Losing Body Fat Percentage

Options
2»

Replies

  • arb037
    arb037 Posts: 203 Member
    Options
    sixxpoint wrote: »
    arb037 wrote: »
    Regardless she believes her BF is X, and even if she is 25% she can lose faster than you advise.
    yarwell wrote: »
    113 lbs of FFM currently, if that slips to 110 a BF of 26% would mean a weight of 148 lbs ie a loss of 18 lbs. Requires a bit more than 1lb/week.


    In order to gain about one pound of tissue weight (as opposed to transient flux in water weight), you need to consume a total of about 3,500 calories more than you expend. And to lose about one pound of tissue weight, you have to do the opposite -- consume about 3,500 calories less than you expend.

    Therefore, why would you expect someone to realistically cut more than 7,000 cals per week (or 2 lbs. fat loss per week)? That plan isn't safe or rational. A cut from 2,000 cals x 7 days per week down to 1,500 cals x 7 days per week would be exactly a 3,500 cal difference. What you are both suggesting is that a person can safely double (or triple) that rate of loss safely. I don't think so.
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    sixxpoint wrote: »
    arb037 wrote: »
    Regardless she believes her BF is X, and even if she is 25% she can lose faster than you advise.
    yarwell wrote: »
    113 lbs of FFM currently, if that slips to 110 a BF of 26% would mean a weight of 148 lbs ie a loss of 18 lbs. Requires a bit more than 1lb/week.


    In order to gain about one pound of tissue weight (as opposed to transient flux in water weight), you need to consume a total of about 3,500 calories more than you expend. And to lose about one pound of tissue weight, you have to do the opposite -- consume about 3,500 calories less than you expend.

    Therefore, why would you expect someone to realistically cut more than 7,000 cals per week (or 2 lbs. fat loss per week)? That plan isn't safe or rational. A cut from 2,000 cals x 7 days per week down to 1,500 cals x 7 days per week would be exactly a 3,500 cal difference. What you are both suggesting is that a person can safely double (or triple) that rate of loss safely. I don't think so.

    :lol: you tell em.

    "I dont think so". That is your problem, and its is not based on anything other than your opinion.
    The fact of the matter is, the body can metabolize 31 calories per lbs of fat on the body per day. So in the case of someone who is obese and carries alot of fat. Say 50lbs for example they can burn 1550 calories per day from fat stores, and not lose much LBM ( given sufficient protein intake).

    I enjoy how you attempt to put words in my mouth, I did not say they could double or triple anything. Nice try but no.

    I said they can stand to lose faster than the "pro quo" .5-1 lbs a week ( given they are obese) and it is fine and healthy under the right circumstances. Its actually better to lose faster initially contrary to what many believe on here.
    As BF% gets lower the rate of loss def needs to slow down to the levels you are talking about.

    http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=11223


    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/size-of-deficit-and-muscle-catabolism-qa.html/

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-qa.html/

    All works from Lyle McDonald if you're open to learning.

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    sixxpoint wrote: »
    arb037 wrote: »
    Regardless she believes her BF is X, and even if she is 25% she can lose faster than you advise.
    yarwell wrote: »
    113 lbs of FFM currently, if that slips to 110 a BF of 26% would mean a weight of 148 lbs ie a loss of 18 lbs. Requires a bit more than 1lb/week.


    Therefore, why would you expect someone to realistically cut more than 7,000 cals per week (or 2 lbs. fat loss per week)? That plan isn't safe or rational. A cut from 2,000 cals x 7 days per week down to 1,500 cals x 7 days per week would be exactly a 3,500 cal difference. What you are both suggesting is that a person can safely double (or triple) that rate of loss safely. I don't think so.

    I don't know what you are on about, I appear to say "a bit more than 1 lb/week" in the quote above and I was not suggesting anything but merely calculating out the weight loss required for her target fat loss. 18 lbs by the end of November isn't even 2 lbs/week, is it.
  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,254 Member
    Options
    jemhh wrote: »
    At 164 lbs, 31% may be pretty accurate, unless OP is pretty muscular. Those 25% and 30% pictures above are questionable.

    There's a 31% per DEXA picture linked here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/jemhh/view/body-fat-percentage-women-734618

    Link takes me to a page that says "this blog is private" and I don't have permission to view it. :-(

  • XavierNusum
    XavierNusum Posts: 720 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    MissAbbee wrote: »
    bodyfat-chart-visual-women-03.jpg

    Wow I literally have no words. Women over 20% BF seem to only be strippers or prostitutes.

    Well we always tell people that sex burns fewer calories than they think.

    LOL

    An alternative

    body-fat-percentage-women-abs-and-bossom.jpg
    [/quote]

    This seems way more reasonable.

Categories