Question about the "How Quick/How Much to Lose" Chart
manicautumn
Posts: 224 Member
I've seen the chart that depicts what to set your MFP weekly goal for given how much you have to lose. I love it because I love numerical assessments and graphs and the like. However, I was wondering how generally true that is and whether it is really applicable to everyone.
Biologically, men and women tend to have different ratios of body mass to fat. Further, different heights might also play a role in it due to proportion. I don't think these factors are hugely significant, but I'm interested if anyone with knowledge of this or a background in this kind of study had any insight.
It's a slight difference, I know. But I'm wondering where we got this simplified chart from. Is every 15lb to lose the same?
Is it about healthy rates of weight loss physically? Or is it more about the mental part and working your way to maintenance by building healthy habits and going at a steady pace?
Biologically, men and women tend to have different ratios of body mass to fat. Further, different heights might also play a role in it due to proportion. I don't think these factors are hugely significant, but I'm interested if anyone with knowledge of this or a background in this kind of study had any insight.
It's a slight difference, I know. But I'm wondering where we got this simplified chart from. Is every 15lb to lose the same?
Is it about healthy rates of weight loss physically? Or is it more about the mental part and working your way to maintenance by building healthy habits and going at a steady pace?
0
Replies
-
Way too loaded of a question for me on a Friday afteroon...
Recommended 2 pounds per week (or less).. this is the healthy and wise choice for men and women based on their age, height, sex, weight, etc....0 -
I keep asking the same question, but the people that keep repeating the chart never answer.0
-
Where is the chart?0
-
If you like that kind of thing, 1% of body weight is probably better than those recommendations, at least until you get pretty close a healthy weight/maintenance.0
-
if an obese person needs to lose weight they are often put on low calorie high protein regimes without consideration of deficit or loss rate - more a case of how little intake they can get away with.
It does make some sense to aim at a lower rate of loss with less to lose as there's less fat on tap to make up the difference.0 -
This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people.
references http://www.nwcaonline.com/articles/percentage_part1.pdf "State associations with
minimal weight programs based on hydration testing and body fat assessment
control the rate at which weight can be lost: no faster than 1.5% per week. " (c) Gatorade.
0 -
1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.0
-
As a relatively light person, I can say that it would be pretty difficult to create a deficit big enough to lose 1.5lbs per week. Could I do it? Yes. It would be rough, though, and leave very little room for error.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.
Yes, and as can be seen from some of the "success stories" posted on this site, there are people who lose at a much faster rate than 2lb per week, which is often pushed as the maximum "safe" loss.
0 -
I love hearing about the % weight loss. I've been losing much more rapidly than 2 pounds per week. I've been a bit concerned that it has been higher than the 2 pounds/week number, but I am impatient, and can't wait YEARS. So . . . after reading this, I just charted my loss per week as a % of the then-current weight, and found that my average has been really, really close to the 1.5% number. (By pure coincidence, or as further proof of the study? I'm not sure).
(Being a person motivated by numbers, I've collected lots and lots and lots of data, so calculating this stuff is pretty straightforward)
Here's my chart:
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/
You keep posting that
And yet it doesn't back up your assertions which has been addressed on other threads0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.
Okay, and are you trying to say that's a good thing? Because I'm a 118 pound person who would have to cut my calories to 700-900/day to lose 1.5lb/week...which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
I know nothing about "the chart" but to me it seems pretty unlikely that 1.5% would be healthy for someone my size. I mean...I've been there eating less than 1000 calories a day and dropping weight like crazy but I was sick, both mentally and physically, while I was doing it.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/
You keep posting that
And yet it doesn't back up your assertions which has been addressed on other threads
This is the section I'm referring to; how does it differ from what I posted?
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.0 -
DaveAkeman wrote: »I love hearing about the % weight loss. I've been losing much more rapidly than 2 pounds per week. I've been a bit concerned that it has been higher than the 2 pounds/week number, but I am impatient, and can't wait YEARS. So . . . after reading this, I just charted my loss per week as a % of the then-current weight, and found that my average has been really, really close to the 1.5% number. (By pure coincidence, or as further proof of the study? I'm not sure).
(Being a person motivated by numbers, I've collected lots and lots and lots of data, so calculating this stuff is pretty straightforward)
Here's my chart:
Thanks – that's exactly what I'm talking about.
And this is why I don't like seeing the blanket recommendation of "2lb per week is the maximum" being repeated over and over, and people getting worried and being told to eat more if they lose a little faster than that.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DaveAkeman wrote: »I love hearing about the % weight loss. I've been losing much more rapidly than 2 pounds per week. I've been a bit concerned that it has been higher than the 2 pounds/week number, but I am impatient, and can't wait YEARS. So . . . after reading this, I just charted my loss per week as a % of the then-current weight, and found that my average has been really, really close to the 1.5% number. (By pure coincidence, or as further proof of the study? I'm not sure).
(Being a person motivated by numbers, I've collected lots and lots and lots of data, so calculating this stuff is pretty straightforward)
Here's my chart:
Thanks – that's exactly what I'm talking about.
And this is why I don't like seeing the blanket recommendation of "2lb per week is the maximum" being repeated over and over, and people getting worried and being told to eat more if they lose a little faster than that.
I should add, though, that I started out much, much heavier than 118 (or even 218). Some of the commenters here are right . . . this 1.5% number probably doesn't make much sense for a smaller person, or someone with just a few pounds to loose. I started at almost 300 pounds, with over 100 pounds to loose. At 300 pounds, I could burn enough calories to lose a pound and a half by lifting a cheeseburger to my lips.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.
Okay, and are you trying to say that's a good thing? Because I'm a 118 pound person who would have to cut my calories to 700-900/day to lose 1.5lb/week...which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
I know nothing about "the chart" but to me it seems pretty unlikely that 1.5% would be healthy for someone my size. I mean...I've been there eating less than 1000 calories a day and dropping weight like crazy but I was sick, both mentally and physically, while I was doing it.
The fact that it's possible and 'safe' doesn't mean everybody should (or even wants to) do it – clearly for you it wasn't a good thing. Clearly a lot of effort is required. But equally, the blanket advice that no-one should lose more than 2lbs per week doesn't apply to everyone, either.
0 -
No, it's really not applicable to everyone, because it doesn't take any lifestyle factors into account. It's a good general guideline, but that's it. If you have someone who is really, truly sedentary and is unwilling to exercise, it could be difficult for them to create enough of a deficit just through diet to lose 2 pounds per week, even if they do have 75 pounds to lose. Or the level of dietary restriction necessary for them to lose 2 pounds per week could be too much in the beginning and it could impact adherence. Or you could have someone who loves to exercise and manages their hunger unusually well, so they can manage a bigger deficit than the chart predicts they can. I'd say there probably is more wiggle room toward the upper end of the chart (40ish pounds to lose and up) than there is at the low end -- someone who is at the low end of their healthy BMI range and is trying to lose 5 vanity pounds is probably going to be unable to create enough of a deficit to lose 2 pounds per week -- but that's just my general guess.
Re: body composition and ratio of lean to fat mass, that's going to impact things, but not a lot (unless you're talking about extreme examples). Someone with 80% lean mass is going to have a higher BMR than the same person with 70% lean mass, and how much higher depends on the total amount of body weight, but it's not huge. When I ran my BMR numbers, at 80% LBM I have a BMR of 1323, and at 70% it's 1257. All that is just to say that my body composition will affect my TDEE (and thus my ability to create a deficit), but not significantly.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/
You keep posting that
And yet it doesn't back up your assertions which has been addressed on other threads
This is the section I'm referring to; how does it differ from what I posted?
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.
That says that your loss should not exceed 1.5%, it doesn't say everyone can or should do it.
OP, I never technically did the math, but my take on the chart that keeps getting reposted in the forums has always been that it suggests the largest deficit you can handle considering your size. Obviously it is a generalization, so if you are very tall or very short or aiming for an unexpected weight (like a bit heavier than the "healthy" zone for your height), or have an unusually high or low TDEE, it might be a little off for you.
Considering there is only so much you can know about someone posting in a public forum like this, I think it is safer to err on the side of caution and tell them to go slower than to enable someone to eat a dangerously small amount in an effort to lose fast. Some people might be able to lose faster and stay healthy, but if someone asked me, I would be wary of suggesting something that may be too aggressive.0 -
DaveAkeman wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DaveAkeman wrote: »I love hearing about the % weight loss. I've been losing much more rapidly than 2 pounds per week. I've been a bit concerned that it has been higher than the 2 pounds/week number, but I am impatient, and can't wait YEARS. So . . . after reading this, I just charted my loss per week as a % of the then-current weight, and found that my average has been really, really close to the 1.5% number. (By pure coincidence, or as further proof of the study? I'm not sure).
(Being a person motivated by numbers, I've collected lots and lots and lots of data, so calculating this stuff is pretty straightforward)
Here's my chart:
Thanks – that's exactly what I'm talking about.
And this is why I don't like seeing the blanket recommendation of "2lb per week is the maximum" being repeated over and over, and people getting worried and being told to eat more if they lose a little faster than that.
I should add, though, that I started out much, much heavier than 118 (or even 218). Some of the commenters here are right . . . this 1.5% number probably doesn't make much sense for a smaller person, or someone with just a few pounds to loose. I started at almost 300 pounds, with over 100 pounds to loose. At 300 pounds, I could burn enough calories to lose a pound and a half by lifting a cheeseburger to my lips.
Of course, and obviously it's going to have a lot to do with how many calories the person can burn through daily activity and exercise, the latter of which has a lot to do with their training method, their mental stamina, their level of motivation, how much effort they exert, etc.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
This is the section I'm referring to; how does it differ from what I posted?
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.
That says that your loss should not exceed 1.5%, it doesn't say everyone can or should do it.
Nor did I say everyone can or should do it.
[Edit: But when people on MFP post to say they are doing it, it would be nice if others didn't try to discourage them by saying it's unhealthy etc.]0 -
Some interesting answers here. I do agree with the rationale that its better to advise others on the side of caution. That is likely where the chart arose from, I assume, a safe-for-everyone guideline that is useful to newcomers and those seeking guidance.
I don't mean to instigate fighting or to say the recommendations aren't valid. I'm just curious from a theoretical perspective about the motivations behind it and how general it is.
The 1.5% thing is also interesting. Probably smarter for those heavier though. I don't think I could personally (knowing my body) could do it all the way through. Right now, at 130 (overweight for my height), I could do it for about 5 pounds with my FitBit adjustment, but getting below 125 gets iffy for that much. But, I guess that's why it's a maximum, not a goal.0 -
Also be aware of those research studies and the participants allowed to join it.
No diets or attempted or weight loss for the prior 6-9 months or longer sometimes.
Many times within a certain BMI range.
No other health issues besides being overweight.
If starting exercise was the test, then no exercise over a certain small weekly amount.
Tested out the wahzoo to confirm no issues with whatever extremes are being done to them.
And then constant testing during the study, to tweak eating levels exactly, ect.
How many of those factors apply to everyone that might see the recommendation?
How many have exact figures to base their eating level on?
I see a study too that showed 1.4% loss rate cause LBM loss, while the 0.7% showed increase.
Sadly they didn't measure actual muscle mass changes, but increase of LBM rather than loss is good too.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/447514/athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet/p1
0 -
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/
You keep posting that
And yet it doesn't back up your assertions which has been addressed on other threads
What's also interesting written in there is the fact that if certain sizes of people attempt that max 1.5%, you are also hitting what they call the VLCD, and they have a section detailing the negatives of such a diet.
It's kind of a hodgepodge of recommendations and studies thrown together, with what appears little consideration of examples that don't match up between sections - examples that it would appear are not that rare and could be very common in the normal situation of someone going totally gung-ho on exercise while gung-ho on the diet at the same time.0 -
-
0
-
DaveAkeman wrote: »
The chart was fine on my screen. Perhaps they were trying to read it on a phone.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.
Okay, and are you trying to say that's a good thing? Because I'm a 118 pound person who would have to cut my calories to 700-900/day to lose 1.5lb/week...which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
I know nothing about "the chart" but to me it seems pretty unlikely that 1.5% would be healthy for someone my size. I mean...I've been there eating less than 1000 calories a day and dropping weight like crazy but I was sick, both mentally and physically, while I was doing it.
Not if you are exercising you wouldn't. If you aren't getting your 150 minutes a week of exercise, you really should be. The fact that you can lose weight without exercise doesn't mean you should be losing weight without exercise.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.
Okay, and are you trying to say that's a good thing? Because I'm a 118 pound person who would have to cut my calories to 700-900/day to lose 1.5lb/week...which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
I know nothing about "the chart" but to me it seems pretty unlikely that 1.5% would be healthy for someone my size. I mean...I've been there eating less than 1000 calories a day and dropping weight like crazy but I was sick, both mentally and physically, while I was doing it.
Not if you are exercising you wouldn't. If you aren't getting your 150 minutes a week of exercise, you really should be. The fact that you can lose weight without exercise doesn't mean you should be losing weight without exercise.
But wouldn't that still mean she would have to eat 1200 cals per day PLUS burn 400 calories with exercise? That would def make me sick and miserable
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
- 427 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