Question about the "How Quick/How Much to Lose" Chart
Replies
-
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
Well, that brings us back to the original point, namely that the oft-quoted conservative targets aren't so much based on what's physically healthy, but rather on what the average person can cope with on a long-ish term basis (depending on how much they have to lose).
Different people have different tolerances for hunger and mild physical discomfort, and different perceptions about what 'trying hard' at the gym means.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.
Why are you ignoring the part of the sentence that says "weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week"? As the sentence is constructed, the provision about 1.5% of bodyweight is in addition to the 1 to 2 lb raw-number limit. It's saying that in those instances where 2 lbs would exceed 1.5% of bodyweight (that is, at about 133 lbs and under), individuals should not attempt to lose 2 lbs a week in order to avoid negative effects on performance and health.
ETA: I prefer the 30-calories-per-pound-of-body-fat approach to either the ubiquitous chart or the 1%/1.5% of BW limit). In theory, your body can recover roughly 30 kcal from each pound of body fat each day, giving you a theoretical upper limit for a daily deficit, beyond which you would be definitely tapping into lean body mass to cover any additional deficit. Given uneven energy expenditures and energy consumption from diet during the day, you're not likely to be able to perfectly align expenditure, consumption, and energy recovery from fat every moment of the day, so I like to give that theoretical upper limit a fairly wide leeway to try to preserve as much LBM as possible.
When I started on MFP, I had approximately 70 lbs of body fat, and was averaging a loss of 2 lbs a week, which equates to a daily deficit of 1000 calories, or only about 50% of the theoretical upper limit of 2100 calories recoverable from stored body fat every day. Now that I'm down to an estimated 45 to 50 lbs of body fat, I've reduced my deficit substantially, to a theoretical 400 calories a day deficit goal, which I tend to view as a max deficit for me--unless I'm absolutely not hungry and have hit my protein and fiber goals already, I'll find something useful or fun to eat if I find myself with a bigger deficit at the end of the day. And at this point I'm not in any hurry, since I'm more concerned about falling prey to the infamous statistics about the vast majority of people regaining the weight they lose, so I give myself a lot more latitude for daily variations. I average a daily deficit more in the 250 to 300 calorie range during weeks I'm aiming to lose, and I have a lot of weeks that I'm happy just to maintain.
0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
Why are you ignoring the part of the sentence that says "weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week"? As the sentence is constructed, the provision about 1.5% of bodyweight is in addition to the 1 to 2 lb raw-number limit. It's saying that in those instances where 2 lbs would exceed 1.5% of bodyweight (that is, at about 133 lbs and under), individuals should not attempt to lose 2 lbs a week in order to avoid negative effects on performance and health.
It could be read that way, but then reference cited in that section would contradict that, as it says the number of pounds is dependent upon how much of a deficit the person can create (they were talking about athletes and active people here, so we can assume they were getting some pretty good exercise deficits):
"Doing the math, the 500-to-1000 Calorie per day deficit means a person can lose 1-to-2 pounds per week, pretty much regardless of the person’s size (this is based on calories per pound of fat). The state associations are actually being generous by stating this on a % basis. Using the 1.5% rule, the lightest guy on a team gets to lose about 1.5-to-2.0 pounds per week. The 200-pounder gets to lose 4 lb per week."0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
Why are you ignoring the part of the sentence that says "weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week"? As the sentence is constructed, the provision about 1.5% of bodyweight is in addition to the 1 to 2 lb raw-number limit. It's saying that in those instances where 2 lbs would exceed 1.5% of bodyweight (that is, at about 133 lbs and under), individuals should not attempt to lose 2 lbs a week in order to avoid negative effects on performance and health.
It could be read that way, but then reference cited in that section would contradict that, as it says the number of pounds is dependent upon how much of a deficit the person can create (they were talking about athletes and active people here, so we can assume they were getting some pretty good exercise deficits):
"Doing the math, the 500-to-1000 Calorie per day deficit means a person can lose 1-to-2 pounds per week, pretty much regardless of the person’s size (this is based on calories per pound of fat). The state associations are actually being generous by stating this on a % basis. Using the 1.5% rule, the lightest guy on a team gets to lose about 1.5-to-2.0 pounds per week. The 200-pounder gets to lose 4 lb per week."
Yeah, based on your posts on other threads, I have to point out that you clearly have very disordered thinking about food, and no newbs should be taking what you say as mentally healthy advice.0 -
For everyone's general interest, I just found another similar paper (again aimed at athletes); this one states:
"To reduce risk of adverse health and performance consequences, the rate of weight loss should not exceed 1-2 % of body weight per week."
http://bitly.com/1FaPHAt0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
ETA: I prefer the 30-calories-per-pound-of-body-fat approach to either the ubiquitous chart or the 1%/1.5% of BW limit). In theory, your body can recover roughly 30 kcal from each pound of body fat each day, giving you a theoretical upper limit for a daily deficit, beyond which you would be definitely tapping into lean body mass to cover any additional deficit. Given uneven energy expenditures and energy consumption from diet during the day, you're not likely to be able to perfectly align expenditure, consumption, and energy recovery from fat every moment of the day, so I like to give that theoretical upper limit a fairly wide leeway to try to preserve as much LBM as possible.
That's interesting. I never heard of that method of calculation before but for me it gives a slightly higher (theoretical) loss per week than using the 1.5% method.
Thanks!
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
ETA: I prefer the 30-calories-per-pound-of-body-fat approach to either the ubiquitous chart or the 1%/1.5% of BW limit). In theory, your body can recover roughly 30 kcal from each pound of body fat each day, giving you a theoretical upper limit for a daily deficit, beyond which you would be definitely tapping into lean body mass to cover any additional deficit. Given uneven energy expenditures and energy consumption from diet during the day, you're not likely to be able to perfectly align expenditure, consumption, and energy recovery from fat every moment of the day, so I like to give that theoretical upper limit a fairly wide leeway to try to preserve as much LBM as possible.
That's interesting. I never heard of that method of calculation before but for me it gives a slightly higher (theoretical) loss per week than using the 1.5% method.
Thanks!
It wasn't my intention to encourage higher deficits, but I guess you're gonna do what you're gonna do.
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/
"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. One pound (0.5 kg) of fat is equal to 3500 kilocalories of energy; therefore, increases or decreases in calories to the level needed to maintain ideal lean mass will help to achieve body fat goals" ... from your link.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
The point is that it is possible and not out of reach, even for a 100 lb person. But many of us are not aiming to be 100 lbs. Even if 0.5 lbs makes sense for a few people, it is excessively low for some of the rest of us.0 -
babylinguist wrote: »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.
What chart is this? Can someone post a link, please?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »For everyone's general interest, I just found another similar paper (again aimed at athletes); this one states:
"To reduce risk of adverse health and performance consequences, the rate of weight loss should not exceed 1-2 % of body weight per week."
http://bitly.com/1FaPHAt
The fact all of your links are aimed at athletes, not the masses that inhabit MFP is an issue.
The theoretical upper limit is just that, theoretical. That is under ideal and controlled conditions .. again, not in the wild where the normal MFP user resides.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »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
The point is that it is possible and not out of reach, even for a 100 lb person. But many of us are not aiming to be 100 lbs. Even if 0.5 lbs makes sense for a few people, it is excessively low for some of the rest of us.
So it's possible in your opinion for a 105 lb woman to lose 2 lbs per week of fat to end up at 99 lbs after 3 weeks?
You are missing the point. But I might ask you, do you think a female who falls below the 5th percentile in weight should be used for the reason that the 50th percentile human is told that they should be losing at a 0.5 lb per week rate?0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
The point is that it is possible and not out of reach, even for a 100 lb person. But many of us are not aiming to be 100 lbs. Even if 0.5 lbs makes sense for a few people, it is excessively low for some of the rest of us.
So it's possible in your opinion for a 105 lb woman to lose 2 lbs per week of fat to end up at 99 lbs after 3 weeks?
You are missing the point. But I might ask you, do you think a female who falls below the 5th percentile in weight should be used for the reason that the 50th percentile human is told that they should be losing at a 0.5 lb per week rate?
First, you're wrong, because my estimate of 700-900/day to lose 1.5 pound/week definitely includes exercise. I only burn a couple hundred calories on a 5K run at my size, so it takes me about 10K/an hour run every day to bring my TDEE up to 2000 calories, for example (and would then be able to eat 1000 calories/day to lose 2 pounds/week...and a 10K run on 1000 calories a day is, well....)
Then, get back to me when you've been eating a few hundred calories under your BMR every day for a couple months, well under a thousand a day, and tell me it's "not out of reach", lol. Oh, you can do it, but you'll feel awful and you certainly won't be giving your body the right macro and micronutrients. It's pretty fun when you start passing out and stuff too
I'm not trying to say that no one should lose over a pound or two a week; but I am saying it's pretty irresponsible to recommend more rapid weight loss to relatively light people (who are more numerous than you seem to think.) If your TDEE is high enough to cut more than 1000 calories a day and still give you adequate nutrition, awesome. But for a lot of us, it's just not. And it's certainly not a failing.
Just trying to offer another perspective - because while I can easily understand that people heavier than I can lose weight more rapidly, you don't seem to understand that it goes the other way for people too. I'm not an exception or a special snowflake.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/
The article you site states: "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"0 -
Now since we are all "elite athletes" around here "This leads to a general suggestion that athletes who want to gain LBM and increase strength and power related performance during a weight-loss period combined with strength training should aim for a weekly weight loss of 0.7% of BW, whereas athletes who only want to keep LBM might increase their weekly weight loss rate to 1.0-1.4% of BW" (from: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3519021&d=1310193169)
In any case, and I don't have citations or sources right now, or remember where I got the info, my personal conclusion a while back was that up to 1.5% (subject to compliance considerations) was perfectly ok in the presence of a lot of free fat (i.e. Obese Cat I+). As free fat reduces, weight loss to reduce to around 1% in the "overweight" stage. Further reducing to 0.7% to 0.5% when within the "normal" weight range.
Having said that and for purposes of compliance and happiness, and... chocolate, I have employed the following personal formula
Which translates into:
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »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
The point is that it is possible and not out of reach, even for a 100 lb person. But many of us are not aiming to be 100 lbs. Even if 0.5 lbs makes sense for a few people, it is excessively low for some of the rest of us.
It's possible that I could run across a highway full of speeding cars and get to the other side faster than if I wait for traffic to clear, but that doesn't make it advisable.
Considering the amount of exercise required for a smaller person to burn 400 calories, I would estimate that is more than 1 hour of exercise per day, way more than "150 minutes a week". So I'm saying that it would likely be unhealthy to eat less than 1200 calories and exercise for over 1 hour every day to lose that amount of weight.
I would expect the argument to be on the upper end of the weight spectrum, since the dangers of obesity may very well be worse than the possible ill effects of faster weight loss.
I have known far too many young women who have tried to aggressively lose 10-15 lbs and ended up under a doctor's care with lightheadedness, extreme fatigue, or actually passing out, to entertain the possibility that it's cool to suggest higher rates of loss for lighter people.0 -
Not really sure what the point of disagreement is at this point (if there is one).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/
It says right before that 1.5% number that 1-2 pounds are recommended.0 -
stevencloser 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/
It says right before that 1.5% number that 1-2 pounds are recommended.
And it's on and for athletes in controlled environments which was pointed out the last time you raised this in a thread, and the time before that0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »For everyone's general interest, I just found another similar paper (again aimed at athletes); this one states:
"To reduce risk of adverse health and performance consequences, the rate of weight loss should not exceed 1-2 % of body weight per week."
http://bitly.com/1FaPHAt
Oh look, this one is the same way.
"weight loss rate should not exceed
1.5% of body weight per week or about 1 kg (2.2 lb) per week"
0 -
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
The point is that it is possible and not out of reach, even for a 100 lb person. But many of us are not aiming to be 100 lbs. Even if 0.5 lbs makes sense for a few people, it is excessively low for some of the rest of us.
So it's possible in your opinion for a 105 lb woman to lose 2 lbs per week of fat to end up at 99 lbs after 3 weeks?
You are missing the point. But I might ask you, do you think a female who falls below the 5th percentile in weight should be used for the reason that the 50th percentile human is told that they should be losing at a 0.5 lb per week rate?
First, you're wrong, because my estimate of 700-900/day to lose 1.5 pound/week definitely includes exercise. I only burn a couple hundred calories on a 5K run at my size, so it takes me about 10K/an hour run every day to bring my TDEE up to 2000 calories, for example (and would then be able to eat 1000 calories/day to lose 2 pounds/week...and a 10K run on 1000 calories a day is, well....)
Then, get back to me when you've been eating a few hundred calories under your BMR every day for a couple months, well under a thousand a day, and tell me it's "not out of reach", lol. Oh, you can do it, but you'll feel awful and you certainly won't be giving your body the right macro and micronutrients. It's pretty fun when you start passing out and stuff too
I'm not trying to say that no one should lose over a pound or two a week; but I am saying it's pretty irresponsible to recommend more rapid weight loss to relatively light people (who are more numerous than you seem to think.) If your TDEE is high enough to cut more than 1000 calories a day and still give you adequate nutrition, awesome. But for a lot of us, it's just not. And it's certainly not a failing.
Just trying to offer another perspective - because while I can easily understand that people heavier than I can lose weight more rapidly, you don't seem to understand that it goes the other way for people too. I'm not an exception or a special snowflake.
You're the one who said 1.5 lbs. I gave an answer for 1.5 lbs. Why change to 2 lbs mid argument? 1.5 is 750 calories per day. 2000-750 is 1250, so above the 1200 limit, while 2 lbs would not be without additional exercise. The point is, the chart is wrong. I would prefer that people just say 1%. That would be 1lb for a 100lb person, but 2lbs for a 200lb person and wouldn't have people telling a 150lb person that they are losing too quickly because they are losing more than 0.5 lbs per week.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
The point is that it is possible and not out of reach, even for a 100 lb person. But many of us are not aiming to be 100 lbs. Even if 0.5 lbs makes sense for a few people, it is excessively low for some of the rest of us.
So it's possible in your opinion for a 105 lb woman to lose 2 lbs per week of fat to end up at 99 lbs after 3 weeks?
You are missing the point. But I might ask you, do you think a female who falls below the 5th percentile in weight should be used for the reason that the 50th percentile human is told that they should be losing at a 0.5 lb per week rate?
First, you're wrong, because my estimate of 700-900/day to lose 1.5 pound/week definitely includes exercise. I only burn a couple hundred calories on a 5K run at my size, so it takes me about 10K/an hour run every day to bring my TDEE up to 2000 calories, for example (and would then be able to eat 1000 calories/day to lose 2 pounds/week...and a 10K run on 1000 calories a day is, well....)
Then, get back to me when you've been eating a few hundred calories under your BMR every day for a couple months, well under a thousand a day, and tell me it's "not out of reach", lol. Oh, you can do it, but you'll feel awful and you certainly won't be giving your body the right macro and micronutrients. It's pretty fun when you start passing out and stuff too
I'm not trying to say that no one should lose over a pound or two a week; but I am saying it's pretty irresponsible to recommend more rapid weight loss to relatively light people (who are more numerous than you seem to think.) If your TDEE is high enough to cut more than 1000 calories a day and still give you adequate nutrition, awesome. But for a lot of us, it's just not. And it's certainly not a failing.
Just trying to offer another perspective - because while I can easily understand that people heavier than I can lose weight more rapidly, you don't seem to understand that it goes the other way for people too. I'm not an exception or a special snowflake.
You're the one who said 1.5 lbs. I gave an answer for 1.5 lbs. Why change to 2 lbs mid argument? 1.5 is 750 calories per day. 2000-750 is 1250, so above the 1200 limit, while 2 lbs would not be without additional exercise. The point is, the chart is wrong. I would prefer that people just say 1%. That would be 1lb for a 100lb person, but 2lbs for a 200lb person and wouldn't have people telling a 150lb person that they are losing too quickly because they are losing more than 0.5 lbs per week.
Question: Would you suggest a 200 pound 6 foot bodybuilder at 8% bodyfat to loose weight at the same rate as a 5'4'' 200 pound obese woman?0 -
stevencloser 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/
It says right before that 1.5% number that 1-2 pounds are recommended.
And it's on and for athletes in controlled environments which was pointed out the last time you raised this in a thread, and the time before thatstevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »For everyone's general interest, I just found another similar paper (again aimed at athletes); this one states:
"To reduce risk of adverse health and performance consequences, the rate of weight loss should not exceed 1-2 % of body weight per week."
http://bitly.com/1FaPHAt
Oh look, this one is the same way.
"weight loss rate should not exceed
1.5% of body weight per week or about 1 kg (2.2 lb) per week"
I still don't see the point of disagreement or why people keep copying and pasting the same bits from the reports.
To summarize:
1-2lbs per week is the "average" recommended safe rate of weight loss, that's a blanket recommendation that can apply to everybody.
1.5% (or 2% or 1.4% depending on which of the reports discussed here you're looking at) is the amount you "should not exceed", i.e. the maximum recommended safe rate.
One's an average; one's a maximum.Yes to achieve the maximum will likely require a lot of exercise calorie expenditure, some mild discomfort (aka hunger) and knowledge of the best training methods.
Those two numbers may be the same for a given individual, depending on their starting weight, but if 1 pound per week is more than 1.5% of their bodyweight then they should lower their expectations.
If 2 pounds per week is less than 1.5% of their bodyweight and they're losing more than 2lbs but less than 1.5%, they shouldn't worry about it or think they need to eat more.
If they don't want to lose that fast, no-one's forcing them to.
The point about the reports being aimed at athletes and active people; well thinking about it athletes generally have a lower body fat percentage so presumably it would be a bit more difficult for them to lose fat than the average MFP user.
On the other hand, they probably have more motivation, more tolerance for discomfort and the benefit of expert advice and monitoring.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser 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/
It says right before that 1.5% number that 1-2 pounds are recommended.
And it's on and for athletes in controlled environments which was pointed out the last time you raised this in a thread, and the time before thatstevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »For everyone's general interest, I just found another similar paper (again aimed at athletes); this one states:
"To reduce risk of adverse health and performance consequences, the rate of weight loss should not exceed 1-2 % of body weight per week."
http://bitly.com/1FaPHAt
Oh look, this one is the same way.
"weight loss rate should not exceed
1.5% of body weight per week or about 1 kg (2.2 lb) per week"
I still don't see the point of disagreement or why people keep copying and pasting the same bits from the reports.
To summarize:
1-2lbs per week is the "average" recommended safe rate of weight loss, that's a blanket recommendation that can apply to everybody.
1.5% (or 2% or 1.4% depending on which of the reports discussed here you're looking at) is the amount you "should not exceed", i.e. the maximum recommended safe rate.
One's an average; one's a maximum.Yes to achieve the maximum will likely require a lot of exercise calorie expenditure, some mild discomfort (aka hunger) and knowledge of the best training methods.
Those two numbers may be the same for a given individual, depending on their starting weight, but if 1 pound per week is more than 1.5% of their bodyweight then they should lower their expectations.
If 2 pounds per week is less than 1.5% of their bodyweight and they're losing more than 2lbs but less than 1.5%, they shouldn't worry about it or think they need to eat more.
If they don't want to lose that fast, no-one's forcing them to.
The point about the reports being aimed at athletes and active people; well thinking about it athletes generally have a lower body fat percentage so presumably it would be a bit more difficult for them to lose fat than the average MFP user.
On the other hand, they probably have more motivation, more tolerance for discomfort and the benefit of expert advice and monitoring.
Your second one said it should not exceed 1.5% OR 1 kg per week. That means the lower of the two.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Your second one said it should not exceed 1.5% OR 1 kg per week. That means the lower of the two.
The second one states this as one of the "Key Points".
"To reduce risk of adverse health and performance consequences, the rate of weight loss should not exceed 1-2 % of body weight per week.
It doesn't mention any specific number of pounds.
The part you're referring to from further on in the report is actually specifically referring to competitive wrestlers, and states:
"(according to new NCAA guidelines for wrestlers, weight loss rate should not exceed 1.5% of body weight per week or about 1 kg (2.2 lb) per week)'
i.e. the specific rules for that sport forbid any weight loss faster than 1.5% per week. As was pointed out earlier, a 300 pound wrestler is "allowed" to lose 4.5 lb per week, so it doesn't mean 'or' in this context. Presumably the 1kg is some kind of general average, again.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser 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/
It says right before that 1.5% number that 1-2 pounds are recommended.
And it's on and for athletes in controlled environments which was pointed out the last time you raised this in a thread, and the time before thatstevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »For everyone's general interest, I just found another similar paper (again aimed at athletes); this one states:
"To reduce risk of adverse health and performance consequences, the rate of weight loss should not exceed 1-2 % of body weight per week."
http://bitly.com/1FaPHAt
Oh look, this one is the same way.
"weight loss rate should not exceed
1.5% of body weight per week or about 1 kg (2.2 lb) per week"
I still don't see the point of disagreement or why people keep copying and pasting the same bits from the reports.
To summarize:
1-2lbs per week is the "average" recommended safe rate of weight loss, that's a blanket recommendation that can apply to everybody.
1.5% (or 2% or 1.4% depending on which of the reports discussed here you're looking at) is the amount you "should not exceed", i.e. the maximum recommended safe rate.
One's an average; one's a maximum.Yes to achieve the maximum will likely require a lot of exercise calorie expenditure, some mild discomfort (aka hunger) and knowledge of the best training methods.
Those two numbers may be the same for a given individual, depending on their starting weight, but if 1 pound per week is more than 1.5% of their bodyweight then they should lower their expectations.
If 2 pounds per week is less than 1.5% of their bodyweight and they're losing more than 2lbs but less than 1.5%, they shouldn't worry about it or think they need to eat more.
If they don't want to lose that fast, no-one's forcing them to.
The point about the reports being aimed at athletes and active people; well thinking about it athletes generally have a lower body fat percentage so presumably it would be a bit more difficult for them to lose fat than the average MFP user.
On the other hand, they probably have more motivation, more tolerance for discomfort and the benefit of expert advice and monitoring.
Your second one said it should not exceed 1.5% OR 1 kg per week. That means the lower of the two.
Boolean operators can confuse people.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
Boolean operators can confuse people.
Yes, but not in this case. (See my answer above).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