Based on my personal stats – why super rapid weight loss would be nearly impossible
Options
Replies
-
OP, I DID read, and I think you make several fantastic points. :flowerforyou:0
-
OP while I agree with your general sentiment, the average "I need to lose 'unrealistically high' pounds in 'unrealistically low' weeks poster is impatient and therefore unlikely to read/follow your lengthy post with all the numbers and different formulas.
To those saying that those with more weight to lose can safely lose at a higher rate, that may be true, but those people are usually not the ones posting with the super short time frames on MFP, they should be doing it with doctor supervision, and therefore hopefully have appropriate tactics they are already utilizing.
I think the type of person this OP is referring to is the one looking to lose weight for an "event", ie wedding, vacation, etc.0 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »I've always done 1000 cal deficits all the way to 10% bf, never had any problems
How much do you weigh? I'm assuming you are a guy, and 1000 off is a different percentage for someone with a high maintenance already.
At my current weight my sedentary maintenance is 1550 or so and my active maintenance is about 2100 (and I'm quite active). I don't think I could eat 1100 at this level of activity (and wouldn't want to), and even if I could increase activity (cardio, really) to bump it up some or cut my intake so much, no likelihood I'd be losing fat more than muscle.
I lost more muscle than I like just doing 1-1.5 lbs while in the higher part of the healthy range, so for someone of my size it doesn't seem a good way to reduce body fat.0 -
Angel_Grove_ wrote: »So, I keep seeing posts pop up with questions about how to lose X number of pounds in X number of days/months. Usually the number of pounds is high, the number of days/months is low, and OP is trying to meet a pretty much unattainable goal. If you’ve been here on the forums for a while, you’ve read the general figures over and over:
1 lb = 3500 calories
Maximum safe rate of loss = 1-2lb/week
Minimum safe calories/day for a woman = 1200
Minimum safe calories/day for a man = 1500
Aside from the (pretty close to) fact that losing weight too fast usually means that you won’t maintain that weight loss and will possibly even gain back more than you lost to begin with (because nobody looking for a quick fix is going to believe that anyway), I thought I would post up my stats as a fairly average, moderately overweight, 30 year old woman, and what the various CICO methods will do for me in terms of rate of loss to illustrate that even a 2lb/week loss is a bit much.
So, here goes. If you want to see the spreadsheet/calculations that brought me to these conclusions, feel free to look HERE: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Mu6rDkPKOySXpBRlQ5VXFoalU/view?usp=sharing
My Current Stats (imperial units – lbs, inches, etc):
Weight: 175.6
Height: 68
Waist (at naval): 35
Hips: 42.5
Wrist: 6.8
Forearm: 11
Lean Body Weight: 128.4
Body Fat Percentage: 26.9% (http://www.livestrong.com/article/90931-measure-body-fat-percentages-calipers/)
BMI: 26.7
My current goal weight is 155, mostly because that is 40 lbs from where I started in January, and is pretty much the lowest I can ever remember being since high school. I may adjust once I get closer, but for now, let’s say I have 20 lbs left to lose. That will put me at a BMI of about 23.5, but hopefully a lower BFP, as I’m incorporating strength training as well. Just using MFP at the fastest possible setting that it allows, this will take me a little over 13 weeks/3 months. That’s if I get back on that track. I’ve lost my first 20 pounds in about 4 months so far.
Here’s what my MFP set-up looks like at 1200 calories:
Based on MFP
TDEE (sedentary): 1960
Minimum net calories: 1200
Minimum deficit: 760
Max lb/week loss: 1.5
Average calories burned/day (last 30 days): 652
Average daily calorie allowance to lose 1.5 lb/wk (last 30 days): 1852
Average daily calorie allowance maintain (last 30 days): 2612
If I use a TDEE-X% method instead, and don’t eat back exercise calories (since they're already figured in), I have the following options. Notice that, in order to lose even 2 lbs/week, I would have to consume under 1200 calories without exercising or less than 1500 calories exercising 3-5 hours or 5 times/week. I can’t even imagine doing the workouts I do on that few calories. I just wouldn’t make it. I could probably eat under 1200/day if I just sat in front of the TV all day – that is if I didn’t fall prey to boredom snacking.
Based on Scooby's Workshop http://scoobysworkshop.com/fat-loss-plateau-calculator/
BMR 1590
TDEE (sedentary) 1909
TDEE (3-5 hours moderate exercise) 2465
TDEE (sedentary-20%) 1527
Deficit (sedentary-20%) 382
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-20%) 0.8
TDEE (sedentary-30%) 1336
Deficit (sedentary-30%) 573
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-30%) 1.1
TDEE (sedentary-40%) 1145
Deficit (sedentary-40%) 764
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-40%) 1.5
TDEE (exercise-20%) 1972
Deficit (exercise-20%) 493
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-20%) 1.0
TDEE (exercise-30%) 1726
Deficit (exercise-30%) 740
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-30%) 1.5
TDEE (exercise-40%) 1479
Deficit (exercise-40%) 986
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-40%) 2.0
Based on Katch-McCardle http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
BMR 1624
TDEE (sedentary) 1949
TDEE (exercise 5x/week) 2375
TDEE (sedentary-20%) 1559.2
Deficit (sedentary-20%) 389.8
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-20%) 0.8
TDEE (sedentary-30%) 1364
Deficit (sedentary-30%) 585
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-30%) 1.2
TDEE (sedentary-40%) 1169
Deficit (sedentary-40%) 780
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-40%) 1.6
TDEE (exercise-20%) 1900
Deficit (exercise-20%) 475
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-20%) 1.0
TDEE (exercise-30%) 1663
Deficit (exercise-30%) 713
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-30%) 1.4
TDEE (exercise-40%) 1425
Deficit (exercise-40%) 950
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-40%) 1.9
Based on Harris-Benedict http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
BMR 1595
TDEE (sedentary) 1914
TDEE (exercise 5x/week) 2333
TDEE (sedentary-20%) 1531.2
Deficit (sedentary-20%) 382.8
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-20%) 0.8
TDEE (sedentary-30%) 1340
Deficit (sedentary-30%) 574
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-30%) 1.1
TDEE (sedentary-40%) 1148
Deficit (sedentary-40%) 766
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-40%) 1.5
TDEE (exercise-20%) 1866
Deficit (exercise-20%) 466.6
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-20%) 0.9
TDEE (exercise-30%) 1633
Deficit (exercise-30%) 700
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-30%) 1.4
TDEE (exercise-40%) 1400
Deficit (exercise-40%) 933
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-40%) 1.8664
Based on Mifflin-St Jeor http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
BMR 1564
TDEE (sedentary) 1877
TDEE (exercise 5x/week) 2287
TDEE (sedentary-20%) 1501.6
Deficit (sedentary-20%) 375.4
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-20%) 0.8
TDEE (sedentary-30%) 1314
Deficit (sedentary-30%) 563
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-30%) 1.1
TDEE (sedentary-40%) 1126
Deficit (sedentary-40%) 751
Loss Rate lb/wk (sedentary-40%) 1.5
TDEE (exercise-20%) 1830
Deficit (exercise-20%) 457.4
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-20%) 0.9
TDEE (exercise-30%) 1601
Deficit (exercise-30%) 686
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-30%) 1.4
TDEE (exercise-40%) 1372
Deficit (exercise-40%) 915
Loss Rate lb/wk (exercise-40%) 1.8296
If I wanted to lose this last 20 lbs in just a month (4.3 weeks), I would have to bump up my loss to 4.7 lbs/week. That would be a daily calorie deficit of 2326, which is 46 calories more than I’d even be eating in a day following the most conservative plan above.
Solely following MFP, if I continued exercising at the same rate I have been, I would only be able to eat 286 calories each day. Not likely that I would be able to keep up the same amount of exercise.
If I wanted to increase my exercise to allow me to eat at the minimum level of 1200 calories, I would have to burn at least 1567 calories through exercise each day. That’s 915 calories or 140% more than my average. Now, keep in mind, I already exercise 3-5 hours each week, which is 35-60 minutes, 5 days/week. To increase that much, assuming I was able to keep the same intensity, I would have to add an EXTRA 49-84 minutes 5 days a week, for a total of 84-144 minutes 5 days/week. At first glance, it looks doable. But, remember, I’d only be eating 1200 calories. It’s not likely I would be able to maintain my current level of exercise, let alone increase it 140%.
If I wanted to keep eating the same amount I’m allotted by MFP right now, I would have to burn an average of 2247 calories/day through exercise. That’s 245% more than my current average. Also, it’s 119% more than I would actually be CONSUMING each day. Assuming I could somehow manage to continue the current intensity of my workouts, I would have to work out 120-207 minutes, 5 times per week. That’s 2-3.5 hours! Even if I decided to split it between all 7 days, it would be 86-148 minutes EVERY day.
Beyond how HARD it would be to lose weight so quickly, doing so as an average person with a small weight loss goal outside of professional medical advice is just plain dangerous. If you go the eating less route, you risk malnourishment. If you go the extreme amounts of exercise route, you risk injury, both from increased exercise volume as well as lack of coordination due to exhaustion (since you aren't fueling your body enough to support all that exercise). Plus, rapid weight loss leads to hanging skin which probably won't fit into your beach body goals.
Bottom line, be the turtle, not the hare. And check out this post for specific advice on how to actually go about it:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants#latest
Great post. I saved all the links - great discovery on how MFP doesn't derive the right calorie goal versus the others. I agree - there's no way I could've lost 55# myself using MFP's method. I ate more than what MFP stated I should be eating.
Sounds like UA needs to get MFP's caloric calculators in line with TDEE.
Ran the PBF based upon waist measurement - it corresponded to what in-body, hydrostat, and caliper method did - caliper was the lowest - but all within 3%.
TY for this most informative post.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7847427
this study for obese patients
"CONCLUSION:
Risk of gallstone formation in obese persons during active weight loss seems to increase in an exponential fashion. The data suggest that rates of weight loss should not exceed an average of 1.5 kg per week"
so that's 3.3lbs a week for an obese person
admittedly this is just gallstones, I'm at work so don't have time to find the studies regarding unneccessary loss of LBM when rate of weight loss is increased
That would make sense; if your starting weight was 220lbs then 3.3lbs would be 1.5%.
yes and if your starting weight was 400lbs then 3.3lbs = 0.8% at 300 = 1.1%
which reinforces my current issue with a straight-forward percentage rate of bodyweightChrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The actual recommended maximum safe rate of weight loss for active adults who aren't under medical supervision is 1.5% of bodyweight per week. So yes, a person with a starting weight of 66lb
shouldn't aim to lose any more than 1b per week. And a person with a starting weight of 134lb shouldn't aim to lose more than 2lb per week.
Please source this statement
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/
Sorry, that's a study on athletes and I don't see the flat 1.5% recommendation .. am I missing it?
I see "Active clients and athletes in weight classification sports should not gain or lose excessive amounts of body weight at any point in their training cycles"
I found it. It says that it should not exceed 1.5%, right after saying 1-2 pounds per week is recommended.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7847427
this study for obese patients
"CONCLUSION:
Risk of gallstone formation in obese persons during active weight loss seems to increase in an exponential fashion. The data suggest that rates of weight loss should not exceed an average of 1.5 kg per week"
so that's 3.3lbs a week for an obese person
admittedly this is just gallstones, I'm at work so don't have time to find the studies regarding unneccessary loss of LBM when rate of weight loss is increased
That would make sense; if your starting weight was 220lbs then 3.3lbs would be 1.5%.
yes and if your starting weight was 400lbs then 3.3lbs = 0.8% at 300 = 1.1%
see the issue with a straight-forward percentage rate of bodyweight
It doesn't make sense to me that the recommended 'safe' weight loss would be the same number for a 400 pound person and a 200 pound person. A bodyweight percentage calculation seems a lot more logical. It's all academic I suppose; I just feel sad for those people on MFP who panic when they think they're losing weight "too fast" because they lost 2.5 pounds in a particular week and then other people start advising them to eat more.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The actual recommended maximum safe rate of weight loss for active adults who aren't under medical supervision is 1.5% of bodyweight per week. So yes, a person with a starting weight of 66lb shouldn't aim to lose any more than 1b per week. And a person with a starting weight of 134lb shouldn't aim to lose more than 2lb per week.
Please source this statement
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/
Sorry, that's a study on athletes
It's a compilation of recommendations for PTs working with athletes and "active clients":
To present athletic trainers with recommendations for safe weight loss and weight maintenance practices for athletes and active clients
[/quote]
A percentage based on total weight without taking bodyfat% into consideration doesn't make sense either.
0 -
I gave up on the post.
Some of the reasoning in the last section is just bonkers and contrived.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7847427
this study for obese patients
"CONCLUSION:
Risk of gallstone formation in obese persons during active weight loss seems to increase in an exponential fashion. The data suggest that rates of weight loss should not exceed an average of 1.5 kg per week"
so that's 3.3lbs a week for an obese person
admittedly this is just gallstones, I'm at work so don't have time to find the studies regarding unneccessary loss of LBM when rate of weight loss is increased
That would make sense; if your starting weight was 220lbs then 3.3lbs would be 1.5%.
yes and if your starting weight was 400lbs then 3.3lbs = 0.8% at 300 = 1.1%
which reinforces my current issue with a straight-forward percentage rate of bodyweightChrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The actual recommended maximum safe rate of weight loss for active adults who aren't under medical supervision is 1.5% of bodyweight per week. So yes, a person with a starting weight of 66lb shouldn't aim to lose any more than 1b per week. And a person with a starting weight of 134lb shouldn't aim to lose more than 2lb per week.
Please source this statement
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/
Sorry, that's a study on athletes and I don't see the flat 1.5% recommendation .. am I missing it?
I see "Active clients and athletes in weight classification sports should not gain or lose excessive amounts of body weight at any point in their training cycles"
Yeah, it's rather wordy. Relevant section is paragraph 8 under the heading Maintaining Body Composition and Weight with Diet and Exercise
Body composition adjustments should be gradual, with no excessive restrictions or unsafe behaviors or products. On average, weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week but should not exceed 1.5% of body weight loss per week.1,122 A higher rate of weight loss indicates dehydration or other restrictive or unsafe behaviors that will negatively affect performance and health.
By the way, your source got the 1.5% from another source and that source doesn't explain WHY it's 1.5% either.0 -
Thanks for the comments everyone.0
-
that's a long read and frankly, too much information!
personally, i think that calculating this or that, analyzing things/numbers constantly, weighing things all the time just zaps the enjoyment out of living healthy and is what makes people stop all together because it's just way too much work all the time. making exercise part of a daily routine is hard enough for some and to throw in all this homework every day all the time? way too much and confusing for a lot of people.
yes it's important to watch what you eat, have some goals for yourself and exercise regularly but when it gets down to what was posted above, even i get bored just looking at all that information and i'm an fitness freak. i prefer to use this tool as a reference/guide but i also listen to my body; i know what works for me and what doesn't. calculating or analyzing numbers/info won't make you lose weight - it's putting your fitness plan in action and sustaining that long-term will. i lost all my weight and hit all of my fitness/weight goals without all of that because i listened to my body, cut out all the junk from my diet and exercised regularly and i enjoy this healthy living.
apologies of this seems a bit ranty but fitness doesn't have to be this complicated. eat well, move daily, BE PATIENT, learn to see this as a lifestyle change and you will see results.
But....some people actually enjoy the number game. Those of us who are analytic in nature thrive on numbers ;-)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions