slow the rate of loss near goal - why?

SezxyStef

Barry7879 wrote: »

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

weight loss does it too...it's called adaptive thermogenisis. IT happens but can be controlled some with exercise and increase lean mass.

but that isn't why people here recommend slower loss for lower amounts.

stanmann571

SezxyStef wrote: »

Barry7879 wrote: »

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

weight loss does it too...it's called adaptive thermogenisis. IT happens but can be controlled some with exercise and increase lean mass.

but that isn't why people here recommend slower loss for lower amounts.

And the symptoms are measurable within 2 weeks of starting a deficit. Specifically the departure from baseline leptin and cortisol levels.

rileysowner

I didn't read every post, but it is a combination of things. The biggest issue is how many calories one needs to eat to achieve that loss. If it puts you as a male below 1500 calories, it is a bad idea. Depending on who you read, if it puts you significantly below you BMR some would say it is too low, but since BMR is based on population averages it is difficult to say what the BMR for a specific individual is. RMR which can be tested would be a reasonable substitute, and if you know it, you might be well served not going below that. Other issues are how much fat your body is carrying. The amount of fat one can oxidize in a day is directly proportional to how much fat they have available to oxidize. This area of study is still pretty fuzzy on hard numbers, but your 1% goal is probably going to be reasonable as long as it doesn't drive your calories below a level needed to get sufficient nutrients. Hopefully with more study more specific numbers on the relationship between maximal daily fat oxidation in relation to total body fat will be found. Genetically men generally have an easier job losing, so a little over 1 pound per week might be reasonable

Having said all that, for those who have lost a lot of weight or who have struggled with being overweight for many years, when they get down to the last 10-15 pounds, it is time to start thinking ahead to how they are going to maintain that new weight. Slowly, meaning over months, increasing one's calories, or to put it another way, decreasing ones weekly fat loss goal, may be a wise way to lay a solid foundation for maintenance. That is part of what lies behind the blanket recommendations on reducing one's loss goal to under a pound for the last 10 pounds or so as well.