slow the rate of loss near goal - why?

CarvedTones

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.

kommodevaran

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.

MegaMooseEsq

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?

CarvedTones

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.

kommodevaran

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.

But those numbers depend on your weight and goal weight. A smaller person would have to reduce the loss accordingly.

CarvedTones

kommodevaran wrote: »

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.

But those numbers depend on your weight and goal weight. A smaller person would have to reduce the loss accordingly.

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.

idabest777

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 150lbs

stanmann571

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 lbs

toxikon

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).

MegaMooseEsq

CarvedTones wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

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.

But those numbers depend on your weight and goal weight. A smaller person would have to reduce the loss accordingly.

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.

CarvedTones

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.

stanmann571

MegaMooseEsq wrote: »

CarvedTones wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

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.

But those numbers depend on your weight and goal weight. A smaller person would have to reduce the loss accordingly.

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.

rsclause

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.

try2again

toxikon wrote: »

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

jemhh

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.

Silentpadna

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.

CarvedTones

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).

cwolfman13

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.

Lounmoun

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.

JeromeBarry1

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.

CarvedTones

Lounmoun wrote: »

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 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.

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.