slow the rate of loss near goal - why?
CarvedTones
Posts: 2,340 Member
I see people advised to do this often - lose the last 10 slowly or maybe the last 5. Why not still shoot for 1% per week? I don't see how it matters when I change CICO to even. In my case, goal is the upper limit instead of the middle of some arbitrary range. If I start slowing the rate of loss when I hit goal, I may still have a month or two before I start trying to make CICO a zero sum game. So if it's to get used to the new level of eating, I would think that's more than plenty of time. Why slow down before the last pound? If you shoot for half a pound the first week and 1/4 pound the next two, that would be 3 weeks to adjust.
1
Replies
-
I think you are mixing up two things. 1% of 200 pounds isn't the same amount as 1% of 300 pounds, only the percentage is the same. So you can say that the rate is the same, or slower.6
-
Well, the primary reason to slow down is to make sure you’re getting enough nutrition. Taking the standard 1200 calorie minimum, when you weigh 200 pounds and need 3000 calories to maintain your weight, eating at a 1500 daily deficit still gets you 1500 calories - low, but enough to meet minimum nutrition needs. But say you’ve lost fifty pounds and you now maintain at 2000 calories. Eating at a 1500 deficit in order to lose at the same rate as before, you’re only consuming 500 calories, which is dangerously low for pretty much anyone. I’m using big numbers to illustrate the point, but the principle applies to those last 5-10 pounds too.
Secondary reason - it takes a lot of people a long time time figure out eating at maintenance. Why not make the transition as easy and gradual as possible?
Tertiary reason - some of us subscribe to the “whoever eats the most and loses weight wins” mentality. I never intend to go below 1700 calories, which is eventually going to slow my rate of loss significantly. However, I am totally fine with that because I like food and don’t want to put my life on pause just to lose weight.
ETA: I just saw the point above about percentage bodyweight vs rate of loss and wonder if I misunderstood the question?9 -
For me 1% will still be over a pound and a half at goal and I have seen it suggested fairly often that you lose the last few at less than a pound a week.0
-
But those numbers depend on your weight and goal weight. A smaller person would have to reduce the loss accordingly.CarvedTones wrote: »For me 1% will still be over a pound and a half at goal and I have seen it suggested fairly often that you lose the last few at less than a pound a week.6 -
kommodevaran wrote: »
But those numbers depend on your weight and goal weight. A smaller person would have to reduce the loss accordingly.CarvedTones wrote: »For me 1% will still be over a pound and a half at goal and I have seen it suggested fairly often that you lose the last few at less than a pound a week.
I have seen the advice as general like everyone should do it. I guess I will ignore it.
Running numbers, if I do what MFP considers minimum (1500) and I am lightly active I will still be losing over a pound a week but less than 1.5.1 -
The deficit just gets smaller with the smaller you get. I want to lose 5 more pounds to get down to 115, but since i'm sedentary my loss weight is only at 0.6lbs/week on 1200 calories. So even though 1% of my weight is still over 1 lb/week I'd have to be eating dangerously low to keep the pace I was losing at when i was 150lbs4
-
CarvedTones wrote: »For me 1% will still be over a pound and a half at goal and I have seen it suggested fairly often that you lose the last few at less than a pound a week.
Yes, if you are tall and male, or have a goal weight outside of the "normal BMI" range then yes, you can go pedal to the medal the whole way. Or at least faster than would a 127 lb 5'3" female trying to get to 122 lbs9 -
I think 1% is the general rule. But sticking to 1200 (F) / 1500 (M) minimum calorie rule is specific - and specific trumps general.
For example, I weigh 150lbs and my TDEE is 1700. To lose 1% a week (1.5lbs), I'd need a daily deficit of 750. That would leave me with only 950 calories to eat every day, which isn't healthy. So I bump it up to the standard 1200 (or higher).8 -
CarvedTones wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
But those numbers depend on your weight and goal weight. A smaller person would have to reduce the loss accordingly.CarvedTones wrote: »For me 1% will still be over a pound and a half at goal and I have seen it suggested fairly often that you lose the last few at less than a pound a week.
I have seen the advice as general like everyone should do it. I guess I will ignore it.
Running numbers, if I do what MFP considers minimum (1500) and I am lightly active I will still be losing over a pound a week but less than 1.5.
To be honest, I tend to assume most people here are female aiming for at least the top of normal BMI. I suspect it’s not an incorrect or uncommon assumption. Your numbers sound fine. Per my post above, I’m not personally interested in ever dropping to 1200 calories because that sounds miserable, but even if I did, I wouldn’t be losing a pound and a half a week once I’m under 145 or so, and I won’t hit normal BMI until 136.1 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Well, the primary reason to slow down is to make sure you’re getting enough nutrition. Taking the standard 1200 calorie minimum, when you weigh 200 pounds and need 3000 calories to maintain your weight, eating at a 1500 daily deficit still gets you 1500 calories - low, but enough to meet minimum nutrition needs. But say you’ve lost fifty pounds and you now maintain at 2000 calories. Eating at a 1500 deficit in order to lose at the same rate as before, you’re only consuming 500 calories, which is dangerously low for pretty much anyone. I’m using big numbers to illustrate the point, but the principle applies to those last 5-10 pounds too.
Secondary reason - it takes a lot of people a long time time figure out eating at maintenance. Why not make the transition as easy and gradual as possible?
Tertiary reason - some of us subscribe to the “whoever eats the most and loses weight wins” mentality. I never intend to go below 1700 calories, which is eventually going to slow my rate of loss significantly. However, I am totally fine with that because I like food and don’t want to put my life on pause just to lose weight.
ETA: I just saw the point above about percentage bodyweight vs rate of loss and wonder if I misunderstood the question?
You are using big numbers; the real numbers don't illustrate the point. I am in the midst of what will be a 58 pound loss (I hope). I was sedentary at the top and lightly active now. There is virtually no difference in TDEE because of the light activity. If I stayed sedentary the difference would be 300. But I am not going to be sedentary.
Your second and third reasons seem to be a personal preference, which is fine. As far as point 2 goes, if I am still losing at a good clip it will be easier to look at my numbers and figure out what TDEE actually has been over the last month or two - if on average I lost N pounds per week eating 1500, then 1500 + (N * 500) is my actual average TDEE. Example - losing 10 pounds in last 8 weeks would be 1.25 per week. 1500 + (1.25 * 500) = 2150. Keep tracking and eat 2150 per day.0 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
But those numbers depend on your weight and goal weight. A smaller person would have to reduce the loss accordingly.CarvedTones wrote: »For me 1% will still be over a pound and a half at goal and I have seen it suggested fairly often that you lose the last few at less than a pound a week.
I have seen the advice as general like everyone should do it. I guess I will ignore it.
Running numbers, if I do what MFP considers minimum (1500) and I am lightly active I will still be losing over a pound a week but less than 1.5.
To be honest, I tend to assume most people here are female aiming for at least the top of normal BMI. I suspect it’s not an incorrect or uncommon assumption. Your numbers sound fine. Per my post above, I’m not personally interested in ever dropping to 1200 calories because that sounds miserable, but even if I did, I wouldn’t be losing a pound and a half a week once I’m under 145 or so, and I won’t hit normal BMI until 136.
I suspect most people here are. However, most of the active or more active posters are somewhere outside of that range.0 -
When I reached my initial goal I lowered my goal so the loss would speed up. ;-) But really if you are close to a gaol and less fat to loose you may taper off a bit. For me the weight loss stayed about the same or slowed a bit but the visible fat loss became dramatic. Now that I put 25 pounds (and a beer gut) back on I am trying it again.0
-
I think 1% is the general rule. But sticking to 1200 (F) / 1500 (M) minimum calorie rule is specific - and specific trumps general.
For example, I weigh 150lbs and my TDEE is 1700. To lose 1% a week (1.5lbs), I'd need a daily deficit of 750. That would leave me with only 950 calories to eat every day, which isn't healthy. So I bump it up to the standard 1200 (or higher).
^ This. The recommendation addresses those who would have to cut calories to a dangerous level in order to achieve a 1 lb/week weight loss or more, or who simply find eating the bare minimum unsustainable for any length of time. If you're not in those categories, great
2 -
There's no law saying you have to slow your roll but at a certain point, for many of us, it becomes a matter of sustainability.
When I was heavily obese to overweight, I could comfortably eat in a big enough deficit to lose 1.5 lbs per week. As I lost more weight and became more active, I couldn't do that. Right now, if I want to lose weight I use a fairly small deficit (10%) because anything more than that tanks my gym performance and leads to other problems for me (anxiety, obsessive thoughts, very low NEAT expenditure, etc.)
That's been my own experience but it may not be yours. There is another poster on here who uses PSMF, which is a seriously low calorie diet, very successfully, as part of his cutting/bulking cycles. That would be disastrous for me. We're all different in that way. By all means, I think that people should experiment and do what is best for them.4 -
What I didn't see mentioned in any responses is the fact that you have to also take into account your changing body composition. If your primary goal is to lose fat, I am going to assume your secondary goal is to preserve muscle (or at least one of a few secondary goals).
When you eat at a deficit, you will lose some portion of muscle along with fat. I hope you are strength training, because that is one of the ways to help preserve muscle mass. If your fat deposits (stores) have depleted and you are simply eating at a deficit, the muscle loss can become a bigger component of your weight loss (even if and especially if) your major form of exercise is cardio.
The long-term outlook of anyone who starts off wanting to "lose weight" is almost always in reality a want to change what their body either looks like or what it can do (hopefully both). If you look at this through that lens, the weight loss becomes a by-product of a bigger change. And the best way to make all of that happen is to actually slow down your rate of loss.
In my case, for example, I lost close to 50 pounds, and have recently added about 5-7 pounds while weight training (also while my body fat percentage is actually decreasing). My weight loss slowed after the first 5 months or so, and after I began to understand the importance of preserving lean body mass. In another month or so, I'll go back to a small deficit and play this game long-term. I am, at 54 years old, stronger than I've ever been and I am wearing the same size clothes now as I did 20 years ago. I can run twice as far. My scale goal, which was originally about 185 is no longer a goal. Performance, body fat, and overall health is. Plus, I think I look better at 195 than I would have at 185 had I not taken up strength training.
So....for me at least, slowing down the rate of weight loss has been a big help.8 -
I am trying to do some strength training but it is difficult due to joint problems so my weight is light (15 lb dumbbells with lots of reps). My other activities are walking and a 20 minute yoga routine. I am trying to do some dumbbell work pretty much every night as my upper body needs some work. My legs are in good shape (muscle wise anyway).0
-
I didn't slow mine down...it slowed down all on it's own. Once I hit around 15% BF it's really slow going to get any lower. I'm about 5 Lbs over what has been my average maintenance right now and I'll drop that in about a month and be back to about 15%...I'm shooting for lower this time around, and as per experience, once I hit 180, I hit a brick wall and it's very slow from there.0
-
As long as your deficit doesn't cause you to drop below the recommended minimum calories and you don't struggle to stick to that calorie goal you could keep losing at the same rate until you hit your goal. I don't think it works like that for many people as they get to a healthy weight.
Right now I am supposed to lose 1 lb a week eating about 1400 calories without exercise. Dropping 20 lbs I am supposed to eat 1300 calories to lose 1 lb a week. Another 10 lbs and my calorie goal is about 1200 calories to lose 1 lb a week. 1200 calories is not a lot. After that I am dipping below the recommended minimum calories to lose 1 lb a week. For what amounts to vanity weight loss at that point it seems better to slow down the rate of loss and transition toward maintenance.
If you have 58 lbs to lose just see how it goes as you get closer to your goal and adjust your rate if needed for the last 10 lbs or so.0 -
If your goal is in the Healthy BMI range, and you are a man, that 1% in the last week is a loss of about 1.5 lb. To get that you need a calorie deficit of 5250 for the week, or something about 750 calories below maintenance. For a man of average height, that's going to put his calorie goal below 1500. By the time he's lost so much weight as to be that close, and I have, his hormonal tolerance for severe calorie deficits is low. That is, he becomes ravenously hungry and tends to become unable to maintain that deficit long enough to reach the goal. He yo-yos above that goal until he figures out that he should approach it slowly with a 250 calorie deficit to keep his leptin monster at bay.6
-
I had 58 to lose. I have lost 36 and now have 22 to go. So getting down into the last 10 is not distant future and I have reason to believe I will make it there because of getting where I am now.If you have 58 lbs to lose just see how it goes as you get closer to your goal and adjust your rate if needed for the last 10 lbs or so.
I do have some concern about toning/strengthening, especially upper body. I started dieting without tracking, just cutting out snacks and trying to eat low calorie meals. I was losing weight like a madman and started tracking and found that I was eating at too low of a level. I am still not always good about getting enough calories, but I am working on it. Part of it is medication related. For something unrelated to weight loss, I take medication that has a side effect of "reducing appetite in some patients". I am one of those patients. I have a milestone a couple of pounds away where I will add some treats back in and that should help. I have been taking tablespoons of almond butter like cough syrup at the end of some days to up the calories. For yet another unrelated to weight reason, I am also on a low starch diet right now and not eating bread, pasta, rice and potatoes. Lots of fruit.
0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »For me 1% will still be over a pound and a half at goal and I have seen it suggested fairly often that you lose the last few at less than a pound a week.
Although people say it more generally, it's really more applicable to smaller females or people trying to get quite lean. 1% per week can be too much for someone 120 lbs, as the calories involved might be crazy low, and for her OR a bigger person who is also extremely lean higher deficits increase the risk of muscle loss.
I think 1% is fine if your total calories aren't crazy low, and higher end of BMI is different from a goal at the bottom end of BMI. I've seen people say "I'm 5'3 and 180 and my goal is 165" and get told that the last 15 are slow and do .5 lb/week, ignoring that for someone 5'3 165 is still overweight (and 180 is obese) so no reason to lose super slow -- I notice those since I am 5'3.
That said, you do slow down as you lose as 1% is less of total weight and you might not want to cut calories lower. I was, at one point, losing about 2 lb/week at 1500-1600, and rather than cut calories I let the rate decrease and ended up losing about 1 lb/week on average (sometimes less). For me (not for everyone) that worked better than aiming for .5 lb (which I did for a while later), since the fluctuations made that so hard to see that it was frustrating. But some do very well with that kind of goal. I tend to think 1 lb/week is fine unless you are super lean or a small woman, even at the end.0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »
I had 58 to lose. I have lost 36 and now have 22 to go. So getting down into the last 10 is not distant future and I have reason to believe I will make it there because of getting where I am now.If you have 58 lbs to lose just see how it goes as you get closer to your goal and adjust your rate if needed for the last 10 lbs or so.
I do have some concern about toning/strengthening, especially upper body. I started dieting without tracking, just cutting out snacks and trying to eat low calorie meals. I was losing weight like a madman and started tracking and found that I was eating at too low of a level. I am still not always good about getting enough calories, but I am working on it. Part of it is medication related. For something unrelated to weight loss, I take medication that has a side effect of "reducing appetite in some patients". I am one of those patients. I have a milestone a couple of pounds away where I will add some treats back in and that should help. I have been taking tablespoons of almond butter like cough syrup at the end of some days to up the calories. For yet another unrelated to weight reason, I am also on a low starch diet right now and not eating bread, pasta, rice and potatoes. Lots of fruit.
@Silentpadna is making a point I want to reinforce.
As I understand it - and I'm no scientist - there are theories, based in research, that we can metabolize only X number of calories per day per pound of body fat. It's postulated, but AFAIK not confirmed in human studies, that that theoretical limit is somewhere in the 20s to low 30s of calories per pound of body fat per day. Any calorie deficit beyond the limit would need to come from burning lean tissue such as muscle.
As we lose weight, we have fewer pounds of body fat. So, under this theory, the leaner we get, the fewer stored-fat calories we can metabolize daily, because there's less raw material.
How close is this theoretical limit to a practical constraint? Would it vary in reality by age, sex, genetics, overall health status or other personal characteristics? Does exercise shift this, and if so, what type(s) and by how much? Unknown.
For most, the 1% per week rule of thumb is going to be enough slower than the postulated theoretical limit to create a comfortable safety margin, in the context of the unknowns.
But, as we get close to goal, those unknowns, plus personal differences like body composition and aggressiveness of goal weight, can raise some bigger question marks.
So, how much do you enjoy health risks?
Many of us slow weight loss as we approach goal. Doing so also has other advantages noted by others: Preservation of enough calories to assure good nutrition; avoiding a deficit that grows as a percentage of calorie needs as we get lighter; creating a gradual transition of behavior into maintenance so there isn't a daunting (or tempting
) dramatic change in eating; avoiding an alarmingly large single uptick in scale weight from water weight due to glycogen replenishment plus higher average digestive system contents; possibly helping restore some adaptive thermogenesis NEAT losses via "reverse dieting" to maintenance; etc.
Personally, if I were you - even as a big guy - I'd be especially inclined to slow weight loss as goal approaches because of your exercise limitations, coupled with goal of minimizing muscle loss. But that's my risk tolerance talking - you'll need to decide based on yours.6 -
CarvedTones wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Well, the primary reason to slow down is to make sure you’re getting enough nutrition. Taking the standard 1200 calorie minimum, when you weigh 200 pounds and need 3000 calories to maintain your weight, eating at a 1500 daily deficit still gets you 1500 calories - low, but enough to meet minimum nutrition needs. But say you’ve lost fifty pounds and you now maintain at 2000 calories. Eating at a 1500 deficit in order to lose at the same rate as before, you’re only consuming 500 calories, which is dangerously low for pretty much anyone. I’m using big numbers to illustrate the point, but the principle applies to those last 5-10 pounds too.
Secondary reason - it takes a lot of people a long time time figure out eating at maintenance. Why not make the transition as easy and gradual as possible?
Tertiary reason - some of us subscribe to the “whoever eats the most and loses weight wins” mentality. I never intend to go below 1700 calories, which is eventually going to slow my rate of loss significantly. However, I am totally fine with that because I like food and don’t want to put my life on pause just to lose weight.
ETA: I just saw the point above about percentage bodyweight vs rate of loss and wonder if I misunderstood the question?
You are using big numbers; the real numbers don't illustrate the point. I am in the midst of what will be a 58 pound loss (I hope). I was sedentary at the top and lightly active now. There is virtually no difference in TDEE because of the light activity. If I stayed sedentary the difference would be 300. But I am not going to be sedentary.
Your second and third reasons seem to be a personal preference, which is fine. As far as point 2 goes, if I am still losing at a good clip it will be easier to look at my numbers and figure out what TDEE actually has been over the last month or two - if on average I lost N pounds per week eating 1500, then 1500 + (N * 500) is my actual average TDEE. Example - losing 10 pounds in last 8 weeks would be 1.25 per week. 1500 + (1.25 * 500) = 2150. Keep tracking and eat 2150 per day.
Sure, but big numbers are so much easier to do in my head. I agree that two and three are personal preference, but given that the number one reason diets fail is lack of compliance, I tend to think that it's good to recommend an approach that is as easy to comply with as possible. Obviously there are going to be people for whom that advice doesn't work, and it sounds like you may be one of them. But I understood your question to be asking why someone would recommend slowing down generally, not whether you should specifically.1 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Well, the primary reason to slow down is to make sure you’re getting enough nutrition. Taking the standard 1200 calorie minimum, when you weigh 200 pounds and need 3000 calories to maintain your weight, eating at a 1500 daily deficit still gets you 1500 calories - low, but enough to meet minimum nutrition needs. But say you’ve lost fifty pounds and you now maintain at 2000 calories. Eating at a 1500 deficit in order to lose at the same rate as before, you’re only consuming 500 calories, which is dangerously low for pretty much anyone. I’m using big numbers to illustrate the point, but the principle applies to those last 5-10 pounds too.
Secondary reason - it takes a lot of people a long time time figure out eating at maintenance. Why not make the transition as easy and gradual as possible?
Tertiary reason - some of us subscribe to the “whoever eats the most and loses weight wins” mentality. I never intend to go below 1700 calories, which is eventually going to slow my rate of loss significantly. However, I am totally fine with that because I like food and don’t want to put my life on pause just to lose weight.
ETA: I just saw the point above about percentage bodyweight vs rate of loss and wonder if I misunderstood the question?
You are using big numbers; the real numbers don't illustrate the point. I am in the midst of what will be a 58 pound loss (I hope). I was sedentary at the top and lightly active now. There is virtually no difference in TDEE because of the light activity. If I stayed sedentary the difference would be 300. But I am not going to be sedentary.
Your second and third reasons seem to be a personal preference, which is fine. As far as point 2 goes, if I am still losing at a good clip it will be easier to look at my numbers and figure out what TDEE actually has been over the last month or two - if on average I lost N pounds per week eating 1500, then 1500 + (N * 500) is my actual average TDEE. Example - losing 10 pounds in last 8 weeks would be 1.25 per week. 1500 + (1.25 * 500) = 2150. Keep tracking and eat 2150 per day.
Sure, but big numbers are so much easier to do in my head. I agree that two and three are personal preference, but given that the number one reason diets fail is lack of compliance, I tend to think that it's good to recommend an approach that is as easy to comply with as possible. Obviously there are going to be people for whom that advice doesn't work, and it sounds like you may be one of them. But I understood your question to be asking why someone would recommend slowing down generally, not whether you should specifically.
I felt like those suggestions meant that I would be wrong to consider staying at lowest calorie level that isn't unhealthy on most days until I reach goal. It seems like that should be okay for me and apparently it is.0 -
I always heard it was a combination of already having reduced calories during the weight loss in order to keep a deficit going, so if you lower it still that significant amount once you're thinner, now you're REALLY restricting (IOW, a 500 cal/day deficit for someone whose maintenance would be 2200 is far different from a 500 cal/day deficit for someone whose maintenance would be 1375); and the fact that you're supposed to start moving toward learning maintenance, the possibly hardest part.0
-
There's evidence that prolonged caloric restriction causes the body to react by reducing it's energy expenditure (slowing metabolism) - see the link to scientific american below. More worrying, there are signs that this effect can be very prolonged after a period of caloric restriction.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
Lately studies have shown that intermittent fasting may have advantages over constant caloric deficits in terms of maintaining high metabolism and enabling greater use of stored body fat for energy (lipolysis)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22065/full1 -
CarvedTones wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Well, the primary reason to slow down is to make sure you’re getting enough nutrition. Taking the standard 1200 calorie minimum, when you weigh 200 pounds and need 3000 calories to maintain your weight, eating at a 1500 daily deficit still gets you 1500 calories - low, but enough to meet minimum nutrition needs. But say you’ve lost fifty pounds and you now maintain at 2000 calories. Eating at a 1500 deficit in order to lose at the same rate as before, you’re only consuming 500 calories, which is dangerously low for pretty much anyone. I’m using big numbers to illustrate the point, but the principle applies to those last 5-10 pounds too.
Secondary reason - it takes a lot of people a long time time figure out eating at maintenance. Why not make the transition as easy and gradual as possible?
Tertiary reason - some of us subscribe to the “whoever eats the most and loses weight wins” mentality. I never intend to go below 1700 calories, which is eventually going to slow my rate of loss significantly. However, I am totally fine with that because I like food and don’t want to put my life on pause just to lose weight.
ETA: I just saw the point above about percentage bodyweight vs rate of loss and wonder if I misunderstood the question?
You are using big numbers; the real numbers don't illustrate the point. I am in the midst of what will be a 58 pound loss (I hope). I was sedentary at the top and lightly active now. There is virtually no difference in TDEE because of the light activity. If I stayed sedentary the difference would be 300. But I am not going to be sedentary.
Your second and third reasons seem to be a personal preference, which is fine. As far as point 2 goes, if I am still losing at a good clip it will be easier to look at my numbers and figure out what TDEE actually has been over the last month or two - if on average I lost N pounds per week eating 1500, then 1500 + (N * 500) is my actual average TDEE. Example - losing 10 pounds in last 8 weeks would be 1.25 per week. 1500 + (1.25 * 500) = 2150. Keep tracking and eat 2150 per day.
Sure, but big numbers are so much easier to do in my head. I agree that two and three are personal preference, but given that the number one reason diets fail is lack of compliance, I tend to think that it's good to recommend an approach that is as easy to comply with as possible. Obviously there are going to be people for whom that advice doesn't work, and it sounds like you may be one of them. But I understood your question to be asking why someone would recommend slowing down generally, not whether you should specifically.
I felt like those suggestions meant that I would be wrong to consider staying at lowest calorie level that isn't unhealthy on most days until I reach goal. It seems like that should be okay for me and apparently it is.
You aren't going to know if it would be "wrong" for you until you get there. What is comfortable for you at 22 pounds out may very well not be comfortable at 15 pounds or 10 pounds or 5 pounds. It's important to be flexible enough to recognize that.3 -
I would add that if you are assuming there's a set "lowest level that is not unhealthy" that applies to all men (1500) and all women (1200), that's not right. The more significant issue is total deficit (as well as sufficient calories to get in adequate nutrition, which can be challenging on low calories, for example, even with a really "clean" (ugh, that word) and nutrient-conscious diet. Assuming that your low calories + diet are sufficient to get in adequate nutrition, the question is deficit. 1500 can be totally fine for someone 5'8, 150 trying to get a bit thinner who is, say, lightly active, and be a disaster for someone of the same stats who runs on average 50 miles a week. That's one positive of using either the MFP approach (which is focused on net calories -- eat exercise back) or else a TDEE calculator that includes activity and deducts a percentage (with 20% being the max recommended unless you are at least obese, which this person is not).1
-
I recommend it for sustainability.
For some people as mentioned it is possible to maintain a big deficit and still have lots of calories...some not so much.
But as well there is a thing called reverse dieting...this is where you are either within 1 or 2 lbs of goal or at goal where you slowly increase your intake to get to maintenance...this is done to prevent potentially over shooting maintenance and gaining...or to prevent the inevitable glycogen/water stores to go up which makes the scale jump up and people often are upset.
I personally could still lose 1lb a week and it be okay for me..but I also maintain on 2200-2500...
2 -
There's evidence that prolonged caloric restriction causes the body to react by reducing it's energy expenditure (slowing metabolism) - see the link to scientific american below. More worrying, there are signs that this effect can be very prolonged after a period of caloric restriction.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
Lately studies have shown that intermittent fasting may have advantages over constant caloric deficits in terms of maintaining high metabolism and enabling greater use of stored body fat for energy (lipolysis)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22065/full
Did you read the whole article at SA? The Biggest Loser contestants are a small atypical sample. They did very extreme deficits for extended lengths of time. The results are not indicative of what happens to the general population with lesser deficits. All this was explained in the article. Many of them had deficits larger than the TDEE for most of us. Extreme restriction is bad for everyone, but extrapolating from a group that had deficits in the thousands to people restricting at the high end of the accepted healthy range is a huge stretch. I am certain it hasn't happened to me because the CICO math works (on average, I lose a pound roughly when I would expect to based on my calculated TDEE and my deficit). I did start with unhealthy deficits but it appears not to have made any significant change in my metabolism. It did cause me to lose more muscle than I would have liked.
I have used IF but don't currently as I felt I was abusing it by not getting enough calories on the "normal" days. I am considering it as a tool to help with calibrating to maintenance when the time comes.2
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
- 427 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