Why should I change from 1 pound to .5 pounds as I get close to my goal weight?

DeWoSa

Hi all:

I'm 5'4" and 9 weeks ago I weighed 180. MFP said my TDEE was 1920 and I should eat at 1450 ( a daily deficit of 470) to lose 1 pound a week.

Today, I weigh 166, a loss of 14 pounds. That's a daily deficit of 778 calories.

I've been eating at or under 1450 every day, but nowhere near a deficit of 778 calories, so my TDEE must be higher than MFP calculated. I have a desk job and I don't exercise, so I chose lightly active.

Here's my question:

I want to lose another 16 pounds to get to 150. I've read on MFP that when you get within 15 pounds of your goal, you should slow down to a loss of .5 a week.

I'm wondering two things -- first, am I losing weight too quickly and if so, what exactly does that mean? That's I'm losing muscle as well as fat? I've got tons of muscle, so making them smaller would actually be a goal for me. But is there another, better way, to lose muscle mass that I should be aware of?

Second, do I need to slow down to a .5 loss a week, or can I just keep going at this pace and let my body slow it down as I get closer? What are the downsides?

Thanks for any insights.

cwolfman13

I can't remember what the formula is, but essentially your body can only oxidize so much fat for energy in a given day...when your energy deficit exceeds this, you start burning up lean mass at a higher rate...i.e. you start burning muscle.

As you lean out, you have less fat to be mobilized and used for fuel...so larger deficits as you lean out are going to result in more loss of muscle and other lean mass than you otherwise would.

I would also add that this adjustments can help immensely in the transition to maintenance.

DeWoSa

My BMR is 1452.3 according to one calculator and 1372 according to MFP. I'm under that almost every day. Yikes.

Alright, I've just kicked my daily calories up to 1670.

concordancia

Your initial calculations are assuming that all of the weight you have lost was from fat. A portion of your 14 pound loss was also (most likely) from water weight as you changed your diet. Once you take this into account, you are pretty much on target for what you expected.

As for changing your goals as you get closer, the healthy your current weight, the more important it is to lose slowly. For many people, this slower goal will even mean consuming the same amount of calories as they were originally.

sheldonklein

There is no reason not to eat under your BMR. Your body does not have a separate bucket of BMR energy stores that's somehow more special than other energy stores. It might be a good idea for you to up your calories, but it has nothing to do with BMR.

nosebag1212

cwolfman13 wrote: »

I can't remember what the formula is, but essentially your body can only oxidize so much fat for energy in a given day...when your energy deficit exceeds this, you start burning up lean mass at a higher rate...i.e. you start burning muscle.

As you lean out, you have less fat to be mobilized and used for fuel...so larger deficits as you lean out are going to result in more loss of muscle and other lean mass than you otherwise would.

I would also add that this adjustments can help immensely in the transition to maintenance.

the formula is 31 cals per lb of bodyfat, but it isn't actually true and is based on a poor study, you can do a larger deficit if if you want but you must up your protein, as caloric deficit increases protein needs increase

DeWoSa

sheldonklein wrote: »

There is no reason not to eat under your BMR. Your body does not have a separate bucket of BMR energy stores that's somehow more special than other energy stores. It might be a good idea for you to up your calories, but it has nothing to do with BMR.

I don't understand. Can you explain this a bit more?

sllm1

I lowered my goal to 0.5 pounds per week when I got down to 1200-ish calories as my daily allotment. I can't physically eat that little and it psychologically got to me. I felt defeated when I logged in and saw the number.

I am set at 0.5 pounds per week, but I earn calories with my FitBit and generally try to have 250 left at the end of the day (which actually still makes the 1 pound per week goal).

I'm still eating the same amount and have the same goal, but seeing 1440 instead of 1200 to start the day helps me mentally believe that I can stick with it.

shred_me_up

My insight: if it aint broke, dont fix it! Seems like whatever you're doing is working fine. If you start feeling overly tired, moody, weak, etc or feel like you get the urge to binge etc then you should up your calories. There is no magic formula for weight loss so you might as well do whatever works for you

WildOkapi

I set myself to the IIFYM recommendations for my height/body fat % when I was about 20 lbs shy of my goal because I was stalling out at MFP's 1220 calories/day recommendation. I've found my weight loss results are far more accurate with IIFYM's calculator than with MFP's.

socalkay

What I get from doing the calculations using the Scooby calculator, your TDEE at 166 lbs and light activity is 1736 and for 20% calorie reduction, you would eat 1389 calories per day for .7 lbs a week.

Reducing your caloric intake more than 20% can be very dangerous per the website but if you want 25% calorie reduction, then the calculator comes up with 1302 calories/day for a loss of .9 lbs per week.

So, the reason they recommend you drop your reduction to .5 lbs a week as you near your goal is because it gets harder to eat at a healthy level and still loss 1lb or more a week. Remember these are calculators meant for giving you estimates. You are a living organism so the numbers may not work exactly for you but it gives you a range. Use common sense. Eat enough to stay healthy while still losing the weight.

Scooby's Calorie Calculator

Try reading some of these posts:

Getting Started

Setting your calorie and macro targets

Logging Accurately

DeWoSa

sllm1 wrote: »

I felt defeated when I logged in and saw the number.

I know what you are saying. When I changed my goal to 1650, MFP now says I'll lose 2.5 pounds in five weeks. I liked it much better when it said I'd lose 5 pounds in five weeks.

Well bumping up my calories would be a good way to see if the EMTLM (is that right -- eat more to lose more) crowd is right. heh heh

socalkay wrote: »

What I get from doing the calculations using the Scooby calculator, your TDEE at 166 lbs and light activity is 1736 and for 20% calorie reduction, you would eat 1389 calories per day for .7 lbs a week.

I appreciate you plugging in the numbers for me and I'll be sure to check out these links you so kindly provided. I hope they explain more about my macros, because I'd like to learn more about that and why I should chose which percentage.

shred_me_up wrote: »

My insight: if it aint broke, dont fix it! Seems like whatever you're doing is working fine. If you start feeling overly tired, moody, weak, etc or feel like you get the urge to binge etc then you should up your calories. There is no magic formula for weight loss so you might as well do whatever works for you

Thank you! I'm feeling good, not really hungry b/c I am eating five - six meals a day. What you point out is exactly what I want to avoid - some upcoming pit that might derail me.

Thank you everyone who responded. I appreciate your input.

Sued0nim

Because, at the end of the day, the one who gets to eat the most calories and still lose weight wins

MelodyandBarbells

shred_me_up wrote: »

My insight: if it aint broke, dont fix it! Seems like whatever you're doing is working fine. If you start feeling overly tired, moody, weak, etc or feel like you get the urge to binge etc then you should up your calories. There is no magic formula for weight loss so you might as well do whatever works for you

Yep. I used .5 lb per week pretty much from the get go when I started logging on MFP. If 1 lb per week works for you and you don't feel overly restricted, go for it. Wish I could lol. I'd be so skinny

rabbitjb wrote: »

Because, at the end of the day, the one who gets to eat the most calories and still lose weight wins

Amen! I'll love telling myself this :laugh:

TimothyFish

The biggest reason I can see is that 1 lb per week might push some people below the 1200 calorie mark. But the taller you are the less sense it makes. For a 100 lb woman, 1 lb per week is 1% of her body weight. But for a 166 lb woman, 1 lb per week is not even 2/3 of a percent of her body weight. For a man whose goal weight is over 200 lbs, it is less than half of a percent. It makes far more sense for a 100 lb woman to lose at a rate of half a pound per week than it does for a 200 lb man to do so. I believe that is why the general guidelines is for people to try to lose between 1 and 2 lbs per week. Smaller people should aim for 1 lb and bigger people should aim for 2 lbs. It has nothing to do with how close you are to your goal, other than when you are near your goal you will be smaller. Some doctors say that even 3-4 lbs per week isn't unsafe, but that rate would require significant exercise to increase the calorie deficit.

Sharon_C

Question: Why, why, why would you want to lose muscle mass? Your muscles support your skeleton. Muscles help reduce the risk of injury. Muscles aid in good posture. Muscles help when you are older. One pound of muscle burns approximately 5.67 calories a day, whereas a pound of fat only burns 1.98. Why do you want to forsake all of that to look smaller? Please don't reduce your muscle mass.