Ladies on a 1800 cutting diet?
Replies
-
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 -
I used to lose very happily on 1800 calories when I had a job which allowed me to be more active (I still make time for exercise outside of work, but I probably used to routinely do an extra 5,000 steps a day in my last job, which makes a difference) and now it's half a pound a week on 1600; which is hard, but I wouldn't want to go any lower.1
-
For what it's worth, there's a long thread (4 years) about women eating more than 1,800 calories. You should search for it. Great read and very inspiring!2
-
@Sued0nim Thanks, I really appreciate you clarifying things for me, it gets confusing at times and I am still learning.
Water retention seams bang on actually as I note the bloat when measuring with a tape, the scales I know fluctuate wildly so I couldn't care less what they tell me. I was however tired at low-cal and losing fairly fast so I may just do my own smaller cut and see how it goes.
With the weight gain, I am absolutely guilty of tapering off the logging but ate fairly consistently, it may have been ageing plus extra calories creeping in and since that loss I have had many, many hormonal issues.
I had a feeling losing at maintenance would most likely be from not eating back exercise calories, but a girl can dream
There is just too much information out there sometimes!!!0 -
Interesting string! My experience has been that at 1600 to 1800 Calories per day I'm satisfied and don't find myself "cheating" with extra snacks; but when I go below that amount I'm hungry, and much more prone to snack on unhealthy foods. I do exercise a lot - don't believe one can lose fat without exercise even if you can lose water weight (or unfortunately muscle). I'm tracking with a 1500 Calorie base plus exercise for a gradual weight loss. Starvation has been proven to slow metabolism, and the really low calorie diets risk that effect. Maybe that is why the original poster found she lost better at 1800 Calories than at lower levels.2
-
posted inside one of the comments - repeating to put on the main string:
Interesting string! My experience has been that at 1600 to 1800 Calories per day I'm satisfied and don't find myself "cheating" with extra snacks; but when I go below that amount I'm hungry, and much more prone to snack on unhealthy foods. I do exercise a lot - don't believe one can lose fat without exercise even if you can lose water weight (or unfortunately muscle). I'm tracking with a 1500 Calorie base plus exercise for a gradual weight loss. Starvation has been proven to slow metabolism, and the really low calorie diets risk that effect. Maybe that is why the original poster found she lost better at 1800 Calories than at lower levels.0 -
MishaWest79 wrote: »@Sued0nim Thanks, I really appreciate you clarifying things for me, it gets confusing at times and I am still learning.
Water retention seams bang on actually as I note the bloat when measuring with a tape, the scales I know fluctuate wildly so I couldn't care less what they tell me. I was however tired at low-cal and losing fairly fast so I may just do my own smaller cut and see how it goes.
With the weight gain, I am absolutely guilty of tapering off the logging but ate fairly consistently, it may have been ageing plus extra calories creeping in and since that loss I have had many, many hormonal issues.
I find it impossible to guess calories, even after almost 3 years, a single additional bite here or there easily adds 2-300 calories a day...you're right about calorie creep. Hormones can affect appetite and mood
I had a feeling losing at maintenance would most likely be from not eating back exercise calories, but a girl can dream
There is just too much information out there sometimes!!!
This is true, and sifting between facts and made up stuff to sell a magazine, celebrity or product is initially quite hard. But over time you realise if it doesn't boil down to a calorie equation, it's generally either a tabloid fabricated "misunderstanding" and extrapolation of a part of a specific study or an outright lie (those are synonyms )
2 -
I'm female, 5'6", currently 142 lbs . I lose about 1lb/week eating 1750-1850 calories, but I do exercise. My TDEE with exercise is around 2250. I have usually lost doing this--if I go lower in calories I become more obsessed with food, and life is just difficult all around! 1800 calories is pretty easy for me. I do practice IF, eating from about 1pm until 8pm. I love it!.2
-
Supposedly my TDEE is 1700 calories a day but when I stick to that I lose close to a pound a week. I'm in maintenance technically but trying to take off a couple pounds that crept back on so I'm at 1700 a day now for that and it's great. I'm 5.2.5" and 125 lbs.2
-
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...
This is absolutely wrong. I also get much leaner at higher calories. I've been tracking macros almost every week since 2012 and have repeatedly found that I am leaner when cals aren't too low. There is a sweet spot about 200-500 below TDEE which seems to work best for everyone. You have to experiment but I have seen many people report something similar.1 -
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 x
Do it - and let us know how it goes.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions