Lower deficit with less weight to lose?

kkress92

I've heard it said on here that once one gets within about 20 lbs. of goal weight, one should decrease their caloric deficit/ slow their rate of loss to .5 lbs. per week (or even less). My question is why? Especially when so many report great difficulty losing the last ~10lbs.

seska422

Smaller bodies burn fewer calories to keep them running. You would need to keep reducing your calorie intake to keep the same deficit and you can only go so low on how many calories you are consuming. You need to consume enough calories to get enough nutrition.

Eating 1500 calories when you are 100 pounds overweight might be a daily deficit of 1000 calories which would average to 2 pounds per week lost. You have plenty of extra fat to burn for energy.

That same 1500 calories might just be a daily deficit of 250 calories when you have less than 25 pounds left to lose. You don't have as much extra fat to burn for energy as you would have with more excess fat.

kkress92

seska422 wrote: »

Smaller bodies burn fewer calories to keep them running. You would need to keep reducing your calorie intake to keep the same deficit and you can only go so low on how many calories you are consuming. You need to consume enough calories to get enough nutrition.

Eating 1500 calories when you are 100 pounds overweight might be a daily deficit of 1000 calories which would average to 2 pounds per week lost. You have plenty of extra fat to burn for energy.

That same 1500 calories might just be a daily deficit of 250 calories when you have less than 25 pounds left to lose. You don't have as much extra fat to burn for energy as you would have with more excess fat.

Ok, but as long as my intake exceeds my estimated BMR, can I not just continue losing 1 lb. per week? (Assuming a reasonable goal weight)

Christine_72

kkress92 wrote: »

seska422 wrote: »

Smaller bodies burn fewer calories to keep them running. You would need to keep reducing your calorie intake to keep the same deficit and you can only go so low on how many calories you are consuming. You need to consume enough calories to get enough nutrition.

Eating 1500 calories when you are 100 pounds overweight might be a daily deficit of 1000 calories which would average to 2 pounds per week lost. You have plenty of extra fat to burn for energy.

That same 1500 calories might just be a daily deficit of 250 calories when you have less than 25 pounds left to lose. You don't have as much extra fat to burn for energy as you would have with more excess fat.

Ok, but as long as my intake exceeds my estimated BMR, can I not just continue losing 1 lb. per week? (Assuming a reasonable goal weight)

How many calories do you need to lose 1lb a week?

goldthistime

When you had more fat on your body you were more likely to lose mostly fat and only a little lean body mass as you look st weight. Not so as you approach goal weight. Go slow to retain as much lbm as possible.

Christine_72

Your body can only burn so much fat a day. When you don't have much left, your body will also turn toward your muscle, which you want to hold on to as much as possible.

kkress92

Ok, but as long as my intake exceeds my estimated BMR, can I not just continue losing 1 lb. per week? (Assuming a reasonable goal weight)[/quote]

How many calories do you need to lose 1lb a week?

[/quote]

Working backwards from a TDEE of 1950 (for a starting weight of 155 lbs.), I've been eating ~ 1450 and losing ~1 lb. per week.
According to TDEE calculations for my goal weight (125 lbs) my final TDEE should be 1820ish, which means eating at my current deficit would only slow weight loss slightly (theoretically) Also, according to online calculators, my BMR is ~1420 cal, per day. Does this make sense? Or are my calculations off?

Christine_72

I honestly don't see a problem eating 1450 calories a day. Just don't be disappointed if you dont lose exactly 1lb every week, You may lose on schedule though too, see what happens lol.

Good luck

kkress92

goldthistime wrote: »

When you had more fat on your body you were more likely to lose mostly fat and only a little lean body mass as you look st weight. Not so as you approach goal weight. Go slow to retain as much lbm as possible.

I understand this is conventional wisdom, but are there any good studies or articles to support this? To what degree is it actually true? How does time factor in? Is spending 40 weeks in a catabolic state really superior to 20 weeks, just because the deficit is lower?

kgirlhart

Weight loss slows down the closer you are to goal because you cannot create the same deficit and also get in the proper nutrition. Mfp estimates my maintenance calories at 1550. If I wanted to lose 1 pound per week I would need a deficit of 500 so that would be 1050 which is too low and will not allow me to get the nutrition I need. So if I had been losing at 1 pound per week rate I would now have to change my goal to lose .5 pound per week which would give me 1300 calories per day. (I could also change my deficit to 350 and go to 1200 calories but that would have my rate at .7 pounds per week but I would rather eat the extra 100 calories.)

goldthistime

kkress92 wrote: »

goldthistime wrote: »

When you had more fat on your body you were more likely to lose mostly fat and only a little lean body mass as you look st weight. Not so as you approach goal weight. Go slow to retain as much lbm as possible.

I understand this is conventional wisdom, but are there any good studies or articles to support this? To what degree is it actually true? How does time factor in? Is spending 40 weeks in a catabolic state really superior to 20 weeks, just because the deficit is lower?

Firstly, if you cut your rate of loss in half (per your example 40 weeks versus 20 weeks), I can't see how you could describe the 40 week version as being "in a catabolic state". In other words, it should be much easier on you. Your energy levels should be much less affected. Ideally it should feel like you could do it the rest of your life if you had to.

As to good studies/articles supporting the idea that the relationship between speed of loss and % lbm lost is linear, I do feel like I've read it on reputable sites but I can't recall where. I tried a Google Scholar search and found a few articles/studies, but most of them talk about VLCD's and LBM loss. I did see a PDF entitled "Effect of Two Different Weight-Loss Rates on Body Composition and Strength and Power-Related Performance in Elite Athletes", that said "Consequently, the slower weight-loss intervention had more positive effects on LBM and performance than the faster weight-loss intervention". Admittedly, I don't know how extreme the difference was between the two groups though. (Reference below). I've read that some of us genetically gifted types can lose more fat and less lbm than the average Joe, so they can afford to go faster. These people tend to put on muscle easily too, so if that's you, well, I'm envious.

For the rest of us, I want to add two more arguments supporting slower weight loss as you approach goal. First, it's my belief that you're going to have less trouble with hunger hormones (leptin/ghrelin etc) during maintenance if you lose the last of it slowly. Sorry, no studies again.

Second, I think you gain a valuable skill by learning to lose slowly that you can use on and off when needed during maintenance. I've given away all my big clothes for the first time ever because I know I won't procrastinate for long when I regain a little because slow weight loss is so painless.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42344154/Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rate20160207-25098-1gx8098.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1482978805&Signature=l+EeLyghriX46g7syi1o/g3Tn9U=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=Effect_of_two_different_weight-loss_rate.pdf

kkress92

Thanks for all of your responses! All the best to you for a happy healthy New Year