1 or 2 lbs per week?
Replies
-
If you disagree voice your objections and we can discuss it. Otherwise that comment contributes nothing.0
-
-
You're not describing the same thing at all. My example of "fast" is measured in weeks and your example of "fast" is described in seconds. I'm not saying you need to create your caloric deficit for your entire goal weight loss in one gym session. I'm saying there's no reason to double the length of time your diet should take without good reason.0
-
O.K. I guess it depends on how much weight a person needs to lose. I was never really "fat" so I tended to lose weight slow,but I guess if a person needs to lose a lot,faster can be better0
-
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!
Issue is, the leaner you get, the less readily available fat you have to be utilized for energy - fat is preferential to muscle as far as your body is concerned.
That being said, a good rule of thumb (and assuming some kind of sensible resistance training is being done), is 1% of total weight until you start getting relatively lean, then drop it to 0.5%.
0 -
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!
If you are 100 lbs overweight (i.e., you're carrying around an extra 100 lbs of fat beyond what you would have at a healthy weight and body fat percentage), you can easily obtain enough energy from your stored fat to cover a 1000 calorie a day (2 lbs a week) deficit (there's an actual formula for this, but I don't have it memorized -- x calories per kg of fat per day). If you only have 10 lbs to lose, you probably can't obtain enough energy your stored fat to cover a 1000 calorie a day or even a 500 calorie a day deficit, so you'll have to tap lean body mass to get the energy. Essentially, if you try to eat at too large a deficit for the amount of stored fat you have, the more muscle you'll burn to meet your energy needs.
I don't know if the chart is strictly based on the formula for getting energy from fat and some assumption about average BF% in relation to how many pounds someone is overweight, but that's the concept that it's trying to capture.
0 -
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.
Your body does not have vast stores of many vitamins. And what about the ones it cannot store for more than a short period of time in any event?
0 -
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!
Issue is, the leaner you get, the less readily available fat you have to be utilized for energy - fat is preferential to muscle as far as your body is concerned.
That being said, a good rule of thumb (and assuming some kind of sensible resistance training is being done), is 1% of total weight until you start getting relatively lean, then drop it to 0.5%.
thanks. My sister challenged me to lose 6% in 6 weeks, which was about 12 lbs. I actually came pretty close, but I thought she was nuts. I have had so much trouble losing weight.
I have my calories set at 1 lb/ week. I think this is good for me. I take things like the chart as a guide, but not the only way to do things. I wouldn't stick with an aggressive rate of weight loss because I would get too hungry.0 -
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!
Issue is, the leaner you get, the less readily available fat you have to be utilized for energy - fat is preferential to muscle as far as your body is concerned.
That being said, a good rule of thumb (and assuming some kind of sensible resistance training is being done), is 1% of total weight until you start getting relatively lean, then drop it to 0.5%.
thanks. My sister challenged me to lose 6% in 6 weeks, which was about 12 lbs. I actually came pretty close, but I thought she was nuts. I have had so much trouble losing weight.
I have my calories set at 1 lb/ week. I think this is good for me. I take things like the chart as a guide, but not the only way to do things. I wouldn't stick with an aggressive rate of weight loss because I would get too hungry.
One thing that has been missed so far in this thread is adherence. You touched on it in your comment that you get too hungry.
Losing weight can be a balance - too low calorie target (ignoring the other issues re lbm retention etc), can make adherence hard and can led to binging/falling off the wagon as well as low energy. Too high of a target (i.e. too slow of a weigh loss) can also lead to some adherence problems - dieters fatigue. Its all about finding that balance.
0 -
lynn_glenmont 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!
If you are 100 lbs overweight (i.e., you're carrying around an extra 100 lbs of fat beyond what you would have at a healthy weight and body fat percentage), you can easily obtain enough energy from your stored fat to cover a 1000 calorie a day (2 lbs a week) deficit (there's an actual formula for this, but I don't have it memorized -- x calories per kg of fat per day). If you only have 10 lbs to lose, you probably can't obtain enough energy your stored fat to cover a 1000 calorie a day or even a 500 calorie a day deficit, so you'll have to tap lean body mass to get the energy. Essentially, if you try to eat at too large a deficit for the amount of stored fat you have, the more muscle you'll burn to meet your energy needs.
I don't know if the chart is strictly based on the formula for getting energy from fat and some assumption about average BF% in relation to how many pounds someone is overweight, but that's the concept that it's trying to capture.
It's hypothetical and I would not want to be close as a cya, but it's 31g per lb of fat per day.0 -
I was not insinuating you were. I responded to a specific claim you made.
0 -
arditarose wrote: »TimothyFish 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.
The 148lb person you mentioned would burn about 1400 calories cycling at 16mph for two hours. There's no reason for us to assume that people should aim for half a pound per week just because some other person is too lazy to exercise.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »arditarose wrote: »TimothyFish 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.
The 148lb person you mentioned would burn about 1400 calories cycling at 16mph for two hours. There's no reason for us to assume that people should aim for half a pound per week just because some other person is too lazy to exercise.
Lean person doing high amounts of cardio at a large deficit - fantastic advice!
Edited as I found the answer to my question. Not being someone who cycles, (or runs...must be lazy lol) what kind of pace is 16 mph? Seems like a pretty hefty pace to burn that much at that weight.
0 -
[q
The 148lb person you mentioned would burn about 1400 calories cycling at 16mph for two hours.
Timothyfish
That is one hell of a calorie burn there--Person would weigh about 100 lbs in a week--wow good advice dude -- I looked at your diary and I find it hard to believe that you burned 1200 cals today bike riding (and have burned twice as much as that on other days,or so your diary says) and only ate 1538 calories all day of which 19 grams were protein?-WOW--good luck with that pace---On Sat you burned 2,380 cals exercising and ate 2261cals total?--No offense but I do not need your advice on weight management and please double-check those calories burnt during exercise0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »arditarose wrote: »TimothyFish 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.
The 148lb person you mentioned would burn about 1400 calories cycling at 16mph for two hours. There's no reason for us to assume that people should aim for half a pound per week just because some other person is too lazy to exercise.
Actually I find it crazy and insulting to assume that someone is lazy because they are aiming for half a pound per week loss. You don't know what that person's goals are (i.e. body recomposition/minimizing muscle mass loss), nor how much they are exercising.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »arditarose wrote: »TimothyFish 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.
The 148lb person you mentioned would burn about 1400 calories cycling at 16mph for two hours. There's no reason for us to assume that people should aim for half a pound per week just because some other person is too lazy to exercise.
But...I have stuff to do. Besides that some people (Like myself) work out plenty and still prefer a small deficit. In fact I prefer it because I work out. My lifts suck if I'm a bigger cut. My recovery time suffers. I'm more prone to hurting myself.0 -
indianwin2001 wrote: »[q
The 148lb person you mentioned would burn about 1400 calories cycling at 16mph for two hours.
Timothyfish
That is one hell of a calorie burn there--Person would weigh about 100 lbs in a week--wow good advice dude -- I looked at your diary and I find it hard to believe that you burned 1200 cals today bike riding (and have burned twice as much as that on other days,or so your diary says) and only ate 1538 calories all day of which 19 grams were protein?-WOW--good luck with that pace---On Sat you burned 2,380 cals exercising and ate 2261cals total?--No offense but I do not need your advice on weight management and please double-check those calories burnt during exercise
Totally agree! Crazy. You missed Friday were he burned 4,300 calories with 4 hours of bike riding and 1/2 hour mowing the lawn! That is awesome.
0 -
This this this this this!!
Losing weight can be a balance - too low calorie target (ignoring the other issues re lbm retention etc), can make adherence hard and can led to binging/falling off the wagon as well as low energy. Too high of a target (i.e. too slow of a weigh loss) can also lead to some adherence problems - dieters fatigue. Its all about finding that balance.
It is about finding what works for you and what you can stick to.
If you can stick to losing 1-2lbs a week at a lower weight loss to go fine. If you can't and need to go slower - also fine. Whatever fits you.
0 -
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't actually ride four hours on Friday. That was the day I linked MapMyRide to MyFitnessPal, so it reported that I rode two hours, even though I had manually recorded a two hour ride. I have now deleted the manual entry.ingasmile2 wrote: »Totally agree! Crazy. You missed Friday were he burned 4,300 calories with 4 hours of bike riding and 1/2 hour mowing the lawn! That is awesome.indianwin2001 wrote: »The 148lb person you mentioned would burn about 1400 calories cycling at 16mph for two hours.
Timothyfish
That is one hell of a calorie burn there--Person would weigh about 100 lbs in a week--wow good advice dude -- I looked at your diary and I find it hard to believe that you burned 1200 cals today bike riding (and have burned twice as much as that on other days,or so your diary says) and only ate 1538 calories all day of which 19 grams were protein?-WOW--good luck with that pace---On Sat you burned 2,380 cals exercising and ate 2261cals total?--No offense but I do not need your advice on weight management and please double-check those calories burnt during exercise
I'm using the same estimation tools as everyone else. I also suspect the numbers are high, which is why in MapMyRide I gave it a lower weight than what the scales show, but I've done the math using my logged calorie consumption and my weight loss. They weren't as far off as I expected, so either the estimations are close or I'm burning more calories doing other stuff than I realize.
I don't expect most people to be able to burn calories at the same rate as I do. I am above the 95 percentile in terms of height. Even at my goal weight of 208, the estimates say that I should be able to burn 900 calories per hour at 16mph. Realistic? I'll redo the math when I reach that point and find out. But I'm hoping that after dropping another 50lbs, and continuing to exercise, I'll be going faster than 16mph, which would have the estimate at 1100 calories per hour.
I don't know where you're getting your "100lbs in a week" statement. A calorie deficit of 1400 per day would only be 2.8 lbs per week. For a 148lb person to drop 48lbs in a week, they would have to have a deficit of 24,000 calories per day. Tour de France riders are only burning through about 8,000 calories per day, so I think that would be a little excessive for the average 148lb person.
http://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/nutrition/the-tour-de-france-diet-how-to-consume-8-000-calories-a-day-201407100 -
TimothyFish wrote: »
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't actually ride four hours on Friday. That was the day I linked MapMyRide to MyFitnessPal, so it reported that I rode two hours, even though I had manually recorded a two hour ride. I have now deleted the manual entry.ingasmile2 wrote: »Totally agree! Crazy. You missed Friday were he burned 4,300 calories with 4 hours of bike riding and 1/2 hour mowing the lawn! That is awesome.indianwin2001 wrote: »The 148lb person you mentioned would burn about 1400 calories cycling at 16mph for two hours.
Timothyfish
That is one hell of a calorie burn there--Person would weigh about 100 lbs in a week--wow good advice dude -- I looked at your diary and I find it hard to believe that you burned 1200 cals today bike riding (and have burned twice as much as that on other days,or so your diary says) and only ate 1538 calories all day of which 19 grams were protein?-WOW--good luck with that pace---On Sat you burned 2,380 cals exercising and ate 2261cals total?--No offense but I do not need your advice on weight management and please double-check those calories burnt during exercise
I'm using the same estimation tools as everyone else. I also suspect the numbers are high, which is why in MapMyRide I gave it a lower weight than what the scales show, but I've done the math using my logged calorie consumption and my weight loss. They weren't as far off as I expected, so either the estimations are close or I'm burning more calories doing other stuff than I realize.
I don't expect most people to be able to burn calories at the same rate as I do. I am above the 95 percentile in terms of height. Even at my goal weight of 208, the estimates say that I should be able to burn 900 calories per hour at 16mph. Realistic? I'll redo the math when I reach that point and find out. But I'm hoping that after dropping another 50lbs, and continuing to exercise, I'll be going faster than 16mph, which would have the estimate at 1100 calories per hour.
I don't know where you're getting your "100lbs in a week" statement. A calorie deficit of 1400 per day would only be 2.8 lbs per week. For a 148lb person to drop 48lbs in a week, they would have to have a deficit of 24,000 calories per day. Tour de France riders are only burning through about 8,000 calories per day, so I think that would be a little excessive for the average 148lb person.
http://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/nutrition/the-tour-de-france-diet-how-to-consume-8-000-calories-a-day-20140710
I don't agree with calorie burn at all but I don't want to argue. I am interested to see if you keep up with your lean body mass. You eat very minimal protein. It would be interesting to see your lbm percentages/muscle loss as you go. If you're in the 95% for height, I would imagine nutritionally you should be getting at least 130gm of protein a day and with the workouts a lot more.0 -
shortnsassy1981 wrote: »I don't agree with calorie burn at all but I don't want to argue. I am interested to see if you keep up with your lean body mass. You eat very minimal protein. It would be interesting to see your lbm percentages/muscle loss as you go. If you're in the 95% for height, I would imagine nutritionally you should be getting at least 130gm of protein a day and with the workouts a lot more.
In part, that minimal protein is due to inaccuracies in the database and I haven't been watching my protein that closely. During the summer, I was consuming significantly more protein, but I was also riding more. As for arguing over the calorie burn, I have no intention of arguing over that either. All I have to support it is the normal estimation tools and the results from a heart rate monitor.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »shortnsassy1981 wrote: »I don't agree with calorie burn at all but I don't want to argue. I am interested to see if you keep up with your lean body mass. You eat very minimal protein. It would be interesting to see your lbm percentages/muscle loss as you go. If you're in the 95% for height, I would imagine nutritionally you should be getting at least 130gm of protein a day and with the workouts a lot more.
In part, that minimal protein is due to inaccuracies in the database and I haven't been watching my protein that closely. During the summer, I was consuming significantly more protein, but I was also riding more. As for arguing over the calorie burn, I have no intention of arguing over that either. All I have to support it is the normal estimation tools and the results from a heart rate monitor.
I am not going to sit here and argue with your numbers either. I wish you good luck in whatever it is you are trying to do.0
This discussion has been closed.
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