2lbs a week when less than 10lbs to lose
Replies
-
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Thanks all.
Crash diets definitely aren't my thing but I feel comfortable sticking to 1200 plus exercise calories.
I'm doing two pure strength sessions with a PT each week so I'm ok there.
I did try a diet break for two weeks but gained a 1lb the first week and then lost 2.5lbs the second week. Possibly wasn't at maintenance?
Maintenance isn't an exact number...1 Lb up and 2.5 Lbs down are well withing the range of perfectly normal body weight fluctuations...maintenance is a range.
Maybe I was at maintenance then!
Maybe yes, maybe no...you would need more than a couple of data points to reliably make that determination.0 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »I know the received wisdom is that when you've only got a small amount left to lose you should aim for 0.5lbs a week. But why? Is there any science behind the idea?
I've got 9.4lbs to go and am happy on my 1200kcal at 2 lbs a week. Am i endangering lean muscle mass if I don't increase my calories?
Yes you are. That's why the recommendations exist.2 -
Grumpy: short answer -- keep doing what you're doing since it's working!1
-
In addition to concerns about losing lean body mass when you are already close to goal, you don't seem to be considering how you are going to transition into maintenance when you do lose the remaining weight to achieve your goal. Many people find that adding back in calories can be challenging if they were eating at a large deficit for a long period of time, and the thought of finding 1000 extra calories/day can be kind of daunting. Another reason to slow weight loss first to 1lb/week, then to 0.5 lb/week, is to make that transition a bit smoother and in my opinion, more sustainable.
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »In addition to concerns about losing lean body mass when you are already close to goal, you don't seem to be considering how you are going to transition into maintenance when you do lose the remaining weight to achieve your goal. Many people find that adding back in calories can be challenging if they were eating at a large deficit for a long period of time, and the thought of finding 1000 extra calories/day can be kind of daunting. Another reason to slow weight loss first to 1lb/week, then to 0.5 lb/week, is to make that transition a bit smoother and in my opinion, more sustainable.
So true.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »In addition to concerns about losing lean body mass when you are already close to goal, you don't seem to be considering how you are going to transition into maintenance when you do lose the remaining weight to achieve your goal. Many people find that adding back in calories can be challenging if they were eating at a large deficit for a long period of time, and the thought of finding 1000 extra calories/day can be kind of daunting. Another reason to slow weight loss first to 1lb/week, then to 0.5 lb/week, is to make that transition a bit smoother and in my opinion, more sustainable.
This! ^
0 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Thanks all.
Crash diets definitely aren't my thing but I feel comfortable sticking to 1200 plus exercise calories.
I'm doing two pure strength sessions with a PT each week so I'm ok there.
I did try a diet break for two weeks but gained a 1lb the first week and then lost 2.5lbs the second week. Possibly wasn't at maintenance?
Do you remember where you were in your menstrual cycle at this time? It is quite common to gain premenstrually and have a big loss afterwards.
Many women also retain water around ovulation.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »In addition to concerns about losing lean body mass when you are already close to goal, you don't seem to be considering how you are going to transition into maintenance when you do lose the remaining weight to achieve your goal. Many people find that adding back in calories can be challenging if they were eating at a large deficit for a long period of time, and the thought of finding 1000 extra calories/day can be kind of daunting. Another reason to slow weight loss first to 1lb/week, then to 0.5 lb/week, is to make that transition a bit smoother and in my opinion, more sustainable.
Very true. I did really struggle eating at maintenance because it seemed so many calories. I was much happier when I switched back to 1200.
I think next time I'll add calories back in slowly rather than jumping straight to my final figure.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Thanks all.
Crash diets definitely aren't my thing but I feel comfortable sticking to 1200 plus exercise calories.
I'm doing two pure strength sessions with a PT each week so I'm ok there.
I did try a diet break for two weeks but gained a 1lb the first week and then lost 2.5lbs the second week. Possibly wasn't at maintenance?
Do you remember where you were in your menstrual cycle at this time? It is quite common to gain premenstrually and have a big loss afterwards.
Many women also retain water around ovulation.
Possibly true. I don't have a regular cycle so it's impossible to predict from month to month even with handy apps and close tracking.0 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »In addition to concerns about losing lean body mass when you are already close to goal, you don't seem to be considering how you are going to transition into maintenance when you do lose the remaining weight to achieve your goal. Many people find that adding back in calories can be challenging if they were eating at a large deficit for a long period of time, and the thought of finding 1000 extra calories/day can be kind of daunting. Another reason to slow weight loss first to 1lb/week, then to 0.5 lb/week, is to make that transition a bit smoother and in my opinion, more sustainable.
Very true. I did really struggle eating at maintenance because it seemed so many calories. I was much happier when I switched back to 1200.
I think next time I'll add calories back in slowly rather than jumping straight to my final figure.
You seem really fixated on wanting to have a 1200 cal target, uncomfortable with a goal that is higher and more appropriate for you. Why are you aiming for the minimum recommended for women, which isn't appropriate for those who are active, not extremely petite, etc? Why continue to push for a 2 lb/week loss when people have given you several reasons why this isn't a good idea for you?4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »In addition to concerns about losing lean body mass when you are already close to goal, you don't seem to be considering how you are going to transition into maintenance when you do lose the remaining weight to achieve your goal. Many people find that adding back in calories can be challenging if they were eating at a large deficit for a long period of time, and the thought of finding 1000 extra calories/day can be kind of daunting. Another reason to slow weight loss first to 1lb/week, then to 0.5 lb/week, is to make that transition a bit smoother and in my opinion, more sustainable.
Very true. I did really struggle eating at maintenance because it seemed so many calories. I was much happier when I switched back to 1200.
I think next time I'll add calories back in slowly rather than jumping straight to my final figure.
You seem really fixated on wanting to have a 1200 cal target, uncomfortable with a goal that is higher and more appropriate for you. Why are you aiming for the minimum recommended for women, which isn't appropriate for those who are active, not extremely petite, etc? Why continue to push for a 2 lb/week loss when people have given you several reasons why this isn't a good idea for you?
Thanks. Based on recommendations I've dropped my goal to losing 0.5lb a week. It's only upped my calories to 1360 but at least it's an extra 160 a day.1 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »I know the received wisdom is that when you've only got a small amount left to lose you should aim for 0.5lbs a week. But why? Is there any science behind the idea?
I've got 9.4lbs to go and am happy on my 1200kcal at 2 lbs a week. Am i endangering lean muscle mass if I don't increase my calories?
If you want to lose fat while maintaining muscle mass, look into a Protein Sparing Modified Fast. It takes a lot of preparation and is hard to do. It's not for everyone and it's harder for some women.
Current popular theories include: The body needs fewer calories as weight is lost. The body adopts a new setpoint for weight after weight loss and tries to return to it. A body that has lost a significant amount of weight believes it has been starved and slows down the metabolism to retain weight.
Weight loss is beginning to be seen as less a simple question of energy imbalance (you eat more calories than you burn) and more of a complex process triggered by hormones. Insulin is a key one. The individual's genetics, environment, lifestyle, age, and weight loss history (It's currently believed that's it's harder to lose weight if you've been very heavy) all play a role and much of it is not understood. You have to take all advice as a guideline, observe yourself and use common sense.8 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're losing more than 1% of your BW per week, you're definitely getting into your muscle mass. You don't have the fat stores to mobilize for fast weight loss.
This is concerning - I don't want to end up skinny fat. I do work out with a PT twice a week doing purely strength but have always assumed that I'm just losing the duvet of fat and maintaining the muscle underneath but not actually building any muscle.
So your body has a maximum amount of fat it can use every day/week?
Weight work, while good for you, doesn't burn as many calories as people think. The fat is coming off because of your diet. If you're working out regularly, you should be building muscle, you just can't see it because of the fat. But you should feel stronger.
BTW, the PSMF I mentioned does not recommend strenuous exercise. It's too stressful along with the diet. But a PSMF is short term with scheduled breaks.4 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're losing more than 1% of your BW per week, you're definitely getting into your muscle mass. You don't have the fat stores to mobilize for fast weight loss.
This is concerning - I don't want to end up skinny fat. I do work out with a PT twice a week doing purely strength but have always assumed that I'm just losing the duvet of fat and maintaining the muscle underneath but not actually building any muscle.
So your body has a maximum amount of fat it can use every day/week?
Weight work, while good for you, doesn't burn as many calories as people think. The fat is coming off because of your diet. If you're working out regularly, you should be building muscle, you just can't see it because of the fat. But you should feel stronger.
BTW, the PSMF I mentioned does not recommend strenuous exercise. It's too stressful along with the diet. But a PSMF is short term with scheduled breaks.
Really? I thought the body couldn't build muscle whilst in deficit?1 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »I know the received wisdom is that when you've only got a small amount left to lose you should aim for 0.5lbs a week. But why? Is there any science behind the idea?
I've got 9.4lbs to go and am happy on my 1200kcal at 2 lbs a week. Am i endangering lean muscle mass if I don't increase my calories?
If you want to lose fat while maintaining muscle mass, look into a Protein Sparing Modified Fast. It takes a lot of preparation and is hard to do. It's not for everyone and it's harder for some women.
Current popular theories include: The body needs fewer calories as weight is lost. The body adopts a new setpoint for weight after weight loss and tries to return to it. A body that has lost a significant amount of weight believes it has been starved and slows down the metabolism to retain weight.
Weight loss is beginning to be seen as less a simple question of energy imbalance (you eat more calories than you burn) and more of a complex process triggered by hormones. Insulin is a key one. The individual's genetics, environment, lifestyle, age, and weight loss history (It's currently believed that's it's harder to lose weight if you've been very heavy) all play a role and much of it is not understood. You have to take all advice as a guideline, observe yourself and use common sense.
Hmm, this seems odd. I thought set weight resistance and starvation theory had been debunked?1 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're losing more than 1% of your BW per week, you're definitely getting into your muscle mass. You don't have the fat stores to mobilize for fast weight loss.
This is concerning - I don't want to end up skinny fat. I do work out with a PT twice a week doing purely strength but have always assumed that I'm just losing the duvet of fat and maintaining the muscle underneath but not actually building any muscle.
So your body has a maximum amount of fat it can use every day/week?
Weight work, while good for you, doesn't burn as many calories as people think. The fat is coming off because of your diet. If you're working out regularly, you should be building muscle, you just can't see it because of the fat. But you should feel stronger.
BTW, the PSMF I mentioned does not recommend strenuous exercise. It's too stressful along with the diet. But a PSMF is short term with scheduled breaks.
Really? I thought the body couldn't build muscle whilst in deficit?
It helps you weed out who to listen to.
I see above that you decided to increase your calorie intake. This is good, for all the described reasons (muscle sparing, easier tradition to maintenance). If you ard currently losing 2lb/week on 1200, then the calculators ard not accurate for you (depending in what you've entered for activity levels), so even 1360 will still be more than 1lb/week. Give it a go for a couple weeks, then add some more calories. Slowly increase up toward your maintenance. You should be about done your 10lbs by the time you get there.1 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're losing more than 1% of your BW per week, you're definitely getting into your muscle mass. You don't have the fat stores to mobilize for fast weight loss.
This is concerning - I don't want to end up skinny fat. I do work out with a PT twice a week doing purely strength but have always assumed that I'm just losing the duvet of fat and maintaining the muscle underneath but not actually building any muscle.
So your body has a maximum amount of fat it can use every day/week?
Weight work, while good for you, doesn't burn as many calories as people think. The fat is coming off because of your diet. If you're working out regularly, you should be building muscle, you just can't see it because of the fat. But you should feel stronger.
BTW, the PSMF I mentioned does not recommend strenuous exercise. It's too stressful along with the diet. But a PSMF is short term with scheduled breaks.
Really? I thought the body couldn't build muscle whilst in deficit?
You won't likely gain muscle tissue. You can build the muscles you have. While weight work doesn't burn as many calories during, it has an overall positive metabolic effect and helps you to reshape your body in a positive way. You are close to goal. The weight training will show benefits.0 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »I know the received wisdom is that when you've only got a small amount left to lose you should aim for 0.5lbs a week. But why? Is there any science behind the idea?
I've got 9.4lbs to go and am happy on my 1200kcal at 2 lbs a week. Am i endangering lean muscle mass if I don't increase my calories?
If you want to lose fat while maintaining muscle mass, look into a Protein Sparing Modified Fast. It takes a lot of preparation and is hard to do. It's not for everyone and it's harder for some women.
Current popular theories include: The body needs fewer calories as weight is lost. The body adopts a new setpoint for weight after weight loss and tries to return to it. A body that has lost a significant amount of weight believes it has been starved and slows down the metabolism to retain weight.
Weight loss is beginning to be seen as less a simple question of energy imbalance (you eat more calories than you burn) and more of a complex process triggered by hormones. Insulin is a key one. The individual's genetics, environment, lifestyle, age, and weight loss history (It's currently believed that's it's harder to lose weight if you've been very heavy) all play a role and much of it is not understood. You have to take all advice as a guideline, observe yourself and use common sense.
Hmm, this seems odd. I thought set weight resistance and starvation theory had been debunked?
You seem to be confusing different theories. People who do PSMFs and IFs and CR do not believe in "starvation mode." The body is not starving if few calories are consumed in limited periods. Google "The myth of starvation mode." I don't know what you mean in terms of "weight resistance." Are you speaking of exercise?
I summarized currently popular theories because you specifically asked about "the science." I didn't say I necessarily believe in any one over the other.
There's plenty of information about PSMF if one is willing to educate oneself. Lyle McDonald's site is a good start.1 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »In addition to concerns about losing lean body mass when you are already close to goal, you don't seem to be considering how you are going to transition into maintenance when you do lose the remaining weight to achieve your goal. Many people find that adding back in calories can be challenging if they were eating at a large deficit for a long period of time, and the thought of finding 1000 extra calories/day can be kind of daunting. Another reason to slow weight loss first to 1lb/week, then to 0.5 lb/week, is to make that transition a bit smoother and in my opinion, more sustainable.
Very true. I did really struggle eating at maintenance because it seemed so many calories. I was much happier when I switched back to 1200.
I think next time I'll add calories back in slowly rather than jumping straight to my final figure.
You seem really fixated on wanting to have a 1200 cal target, uncomfortable with a goal that is higher and more appropriate for you. Why are you aiming for the minimum recommended for women, which isn't appropriate for those who are active, not extremely petite, etc? Why continue to push for a 2 lb/week loss when people have given you several reasons why this isn't a good idea for you?
Thanks. Based on recommendations I've dropped my goal to losing 0.5lb a week. It's only upped my calories to 1360 but at least it's an extra 160 a day.
If you are consistently losing 2 lbs/week eating 1200 + exercise calories then you are currently at a 1000 cal deficit from your TDEE (for the total amount you are eating, not the net 1200). You mentioned above that maybe your TDEE is higher than you thought, or higher than calculators would predict. I am in a similar situation, I'm 5'2 and 118, over 40 with a desk job, but because I'm active (averaging 15K steps/day in addition to some light strength training) my TDEE according to my FitBit (and my results bear this) is 2200/day. Calculators put someone petite like me, choosing a sedentary activity level (which I don't do because I know I'm not) because of my desk job at around 1700 for maintenance.
So I would use your actual results and calculate your TDEE and then an appropriate deficit from that. How much weight have you lost total, and over what period of time?
Increasing to 1360 is not going to slow your rate of loss down significantly, so I would disregard what the MFP recommendations are and go with your actual results, adding back in calories slowly so as not to overwhelm your body (and your mind since you said you had some mental struggles with that previously) and once you stop losing then stick with that number for a while to confirm that really is your TDEE/maintenance calories. By the time you find that sweet spot, you'll probably have lost the 10 lbs and, as suggested above, perhaps recomp is another goal to focus on rather than losing additional scale weight.1 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »I know the received wisdom is that when you've only got a small amount left to lose you should aim for 0.5lbs a week. But why? Is there any science behind the idea?
I've got 9.4lbs to go and am happy on my 1200kcal at 2 lbs a week. Am i endangering lean muscle mass if I don't increase my calories?
So...You have a 7000 kcal deficit per week?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 412 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions