Did you all know this?

You're right.  I just checked an online calculator

Check an online calculator to find out your basal metabolic needs. Here's one: http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm As a 39 year old female with a sedentary lifestyle, and weighing 368 pounds, I could maintain my weight at a whopping 2948 calories per day. I actually eat 1250 or so per day-- this is why I am losing weight at a pretty good clip. At 169 pounds and an equally sedentary lifestyle, I can consume 1,857 calories a day and not gain or lose. If I am moderately active, that number increases to 2229 calories per day. Becoming more active, or consuming less-- would allow weight loss. I am content eating 1300 calories a day now, and can do so for life if necessary. This is why I am fairly confident that I will be able to maintain my losses. I know that statistics aren't with me on this, but if I stick to the science, I should be okay, and so should you. The hard part isn't the science itself, but the daily application of it-- for life.

I'm with Bert on this one. Consume less than you use, and weight loss continues. Adjust that as you become smaller, and you will be fine.

 

wow! this just shows me how off these computer averages can be. according to this website, to maintain 168 at a sedentary lifestyle, i can eat 1922 calories. now, i am definitely anything but sedentary and definitely not eating more than 1900 a day and i am struggling.  i have had my RMR officially done a few times where you wear the oxygen bubble over your head and breathe for an hour while the exercise physiologist monitors you. when i was 22 and 268 lbs, my RMR was 1688. the last time i did it, i was 26 and 165 lbs and it came out at about 1490. more than 500 calories difference between the actual and the predicted according to the formula.  every body is just so unique, individual and complex, which is why the only thing taht has ever worked with long term lifestyle change is to find what works for you - and only you.

I figured as much-- and you're right, the calculators vary greatly as well, but it does provide something of a ballpark, which removes notions like "Oh crap, I'll have to eat 600 calories a week and do aerobics in my sleep to maintain."

In the end, though, I have to maintain what Bert's saying- you eat less than you spend, you lose. More, you gain. Where that place is is up to the individual to find.

Gotcha.  Thank you Shari, Julie and Bert.  I know the daily application is the hard part.  The science had me a little worried there for a while.  Good thing I didn't eat a pound of chocolate (or anything else for that matter) thinking all is lost.

okay my point is there is a ton about the human body, metabolism and weight loss that we (the people, researchers, whatever) don't really understand. your metabolism is affected by many variables other than what you weight - like genetics, hormones, age etc. as you age, go through pregnancy/menopause and other developmental things, your metabolism changes (usually slowing). you can help it by remaining actice and maintaining muscle mass.  what i'm frustrated at is that in the 4 years since i "finished" losing weight, i've had to change things a lot - and i don't like that! i am not getting away with as much as i used to because my hour of cardio is burning less calories than it used to. in my discussion with people at duke who have kept off weight loss for 8, 10 years - as well as nutritionist, MD, fitness professionals - these appear to be issues related to long term maintenence. unfortunately, because of the very sad statisitcs of long term weight loss maintenance, it is not a huge area of study. this is one of the areas that the national weight loss registry is looking at (you should join if you've kept off at least *i think* 30 lbs for 2 years). julie, i applaud your efforts to keep everything so exact, but trust me, it doesn't stay that way. the body is imperfect and unpredictable. there will be a point where to burn 350 cals on the treadmill, you will have to be running up an significant incline. that's the point where i'm at and its no fun.

Hiya Andy,      I have to disagree on the treadmill comment.  I only treadmill on level 6 for the weight loss program on my treadmill, and I'm not due to bump it to level 7 until I hit 139 pounds.  Neither the incline nor the speed is particularly difficult.  Since I only intend to lose 22 more pounds, that will only reduce my metabolic caloric needs by another 242 calories.  And I use the length of the treadmill session to control the calorie output to keep it at 350.  So when I bump up a treadmill difficulty level, it often gets as short as 45 minutes.  But currently since I am so close to the end of my period at level 6, I have to go about 55 minutes.  And unless I want to drop to an unhealthy BMI, I will never have to go higher than level 7 on my treadmill to get an adequate workout.  My goal BMI is already pretty darn low.  The next increase on my treadmill will only change my walking speed from 3.8 mph to 4.0 mph and the hills from 7.0 (3.5 on the flat part) to 8.0 (with 4.0 on the flat).  Since my current routine is easy enough that I can hold a conversation while doing it, I have no concern that my final level will be too difficult to maintain.      Exercise has never been the problem for me.  I tend to like to be active (which is why I stayed thin until I was 27 despite eating horrendously).  It has always been the issue of binges, poor food choices, and overeating in general.  So for me, as long as I can control what I put in my mouth, the exercise half of the equation comes naturally.

i understand your logic perfectly. but what i am saying is that the body isn't logical and does not fit into an equation. we can make all the precise predictions in the world, but there is no way to know how your body will respond when you get to your goal weight (and in the years following****il you actually get there.  i hope you are right and is works out all tidy - i would love to hear 5 years from now how you have proven me wrong.

there is also that whole "set point" theory that i might be running into - where one's body will not let you maintain a weight that it doesn't like. my trainer keeps telling me that maybe i shoudl just accept that my body is happier at 170 than it is at 160, but i refuse to accept that (at this point in time, anyway).

Hiya Andy,      This whole thing about a body having a "set point" below which it will not go is, in my opinion, a rationalization people use which isn't really based on science.  I find it much more likely that we have a "behavioral set point."  Meaning that each of us is different in the amount of food deprivation and exercise that we are willing to commit to longterm in order to achieve a certain weight.  If someone tries to follow a diet/exercise plan that is too far away from what for them personally is acceptable in effort, then they will eventually either start fudging in both areas or even quit entirely.