Weight loss rate as a function of body fat
shaunshaikh
Posts: 616 Member
I've seen a lot of people post here different rules of thumb for weight loss rate as a function of healthy weight, BMI, or body fat percentage. Are there any resources on this or is it just something you go on by feel?
From my experience, I've typically gone by feel. As my TDEE goes down as I lose weight, I instinctively want to reduce my rate of loss target so that I can maintain my caloric intake. I've seen some people mention that it would be good to eat to the maintenance level of your goal weight and that seems intriguing to me because that would allow me to get adjusted to a certain level all the time and would be a true sustainable pattern of behavior.
From my experience, I've typically gone by feel. As my TDEE goes down as I lose weight, I instinctively want to reduce my rate of loss target so that I can maintain my caloric intake. I've seen some people mention that it would be good to eat to the maintenance level of your goal weight and that seems intriguing to me because that would allow me to get adjusted to a certain level all the time and would be a true sustainable pattern of behavior.
1
Replies
-
I literally don't understand the question, I think it's your use of the word "function."
Eating at maintenance level of your goal weight might be ok if you aren't too far away from goal, but might be a tough and unhealthy deficit if not.3 -
For example, @leggup recently posted this in another thread:If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lb/week is ideal
If you have 15-25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lb/week is ideal
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lb/week is ideal
I've seen other people make the same chart with BMI. I'd like to see what people's rules of thumb are that are structured this way, but more importantly what they're based on. Is there some source or research behind these? Is this just some person's personal anecdotal guideline that sounds about right?2 -
But your TDEE Doesn't have to go down...BMR maybe...NEAT maybe...
If anything my TDEE has gone up...
and most people want to lose it as fast as possible so they don't do that...lower the weekly goal by anything.
As for eating at maintenance of your goal weight how do you know that? You know what it might be...but no guarantees. As I said my TDEE is higher..3 -
OK, that's kind of obscuring the point. My BMR is going down as I lose weight. At a constant activity level and constant calorie intake, my deficit is going to go down naturally. In fact, I worked it out that my rate of loss when I first started was at 1.8 lbs/week, and if i just kept the same NET calorie intake, my rate of loss would be 1.3 lbs/week at 200 lbs.2
-
So what do you estimate your goal weight maintenance calories to be, and where are you now?1
-
shaunshaikh wrote: »OK, that's kind of obscuring the point. My BMR is going down as I lose weight. At a constant activity level and constant calorie intake, my deficit is going to go down naturally. In fact, I worked it out that my rate of loss when I first started was at 1.8 lbs/week, and if i just kept the same NET calorie intake, my rate of loss would be 1.3 lbs/week at 200 lbs.
perhaps obscuring your point but you said TDEE...which is one of those things that is easy to change.
If BMR does go down is it really that significant of a drop? we aren't talking about 200 calories less a day...
Yes you can say your deficit will get smaller as you lose weight...but again only if you want it to. You could keep the same rate of deficit and lose at the same rate...
But given the "constant" scenario again...how do you know what maintenance is at your goal weight?1 -
There are no perfect rules. Just general guidance that tends to adhere to a couple of hard and fast anchors:
1.) Do not lose more than 2.5-3 pounds per week in steady-state loss (increased gallstone risk)
2.) Do not eat below the minimum calorie levels, net of exercise (1500 per day for men, 1200 per day for women)
3.) Set your deficit such that it is something you can sustain for the long-term.
Taking all of the above into account, 1% of body weight per week tends to work for many. I think the use of the word 'ideal' in the example posted above is way overstated but those guidelines tend to work as well (though they are somewhat skewed towards women, as men tend to have more calories to work with. For example, a 200 pound 6'2" male with 20 pounds to lose can easily target 2 pounds per week and not run afoul of any of the above).1 -
Goal weight maintenance calories for me would be 1920 based on my activity level, before purposeful exercise. I've been maintaining 1,500-1,600 a day from 241 down to 219 where I am now. Eating maintenance right now would probably equate to me losing a about .8 lbs per week, which feels a little bit low for how much weight I have to lose. I'm about 33% body fat still.
Based on the guidelines psoted by leggup above, i'd want to lose 1.5 lbs/week. I've seen someone else point out a guideline that those in the "obese" category on BMI should lose 1.5 lbs/week. That equates to 1,600 NET calories a day based on my activity level.
My question is -- what are these guidelines based on?1 -
Because I know the formula for BMR, I know my body fat % and lean mass calculations. I know the adjustments to BMR that are used to get calories burned for a sedentary person. I would pick a goal weight at around 15% body fat, which I was at previously at around 170 lbs like 4 years ago.But given the "constant" scenario again...how do you know what maintenance is at your goal weight?
Your BMR does change significantly as you lose a lot of weight. At 241 lbs my BMR was 2,188. At 219 (now) it is 2,055. At 170 lbs it would be 1,745.7. The differences are then magnified because the ways NEAT calories are estimated are based on multiplying BMR by some coefficient. For sedentary it's 1.1 or 1.2 times BMR. For someone very active it could be 1.6 or 1.7.2 -
I think I get what you're asking. The reason you slow your loss down the smaller you get is because you have less fat to lose, so in a large deficit your body will study burning more muscle to compensate. A slower loss helps prevent that, or at least minimize it.0
-
There are no perfect rules. Just general guidance that tends to adhere to a couple of hard and fast anchors:
1.) Do not lose more than 2.5-3 pounds per week in steady-state loss (increased gallstone risk)
2.) Do not eat below the minimum calorie levels, net of exercise (1500 per day for men, 1200 per day for women)
3.) Set your deficit such that it is something you can sustain for the long-term.
1 and 2 surely are based on your health!
1 -
I called that Eating For Future You - taking current activity multiplier with goal weight BMR.
It really drags slow there at the end - if doing strength training no problem as it become recomp almost and many discover goal weight isn't needed - they look like it before they reach it.
But making that goal TDEE eating level and taking 5% off still can help it move along better to the end - and it still ends up being a very reasonable deficit.
If you have a good estimate of current TDEE because of results and accurate food logging - take that TDEE / current BMR for your Personal Activity Factor.
Then future BMR x PAF x 0.95 = eating goal to stick with except for inevitable adjustments.
Except seasonal changes, life changes, the above commented increases to TDEE because of being easier to do more.
As to this concept of losing less when less to lose, the studies that bear out that point usually have to do with just groups being given big or small deficits and the positive differences for the small deficit group.
Merely meaning for wherever you are in weight loss road - the non-extreme deficit will have more positives.
Here's one example of gaining LBM on a smaller deficit compared to bigger one. Others have shown no loss of LBM on smaller deficit compared to some on larger.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/447514/athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet/p1
As to the rate of loss, like the chart you showed - that's usually based on average TDEE, and doing that 0.7-1% loss weekly math on each range.
Just working backwards.
But frankly - that 1% method falls apart because it's really a matter of how close to healthy weight you are - not your current weight.
Someone at 205 lbs that is tall and muscular and 200 is good healthy weight, 1% isn't reasonable (except for fact 2 weeks in diet wouldn't be awful).
But someone at 205 and healthy weight is 140 is different story.
Never liked the 1%, there are some other nice methods that take into account amount to lose instead, based on studies that used the method.
Edit - forgot to include the 3% of amount to be lost weekly method which scales decently. So 50 lbs to lose to healthy weight:
50 x 0.03 = 1.5 lbs weekly, or 750 cal deficit.
Though even that goes too slow at end with like only 10 left - 150 cal deficit rather tight, better to stick with 250 perhaps.0 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »OK, that's kind of obscuring the point. My BMR is going down as I lose weight. At a constant activity level and constant calorie intake, my deficit is going to go down naturally. In fact, I worked it out that my rate of loss when I first started was at 1.8 lbs/week, and if i just kept the same NET calorie intake, my rate of loss would be 1.3 lbs/week at 200 lbs.
Valid, but anecdotally, many people ovserve that as their weight decreases, their energy level and activity tends to increase proportionally3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »shaunshaikh wrote: »OK, that's kind of obscuring the point. My BMR is going down as I lose weight. At a constant activity level and constant calorie intake, my deficit is going to go down naturally. In fact, I worked it out that my rate of loss when I first started was at 1.8 lbs/week, and if i just kept the same NET calorie intake, my rate of loss would be 1.3 lbs/week at 200 lbs.
Valid, but anecdotally, many people ovserve that as their weight decreases, their energy level and activity tends to increase proportionally
kind of what I was saying ...I had a TDEE of 2k when I came here based on 28mins of 30 day shred and my regular life...
My TDEE is typically around 2400 now...I am more aware of my movements etc. I try to get more steps in and workout more as I feel better.
I don't have anything but visual observations either but I expect my NEAT and BMR are about the same as it was too because after 3 years of lifting and eating at maintenance I am smaller but weigh the same...*crosses fingers that a small recomp happened*3 -
Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.1
-
shaunshaikh wrote: »Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.
7% body fat? are you going to be on stage competing?2 -
Why do you keep picking on the details in my posts? I just picked 7% as a random low body fat percentage.3
-
shaunshaikh wrote: »Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.
There is science behind it. It was posted some months back, explaining how much as a percentage of Total Body mass/Body fat can be cut safely per day..1 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »Why do you keep picking on the details in my posts? I just picked 7% as a random low body fat percentage.
I was just asking a question...7% is pretty low was asking if you were going to compete as that is not a walking around BF%
as for details...devil is in the details...helps better understand the question.3 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.
I can't find the reference at the moment, but it's theorized that maximal fat loss per day is somewhere around 31 calories per pound of body fat. So as your body fat decreases, you have less wiggle room before you start cutting into LBM/muscle. A 150 lb. person at 10% bodyfat has 15 lbs. of bodyfat; a 150 lb person at 20% bodyfat has 30 lbs of bodyfat. So using that figure, the 10% BF person could theoretically burn 465 calories (about 51 grams) of fat/day (which is about 3/4 pound/week), while a 20% person could theoretically burn 930 calories (about 103 grams) of fat/day (which is about a pound and a half/week). So if your deficit is set too high and you don't have enough fat left to "feed" it, it's going to result in increased loss of LBM/muscle.7 -
I just want to get down to a healthy body fat percentage, around 15%, and I want to better understand the science behind how to adjust my calorie deficit as I get closer and closer to that ideal body fat percentage.shaunshaikh wrote: »Why do you keep picking on the details in my posts? I just picked 7% as a random low body fat percentage.
I was just asking a question...7% is pretty low was asking if you were going to compete as that is not a walking around BF%
as for details...devil is in the details...helps better understand the question.
1 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.
I fully admit this is me relaying second-hand info while talking out of my *kitten*, but I have often seen posted the recommendation that losing 1% of your body weight is the absolute most you should target, because otherwise you are likely losing significant muscle mass. I assume that came from a respectable source, but I have no idea where. The idea being your body can only mobilize so much fat at one time, so if you are demanding more than it can get from fat, it will go after your muscle.
And as you said, part of it is just math - if your TDEE is 2100 cals, and you are eating at a 1000 cal deficit to lose 2 lbs per week, you are not taking in enough calories to fuel your basic bodily functions and provide adequate nutrition. So you have to ease off the deficit to maintain basic health.
I think
0 -
I've seen recommended maximum loss rates of .5-1% of your body weight per week. That's not addressing bodyfat or any of your specific criteria, but that seems to be a reasonable loss rate that will adjust itself based on your weight.
Now seeing Heybales comments on the 1% and those are valid. I think the lower % certainly applies as one is closer to their goal weight. But i still think .5-1% a reasonable ballpark.0 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »For example, @leggup recently posted this in another thread:If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lb/week is ideal
If you have 15-25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lb/week is ideal
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lb/week is ideal
I've seen other people make the same chart with BMI. I'd like to see what people's rules of thumb are that are structured this way, but more importantly what they're based on. Is there some source or research behind these? Is this just some person's personal anecdotal guideline that sounds about right?
If anyone has the source for this, I’d be grateful as well.0 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.
I can't find the reference at the moment, but it's theorized that maximal fat loss per day is somewhere around 31 calories per pound of body fat. So as your body fat decreases, you have less wiggle room before you start cutting into LBM/muscle. A 150 lb. person at 10% bodyfat has 15 lbs. of bodyfat; a 150 lb person at 20% bodyfat has 30 lbs of bodyfat. So using that figure, the 10% BF person could theoretically burn 465 calories (about 51 grams) of fat/day (which is about 3/4 pound/week), while a 20% person could theoretically burn 930 calories (about 103 grams) of fat/day (which is about a pound and a half/week). So if your deficit is set too high and you don't have enough fat left to "feed" it, it's going to result in increased loss of LBM/muscle.
Thanks. Not sure why you got woo'd. even if the numbers aren't exactly right, the theory/science behind them is spot on.
Obviously if you have higher or lower BF than average for your BMI, the formula inevitably changes.2 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.
I can't find the reference at the moment, but it's theorized that maximal fat loss per day is somewhere around 31 calories per pound of body fat. So as your body fat decreases, you have less wiggle room before you start cutting into LBM/muscle. A 150 lb. person at 10% bodyfat has 15 lbs. of bodyfat; a 150 lb person at 20% bodyfat has 30 lbs of bodyfat. So using that figure, the 10% BF person could theoretically burn 465 calories (about 51 grams) of fat/day (which is about 3/4 pound/week), while a 20% person could theoretically burn 930 calories (about 103 grams) of fat/day (which is about a pound and a half/week). So if your deficit is set too high and you don't have enough fat left to "feed" it, it's going to result in increased loss of LBM/muscle.
@usmcmp posted the other day that it's now believed to be even lower than that 31 cals per lb of body fat, like in the region of 4-6 cals per lb. I still haven't managed to find a reference for that though. That figure does gel pretty well with the recommendation of lowering to a 250 cal deficit for the last hurdle though.
OP, this interview with Lyle McDonald is well worth a watch/listen (you can also download it as a podcast from iTunes).
https://youtu.be/hROcGjBfwYI
The fat loss for women interview is also highly recommended viewing imho.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »shaunshaikh wrote: »Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.
I can't find the reference at the moment, but it's theorized that maximal fat loss per day is somewhere around 31 calories per pound of body fat. So as your body fat decreases, you have less wiggle room before you start cutting into LBM/muscle. A 150 lb. person at 10% bodyfat has 15 lbs. of bodyfat; a 150 lb person at 20% bodyfat has 30 lbs of bodyfat. So using that figure, the 10% BF person could theoretically burn 465 calories (about 51 grams) of fat/day (which is about 3/4 pound/week), while a 20% person could theoretically burn 930 calories (about 103 grams) of fat/day (which is about a pound and a half/week). So if your deficit is set too high and you don't have enough fat left to "feed" it, it's going to result in increased loss of LBM/muscle.
Thanks. Not sure why you got woo'd. even if the numbers aren't exactly right, the theory/science behind them is spot on.
Obviously if you have higher or lower BF than average for your BMI, the formula inevitably changes.
Some people don't like science.3 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »
I just want to get down to a healthy body fat percentage, around 15%, and I want to better understand the science behind how to adjust my calorie deficit as I get closer and closer to that ideal body fat percentage.shaunshaikh wrote: »Why do you keep picking on the details in my posts? I just picked 7% as a random low body fat percentage.
I was just asking a question...7% is pretty low was asking if you were going to compete as that is not a walking around BF%
as for details...devil is in the details...helps better understand the question.
I commend your journey as I am in the process of undertaking a similar one however just to be clear, a healthy or average body fat percentage for men is 18 - 24%. Anything below that takes you into the fitness and athletic body fat scale which is of course fine if that is your goal. Achieving a healthy/average body fat percentage is attainable based on the numbers you've provided in a relatively short time (i.e. 6+ months) with dedication and commitment. Pushing into those next stages of fitness (14 - 17%) and Athletic (6 - 13%) body fat doesn't happen quickly and most certainly won't happen without extreme dedication, commitment and effort. It is absolutely doable and I wish you success on your journey but know that it will be long. There is no shortcut to peak fitness, it comes over many years and with a permanent lifestyle change.
Good Luck!1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »shaunshaikh wrote: »Yea, I guess what I think is fairly well accepted around here is that I cannot lose 2 lbs a week all the way to 7% body fat. Therefore, there must be some tapering of the deficit that goes on as you get lower and lower in body fat. There are guidelines floating around about what that looks like, I was wanting to understand what the science was behind it. Some of it to me appears to just be natural changes in BMR versus minimum caloric requirements.
I can't find the reference at the moment, but it's theorized that maximal fat loss per day is somewhere around 31 calories per pound of body fat. So as your body fat decreases, you have less wiggle room before you start cutting into LBM/muscle. A 150 lb. person at 10% bodyfat has 15 lbs. of bodyfat; a 150 lb person at 20% bodyfat has 30 lbs of bodyfat. So using that figure, the 10% BF person could theoretically burn 465 calories (about 51 grams) of fat/day (which is about 3/4 pound/week), while a 20% person could theoretically burn 930 calories (about 103 grams) of fat/day (which is about a pound and a half/week). So if your deficit is set too high and you don't have enough fat left to "feed" it, it's going to result in increased loss of LBM/muscle.
Thanks. Not sure why you got woo'd. even if the numbers aren't exactly right, the theory/science behind them is spot on.
Obviously if you have higher or lower BF than average for your BMI, the formula inevitably changes.
Some people don't like science.
The Woo can be used for Woo hoo too...as in Yah bang on way to go woooooo1 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »For example, @leggup recently posted this in another thread:If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lb/week is ideal
If you have 15-25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lb/week is ideal
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lb/week is ideal
I've seen other people make the same chart with BMI. I'd like to see what people's rules of thumb are that are structured this way, but more importantly what they're based on. Is there some source or research behind these? Is this just some person's personal anecdotal guideline that sounds about right?
If anyone has the source for this, I’d be grateful as well.
The math behind the often reposted "If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal.." quote is that most people should not try to create more than a 20% deficit in their calories. Most people are satisfied/comfortable at 15-20% deficit. The larger the deficit, the larger the loss of lean mass (muscle), the harder it is to stick to, the more tired/exhausted you are, etc. On the other side of things, the small deficits are too prone to error. There are some studies out there on why 20%, but you can also check out body building sites/etc and see that most people consider 25-30% cuts to be large cuts.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions