Why 0.5lbs per 25lbs overweight?

daaaaaanielle

I see this recommendation made on lots of different threads where you should set your goal to be 0.5lbs for every 25lbs you want to lose.

I have less than 25lbs to lose but I have my goal set at 1lbs a week. The amount that I can eat, especially when I start accounting for exercise, feels pretty do-able for me (not that being able to eat more wouldn't be nice). I've adjusted up and down and eventually settled on a calorie goal that translates to 1lb a week.

Why would the recommendation be for me to aim for 0.5lbs a week?

markiend

Lose too fast and you could end up with loose skin... Lose too much muscle ..

Slow and steady is safest

TimothyFish

I can't explain why someone would recommend that. The person who originally came up with that is no longer around. If 1lb a week works for you, go for it.

daaaaaanielle

markiend wrote: »

Lose too fast and you could end up with loose skin... Lose too much muscle ..

Slow and steady is safest

Don't get me wrong, I know that losing weight too fast could result in loose skin or loss of muscle... but 1lbs a week is not fast enough for that at all so I don't really buy that. I've lost 7lbs so far, which translates to near enough 1.5lbs since I began and I definitely do not have any more loose skin.

DancingMoosie

I had originally set my goal to lose 20-25lbs and 1-2lbs/wk. I lost it pretty fast, and did end up with some loose skin, but I think that would have happened any way. I'm over 35 and went from size 10 to 2 between mid-Feb and May (2 yrs ago). Do strength training to preserve muscle and lose more fat. Skin tightens up over time, genetics will play a factor in how much.

SezxyStef

part of the reason for that recommendation (based on my understanding) is that the less you have to lose the less bodyfat you have...and if you lose fast because of low calorie goals you do lose muscle mass...you will anyway but the bigger the deficit the more muscle you do lose even with strength/resistance training.

Most people want fast results...but what does that get you? Did you gain 1lb a week...probably not. The faster you want to lose the bigger the deficit...and then when you have lost that weight what then? you start adding back in the calories to maintenance....or some people just go back to "normal" and gain it all back because they were too restrictive.

Sued0nim

SezxyStef wrote: »

part of the reason for that recommendation (based on my understanding) is that the less you have to lose the less bodyfat you have...and if you lose fast because of low calorie goals you do lose muscle mass...you will anyway but the bigger the deficit the more muscle you do lose even with strength/resistance training.

Most people want fast results...but what does that get you? Did you gain 1lb a week...probably not. The faster you want to lose the bigger the deficit...and then when you have lost that weight what then? you start adding back in the calories to maintenance....or some people just go back to "normal" and gain it all back because they were too restrictive.

This

But that said I don't think a lb a week would kill you either

For me preserving as much of my LBM as possible in defecit is important

Francl27

1 pound is fine honestly until you're down to 10 pounds or something.

Shivneel23

It's so hard ae

Tuvya

Most medical recommendations I've seen are for a target of roughly 1% of your current body weight per week. That is however a general guideline, chat with your doctor.

nosebag1212

daaaaaanielle wrote: »

I see this recommendation made on lots of different threads where you should set your goal to be 0.5lbs for every 25lbs you want to lose.

I have less than 25lbs to lose but I have my goal set at 1lbs a week. The amount that I can eat, especially when I start accounting for exercise, feels pretty do-able for me (not that being able to eat more wouldn't be nice). I've adjusted up and down and eventually settled on a calorie goal that translates to 1lb a week.

Why would the recommendation be for me to aim for 0.5lbs a week?

it's an arbritrary number that somebody came up with that doesn't apply to many people, e.g. if you are a 185 lb male and you have 25 lbs to lose, you will be perfectly fine losing 1 lb per week all the way to your goal

cmoll520

Part of it is that it may be hard to sustain the calorie deficit needed for more than that. My calorie deficit as a 5'5" woman to lose 1lb a week is 1200 calories. I can do that but realistically I probably couldn't have a bigger deficit and sustain it for long.

lemurcat12

cmoll520 wrote: »

Part of it is that it may be hard to sustain the calorie deficit needed for more than that. My calorie deficit as a 5'5" woman to lose 1lb a week is 1200 calories. I can do that but realistically I probably couldn't have a bigger deficit and sustain it for long.

I think this is it, really.

I don't use the MFP method, but I get 1400 calories for a .5 loss even if lightly active. So that would mean 1150 for a 1 lb loss.

Sure, I also exercise, so would be eating more than that, but I do worry that doing lots of exercise on such a low number can contribute to more lost muscle mass than is necessary. In that I'm 5 lbs from goal, it does me no good to lose faster if more is muscle mass--the whole point at this stage is to reduce my body fat and eventually increase my lean mass.

juggernaut1974

It's a general rule of thumb, not some carved in stone law.

The basis for the recommendation has to do with the math...

If you weigh less (ie - have less weight to lose) your overall TDEE tends to be lower. Someone with 100+ lbs to lose could easily have a TDEE of upwards of 3,000 calories, whereas someone closer to his/her goal could have a TDEE of somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 calories.

To lose a lb a week, you'd need to average 500 calories per day under your TDEE.

A person with a TDEE of 3,000 eating 2,500 wouldn't be too big of an issue - in fact they can often be somewhat more aggressive.

A person with a TDEE of 2,000 eating 1,500 - doable, but harder and less margin for error.

futuremanda

My interpretation of it was not that it's a healthy max, but that it's a general indication of a moderate goal (as opposed to aggressive goal).

If I pretend I am 5 lbs from goal and sedentary, I actually could not healthily lose 1 lb a week. (I'd have to eat less than 1100 cals.) Sure, I could eat 1200 and try to burn ~150ish more, but I wouldn't get to eat any more... so I'd still be netting less than 1200 (going by MFP). I might feel crummy on this plan.

If I pretend I'm exactly 25 lbs from goal and sedentary, I'd still be under 1200 to lose 1 lb a week. I'd have to burn more (but not a lot more -- like one leisurely walk would do me). This *might* feel okay, if I can adjust to 1200. But as I lose, it would quickly get below 1200 and become aggressive.

If I were lightly active, I could eat more and lose 1 lb a week. (Between 1300 and 1500, for the 5 lb and 25 lb from goal markers.) And as I'd approach 1300, I might still find that tough -- the easier, less aggressive option would still be 1550 (or a custom target in between).

But not everyone can bump their activity level, because of their jobs, and would be stuck trying to bump the deficit with exercise, without getting any extra food (above 1200) for it. And bottoming out your calorie target to the minimum and then loading on exercise and not eating it back is... aggressive.

So I don't know, I read it as a rough and quick way of assessing what might be the most sustainable target, one rung up being the more aggressive target. Many people don't do well on an aggressive target (mood swings, fatigue, overeating, etc).

Ultimately, people have to run their own numbers (or have someone help them) and look at the actual options for calorie targets and what speed that theoretically translates to, and then try things to see how they feel.

DeguelloTex

It's undiluted silliness. The idea that everyone needs to take a year to lose the last 25 pounds is stupidity on stilts.