MFP Goal Setting Question

marissafit06

Why are the weight loss recommendations ppl suggest on the forums based on how much people want to lose and not how much they could lose based on how overweight they are? For example two people who are 5'11 and 250lbs BMI 35. One sets a goal of 220 (BMI 30) and the other sets a goal of 150 (BMI 21), couldn't they both lose weight just as aggressively? Or if you have two people who start off with the same stats and one person sets a goal to get down to BMI 18.6 while the other sets a goal of 24.9, it seems like the speed recommendations aren't based on healthy weight loss at your current weight, just the arbitrary number you decide you want to weigh. We don't we make speed of weight loss recommendations based on how much someone's body could stand to lose not just based on their goals?

Recommendations I am referencing are below.

75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

NextRightThing714

There's an underlying assumption that individuals are setting healthy goals for themselves, i.e., if someone aims to lose 20 pounds, they really have 20 pounds to lose. You're right in that some people don't set healthy goals. A better recommendation would be based on, e.g., number of pounds to healthy weight.

shadow2soul

I think most people assume that what their goal to lose say 10 lbs would put them at a healthy BMI.

I typically phrase it like this.
For sustainability aim for:
0.5 lb per week loss for less than 25 lbs to lose
1 lb per week loss for 25 to 50 lbs to lose
1.5 lb per week loss for 50 to 75 lbs to lose
2 lb per week loss for 75+ lbs to lose

For mostly fat loss no more than 1% bodyweight per week loss.

The sustainability goals help you lose weight without feeling like you could eat your arm. Trade off is slower weight loss.

1% bodyweight loss per week is going to be a harder goal to aim for. Weight loss will be slightly faster, but it could prove very difficult to maintain till you reach goal.

kimny72

Yeah, it's really hard on an internet forum to know "how much someone's body could stand to lose". So we kind of have to assume that the person is choosing a healthy goal. Often advice is given to people who provide their current height and weight, and I tend to give them advice assuming their goal is the middle of the healthy weight range for their height.

Considering the limited info we deal with here, I personally think it's safer to recommend conservative numbers. Losing weight too quickly or undereating in general can be harmful, and I don't want to contribute to that if I can avoid it. A person losing a little slower than they need to is still losing and improving their health.

PAV8888

Or we could all move to 15-20% of TDEE with fat levels such that you wouldn't be classified as obese, and up to 25% if you could be

Which I would argue is more conservative and would almost always work if people are accurate, un-dapted, give it enough time, and are able to correctly evaluate their weight trend and/or fat level reduction.

AnnPT77

PAV8888 wrote: »

Or we could all move to 15-20% of TDEE with fat levels such that you wouldn't be classified as obese, and up to 25% if you could be

Which I would argue is more conservative and would almost always work if people are accurate, un-dapted, give it enough time, and are able to correctly evaluate their weight trend and/or fat level reduction.

Not moving to TDEE, personally or for advice.

My exercise is inconsistent and (in season) weather dependent. TDEE is dysfunctional, for me.

Furthermore, this is a site designed for the NEAT method, so TDEE advice will be dissonance with site documentation. Further furthermore, a surprisingly large percentage of people tell themselves happy little fantasy stories about how much exercise they're gonna do (at TDEE calculation time), then don't follow through.

Feel free to dispense advice as you wish, but "we could" not "all move" to advising TDEE methods. I can't, I won't.

AnnPT77

marissafit06 wrote: »

Why are the weight loss recommendations ppl suggest on the forums based on how much people want to lose and not how much they could lose based on how overweight they are? For example two people who are 5'11 and 250lbs BMI 35. One sets a goal of 220 (BMI 30) and the other sets a goal of 150 (BMI 21), couldn't they both lose weight just as aggressively? Or if you have two people who start off with the same stats and one person sets a goal to get down to BMI 18.6 while the other sets a goal of 24.9, it seems like the speed recommendations aren't based on healthy weight loss at your current weight, just the arbitrary number you decide you want to weigh. We don't we make speed of weight loss recommendations based on how much someone's body could stand to lose not just based on their goals?

Recommendations I am referencing are below.

75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

That's not exactly how I typically give advice, BTW.

I usually suggest a maximum of 1% of current body weight per week unless under close medical supervision, but add that it can be a good idea to go slower than that when getting close to goal, usually suggesting 1.5 max at about 50 remaining, 1.0 at about 25, 0.5 at about 10. Of course, its always fine to go slower than any of these, especially if it makes loss more achievable.

No one (excerpt those who are so obese as to be losing under close medical supervision) is harmed by losing extra slowly, but they can be harmed by losing too fast.

While that's still treating people with higher goals a bit differently, I'm not going to start second guessing people's goals. (Deciding how fast they can stand to lose based on current body weight is effectively second-guessing their goals.)

Other women my height (5'5") can be perfect anywhere from at least 110 to 150, and maybe even in a wider range, depending on build. They've at least seen themselves (I haven't), so they know better than I do what their goal should be. I was fat at 150, and good at 120. Others my height are good at 150 (based on photos), and would be skeletal at 120.

Add that to my belief that there are a variety of reasons why it's better to gradually increase calories from max loss rate to maintenance, and I think the advice I'm giving is about as logical as any fully generic, non-personalized advice can probably be.

But please feel free to give advice however you see fit, too. I don't think readers are much harmed when we quibble a little among ourselves.

PAV8888

AnnPT77 wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

Or we could all move to 15-20% of TDEE with fat levels such that you wouldn't be classified as obese, and up to 25% if you could be

Which I would argue is more conservative and would almost always work if people are accurate, un-dapted, give it enough time, and are able to correctly evaluate their weight trend and/or fat level reduction.

Not moving to TDEE, personally or for advice.

My exercise is inconsistent and (in season) weather dependent. TDEE is dysfunctional, for me.

Furthermore, this is a site designed for the NEAT method, so TDEE advice will be dissonance with site documentation. Further furthermore, a surprisingly large percentage of people tell themselves happy little fantasy stories about how much exercise they're gonna do (at TDEE calculation time), then don't follow through.

Feel free to dispense advice as you wish, but "we could" not "all move" to advising TDEE methods. I can't, I won't.

I think that you misunderstand my friendly Ann.

You can give exactly the advice that you give, exactly as you give it and FURTHER NARROW IT TOWARDS THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE by ADDING: 1.5lbs a week max (while not creating a deficit > 25% of your TDEE) with 50lbs remaining; 1.0lbs a week max (while not creating a deficit > 20% of your TDEE) with 25lbs remaining, 0.5lbs a week max (while not creating a deficit > 10 to 20% of your TDEE) with 10lbs remaining.

See: problem solved: you're adding limiting conditions is all

And the reason is simple. Regardless of how varied one's exercise pattern is, having multiple days of 50% deficits which may well happen with someone who is sedentary and pursuing an aggressive goal is seldom cost free.

Of course, this is a **suggestion**

Though implementing % deficits off of TDEE is not possible using the tools given (i.e. you have to keep track separately), I don't find the double limit to be in dissonance to the site's documentation, though it does require an understanding of the terminology to fully comprehend what is being said.

ChrisBain18

I originally set my goal to 205 lbs, the lowest I was before I fell of the wagon. I’m 6 shy now, so I lowered it to 200 lbs. I do a bit at a time so I actually meet goals and have a checkpoint system. This, as opposed to setting an “unrealistic” goal that will only overwhelm and frustrate me. I assume some people do the same. In the end, I’m aiming for a BMI, so I don’t know what my ideal weight should be yet. Only an acceptable window.

marissafit06

AnnPT77 wrote: »

marissafit06 wrote: »

Why are the weight loss recommendations ppl suggest on the forums based on how much people want to lose and not how much they could lose based on how overweight they are? For example two people who are 5'11 and 250lbs BMI 35. One sets a goal of 220 (BMI 30) and the other sets a goal of 150 (BMI 21), couldn't they both lose weight just as aggressively? Or if you have two people who start off with the same stats and one person sets a goal to get down to BMI 18.6 while the other sets a goal of 24.9, it seems like the speed recommendations aren't based on healthy weight loss at your current weight, just the arbitrary number you decide you want to weigh. We don't we make speed of weight loss recommendations based on how much someone's body could stand to lose not just based on their goals?

Recommendations I am referencing are below.

75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

That's not exactly how I typically give advice, BTW.

I usually suggest a maximum of 1% of current body weight per week unless under close medical supervision, but add that it can be a good idea to go slower than that when getting close to goal, usually suggesting 1.5 max at about 50 remaining, 1.0 at about 25, 0.5 at about 10. Of course, its always fine to go slower than any of these, especially if it makes loss more achievable.

No one (excerpt those who are so obese as to be losing under close medical supervision) is harmed by losing extra slowly, but they can be harmed by losing too fast.

While that's still treating people with higher goals a bit differently, I'm not going to start second guessing people's goals. (Deciding how fast they can stand to lose based on current body weight is effectively second-guessing their goals.)

Other women my height (5'5") can be perfect anywhere from at least 110 to 150, and maybe even in a wider range, depending on build. They've at least seen themselves (I haven't), so they know better than I do what their goal should be. I was fat at 150, and good at 120. Others my height are good at 150 (based on photos), and would be skeletal at 120.

Add that to my belief that there are a variety of reasons why it's better to gradually increase calories from max loss rate to maintenance, and I think the advice I'm giving is about as logical as any fully generic, non-personalized advice can probably be.

But please feel free to give advice however you see fit, too. I don't think readers are much harmed when we quibble a little among ourselves.

I read this, but never responded. I definitely think that your approach makes sense and agree that slower weight loss isn't a bad thing.