What sort of rate of BF% lowering can be expected?

55in13

When I decided to lose the extra weight, it was pretty easy to find the guidelines for how much you can safely lose over time. For someone at my weight, 2 pounds per week is considered the max and max it out I did. Now I am getting close enough to goal that I am backing off on the pace and worrying about body composition. I had BF% measured and I am at about 24. Right at the very top edge of the healthy zone, but I want to get it down around or below 20. I am switching my primary exercise from running to gym centric exercise. I will still run, but I will be working core and upper body more. It is really obvious that the fat is up there. If I tense up my muscles I look in reasonably good shape, but if I throw a little twist move in, there is a whole lotta shakin' goin' on between my hips and shoulders. My legs are rock solid.

Anyway, any general guidelines as to how quickly I should see the BF% drop? I am not looking for a quick fix as much as trying to figure out when I would know if what I am doing is working or not. I just started weekly sessions with a trainer today to learn a good regimen (started with squats, planks, push ups and dumb bell rows).

battyg13

Bump

HappyElizabeth

I'm interested in this too!

yarwell

70-80% of your weight loss will be fat. So losing 1 lb/week of weight means say 0.75 lbs of fat per week.

If you weighed 180 at 24% fat and lost over 20 weeks at the above you would end up at 17.6% body fat and 160 lbs.

0.3% per week ??

GODfidence

70-80% of your weight loss will be fat. So losing 1 lb/week of weight means say 0.75 lbs of fat per week.

If you weighed 180 at 24% fat and lost over 20 weeks at the above you would end up at 17.6% body fat and 160 lbs.

0.3% per week ??

Alot of assumptions going on here.

Nagelius

It is possible to drop between one and two percent per month safely , I was at twenty two percent nine months ago - currently at eight percent. Bear in mind you will find it harder as you get leaner as the body doesn't want to surrender any more.

KatLifter

70-80% of your weight loss will be fat. So losing 1 lb/week of weight means say 0.75 lbs of fat per week.

If you weighed 180 at 24% fat and lost over 20 weeks at the above you would end up at 17.6% body fat and 160 lbs.

0.3% per week ??

This doesn't sound accurate, especially if you factor in differences in diet and what exercise is being done. Do you have a source for this?

ETA: OP, make sure you are eating enough protein, and continue with strength training. Strength training while eating at a deficit will help to preserve LBM while cutting fat.

tonytoo

I've gone from 21% to 13% in 8 weeks. So 1% a week was possible for me, losing about 2.5lbs a week in weight.

LoudmouthLee

This is completely dependent on a few things, and is on the vague side.

My simple recommendation is to make sure that you're lifting weights, and not just cardioing. I love cardio (as it is my first gym love), but I wish, when I had started my weight loss, I was lifting at the same time and adding muscle back then. I'm behind the eight-ball now in regards to that. I've made strides, but I'm 6 months behind where I want to be.

By lifting weights and building muscle, your body will be burning the fat more while maintaining (or even growing) your lean muscle mass... but every body is different. I have never known of a standard percentage.

55in13

At this point in my loss, you are preaching to the choir when you tell me I need to lift more. Running helped me burn a lot of calories and got my legs in great shape for shorts season. In shorts and a T shirt, I looked ripped! In a bathing suit, not so much; I have that "skinny fat" thing going on. I do not regret the running; I would much rather be where I am with this problem left to solve than still floundering around where I was trying to do it all at once. I understand that approach works for some, but it wasn't working for me (or to be more accurate, I wasn't doing a good enough job sticking to that approach).

EDIT - Getting ripped is not my goal, BTW. I want to be lean but fit.

yarwell

typical weight loss on dieting is 70-80% fat. See below.

Yes, I made some realistic assumptions, in the absence of better data.

yarwell

Alot of assumptions going on here.

Indeed, got any better ones richard ?

55in13

Thanks, this helps. Yes, assumptions, but they seem reasonable from my research. So I am at 175 with 24% so 42 pounds of fat. If I lose 10 more, 7 will be fat (being conservative and using your lower figure of 70%) and I will be at 165 with 35 pounds of fat or about 21.2%. If I lose 15, then about 10.5 will be fat and I would be at 160 with 31.5 pounds of fat or about 19.7%. If I am able to get 80% fat loss (I do plan to go slower and make sure I have plenty of protein) then at 175 I would be at 20.6%. So it sounds like the answer is to lose between 10 and 15 pounds, but not too quickly (for more reasons than just this one; I want to come in for a smooth landing for maintenance).

I am thinking that if I haven't seen a drop of 1% in a month or so but have lost more than 3 pounds, then I should consider changing things up. Does that make sense?

Sean_The_IT_Guy

How did you get you BF measurements? Do you have access to a facility that does immersion testing, or were you going by caliper and/or impedance testers? I would like to know more accurately my BF% (I'm sure it's in the 30s), but I know that skinfold testing would be less than accurate for me because my arms and legs have near to no fat (my calves are ripped and rippling, as are my forearms and thighs), and I have maybe a half inch coating of sub-q fat around my chest and abdomen. What I do have is a massive amount of visceral fat.

This is bad from a health standpoint of risks of hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, etc. It's also bad because i've been able to suck in my gut by tensing my abs for the past 25 years so everyone said i didn't look that heavy, and that i 'carried it well'. That meant that until my knees and feet started to hurt now in my 30s, I had nothing besides the ephemeral threats of poor health i nthe future to make me half-heartedly get off my butt and do something about it.

55in13

The figure I am using is impedance using a hand held device at the Y. It is supposedly a pretty good one and the trainer mentioned that it would probably be better for me that it passed through my arms because my legs might fool one of those that is built into a scale. Visually, it appears that the home planet for my fat is in the rectangle between my hips and shoulders. It is spread pretty evenly; if I am careful not to jiggle you might think I was in top form.

yarwell

So I am at 175 with 24% so 42 pounds of fat. If I lose 10 more, 7 will be fat (being conservative and using your lower figure of 70%) and I will be at 165 with 35 pounds of fat or about 21.2%. If I lose 15, then about 10.5 will be fat and I would be at 160 with 31.5 pounds of fat or about 19.7%. If I am able to get 80% fat loss (I do plan to go slower and make sure I have plenty of protein) then at 175 I would be at 20.6%. So it sounds like the answer is to lose between 10 and 15 pounds, but not too quickly (for more reasons than just this one; I want to come in for a smooth landing for maintenance).

I am thinking that if I haven't seen a drop of 1% in a month or so but have lost more than 3 pounds, then I should consider changing things up. Does that make sense?

Yep, once you make the assumptions about the % of loss that is fat the rest is just math. http://goo.gl/bHUu2

55in13

Wow - thanks for the spreadsheet; I downloaded it into Excel so I could play with the numbers a little.

GODfidence

Alot of assumptions going on here.

Indeed, got any better ones richard ?

Haha