why maintenance is a MYTH

i had an epiphany. tear it apart because not even i want to believe it.

reached your goal weight? keep it off long term? chances are no. what's more, you probably didn't binge or overdo it to get the weight back. if it was a case of exercise and restricting till you got to your goal, and then upping to 2000 calories or whatever it is for you, many of us would still be at goal weight.

instead, something gives. whether it's metabolism, genetics, a "natural" weight... time and time again, i see someone lose weight BUT without fail, gain back.

it'd explain why many models don't eat 2000 calories a day. they eat under 1000. to come close to "maintaining" a weight, you have to restrict. this of course doesn't include those with hyper metabolisms. like i said, please tear into it.

 

I'm 5'10", female, 50 years old. I don't know why people keep assuming 2000 calories is a "normal" level for eating. Is it because of nutrition labels, listing various nutrients' percentages "based on a 2,000 calorie diet"?

Guess what? That 2,000 calorie diet is an average for ... someone else, but for me, at a healthful BMI, I would need to eat 1,800 calories to maintain that weight.

I've been maintaining my weight loss from last year very easily. I haven't lost all that much weight this year, but that's because I haven't exactly tried to! My weight is ever-so-slowly drifting downward, however, even though I haven't been counting calories nor working out.

I don't "have to restrict." I simply have to not eat as though I'll never see food again! If I eat reasonably, I do fine, and this is coming from someone who made a birthday cake last week that used two sticks of butter and six eggs (!), iced it with fattening icing, put chocolate-covered orange slices on top, and ate it happily! :-D

And my smallest pants are just a little big on me today. w00t!

Have you heard about the concept of setpoint?

I do believe the body has certain natural setpoints that it likes. I'm 5'0 tall, and I have a setpoint of around 110: I can easily maintain my weight in a range of 105-115 (5 lbs on either side of 110) - without counting calories or obsessing, whether I exercise or not, whether I'm under stress or not, and without really thinking about it. I had done so for nearly 14 years, until last year when I suddenly gained and went over that setpoint. Then I seemed to settle in at a new, higher setpoint.

I believe the culprit that made me gain weight was a med I had to take, or the underlying condition and reason for the med. Even after going off the med, my weight was soooo stubborn - no matter what I did, it really seemed to like that new, higher setpoint, which was 120-130. But once I dieted back down to around 115, it became soooo much easier!

Since around July, when I hit 108-109, I stopped counting calories and I've not really been trying to maintain. But my weight has cont'd to drop and now I'm at 105. I don't think it's going to drop much further. Actually, I suspect if I hit 103, something is going to kick in (probably Thanksgiving, LOL), and it's going to ping-pong back up to keep it within my natural setpoint.  

P.s. At 5'0" and 105 lbs, I'm back to eating around 1850 calories (this is my guestimate, because I'm not really counting) and still slowly losing. I run 10-12 miles a week, and otherwise am extremely sedentary. I do no weight training.

And my smallest pants are just a little big on me today. w00t!

Athena - I'm having this problem too! Last night i was going out with my girlfriend, and I couldn't find anything to wear because all my pants that fit last week - my skinny pants! - are now dropping right off of me. I am hoping my setpoint kicks back in to knock me up a few lbs, otherwise I'm going to have to go shopping again. It really boggles my mind that only 2-3 lbs can make that big of a difference in clothing sizes for me.

Ah, here's the key: "if it really was a case of exercise and restricting till you got to your goal,"

Well, if that's what you are doing -- dieting -- and you go off this diet and start eating willy-nilly, sure, you may very well put the weight back on.

That's why many, many people here have described this as a lifestyle change, not a diet. A lifestyle change is much more easily sustained over time. If one sees one's weight loss journey as completely different from the rest of one's life, I think it very likely that one will put weight back on.

But if one sees this as a way to live for good -- to eat well-balanced, nutritious foods in the right quantities, to be mindful of what one puts into one's body, to incorporate exercise into one's life for the health benefits, and not something one does for the short-term -- then I think one is on one's way to maintaining, and maintaining well.

"It really boggles my mind that only 2-3 lbs can make that big of a difference in clothing sizes for me."

That's because..... you're short! :-D

::runs like heck and hopes the headstart is large enough!::

Original Post by athena_tavener:

I don't know why people keep assuming 2000 calories is a "normal" level for eating. Is it because of nutrition labels, listing various nutrients' percentages "based on a 2,000 calorie diet"?

that was a completely arbitrary number.

According to the FDA people who have lost a lot of weight (over 50 pounds) and kept it off for 15 years or more have 3 things in common:

1. They count calories, religiously
2. They weigh themselves regularly
3. They exercise 4-5 times a week for at least 20 minutes

So...yeah there is such a thing as maintenance.

I think folks go on extremely low calorie diets, then, when they lose the weight, stop paying attention. There seems to be this assumption that counting calories is not 'normal' eating behavior.

Well, if one's 'goal weight' is to be a size 0 while eating a normal amount (2000ish) calories a day, then you're right, one would likely have a lot of trouble maintaining it. 

Is there a particular reason you thought it would be easy to maintain what for most of us would be an unnaturally low weight?

sorry, double post.

Original Post by pandajenn19:

Well, if one's 'goal weight' is to be a size 0 while eating a normal amount (2000ish) calories a day, then you're right, one would likely have a lot of trouble maintaining it.

Is there a particular reason you thought it would be easy to maintain what for most of us would be an unnaturally low weight?

what's a natural weight? isn't it different for all?

Original Post by heavyy:

what's a natural weight? isn't it different for all?

Do you honestly believe that most people are naturally supermodel thin?  Because truly, that is what the original wording of your post indicated to me.  That you think everyone should be able to achieve a size 0 frame and maintain it, and that you are surprised that this is not the case.  Perhaps there isn't a single definition of a 'natural' weight, but there is such a thing as being unnaturally thin.  For 98% of the world I would wager that a size 0 is unnaturally thin, and it does not surprise me in the least bit that anyone who crashed their way to a 100 pound weight (unless they are very petite in height) would be unable to maintain that.

I have maintained a size 6 for over a year with very little difficulty, so I don't buy into the idea that it is impossible to maintain.

You've changed your original post enough that someone may not understand my argument now, and I wish I had quoted it.  But no, it is not reasonable to expect that most women of average height could get to 100 pounds and maintain it.

I believe in genetic "set points" within a healthy weight range. Nobody is "meant" to be obese. Now, some people are naturally broad or muscular and I'd be willing to concede a "very mildly overweight" set point, up to BMI 27 or so. (which, honestly, is considered a pretty much healthy weight medically, especially when there is muscle involved). People who weight train seriously are an exception, of course, they are often "obese" by BMI standards but have very little actual body fat.

Maintenance definitely exists. I think what happens though, is that the formerly overweight stop counting calories and start VASTLY underestimating their intake. Case in point: when I actually tally up my "I'm not counting calories" days (for curiosity), I'm ALWAYS over 2500 cals, often over 3000. And this is without stuffing myself, without even a full return to my former habits. I'm not "binging" or what I would call "overdoing it" but man, would I gain weight back quickly if this were every day.

2000 calories a day will actually be about my maintenance level, assuming I can be "lightly active". However, we underestimate our calories while overestimating our activity levels. This has been shown time and again. 

Models are a whole other story. Many are anorexic and their metabolisms have slowed down, so they maintain on tiny amounts (perpetual starvation mode) or they are trying to lose weight because their boss told them to, hence the restriction. And NONE of them are at the weights they'd need to be at to require 2000 cals a day. I'm guessing they'd have to weigh about 140-150 for that to happen, which would be a perfectly healthy weight on these tall girls, but they typically weigh what, thirty or forty pounds less than that? Bottom line: fashion models are a TERRIBLE example of what humans should look (and live) like.

People gain weight back because they quit counting and wind up eating more than they think they are, and moving less. Our toxic environment makes it TOO easy to gain weight and stay fat. Maintenance is part of the permanent lifestyle change required to be at a healthy weight. For many of us, it will require counting forever. This certainly seems to be the case for me. It's worth it though.

pandajenn, i cut it down because it was wordy, not because i'm trying to argue some point. like i said at the beginning, i want the post to be torn apart. to reply to your post, that's right i'm asking, if you're able to get down to say a size zero as you've offered, why is it our bodies tend to gain even when sticking to a moderate calorie intake.

There is NO WAY that a size 0 is attainable, much less maintainable, for all women. Like I said, I believe set points do exist, and they're usually in the 19-25 BMI range. Models are below that.

That healthy weight that people "come back to" when they are working at it the least, that's your set point right there.

Note that for the truly obese, we might never have had one of these before, or it might have been years ago. When we don't "pay attention", we wind up at a disturbingly high weight. That is not a set point. That is evidence of how obesogenic our lifestyles are.

When I was in my teens I maintained around 150-160 without watching what I ate. But when the stresses of life took over, those habits changed. Now, I can't go back to "free-feeding". At least not yet. Maybe never. Yes, it's sad.

heavyy:...are you asking how to maintain at size 0, or are you asking if weightloss is maintainable?

i dont know about a size 0, but i am a size one and have been maintaining on 1600-1700 calories since January.

great post trustwomen.

the thread is not about a specific size or weight. it's asking why is it that our bodies seem to gain rather than maintain. to that end trustwomen has offered it's because you lose track of calories when you're not 'counting' closely.

I think its really hard work to maintain.  You do have to pay attention.  I mean my mom maintains a weight of 130lbs and she's 5'4 and 47 years old.  She has never had a weight problem, but she pays attention.  She kind of has an unhealthy way to do it in that she eats cereal with milk for breakfast, yogurt and fruit for lunch and then a big dinner.  On the weekends she does a big breakfast, no lunch and the same dinner.  She exercises as much as she can and is very active in general.  I know she doesn't count calories, but she doesn't just eat whatever she wants.

 

Before I even started to lose weight, I spoke with my friends, relatives, and immediate family members who remain thin.  The majority have to fight to keep the weight off.  They take the stairs instead of elevators, they walk when they want to go somewhere and they watch what they eat.  Sometimes we see thinner people eating that piece of cake or chocolate bar.  Many of them also work out extra hard to burn those calories that they ate or accommodate for them in their daily intake of food.

Anyone who thinks they can lose this weight without continuously watching what they eat and exercising are fooling themselves.  I know because I have been there.  7 years ago I lost 90 pounds and was working out 14 hours a week and eating between 1200 and 1500 calories a day.  Then I got promoted and worked 60 to 80 hours a week.  The job I was in did not allow me to eat properly or work out.  I gained the 90 pounds back.  This past January I said enough is enough.  It had been one year since I had left the stressful job and decided that I was emotionally ready to start losing weight.  I have lost 60 pounds to date and hope to have 70 off by Christmas.

 It's not easy to do this but I want to and I know it is for life. I can make all the excuses I want.  There is diabetes in my family, I have low thyroid and fibromyalgia, as well as colon issues.  I have chosen to fight for myself and to make myself healthy.  I do not look at food as items I can or cannot have.  I look at portions and whether I want to trade off another food or exercise more to have it.  I hate to say this, but my thin friends and family members do the same.

You take control over your life and the food.  No one can do it for you.

 

Sorry to rant here, but sometimes you have to get honest with yourself and decide if you want to be healthy or heavy and pick the lifestyle and eating plan (NOT DIET) that will allow you to do this.