. Sometimes those factors are easy to predict, for example, one would expect 2 tall parents to have a tall child. However, sometimes 2 tall parents can end up with a short child. How did that happen?!! I have no idea, but there was something in the "genes" that wasn't as obviously apparent, or easy to predict.

Even with such a stronge 1.0 correlation correlation between genetics and height, there is still some environmental wiggle room. For example, poor nutrition or intense physical demands placed on a child during critical growth periods can result in stunted growth. This is why you will see some female gymnasts not achieve their full genetically programmed height potential- environment interacted with that genetic programming, and full height was not achieved. In the case of height, however, the correlation 1.0 is so strong, that it needs a pretty big event to over rode the genetic programming.

Where weight is concerned, there is also a significant genetic component, but not quite a strong. The correlation is .85. So, there is more room for all sorts of environmental factors to influence weight, but there is still a significant genetic influence as well.

So, all things being equal if you have two women; same age, same height, same exercise level, etc. who both loose weight and end up at 100lbs., woman "A", with reasonable eating and activity habits, may not have too much trouble maintaining that weight, but woman "B" may have a great deal of trouble maintaining that weight, because her genetic programming has her better suited to maintain a higher weight, like 110lbs. It's not that she is unable to be 100lbs., it's just that she's going to be fighting her genetics to maintain it comfortably- it's not a "natural" weight for her.

[taming]

Sorry Nora, I'm still feeling stupid. Is there anything in the scientific literature, or quasi-scientific literature where I can read about the .85 correlation and the whole concept of "genetic weight"?

[ddaniels]

There are lots of things out on the web about weight and genetics, much of the research is obesity related, but some has to do with weight maintenance. However, The particular correlation statistic I quoted came from a clinical conference I was attending this past fall for eating disorder treatment professionals and was part of a lecture by Craig Johnson, M.D. who is an internationally recognized eating disorder researcher and clinician, and has a great deal of credibility in the professional community. He has lots of publications, etc. The strong correlation between weight and genetics is agreed upon by most everyone. It's the details that get debated.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/pregastric/fatgenes.html


I think the "debate" gets hot and politicized when people start talking about obesity, as in, "I can't help it if I am obese because I am genetically programmed to be this way." At that point, the inter-relation between science and politics and public health policy start to get a little confusing! But, whether a person is genetically UNABLE to loose weight is not so much the issue I was commenting on, but instead, how difficult is it for a person to maintain a weight loss that is below their genetically programmed weight range. That difference may only be 10 lbs., but we can sure make ourselves crazy over those 10 lbs. if they are important to us!

I believe that living below that personal range isn't impossible, but it will be harder- maybe MUCH harder, depending on how low we try to stay. I think it's important to remember, when we get to comparing ourselves to each other , as in, "She and are the same height and age and activity level, etc.- why can she eat more *whatever* than I can and she doesn't seem to have any trouble?" that sometimes it is our genetics that is making the difference- perhaps more powerfully than we realize. How hard we want to fight against those genes and how much energy we want to invest in the fight is something each of us have to decide, of course.

[taming]

Thank you. I have seen some of that research, or the reporting on it at least, but was not sure if we were thinking of the same thing. It seems we are pretty far from being able to identify a genetic weight for any one human individual right now, and, of course actual people are subjected to a whole range of environmental/social influences that are probably pretty important too.

I am not, by any means, discounting what you are saying.

Have you noticed though how many of us are the fat ones in otherwise more slender families? While there are generations of obese individuals in some of our family histories, others of us are definitely the odd man or woman out.

[mskllsws]

Nora, to maintain your current weight take in 10-12 calories per pound.

If you weigh 115, then 1150 calories to 1380 calories would be maintenance.

No two people have the same carbohydrate threshold. That is tied to your metabolism and degree of physical activity. The reason Atkins had you increase carbs til weight loss stopped was to determine that threshold for you. That was the purpose of premaintenance and maintenance. When you increased carbs too far you would see a gain.

does this help?
Karen