Ladies on a 1800 cutting diet?
Replies
-
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 -
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.
I know exactly where you are coming from but I dont want to open a new can of worms.1 -
Well, we don't know her particular math, but we do know that for many people, larger deficits produce larger metabolic slowdowns.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...
So if 1800 calories produces a 10% slowdown of her TDEE, but 1200 calories produces a 20% slowdown of her TDEE? Quick math using 2000 as TDEE for ease of computation suggests that eating 1200 calories a day vs. 1800 calories a day would create a slowdown that erases nearly 400 calories of deficit.
It also is likely that for some, higher targets are easier to hit and produce less binging/logging errors.
Combine that with a smaller reduction of metabolism and I can definitely believe that soemoen would have more success with a higher goal (aka smaller deficit)4 -
Well, we don't know her particular math, but we do know that for many people, larger deficits produce larger metabolic slowdowns.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...
So if 1800 calories produces a 10% slowdown of her TDEE, but 1200 calories produces a 20% slowdown of her TDEE? Quick math using 2000 as TDEE for ease of computation suggests that eating 1200 calories a day vs. 1800 calories a day would create a slowdown that erases nearly 400 calories of deficit.
It also is likely that for some, higher targets are easier to hit and produce less binging/logging errors.
Combine that with a smaller reduction of metabolism and I can definitely believe that soemoen would have more success with a higher goal (aka smaller deficit)
You are massively misrepresenting the concept and effect of metabolic slowdown from lower weight and calories
There is no study that supports such wide extrapolation of the concept. You may have found a sweet spot that meant you adhered mor closely to your calories,
You are entitled to your own anecdotal experiences, but not to your own facts.
6 -
I have a goal of 1500 kcal, but averaged 1600kcal a day this month and losing steadily.
1200kcal doesn't work for me simply because I can't stick with it for long enough. For people saying 1200 kcal a day doesn't work for them... are you really being honest with yourself and really eating 1200kcal? And have you done it consistently for at least a month?
Even if your metabolism slows down when dieting (which I believe it does to a small extent) it wouldn't be a 400 kcal difference!0 -
Wow, what a lot of strong opinions here! Okay, we all have basal metabolism rates that required x amount of energy intake - known as calories to most of us. At least those of us alive enough to have strong opinions! And then we need calories to support our activity activity (from sedentary through athlete). So what is the argument about here? If our daily calorie usage turns out to be 2000 calories and we eat 1800, that's a deficit - and deficits result in weight loss. Again, what is the argument about here?2
-
Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
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/
Thank you for the link, I'm very interested in this. It took me losing and gaining back to figure it out. I found that I feel the best at 1800-2000 calories. It feel sustainable, my mood is happy, and I hit all of my macros no problem. I have a lot to lose still, do with exercise it's still possible to be up to 2lbs weight loss. It definitely feels like I can do this long term with no struggle, compared to a lower calorie amount.
0 -
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet9 -
I am on 1900 and losing 1.5-1 lb a week, I'm 5'4.
I DO lose more on 1900 than on 1200 because being on 1200 will cause me to binge and wipe all that away. The goal should be to eat AS much as you can while meeting your goals!5 -
ashjongfit wrote: »I am on 1900 and losing 1.5-1 lb a week, I'm 5'4.
I DO lose more on 1900 than on 1200 because being on 1200 will cause me to binge and wipe all that away. The goal should be to eat AS much as you can while meeting your goals!
Now this can happen 2 -
Changes in gravity?ashjongfit wrote: »I am on 1900 and losing 1.5-1 lb a week, I'm 5'4.
I DO lose more on 1900 than on 1200 because being on 1200 will cause me to binge and wipe all that away. The goal should be to eat AS much as you can while meeting your goals!
Now this can happen
I...don't know.0 -
at 59, to MAINTAIN my weight (with normal activity level) I need about 1600 calories/day; to lose I need to be at about 1100 calories/day. And as you lose, you need less calories (or more exercise) to maintain your current weight. It's an ever-moving target; everyone is different; height, age, activity level and metabolism all affect loss and gain...1
-
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.3 -
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose1 -
Glad to see this thread got more or less back on track I lose on 1800-1900 calories, though I aim for a weekly average rather than eat 1800 daily, so that I can eat more on weekends. I average 1500 during the week so that I can have several high calorie days involving going out to eat or drinking or what-have-you. I started out on 1200 calories when I first got on MFP back in 2011. That did not go well. Like some others have mentioned, if I try to limit my calories to what is, for me, an unsustainably low number, I am more likely to lose self-control and willpower and end up binging. And would not be adequately fueling my workouts, besides. 2
-
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
^This is exactly why I got a fitness tracker with move reminders. And getting up every hour and pacing around for 5-10 minutes when it buzzes me got the scale moving again.
I don't eat ridiculously low (around 1400), but I'm at 25% body fat, 54 years old, 5'2" and weigh 119 pounds. I just want to be very light and lean because it will help my arthritis. So I'm at the point where loss has slowed down and I'm using every trick in the book except cutting too much to do it. I learned the hard way cutting too much makes me binge.1 -
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.0 -
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.0 -
Exactly: CICO is true. What is also true is that CI and CO are both estimates based on averages and past performance.
Different people extract different amounts of energy from the same amount of food (CI is an estimate)
Different people of the same height and weight have different energy requirements (CO is an estimate).
Further, CI and CO vary not just within a person but over time; CI depends in part on gut bacteria, CO depends on a wide variety of factors including hormones, historic weight, non-exercise movement, sleep, and more.
As to the "massively misinterpreting" comment.
I'm not arguing that at 1200 her weight loss would somehow STOP. I'm arguing that at 1200, she was suffering a lot more hunger for much less of a deficit than she thinks she's creating. The idea that you should go for a huge deficit to "lose faster" may well backfire. Because you may think you've created an ENORMOUS deficit, but its not as huge as you think it is. You won't lose at the rate you think you should lose, and you'll simultaneously be risking binging and other issues. And yes, studies consistently show a drop in BMR in the range of 5-25%.1 -
Well, we don't know her particular math, but we do know that for many people, larger deficits produce larger metabolic slowdowns.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...
So if 1800 calories produces a 10% slowdown of her TDEE, but 1200 calories produces a 20% slowdown of her TDEE? Quick math using 2000 as TDEE for ease of computation suggests that eating 1200 calories a day vs. 1800 calories a day would create a slowdown that erases nearly 400 calories of deficit.
It also is likely that for some, higher targets are easier to hit and produce less binging/logging errors.
Combine that with a smaller reduction of metabolism and I can definitely believe that soemoen would have more success with a higher goal (aka smaller deficit)
Putting aside that the numbers are just randomly chosen by you, the 1800 calorie eating in your example would result in no weight loss because 2000 - 10% = 1800 ergo you're at maintenance, vs. 2000 - 20% = 1600, meaning a 400 kcal deficit.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions