Calorie goal to lose 2 lbs/week?

SkyKC253

I've been using myfitnesspal for a while and I have had great success in shedding some pounds when I'm dedicated.
I hit the gym for about 60-70 min a day and I love it. I pair that with about 1350 to 1400 cals a day. I log everything (food and exercise). When I do this and I hit "complete my entry" I usually am told I will lose anywhere from 11-13 lbs in 5 weeks. That's an average of OVER 2 lbs a week. Which means my net calories may be a little too low.

I simply want to maintain a loss of 2 lbs a week because I WANT to eat more.

I'd like to take my calories up to the point that I'm netting a higher amount. My goal on MFP of 2 lbs a week won't let me net less than 1200... But when I net 1200... I am only told that I will lose around 1.7 a week. I don't need to eat more than 1800 a day ( I really don't need that much(, but at least going up to 1600-1700 a day would make a big difference.
If I eat that much, I net around 1000-1100. Is this okay? If MFP was okay with my net goal going under 1200, it would give me this calorie goal anyway if my intentions were to lose 2 lbs/week.

2 lbs a week. Can it be done in a safe, steady way even though I exercise a good amount which makes my net calories on the lower side? I don't net 1200. Because if I did, I wouldn't lose the 2 each week. Am I being unrealistic?

janejellyroll

2 pounds a week isn't a realistic goal for many people, including those who don't have much to lose. How much are you trying to lose?

If you can't create a deficit sufficient to lose 2 pounds a week without netting below 1,200, it's a good indicator that it isn't a realistic goal for you.

cwolfman13

janejellyroll wrote: »

2 pounds a week isn't a realistic goal for many people, including those who don't have much to lose. How much are you trying to lose?

If you can't create a deficit sufficient to lose 2 pounds a week without netting below 1,200, it's a good indicator that it isn't a realistic goal for you.

Ninkyou

Yes, it's unrealistic. MFP won't give you that goal because it would be unrealistic for you based on our stats and activity level. Remember, the less you have to lose, the less aggressive your deficit should be, otherwise you'll be kissing more muscle goodbye than you want (remember too, your heart is a muscle. Don't canabalize more than you need to). That's why you'll see people often say "slow and steady wins the race".

You should really make a concerted effort for your NET to be equal to what your goal would be without exercise. If your goal is 1300 calories, that should be your NET. If your goal is 1400 calories, 1400 should be your NET.

jemhh

2 lbs a week is inappropriate for the majority of women. 1 lb per week is a reasonable goal with 50 pounds to lose. (I got the 50 from your profile.)

SkyKC253

Ninkyou wrote: »

Yes, it's unrealistic. MFP won't give you that goal because it would be unrealistic for you based on our stats and activity level. Remember, the less you have to lose, the less aggressive your deficit should be, otherwise you'll be kissing more muscle goodbye than you want (remember too, your heart is a muscle. Don't canabalize more than you need to). That's why you'll see people often say "slow and steady wins the race".

You should really make a concerted effort for your NET to be equal to what your goal would be without exercise. If your goal is 1300 calories, that should be your NET. If your goal is 1400 calories, 1400 should be your NET.

Thank you. These are great words of wisdom. The thing that makes me in such a hurry is that I am carrying about 40 pounds of unwanted weight, weight that didn't exist before I gained it all in a few months. I consider myself very heavy. I am 5'4'' and naturally slender. I am living in a body that does not feel like my own. To be healthy, I'd say I have 30 pounds to lose. That's still a lot. 2 pounds a week felt possible in these circumstances.

Yi5hedr3

2 lbs a week is aggressive. Usually 1 lb/week is best. At any rate a 20% deficit is standard.

blues4miles

skylarmunn wrote: »

Ninkyou wrote: »

Yes, it's unrealistic. MFP won't give you that goal because it would be unrealistic for you based on our stats and activity level. Remember, the less you have to lose, the less aggressive your deficit should be, otherwise you'll be kissing more muscle goodbye than you want (remember too, your heart is a muscle. Don't canabalize more than you need to). That's why you'll see people often say "slow and steady wins the race".

You should really make a concerted effort for your NET to be equal to what your goal would be without exercise. If your goal is 1300 calories, that should be your NET. If your goal is 1400 calories, 1400 should be your NET.

Thank you. These are great words of wisdom. The thing that makes me in such a hurry is that I am carrying about 40 pounds of unwanted weight, weight that didn't exist before I gained it all in a few months. I consider myself very heavy. I am 5'4'' and naturally slender. I am living in a body that does not feel like my own. To be healthy, I'd say I have 30 pounds to lose. That's still a lot. 2 pounds a week felt possible in these circumstances.

Rule of thumb is no more than 1% of your body weight per week. So someone who is 200lbs+ could safely lose 2 lbs a week. Someone 150-200 lbs should at most lose 1.5 lbs a week. However, the faster you lose the weight the more likely you will lose muscle mass. And once you get to 'goal' the less muscle, the lower your BMR, the less you will be able to eat to maintain, and possibly the less attractive you will look. You want to maintain as much muscle as possible while losing. That's why it's generally recommended if you are less than 200 lbs to aim for no more than 1 lb a week. Once you are within 10 lbs of goal weight it's a good idea to aim for .5 lb a week instead.

Ninkyou

skylarmunn wrote: »

Ninkyou wrote: »

Yes, it's unrealistic. MFP won't give you that goal because it would be unrealistic for you based on our stats and activity level. Remember, the less you have to lose, the less aggressive your deficit should be, otherwise you'll be kissing more muscle goodbye than you want (remember too, your heart is a muscle. Don't canabalize more than you need to). That's why you'll see people often say "slow and steady wins the race".

You should really make a concerted effort for your NET to be equal to what your goal would be without exercise. If your goal is 1300 calories, that should be your NET. If your goal is 1400 calories, 1400 should be your NET.

Thank you. These are great words of wisdom. The thing that makes me in such a hurry is that I am carrying about 40 pounds of unwanted weight, weight that didn't exist before I gained it all in a few months. I consider myself very heavy. I am 5'4'' and naturally slender. I am living in a body that does not feel like my own. To be healthy, I'd say I have 30 pounds to lose. That's still a lot. 2 pounds a week felt possible in these circumstances.

Yeah, it's really not, unfortunately. You should aim for 1-1.5 lbs/week. I understand the frustration, but the alternative is really not something you want. You need to preserve as much muscle as possible, have the least amount of saggy skin possible, and you want to keep your hair. Netting below the recommended minimum (and your personal needs) will result in such things. Believe me, it's not worth it for just that little extra loss.

As you get closer to your goal your calorie needs will change and your deficit will become smaller. It's important to pay attention to these things. If you're having trouble meeting your NET goals, incorporate more calorie dense foods.

HamsterManV2

Just remember, the longer it takes for you to achieve your goal, the more permanent it is. Don't lose faith. This is a marathon not a sprint.

That's why most people who make new year's resolutions quit after 1-3 weeks... their goals are not realistic or sustainable.

size102b

It's not a race and as said 2lbs a week most likely won't happen
Tbh 30lbs isn't a lot if you lost 1lbs a week September that'll be gone without feeling deprived hangry and tired

sweetvenum87

blues4miles wrote: »

skylarmunn wrote: »

Ninkyou wrote: »

Yes, it's unrealistic. MFP won't give you that goal because it would be unrealistic for you based on our stats and activity level. Remember, the less you have to lose, the less aggressive your deficit should be, otherwise you'll be kissing more muscle goodbye than you want (remember too, your heart is a muscle. Don't canabalize more than you need to). That's why you'll see people often say "slow and steady wins the race".

You should really make a concerted effort for your NET to be equal to what your goal would be without exercise. If your goal is 1300 calories, that should be your NET. If your goal is 1400 calories, 1400 should be your NET.

Thank you. These are great words of wisdom. The thing that makes me in such a hurry is that I am carrying about 40 pounds of unwanted weight, weight that didn't exist before I gained it all in a few months. I consider myself very heavy. I am 5'4'' and naturally slender. I am living in a body that does not feel like my own. To be healthy, I'd say I have 30 pounds to lose. That's still a lot. 2 pounds a week felt possible in these circumstances.

Rule of thumb is no more than 1% of your body weight per week. So someone who is 200lbs+ could safely lose 2 lbs a week. Someone 150-200 lbs should at most lose 1.5 lbs a week. However, the faster you lose the weight the more likely you will lose muscle mass. And once you get to 'goal' the less muscle, the lower your BMR, the less you will be able to eat to maintain, and possibly the less attractive you will look. You want to maintain as much muscle as possible while losing. That's why it's generally recommended if you are less than 200 lbs to aim for no more than 1 lb a week. Once you are within 10 lbs of goal weight it's a good idea to aim for .5 lb a week instead.

Thanks for such great explanation

jeepinshawn

I think it probably depends on the person. I successfully lost 110lbs and average close to 2lbs per week the entire time. The length of time you keep the weight off has nothing to do with how long it takes to lose it, only how you eat afterwards can control if you put weight back on or not.