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 works
9 -
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 much
AND 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 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »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.
Did you read my thread title?
0 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »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.
Nooo, she said it was "working better" than when she planned to eat fewer calories. Rate of loss isn't the only factor many people consider - there's also energy levels, satiety, overall mood and sense of well-being. If a slower rate of loss is more sustainable, I think it's fair to count that as "working better."11 -
clicketykeys wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »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.
Nooo, she said it was "working better" than when she planned to eat fewer calories. Rate of loss isn't the only factor many people consider - there's also energy levels, satiety, overall mood and sense of well-being. If a slower rate of loss is more sustainable, I think it's fair to count that as "working better."
If that is what she meant I agree completely. Going for sustainable is always a good thing. As I said in my posts that eating as much as possible while losing is a WIN!3 -
clicketykeys wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »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.
Nooo, she said it was "working better" than when she planned to eat fewer calories. Rate of loss isn't the only factor many people consider - there's also energy levels, satiety, overall mood and sense of well-being. If a slower rate of loss is more sustainable, I think it's fair to count that as "working better."
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
This is my point. I even mentioned above that it was a psychological and emotional battle eating so low especially for the inconsistent weight loss. It just isnt worth it (for me)
1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »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.
Nooo, she said it was "working better" than when she planned to eat fewer calories. Rate of loss isn't the only factor many people consider - there's also energy levels, satiety, overall mood and sense of well-being. If a slower rate of loss is more sustainable, I think it's fair to count that as "working better."
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
This is my point. I even mentioned above that it was a psychological and emotional battle eating so low especially for the inconsistent weight loss. It just isnt worth it (for me)
I am sorry I understood wrong that you meant larger weight loss with calorie increase. I am happy you found what is sustainable for you. I increased my activity to be able too eat more since I'm short and quite light. I agree that low calorie diets are very difficult. Good luck!1 -
@selina884 & @Sued0nim
Do you mind if I pick your brains a little?
I am 5'2" 37yo and have lost 15kgs/33lbs in 3 months on 1,350 calories, maintenance for me being a shortie is 1,600 when sedentary. I naturally eat low-carb, it is only due to a preference for high satiety foods which for my peri-menopausal self is fat and protein.
In the past after childbirth I lost weight doing CICO but it came back over 8 years, plus some for good measure
Although I know CICO can result in weight-loss I question if it is sustainable long term?
My body demonstrates that not all calories are created equal, meaning if I eat processed carbs, I gain but if I eat carbs from whole food, no problems at all. Sugar? well let's say it goes straight to my middle!
So, do you mind if I ask, are you practicing IF or employing any other eating tweaks like LCHF or IIFYM?
I am looking to eat hopefully at maintenance and lose, am I dreaming? Can it be done, has it been done and how?
Thanks in advance, you are both doing great work!1 -
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/
thankyou, I'll have a listen when I can. (at work right now)0 -
I am seriously considering upping mine to 1,800 total, as well. I am currently on 1,600 total with 10 lbs to lose and exercise 4-6 times per week. I know it might slow down loss but the lag in my energy levels at a lower amount impacts negatively on my outputs (e.g. exercise). It's hard because I want to see scale progress, but I want to prioritise feeling physically good and my ability to exercise hard! Thanks for the interesting post x3
-
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »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.
Nooo, she said it was "working better" than when she planned to eat fewer calories. Rate of loss isn't the only factor many people consider - there's also energy levels, satiety, overall mood and sense of well-being. If a slower rate of loss is more sustainable, I think it's fair to count that as "working better."
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
This is my point. I even mentioned above that it was a psychological and emotional battle eating so low especially for the inconsistent weight loss. It just isnt worth it (for me)
I am sorry I understood wrong that you meant larger weight loss with calorie increase. I am happy you found what is sustainable for you. I increased my activity to be able too eat more since I'm short and quite light. I agree that low calorie diets are very difficult. Good luck!
That's okay, if I could lose more (without the side effects) by eating less. Ofcourse I would pick that options but Im so much at peace right now and that's why I recommend eating at the highest end of weight loss cals to others only for the satiety and balance it brings. (if that is what they are after)
Good luck to you too. Happy losing.1 -
MishaWest79 wrote: »@selina884 & @Sued0nim
Do you mind if I pick your brains a little?
I am 5'2" 37yo and have lost 15kgs/33lbs in 3 months on 1,350 calories, maintenance for me being a shortie is 1,600 when sedentary. I naturally eat low-carb, it is only due to a preference for high satiety foods which for my peri-menopausal self is fat and protein.
In the past after childbirth I lost weight doing CICO but it came back over 8 years, plus some for good measure
Although I know CICO can result in weight-loss I question if it is sustainable long term?
CICO is a mathematical equation that is the umbrella under which all weight loss occurs ...it is the basic physics And immutable. I think you're talking about calorie counting right?
My body demonstrates that not all calories are created equal, meaning if I eat processed carbs, I gain but if I eat carbs from whole food, no problems at all. Sugar? well let's say it goes straight to my middle!
Here you are confusing scale weight and body fat I think. Your scale weight will change if you go from low carb to high carb or vice versa or if you increase or decrease sodium intake (see highly processed foods which tend to have higher sodium content) ..this is a water weight (eg water binds with glycogen, glycogen is stripped from body if carbs start to drop. Everyone has a scale weight range (generally around 5lbs..it also fluctuates with exercise and hormones) not a fixed point weight
No specific food goes one specific place I'm afraid, the biological process doesn't allow that. However you probably have a genetic tendency to store excess weight around your middle when consuming too many calories
So, do you mind if I ask, are you practicing IF or employing any other eating tweaks like LCHF or IIFYM?
I personally find it easy to adhere to calorie logging...even in maintenance ...it suits me although I'm rather more lax now than I was. I watch my protein minimums and that's about it. But other methods of calorie maintenance, without logging numbers, work for other people. It's a matter of finding what you personally can stick to
I am looking to eat hopefully at maintenance and lose, am I dreaming? Can it be done, has it been done and how?
No it can't, the concept of eating at maintenance grammatically implies that you are eating at the level at which your body maintains. You can eat at a sedentary TDEE level and exercise more to create a defecit but most find that far more unsustainable
Thanks in advance, you are both doing great work!
I hope that helps. I always found knowing the facts behind it helped the scales fall from my eyes and being stripped of beliefs in myths and fads perpetuated by the health and fitness industry was the most important stage in my personal ability to lose and maintain
It boils down to find a way that you can live with and sustain forever, don't go short term results because when you revert to your "normal" your weight is coming back ..if you choose to eat x amount of calories and workout more so your body uses x+500 calories then to maintain you will have to either continue to workout and eat x+500 calories or continue to eat x number of calories ...personally I like food, a lot, I like socialising and cooking so I am active and also workout now (as opposed to my former couch potato life) but I still log, cos I'm a bit of a numbers geek
3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions