Ladies on a 1800 cutting diet?
selina884
Posts: 826 Member
Hi, Any of you ladies on a 1800 cal plan and losing weight successfully?
It's working for me splendidly! Far better than 1200, 1300, 1500, 1600, 1700. <<< i have tried all of these.
Since I have implemented 1800 daily calories, I have lost 1 lb per week consistently and I haven't exercised for over a month!
I am 5'5. How tall are you?
PS - Add me, I'd love to share and get inspiration from other peoples diaries as well as provide/receive motivation.
Thanks
It's working for me splendidly! Far better than 1200, 1300, 1500, 1600, 1700. <<< i have tried all of these.
Since I have implemented 1800 daily calories, I have lost 1 lb per week consistently and I haven't exercised for over a month!
I am 5'5. How tall are you?
PS - Add me, I'd love to share and get inspiration from other peoples diaries as well as provide/receive motivation.
Thanks
1
Replies
-
That is not how any of this works9
-
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »That is not how any of this works
How does it work then?
EDIT - Just picked up on your sarcasm. Of course I am eating too muchAND I am finally happy and not obsessing over food.
2 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »That is not how any of this works
Just to explain... I am not saying you can't be losing at 1800...I'm saying you can't be losing more than at 1200-1700...1 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »That is not how any of this works
Just to explain... I am not saying you can't be losing at 1800...I'm saying you can't be losing more than at 1200-1700...
I see.
Fair enough. I don't see as black/white.
Im not here to argue or prove that what I see/experienced is right/wrong.
I just found what works and I am happy.
2 -
Ignore the people who will criticize you for saying you can't lose less at "1,300"3
-
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »That is not how any of this works
Just to explain... I am not saying you can't be losing at 1800...I'm saying you can't be losing more than at 1200-1700...
then I must be an anomaly because it works (for me)
You truly must be because it involves breaking laws of physics. It is same as saying you are spending more money out of your paycheck but manage to save up more at the end of month
I'm happy you are losing weight...and that you are happy. But you should also understand that what you are saying can't be correct. You might think you are eating more now (started logging food better? weighing food better? dropped some water weight recently?)...3 -
Ignore the people who will criticize you for saying you can't lose less at "1,300"
If this is meant for me... I didn't say she can't be losing at 1800 - I know many that do...and even more than than. However what I did say is that she can't be losing more at 1800 than with smaller intake.1 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »That is not how any of this works
Just to explain... I am not saying you can't be losing at 1800...I'm saying you can't be losing more than at 1200-1700...
then I must be an anomaly because it works (for me)
You truly must be because it involves breaking laws of physics. It is same as saying you are spending more money out of your paycheck but manage to save up more at the end of month
I'm happy you are losing weight...and that you are happy. But you should also understand that what you are saying can't be correct. You might think you are eating more now (started logging food better? weighing food better? dropped some water weight recently?)...
What have I said?
0 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Ignore the people who will criticize you for saying you can't lose less at "1,300"
If this is meant for me... I didn't say she can't be losing at 1800 - I know many that do...and even more than than. However what I did say is that she can't be losing more at 1800 than with smaller intake.
Whats your calorie intake, how tall are you and whats your activity level?0 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »That is not how any of this works
Just to explain... I am not saying you can't be losing at 1800...I'm saying you can't be losing more than at 1200-1700...
then I must be an anomaly because it works (for me)
You truly must be because it involves breaking laws of physics. It is same as saying you are spending more money out of your paycheck but manage to save up more at the end of month
I'm happy you are losing weight...and that you are happy. But you should also understand that what you are saying can't be correct. You might think you are eating more now (started logging food better? weighing food better? dropped some water weight recently?)...
What have I said?
You said you are losing more weight eating 1800 than before when you say you ate less. I just know that for losing more weight answer is never to up the calories and not exercise.8 -
As my nutritionist said, You shouldn't eat as little as you can to lose weight. You should eat as much as you can as long as you are still losing / maintaining (depending on personal goal) weight. If you can maintain losing 1lb a week at 1800, and then that's what you should do. If you lose 1lb a week on 2000, then you should eat 2000.4
-
I lost most of my weight eating 1500-1800 calories ..but I did it to purposefully slow down my weight loss and move into maintenance more easily
I think it's a nice comfortable number for me ..I only did 1200 for the first few weeks until I learned from the forum how it all worked, even though I already thought I knew ...turned out I was wrong
then again I maintain at 2200-2400 generally so it's still a decent cut from my TDEE
(I'm 5'8 btw)2 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Ignore the people who will criticize you for saying you can't lose less at "1,300"
If this is meant for me... I didn't say she can't be losing at 1800 - I know many that do...and even more than than. However what I did say is that she can't be losing more at 1800 than with smaller intake.
Whats your calorie intake, how tall are you and whats your activity level?
I'm 5'2, 125 lbs...at my goal weight and was doing maintenance for a while and now considering losing a couple vanity lbs. My maintenance is about 1700-2000 depending on the day so 'cutting' would be 250 less. Don't see how that is relevant.4 -
As my nutritionist said, You shouldn't eat as little as you can to lose weight. You should eat as much as you can as long as you are still losing / maintaining (depending on personal goal) weight. If you can maintain losing 1lb a week at 1800, and then that's what you should do. If you lose 1lb a week on 2000, then you should eat 2000.
Agreed and it's better psychologically and emotionally.
I was constantly hungry on low cal diets, obsessed over food and just couldn't concentrate!
How about yourself? Whats your height and calorie intake?2 -
Although height is less relevant than weight TBH ...so I went from 215, was around 190 (ish) when I started increasing, from knowledge not because lower calories weren't working..and I maintain at 160 because I'm at my desired soft but strong body aesthetic1
-
I lost most of my weight eating 1500-1800 calories ..but I did it to purposefully slow down my weight loss and move into maintenance more easily
I think it's a nice comfortable number for me ..I only did 1200 for the first few weeks until I learned from the forum how it all worked, even though I already thought I knew ...turned out I was wrong
then again I maintain at 2200-2400 generally so it's still a decent cut from my TDEE
(I'm 5'8 btw)
I dont have alot to lose (about 12lbs) but I was looking for quick results on low cal diets which made me suffer in other ways (re-above) but now that I am on 1800, it doesnt feel like a diet anymore so a loss of 1lb a week is a bonus.
I find that I am not desperate to hit my 1800 allowance either whereas 1200 was difficult to adhere to. So was 1600 actually. All mental games eh.
0 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Ignore the people who will criticize you for saying you can't lose less at "1,300"
If this is meant for me... I didn't say she can't be losing at 1800 - I know many that do...and even more than than. However what I did say is that she can't be losing more at 1800 than with smaller intake.
Whats your calorie intake, how tall are you and whats your activity level?
I'm 5'2, 125 lbs...at my goal weight and was doing maintenance for a while and now considering losing a couple vanity lbs. My maintenance is about 1700-2000 depending on the day so 'cutting' would be 250 less. Don't see how that is relevant.
It's relevant to the thread as I am calling out for people on high cal diets and you are coming in here trying to ruin my thread with your lectures.1 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Ignore the people who will criticize you for saying you can't lose less at "1,300"
If this is meant for me... I didn't say she can't be losing at 1800 - I know many that do...and even more than than. However what I did say is that she can't be losing more at 1800 than with smaller intake.
Whats your calorie intake, how tall are you and whats your activity level?
I'm 5'2, 125 lbs...at my goal weight and was doing maintenance for a while and now considering losing a couple vanity lbs. My maintenance is about 1700-2000 depending on the day so 'cutting' would be 250 less. Don't see how that is relevant.
It's relevant to the thread as I am calling out for people on high cal diets and you are coming in here trying to ruin my thread with your lectures.
I am really sorry if you think I'm ruining you thread. I just don't think that someone coming to this thread and reading 'hey 1800 kcal works better than 1500 kcal (magic!)' and increase their calories since they might be not losing at 1500. That is not how it works. At all. 1800 is not the magic number. Each person has different calories they can lose with. We are all different. However losing more while eating more (unless it powers awesome work out sessions) does not work. Fact. I do agree people should eat as much as they can while still losing weight (if that is indeed their goal). I've been eating 1800 kcal lately too and I've been maintaining. Since that is my TDEE and maintenance was my plan. There is no magic number. It is not 1200 and it is not 1800. It's all simple math.
8 -
I lost well on 1800 calories. It was sustainable long term. I was comfortable, kept my NEAT activity up, etc.
Yes, 1300 means faster weight loss if nothing else changes but that's not how our bodies work. Many of us find that our bodies' metabolic adaptations make low calorie diets pointless.
A good listen:
http://www.irakinutrition.com/podcast/podcast-with-lyle-mcdonald-1/7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 388.9K Introduce Yourself
- 42.9K Getting Started
- 259K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.2K Recipes
- 232K Fitness and Exercise
- 340 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.3K Motivation and Support
- 7.5K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 21 News and Announcements
- 705 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions