Realistic expectations - fat loss

jemhh

Just got this in my inbox: http://strengtheory.com/realistic-training-goals/

I read it all but really got stuck at the How fast can I lose fat? section, pretty much because I think it is terrible advice in the middle of an article that is supposedly about being realistic. I'd like to get others' views on this. Maybe he is hedging a bit by saying "a nifty little formula that can tell you how fast you can shoot to lose fat without unnecessarily increasing your risk of losing much (or any) lean mass in the process." But then later he says "if you’re currently at 20% body fat, you should aim to lose about 1% of your bodyweight per week" and the "should" (in my mind) encourages skipping past realistic fat loss (realistic meaning comfortably sustainable and likely to happen) and going to maximum fat loss territory. So we're right back at unrealistic weight loss goal territory.

What do you think?

Just for an example, using the formula, if a woman was 145 lbs and 28% fat, the formula says that she could lose 1.4% of her bodyweight, or 1.96 lbs per week. That would be a mighty big deficit and while it could be possible, should it be the goal?

taco_inspector

I think the larger issue is that weight loss is not equal to fat loss (ever, with the possible exception of liposuction).

The confusing bit you mention "if you’re currently at 20% body fat, you should aim to lose about 1% of your bodyweight per week" has nothing to do with fat loss; as presented, this is a loss of body weight, which will be a complex loss composed of water, various tissue types, and structural elements ... Yeah, some fat will likely be included in the loss.

TLDR: "Weight-loss" <> "Fat-loss" ; maintaining clear distinction is vital for a good understanding of related material and processes

lemmie177

I think its just a difference of perspective. His "realistic" I read as physically possible, wheres yours is comfortably sustainable. He's a relative realist to an audience reading about losing "30 pounds in 30 days!".

jemhh

lemmie177 wrote: »

I think its just a difference of perspective. His "realistic" I read as physically possible, wheres yours is comfortably sustainable. He's a relative realist to an audience reading about losing "30 pounds in 30 days!".

See, I view it as being realistic compared to people who hear "1-2 pounds a week is a safe rate of loss" and assume that they are going to lose that much each week. It's odd to me that he would write for the lose 30 pounds in 30 days crowd considering that it and his audience likely don't overlap much.

lemmie177

jemhh wrote: »

lemmie177 wrote: »

I think its just a difference of perspective. His "realistic" I read as physically possible, wheres yours is comfortably sustainable. He's a relative realist to an audience reading about losing "30 pounds in 30 days!".

See, I view it as being realistic compared to people who hear "1-2 pounds a week is a safe rate of loss" and assume that they are going to lose that much each week. It's odd to me that he would write for the lose 30 pounds in 30 days crowd considering that it and his audience likely don't overlap much.

Tbh, I'm not too familiar with his writing or audience, but in the first couple paragraphs, it seems he's talking to new years resolutionists who typically burn out by March. Says,

The primary audience for this article is people who are brand new to working out...

I agree with you. I don't think the formula makes for a realistic weight loss goal at all. It should be mentioned that the "study" the formula came out of was simply someone plugging in numbers from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. So all the subjects were men enduring semi-starvation...