1 or 2 lbs per week?
Options
Replies
-
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.
0 -
^^ that's what I wanted to say but my brain is not working.0
-
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!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!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!
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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 500.0 -
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.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.
I typed something but I'm a sissy so I will just say...."gah!"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.
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 better0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions