1 or 2 lbs per week?

jenni_d1990

Just wondering when I should set my goal to 1 lb per week. I've lost 42 lbs and have about 25 more to go.

jillmarie125

What would the calorie goal be for 1 pound a week vs 2? Personally I would pick 1 pound...because I like food. But it's up to you. What calorie goal are you comfortable with.

Lasmartchika

Go for 1lb week weight loss now...

TimothyFish

I wouldn't, unless your current calorie intake is causing you a problem. MFP won't let you drop below 1200 calories anyway.

TeaBea

Here's a chart with step down goals......

Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

jenni_d1990

TeaBea wrote: »

Here's a chart with step down goals......

Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

Thanks, that's a helpful chart

jennileeb1680

TeaBea wrote: »

Here's a chart with step down goals......

Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

Thank you for this!!

jenluvsushi

TeaBea wrote: »

Here's a chart with step down goals......

Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

Bumping for later

Rebekkah5215

TeaBea wrote: »

Here's a chart with step down goals......

Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

Helpful chart... thanks for sharing!!

SpencersKid

TeaBea wrote: »
Here's a chart with step down goals......

Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

Nice chart. Thank you for sharing!

TimothyFish

Well, it's a chart, do you have any science to support it?

arditarose

Common-Life-Sense-Science

Kalikel

If you can go slow, do it. Gives your skin more of a chance to keep up.

TimothyFish

arditarose wrote: »

Common-Life-Sense-Science

There's nothing common sense about taking ranges of weights and assigning them to ranges of weights. It is arbitrary. If it were based on height, I might see something to it. Certainly, a 4' woman would have different results if she lost 2lbs than a 7' man would. Or if it were based on a percentage of a person's weight, it might make sense, but even then, without research to back it up, it is just a chart.

arditarose

ok

indianwin2001

TimothyFish wrote: »

arditarose wrote: »

Common-Life-Sense-Science

There's nothing common sense about taking ranges of weights and assigning them to ranges of weights. It is arbitrary. If it were based on height, I might see something to it. Certainly, a 4' woman would have different results if she lost 2lbs than a 7' man would. Or if it were based on a percentage of a person's weight, it might make sense, but even then, without research to back it up, it is just a chart.

Many people on this site recommend this chart. They recommend it mostly because it works.That is called experience. When you experience something that works,well --
I will take that over "science" every day

Liftng4Lis

TimothyFish wrote: »

arditarose wrote: »

Common-Life-Sense-Science

There's nothing common sense about taking ranges of weights and assigning them to ranges of weights. It is arbitrary. If it were based on height, I might see something to it. Certainly, a 4' woman would have different results if she lost 2lbs than a 7' man would. Or if it were based on a percentage of a person's weight, it might make sense, but even then, without research to back it up, it is just a chart.

It's a recommendation often used on MFP, especially for people who have a small amount to lose and go at it to aggressively.

arditarose

Liftng4Lis wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

arditarose wrote: »

Common-Life-Sense-Science

There's nothing common sense about taking ranges of weights and assigning them to ranges of weights. It is arbitrary. If it were based on height, I might see something to it. Certainly, a 4' woman would have different results if she lost 2lbs than a 7' man would. Or if it were based on a percentage of a person's weight, it might make sense, but even then, without research to back it up, it is just a chart.

It's a recommendation often used on MFP, especially for people who have a small amount to lose and go at it to aggressively.

Thanks guys. I'm tired. My response=not helpful ha

socalkay

MFP has changed when they show their warning for eating too few calories, at least for women. It now shows up at 1000 calories for a day.

TimothyFish

indianwin2001 wrote: »

Many people on this site recommend this chart. They recommend it mostly because it works.That is called experience. When you experience something that works,well --
I will take that over "science" every day

I don't question that people can follow the chart and "experience" it, but science just might tell us that something else would also work that would give people a better experience.

indianwin2001

O .K.--I don't get your point but o.k.--If the chart works for most people what is the "something else" that would also work. We are talking about losing weight,not anything too complicated that we need a "science" behind it. For me its simple-CICO---I don't mean to argue with you,but I don't understand your point

bajoyba

I think the chart actually is a really great guideline, and if you think about the math behind weight loss, it makes a lot of sense independent of other people's experiences.

If you have 75 pounds to lose, you're carrying around an extra 75 pounds regardless of how tall you are. Yes, we all have different calorie needs depending on a variety of factors, but if someone is 75 pounds overweight, it means they probably have the energy requirements to support the 1000 calorie deficit per day required to lose approximately 2lbs a week. People who are only slightly overweight and only want to lose 10 pounds probably require fewer calories to maintain their current weight and may not be able to create such a large deficit while still meeting their energy and nutritional needs.

I do my own math when it comes to my calorie intake, but for people who are just starting out on MFP, that chart can be very helpful in showing realistic rates of weight loss, and it makes it much easier to plug attainable weight loss goals into the system and have it do the math for you. For what it's worth, referencing the chart helped me lose 86 pounds.

arditarose

^^ that's what I wanted to say but my brain is not working.

Littledorts

I lost 57 lbs. on Weight Watchers a few years ago, gradually over a course of two years most of it returned. Mostly because I ate too much and stopped exercising. I dropped weight so fast, it literally fell off. This time I am deliberately going slow, 1 lb per week and hoping to make a life change. Back to counting good old calories!

Zedeff

This chart is kind of crazy. If you had 100 lbs to lose and could reliably lose what MFP predicts then:

At 2 lbs per week, it'd take 50 weeks total.
As for the chart speeds, it'd take: 12.5 + 23.3 + 15 + 13.3 + 30 weeks = 94.1 weeks.

That's less than 1 year versus almost 1 year and 10 months.

Unless there's a physiologic/scientific explanation for why that is "better" then I'd stick with the 2 lbs/wk the whole way myself!

bajoyba

Zedeff wrote: »

This chart is kind of crazy. If you had 100 lbs to lose and could reliably lose what MFP predicts then:

At 2 lbs per week, it'd take 50 weeks total.
As for the chart speeds, it'd take: 12.5 + 23.3 + 15 + 13.3 + 30 weeks = 94.1 weeks.

That's less than 1 year versus almost 1 year and 10 months.

Unless there's a physiologic/scientific explanation for why that is "better" then I'd stick with the 2 lbs/wk the whole way myself!

To lose 2 lbs a week, you have to create a deficit of 1000 calories a day. If you are 100 pounds overweight, you maintain your weight at a much higher calorie goal than someone who is not carrying 100 extra pounds, which makes it much easier to create that large deficit.

I'm 5'6", weigh about 148 pounds, and maintain my current weight at approximately 2100 calories a day when I'm moderately active. If I want to continue my current activity level and drop 2 lbs a week, I should eat no more than 1100 calories a day. When I was 86 pounds heavier, I required more calories to maintain my weight of 234 pounds, so I could lose 2 lbs a week while eating more calories. At a certain point, creating such a large deficit is problematic because it becomes difficult to meet your body's caloric and nutritional requirements on so few calories (put another way, it's much easier to get all the vitamins and minerals your body needs in 1800 calories a day than it is to get them in 800 calories a day).

I hope that explains it better.

TimothyFish

bajoyba wrote: »

To lose 2 lbs a week, you have to create a deficit of 1000 calories a day. If you are 100 pounds overweight, you maintain your weight at a much higher calorie goal than someone who is not carrying 100 extra pounds, which makes it much easier to create that large deficit.

I'm 5'6", weigh about 148 pounds, and maintain my current weight at approximately 2100 calories a day when I'm moderately active. If I want to continue my current activity level and drop 2 lbs a week, I should eat no more than 1100 calories a day. When I was 86 pounds heavier, I required more calories to maintain my weight of 234 pounds, so I could lose 2 lbs a week while eating more calories. At a certain point, creating such a large deficit is problematic because it becomes difficult to meet your body's caloric and nutritional requirements on so few calories (put another way, it's much easier to get all the vitamins and minerals your body needs in 1800 calories a day than it is to get them in 800 calories a day).

I hope that explains it better.

Your numbers ignore exercise. While losing at 2 lbs per week would put you at 1100 per day without exercise, it would be 1800 a day if you were burning 700 calories through exercise. Or even 2500 per day if you were burning 1400. One of the things I've noticed about some of the theories on this site is that they seem to be based on a person losing weight by sitting on the couch and watching television. Even people who aren't overweight need to get outside and do something.

arditarose

TimothyFish wrote: »

bajoyba wrote: »

To lose 2 lbs a week, you have to create a deficit of 1000 calories a day. If you are 100 pounds overweight, you maintain your weight at a much higher calorie goal than someone who is not carrying 100 extra pounds, which makes it much easier to create that large deficit.

I'm 5'6", weigh about 148 pounds, and maintain my current weight at approximately 2100 calories a day when I'm moderately active. If I want to continue my current activity level and drop 2 lbs a week, I should eat no more than 1100 calories a day. When I was 86 pounds heavier, I required more calories to maintain my weight of 234 pounds, so I could lose 2 lbs a week while eating more calories. At a certain point, creating such a large deficit is problematic because it becomes difficult to meet your body's caloric and nutritional requirements on so few calories (put another way, it's much easier to get all the vitamins and minerals your body needs in 1800 calories a day than it is to get them in 800 calories a day).

I hope that explains it better.

Your numbers ignore exercise. While losing at 2 lbs per week would put you at 1100 per day without exercise, it would be 1800 a day if you were burning 700 calories through exercise. Or even 2500 per day if you were burning 1400. One of the things I've noticed about some of the theories on this site is that they seem to be based on a person losing weight by sitting on the couch and watching television. Even people who aren't overweight need to get outside and do something.

But maybe they don't get outside and do something. And unless they're some kind of overweight athlete they are not burning 1400 calories a day, not 700 calories a day, and very lucky and hard working if burning 500.

Zedeff

I would argue it differently. To lose a fixed amount of weight you need a fixed caloric debt. The two options seem to be:

1. Run a small deficit every day for a long time.
2. Run a larger deficit every day for a short time.

The fact is that the net debt of calories is the same in both scenarios. If caloric restriction = food restriction = nutrient restriction then the amount of nutrients restricted in both scenarios is exactly the same, presuming the same foods are eaten in both scenarios just at different paces.

In that case I would argue that there may be more harm in a prolonged, slow process than a rapid process. Your body carries vast stores of many vitamins and minerals and will not "run out" of these things over a short period of time, but over a long period of time you can get malnourished. Just think of this: if you ate a diet of nothing but white rice for 1 week, you'd manifest no signs of malnutrition at the end. If you ate a diet of nothing but white rice for 30 weeks, you'd certainly have some nutritional deficits.

I would suggest, therefore, that a larger caloric deficit for faster weight loss may be healthier than a prolonged, year-long continuous state of malnutrition.

arditarose

Zedeff wrote: »

I would argue it differently. To lose a fixed amount of weight you need a fixed caloric debt. The two options seem to be:

1. Run a small deficit every day for a long time.
2. Run a larger deficit every day for a short time.

The fact is that the net debt of calories is the same in both scenarios. If caloric restriction = food restriction = nutrient restriction then the amount of nutrients restricted in both scenarios is exactly the same, presuming the same foods are eaten in both scenarios just at different paces.

In that case I would argue that there may be more harm in a prolonged, slow process than a rapid process. Your body carries vast stores of many vitamins and minerals and will not "run out" of these things over a short period of time, but over a long period of time you can get malnourished. Just think of this: if you ate a diet of nothing but white rice for 1 week, you'd manifest no signs of malnutrition at the end. If you ate a diet of nothing but white rice for 30 weeks, you'd certainly have some nutritional deficits.

I would suggest, therefore, that a larger caloric deficit for faster weight loss may be healthier than a prolonged, year-long continuous state of malnutrition.

I typed something but I'm a sissy so I will just say...."gah!"

indianwin2001

Zedeff wrote: »

I would argue it differently. To lose a fixed amount of weight you need a fixed caloric debt. The two options seem to be:

1. Run a small deficit every day for a long time.
2. Run a larger deficit every day for a short time.

The fact is that the net debt of calories is the same in both scenarios. If caloric restriction = food restriction = nutrient restriction then the amount of nutrients restricted in both scenarios is exactly the same, presuming the same foods are eaten in both scenarios just at different paces.

In that case I would argue that there may be more harm in a prolonged, slow process than a rapid process. Your body carries vast stores of many vitamins and minerals and will not "run out" of these things over a short period of time, but over a long period of time you can get malnourished. Just think of this: if you ate a diet of nothing but white rice for 1 week, you'd manifest no signs of malnutrition at the end. If you ate a diet of nothing but white rice for 30 weeks, you'd certainly have some nutritional deficits.

I would suggest, therefore, that a larger caloric deficit for faster weight loss may be healthier than a prolonged, year-long continuous state of malnutrition.

Uh-I respectfully disagree--Using this logic lets say I want to get fit and in shape. I am totally out of shape. If I use HR training,if I first go 50-60% of max and than raise it to 60-70% and so on (its called progressive and can be applied to lifting also) or should I just go straight to 100% of my max heart rate and give myself a heart attack. I suggest slow and steady is better