Ok – a calculator will be very helpful in this but here goes.

To figure “maximum calories a day while actively trying to lose weight” you figure these three (factors):

Your current Weight in Kilograms (pounds divided by 2.2 will convert to KG) multiplied by 10

Figure your height in Centimeters (to convert multiply your height in inches by 2.5) and then multiply that by 6.25

Your Age X 5 and whatever that is you either add 5 to it for males or subtract 161 for females

(that’s not a sexist thing, women just physiologically retain body fat better than males which sucks making it more difficult for them to lose weight and age is a factor because the older we are the more difficult it is to lose weight because we naturally require less calories)

When you have those 3 number results you simply,

Add the first number to the second and subtract the third – that will tell you your maximum calorie intake a day to lose weight.

To illustrate I will use myself:

I weigh 170 lbs (divided by 2.2) equals 77.2 KG – so multiply that by 10 = 772

My height is 6’1” (or 73”) multiplied by 2.5 (to get cm) = 182.5 X 6.25 (from the formula) = 1140

And finally, I’m 58 (x 5) = 290 +5 (from formula for a male) = 295

(if I was a woman it would be 58 X 5 – 161 = 129)

And now just plug in the numbers:

(Phone number can only be seen by the question and answer creators)

So 1617 calories a day would be the “calculated” maximum daily calorie allowance if I wanted to “lose weight”.

I did “not bad” just with the trial/error method when I came up with 1650 a day which DID allow me to lose and keep of 60 pounds.

So if you have tried and tried and got nothing but frustrated maybe take the couple of minutes and figure out (scientifically) what your daily “I Want to Lose Weight” Calorie number should be and give it a try.

We need to burn up years of "stored body fat" and the only way to do that is to "starve ourselves a little" and force our body to make up the difference by burning up that extra fat we are carrying. When it's gone we can get back to "business as usual" (2000'ish calories a day) and maintain that new slimmer YOU. 😀

What I should have started with in my above answer to @A DiabetesTeam Member is that most of these (suggestions, directions - whatever you want to call them) are generalized for the "average" Diabetic.

Given that 70% of Type 2's don't even really try to follow a diet, the professionals have tried to develop at least "some guidance".

Counting carbs, calculating Glycemic Loads (GL - GI or Glycemic Index has to be looked up on a chart because it is figured out in a lab environment) is NOT Rocket Science but it does involve some work on the part of the one that tries to use it to tailor "their diet".

So for those who (can't be bothered) the guidance is there to try and give them the best chance of "not blowing themselves up" with what they eat.

It's just easier to say NO White Bread, Rice or Potato and try to pick foods with a Glycemic Index below 50.

If you do that you will generally be "somewhat safe" but you will also be restricting yourself in what you can eat.

Because if you are willing to look up some numbers, count some carb, figure out your own carb number and then spend a few minutes with a calculator you can greatly expand the variety of what you can eat.

No, we often can't eat the portion size we wish we could. But I personally would rather eat (occasionally) 3/4 cup of potato or 4oz of rice or whatever then "never eat it again" for the rest of my life.

Hey @A DiabetesTeam Member carb or carbs is just short for Carbohydrates and they are both absolutely necessary but they also jack up our blood sugar.

The nutrition in foods fall into three broad classes -

Fats - found in meat, dairy, nuts etc do nothing to our blood sugar

Protein - again found in meat, nuts, beans etc barely move our blood sugar

Carbohydrates - which are further broken into sugars, starches and fibers have a great effect on our blood sugar.

Sugars, whether natural (in fruit) or processed (table sugar) get quickly converted to blood sugar.

Starches (like in flour, potato, rice etc) are just a complex sugar (so two or more sugars together) quickly increase our blood sugar and keep it high longer

and then fibers are the "good carbs" that don't move our blood sugar and help our digestive system work better.

Carbs do also contain tons of vitamins, minerals, trace elements - stuff we really need but since they also mess with our blood sugar we need to find a balance.

You want to eat enough carbs to get all the nutrition we need but not so many that we jack our blood sugar.

That means the "game becomes" trying to find and pick the "best carbs" we can because we are limited in how many we can eat.

Mentioned Users

A Diabete...

@A DiabetesTeam Member I am glad that works for you.

But I am slightly more pragmatic.

Over the past few hundred thousand years humans evolved as omnivores. Our metabolism tailored our bodies to "need and use" nutrition from all food groups with "animal products" being a huge part of that.

So while you can adopt a vegan diet it is not "natural" and your body was not designed to get all it's nutritional needs from only non-animal sources.

And that is why no diet is "perfect" - while there are a number of benefits to a vegan or vegetarian diet in terms of health there is also a downside.

If you leave aside any personal views/opinions about the use of animal products, we just can't get all the vitamins, minerals, trace elements etc from "plants alone" that our bodies have "evolved to need"

Vegan and Vegetarian diets, without supplements, can leave you severely deficient in Vitamin B12 (which diabetes meds already cause low levels), calcium, iron and zinc - all of which are super important.

Simply wishing we could or believing we can does not make it so.

Mentioned Users

A Diabete...

No I didn't until I got down to where I wanted to be.

During that year while I was "losing" I did see my dietitian at least 3 times just to make sure I wasn't short changing myself on needed nutrients/vitamins etc.

When I got down to 180 pounds, my target, I was still losing a couple pounds a week.

And it wasn't a straight line all the way down. Over that year I kinda "hung up" at a weight for a week or so and then it kicked back in. But there was 2 or 3 times during the process that I (thought) 'this is as good as it's going to get', but it did keep going down.

When I got down to about 175 and was still losing - so past my goal and still dropping "slowly", I gave her a call and asked for advice.

She told me to start adding calories back - up them by 500 (1700 in my case) and see if that "stops the weight loss". And if it didn't then just another 500 daily every couple of weeks until either I got back to 2000 calories a day OR I started putting on a pound or two and stop there.

More specifically to your question, what I found was, earlier on - first couple of months I was dumped 10 pounds a month then the next few it was 5 or 6. So the first 40 pounds came of in about 5 to 6 months. Then it did "slow down" without tapering the calories to a couple pounds a month, but always downward.

It did seem (and the numbers showed it) that it's easy to get rid of the first 20 or 30 pounds and then it gets more difficult even though you are still on reduced calories. But if you stick with it, you will get there.

And losing the bulk of it earlier on is super motivating - like when you are 10 pounds light "next month" you WANT to keep going.