weight loss rate at lower BMI

oat_bran

So I've seen a lot of those formulae according to which those who have to lose 20-25(?)lbs need to lose at a 0.5lb per week rate. Does it mean 20-25lbs to normal BMI range or two "ideal" weight or to goal weight ?

My weight is oscillating between normal and overweight and I've never been obese or overweight by more than 10 pounds. Because of my short height, body shape and how my body distributes fat I still look overweight at the upper normal weight range. I would like to lose 20-25 pounds, maybe even close to 30 (depending on the amount of muscle I'll have), which will put me in the lower-middle range of BMI. So which range would you safe is best for me?

I'm very active so I get to eat a lot even when in deficit. But I feel like 500 deficit leaves me way too hungry after several days, but maybe it's just psychological ? But 250 cals feels to small and to easy to cancel out if I slip and overeat. I was thinking trying something around 300-400cal deficit which would put me at 0.6-0.8lbs.

I'd like to hear some input from people at lower BMI ends. At what rate do you feel comfortable without getting too hungry?

kommodevaran

While BMI is an exact equation of weight divided by height squared, and normal weight is defined as 18.5-24.99, how to use this information on an individual level is a very gray area, of rules of thumb, personal preferences and priorities, literally weighing for and against. You will have to eat less the less you weigh, weightloss will be slower as you lose weight, your margin of error will be smaller the smaller deficit you aim for, you can have areas of fat side by side with areas that are bony. No matter what people tell you they do, nobody can tell you what you should do. How much suck you can handle, how much effort you're willing to spend on redefining and embracing suck, nobody knows, maybe not even you, yet, until you set out.

Nativestar56

Trial and error, see what works for you. You can change your goals, you don't have to pick one and stick with it until you reach your goal weight.

A smaller deficit is sometimes better (especially if you don't have much to lose) you'll feel less deprived and more likely to stick to it and its closer to what you'll be when you're maintaining so it might be easier to adjust. Try the 250 cals and see what happens after 3-4 weeks, if its not working then maybe switch to 350 and re-evaluate again after a few weeks.

I'm at the high end of 'normal' too so I've decided I want to do something as close to maintenance as possible while still losing the last bit. A deficit of 250 cals works for me, especially as I'm active outside of my deskjob so that gives me a few extra calories! I try to be flexible and not focus too much about the daily numbers. I'll be over or under on certain days but as long as at the end of the week its around 1750 deficit I don't worry.

kimothyschma

I think it's 20-25 lbs to whatever your "ideal" weight is. It's vague because that number is different for everybody.

I would say 250 calorie deficit is a good starting point for somebody within the normal BMI range, regardless of how many pounds you wanna lose. @Nativestar56 is correct, it's all trial and error at this point. I think the closer you get to your goal, the less calculators matter and the more your previous history does. If you have a history of feeling hungry at 500, that number may not be manageable for you. I don't think your hunger is psychological, especially if it is eased significantly by only eating another 150 cals or so a day. You may find a balance in between 250 and 500 works well for you. You don't have to choose one, you can adjust your goal manually to something in between.

I have lost ((almost )) 70 lbs, and the deficit I can eat has gotten a LOT smaller. I could eat a 500 cal deficit when I started, but now that seems impossible. I'm on my last 5 pounds and I'm averaging a 250-300 calorie deficit, sometimes less. I have tried to push it to a 400 cal deficit a couple times and ended up bingeing after about 4 weeks. So I know that 300 is my absolute limit. 200 is more comfortable, but I'm seeking a balance between what's manageable and what's fast.

oat_bran

kommodevaran wrote: »

While BMI is an exact equation of weight divided by height squared, and normal weight is defined as 18.5-24.99, how to use this information on an individual level is a very gray area, of rules of thumb, personal preferences and priorities, literally weighing for and against. You will have to eat less the less you weigh, weightloss will be slower as you lose weight, your margin of error will be smaller the smaller deficit you aim for, you can have areas of fat side by side with areas that are bony. No matter what people tell you they do, nobody can tell you what you should do. How much suck you can handle, how much effort you're willing to spend on redefining and embracing suck, nobody knows, maybe not even you, yet, until you set out.

Thank you for your reply. I do know that it's very individual and it's about trial and error. However, mental aspect is very important when it comes to weight loss. I'm not good at interpreting hunger cues and distinguishing between usual hunger that arises in between meals, hormonal increases in appetite, cravings, binge urges (I have a history of binge eating) and hunger that signals that I'm not eating enough. Hearing from others can give me some perspective, it can be reassuring, it can help me to be more comfortable with a slower weight loss rate etc.

kommodevaran

oat_bran wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

While BMI is an exact equation of weight divided by height squared, and normal weight is defined as 18.5-24.99, how to use this information on an individual level is a very gray area, of rules of thumb, personal preferences and priorities, literally weighing for and against. You will have to eat less the less you weigh, weightloss will be slower as you lose weight, your margin of error will be smaller the smaller deficit you aim for, you can have areas of fat side by side with areas that are bony. No matter what people tell you they do, nobody can tell you what you should do. How much suck you can handle, how much effort you're willing to spend on redefining and embracing suck, nobody knows, maybe not even you, yet, until you set out.

Thank you for your reply. I do know that it's very individual and it's about trial and error. However, mental aspect is very important when it comes to weight loss. I'm not good at interpreting hunger cues and distinguishing between usual hunger that arises in between meals, hormonal increases in appetite, cravings, binge urges (I have a history of binge eating) and hunger that signals that I'm not eating enough. Hearing from others can give me some perspective, it can be reassuring, it can help me to be more comfortable with a slower weight loss rate etc.

Oh, there is no "however" to the importance of the mental sides of weight management! Appetite is a crazy little bugger. You can objectively track nutrient intake and compare to weight trends, but hunger and satiety has to be interpreted, and then you have to decide whether and how to act on them. Take me, for instance, after memorizing "the hunger scale", and practice, practice, practice, for years, I can easily distinguish between real hunger and "only appetite", but it's sooo hard sometimes (several times per day, usually) to not eat when I'm not hungry, or keep eating when I'm full, and I know rationally that I have had what I needed, and eating more is not going to make me feel better or improve my physical health. And I have never had an eating disorder. Are you getting treatment/counseling?

cmriverside

When I got to that last 15-20 pounds, I was set at a 250 per day deficit. I had been logging food for a long time by that point and I knew what the number was.

Like you said, I could stick to it for a few days and then get really hungry. Luckily for me one day of being over by 1000 calories didn't seem to make a lot of difference. I also found that on non-exercise days I tended to have more appetite. Not hunger, just appetite. On exercise days that was considerably blunted.

The other thing is that even though I had lost weight on a mostly default macro split of 50/30/20 - I had to raise fats and protein in order to hit that small deficit when I was already in a healthy weight range. My BMI tells me I'm okay at 163 - but to get to 22 on the BMI scale, I needed to be at 141.

Regular moderate exercise along with a different macro split were what finally worked for me. Plus one day a week of going over, calorie-wise.