Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Discussion on fat loss rate
Cassandraw3
Posts: 1,214 Member
I am a big nerd and like to do a lot of research (read: google several articles and discussions) on topics on which I find interesting. Currently, my main topics being fat loss, proper nutrition, retain/build muscle, maximize performance. No one seems to "know" what is right or best, just a whole lot of theories and there is no one plan fits all. That being said, I found the following data below on acceptable fat loss rates based on body fat percentage, not based on overall weight or BMI. Thoughts?
Body Fat Level Rate of Fat Loss
Men: <15% Women: <24% <0.5-1.5 lb per week, or; 0.25-0.75% of body weight per week.
Men: 16-25% Women: 25-34% 1-2 lb per week, or; 0.75-1.5% of body weight per week.
Men: 26+% Women: 35+% 1.5-3.5 lb per week, or; 1.0-1.5% of body weight per week.
Personally, I find the higher end of these to be a bit aggressive. My current stats are 5'4", 150.4 lbs, ~27-28% body fat. This puts me in the middle category. Meaning I could potentially lose 1-2 lbs per week, or 1.125-2.25 lbs according to the percentage rate. My current rate of loss is set for 1 lb/week, and some days that even feels a bit aggressive to me. Perhaps the higher ends would be more applicable to someone with a more active job? Mine is a sedentary desk job, so my calorie burn without intentional exercise is rather low to begin with.
Body Fat Level Rate of Fat Loss
Men: <15% Women: <24% <0.5-1.5 lb per week, or; 0.25-0.75% of body weight per week.
Men: 16-25% Women: 25-34% 1-2 lb per week, or; 0.75-1.5% of body weight per week.
Men: 26+% Women: 35+% 1.5-3.5 lb per week, or; 1.0-1.5% of body weight per week.
Personally, I find the higher end of these to be a bit aggressive. My current stats are 5'4", 150.4 lbs, ~27-28% body fat. This puts me in the middle category. Meaning I could potentially lose 1-2 lbs per week, or 1.125-2.25 lbs according to the percentage rate. My current rate of loss is set for 1 lb/week, and some days that even feels a bit aggressive to me. Perhaps the higher ends would be more applicable to someone with a more active job? Mine is a sedentary desk job, so my calorie burn without intentional exercise is rather low to begin with.
1
Replies
-
Interesting numbers.
When you say it "feels too aggressive," what do you mean?
Reading your post, I assume the numbers you gave are largely void of adherence concerns?2 -
I've heard something similar, so men 16%+ and women 28%+ are at 1% bodyweight loss per week, men 10-16% and women 20-28% about 0.75% bodyweight per week, and leaner than that is 0.5% bodyweight loss per week. I think that is the max limit.. not the recommendation.
I usually lose around 0.5-0.75lb per week average so that is probably exactly where i should be. Again if you feel like it's too aggressive for you, you can definitely decrease your deficit.0 -
Interesting numbers.
When you say it "feels too aggressive," what do you mean?
Reading your post, I assume the numbers you gave are largely void of adherence concerns?
When I say "feels too aggressive," I mean harder to which to adhere for extended periods of time (more likely to binge) and I would not be able to eat at a greater deficit without sacrificing performance. I am not currently looking to change my goal or looking for advice on such. I have already figured out what works best for me to balance fat loss with performance.
The numbers came straight from an article I was reading. I found it interesting because typically recommendations are given based on distance from goal weight, which I don't think to be very effective because let's say person A wants to lose 25 lbs to get from "overweight" to "normal" weight range. Person B wants to lose 25 lbs to go from high end "normal" to low end "normal". This does not account for body fat percentage, only distance from goal. The lower the body fat percentage, the harder it is to lose the weight, the more likely a higher weight loss is to be lean mass. Person A would be much more comfortable in a 1 lb/week weight loss than person B.
My question for discussion is: does the high end of this seem to be unreasonable? Would it perhaps be ok for someone with a more active day job?0 -
Someone who is more active will just have to eat more to keep a certain rate of loss, if they are less active they would eat less.
The recommendation based on weight is very general.. however not many people know their bodyfat % accurately off hand to use the other one. I think it's important to take as many variables into account.. height, weight, sex, age, bodyfat if available etc.1 -
You've said performance several times, what do you mean by that specifically?
For example I'm a cyclist. I lift weights and I'm putting on some muscle, but my 20 & 60 minute power is what matter most to me. I'd want to do different things if I meant to deadlift as much as possible or improve my sprint or climbing times, let alone if I wanted to run.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »You've said performance several times, what do you mean by that specifically?
For example I'm a cyclist. I lift weights and I'm putting on some muscle, but my 20 & 60 minute power is what matter most to me. I'd want to do different things if I meant to deadlift as much as possible or improve my sprint or climbing times, let alone if I wanted to run.
I run and do crossfit. By performance, I mean no increase to my running pace nor decrease to my lifts (bench, squat, deadlift, etc.). Both have been going in a steady positive direction while I maintain my calorie deficit. If I were to increase my overall deficit, my overall pace slows down and my lifts suffer.1 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Interesting numbers.
When you say it "feels too aggressive," what do you mean?
Reading your post, I assume the numbers you gave are largely void of adherence concerns?
When I say "feels too aggressive," I mean harder to which to adhere for extended periods of time (more likely to binge) and I would not be able to eat at a greater deficit without sacrificing performance. I am not currently looking to change my goal or looking for advice on such. I have already figured out what works best for me to balance fat loss with performance.
The numbers came straight from an article I was reading. I found it interesting because typically recommendations are given based on distance from goal weight, which I don't think to be very effective because let's say person A wants to lose 25 lbs to get from "overweight" to "normal" weight range. Person B wants to lose 25 lbs to go from high end "normal" to low end "normal". This does not account for body fat percentage, only distance from goal. The lower the body fat percentage, the harder it is to lose the weight, the more likely a higher weight loss is to be lean mass. Person A would be much more comfortable in a 1 lb/week weight loss than person B.
My question for discussion is: does the high end of this seem to be unreasonable? Would it perhaps be ok for someone with a more active day job?
Could you cite the article please? This does seem to be accurate at a glance though.
People need to be very specific with "goal weight" and I agree with your point. It is critical to understand exactly where an individual is in their process before determining an action plan.
Why so much gets bandied about regarding hormones - a topic useless for anyone over 25% body fat, but becomes a primary concern to competitive bodybuilders with minimal body fat.
1 -
Without the context of motivation, it's hard to say how well a person would adhere to a higher deficit. For instance, a morbidly obese person who must lose weight rapidly for urgent medical reasons would probably be more likely to adhere to a higher deficit than an equally obese person who is losing weight for external reasons (spouse has issued an ultimatum, response to fat-shaming). Potentially success at keeping the weight off might depend on whether the loss was geared toward a better quality of life in general or for a specific goal that's a single point in time (wedding, vacation).
Some people, regardless of starting weight or fat percent, have higher tolerance for limiting calories in the short term and are more successful in achieving short-term goals. Others may adhere better when their eating patterns are minimally disrupted, and can get into a routine of eating at a small deficit for longer periods.
As far as retaining muscle by eating at a smaller deficit, many people are motivated to stay with a steeper rate of loss by the number on the scale or the clothing size, and don't have any particular performance goals, so decreasing body fat% beyond what would normally happen by losing weight just isn't a consideration for them.2 -
Could you cite the article please? This does seem to be accurate at a glance though.
People need to be very specific with "goal weight" and I agree with your point. It is critical to understand exactly where an individual is in their process before determining an action plan.
Why so much gets bandied about regarding hormones - a topic useless for anyone over 25% body fat, but becomes a primary concern to competitive bodybuilders with minimal body fat.
Article to be found here: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/10/29/realistic-fat-loss/
2 -
They're ranges for what's "safe" so I don't have a problem with it. Safe doesn't mean required and it also doesn't mean comfortable. I use a slower rate because using a faster rate isn't something I can do comfortably and I'm okay with slower losses. Other people like huge deficits so it's all over more quickly.3
-
I feel like those are pretty reasonable guidelines, but it will depend on the person of course. Some people prefer slow and steady, others just want to get fatloss over with and can handle a more aggressive deficit.
As you mentioned OP, some people's goal weight may be a higher bodyfat, and it's not always necessary to drop to .5 lbs per week to achieve that. And that's fine.
Being more active may help achieve a greater deficit than someone less active. But then again, some people's hunger responds differently and the active person might not feel they can sustain the higher end.
Stress also plays a role. When my stress is higher I don't feel like I can be as aggressive.
A few years ago I lost 60 lbs and averaged 3 lbs per week for most of the weightloss. I ate about 1400 cals per day and was very active and had very low stress. And I felt great. I had more energy, I don't feel like I lost muscle. (I had little muscle to begin with, which is something I think people overestimate.)
The problem with aggressive dieting is knowing what to do when you're done. A person who goes from slowly gaining most of their life to super low cals often doesn't understand the in between - this lead me to gaining the weight back. I think diet breaks and reverse dieting could help with that though. Slowing the loss as you get closer to maintenance. (I think there has been a thread in the past about mini cuts, usually done by more advanced dieters/bodybuilders. People who know what to do once the diet is done.)
Since gaining the weight back, I have only lost about 1 lb per week at most. As someone who started with at least 60+ lbs to lose, going at that rate seems like an eternity. (But also I've had more stress, along with doing heavy powerlifting/hypertrophy training, and sometimes felt it was tough to manage that rate.)
I'm going to link a podcast with Martin MacDonald. Basically his opinion is that for regular people just trying to get to a healthy weight, it's fine to diet as aggressively as you can sustain. I think he says 1-2%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhLIsFFsPAA
0 -
Pretty sure those are the numbers I've seen on bodyrecomp also by McDonald.
He went through the numbers and was showing how his recommended per lb loss numbers still fit those % levels because of the way things work out when math was actually done.
You have to remember too that even levels like that are many times found through experience of trainers or studies - that someone's individual line for where it turns from reasonable to foolish rate can vary from the average.
And I'm not even talking adherence mental level, but you got extra stress because of a disease or life or insomnia - a real physical level where body goes from working with you to against you.
So those could be some max values - and some people could totally over-stress their bodies going for it - others could have no issue at all.3 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »I am a big nerd and like to do a lot of research (read: google several articles and discussions) on topics on which I find interesting. Currently, my main topics being fat loss, proper nutrition, retain/build muscle, maximize performance. No one seems to "know" what is right or best, just a whole lot of theories and there is no one plan fits all. That being said, I found the following data below on acceptable fat loss rates based on body fat percentage, not based on overall weight or BMI. Thoughts?
Body Fat Level Rate of Fat Loss
Men: <15% Women: <24% <0.5-1.5 lb per week, or; 0.25-0.75% of body weight per week.
Men: 16-25% Women: 25-34% 1-2 lb per week, or; 0.75-1.5% of body weight per week.
Men: 26+% Women: 35+% 1.5-3.5 lb per week, or; 1.0-1.5% of body weight per week.
Personally, I find the higher end of these to be a bit aggressive. My current stats are 5'4", 150.4 lbs, ~27-28% body fat. This puts me in the middle category. Meaning I could potentially lose 1-2 lbs per week, or 1.125-2.25 lbs according to the percentage rate. My current rate of loss is set for 1 lb/week, and some days that even feels a bit aggressive to me. Perhaps the higher ends would be more applicable to someone with a more active job? Mine is a sedentary desk job, so my calorie burn without intentional exercise is rather low to begin with.
Man . I would have to lose .12 lbs per week if I was cutting ,(17p bf and 150 lbs)
Not looking to lose thank gosh that would take so long lol0 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »
Could you cite the article please? This does seem to be accurate at a glance though.
People need to be very specific with "goal weight" and I agree with your point. It is critical to understand exactly where an individual is in their process before determining an action plan.
Why so much gets bandied about regarding hormones - a topic useless for anyone over 25% body fat, but becomes a primary concern to competitive bodybuilders with minimal body fat.
Article to be found here: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/10/29/realistic-fat-loss/
Oh I like this. Should sticky this onto the forums. Some very sound advice.2 -
moogie_fit wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »I am a big nerd and like to do a lot of research (read: google several articles and discussions) on topics on which I find interesting. Currently, my main topics being fat loss, proper nutrition, retain/build muscle, maximize performance. No one seems to "know" what is right or best, just a whole lot of theories and there is no one plan fits all. That being said, I found the following data below on acceptable fat loss rates based on body fat percentage, not based on overall weight or BMI. Thoughts?
Body Fat Level Rate of Fat Loss
Men: <15% Women: <24% <0.5-1.5 lb per week, or; 0.25-0.75% of body weight per week.
Men: 16-25% Women: 25-34% 1-2 lb per week, or; 0.75-1.5% of body weight per week.
Men: 26+% Women: 35+% 1.5-3.5 lb per week, or; 1.0-1.5% of body weight per week.
Personally, I find the higher end of these to be a bit aggressive. My current stats are 5'4", 150.4 lbs, ~27-28% body fat. This puts me in the middle category. Meaning I could potentially lose 1-2 lbs per week, or 1.125-2.25 lbs according to the percentage rate. My current rate of loss is set for 1 lb/week, and some days that even feels a bit aggressive to me. Perhaps the higher ends would be more applicable to someone with a more active job? Mine is a sedentary desk job, so my calorie burn without intentional exercise is rather low to begin with.
Man . I would have to lose .12 lbs per week if I was cutting ,(17p bf and 150 lbs)
Not looking to lose thank gosh that would take so long lol
Maybe I'm doing the calculation wrong but at 150lbs and the leanest category it's more like 0.38-1.1lb per week for you.0 -
moogie_fit wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »I am a big nerd and like to do a lot of research (read: google several articles and discussions) on topics on which I find interesting. Currently, my main topics being fat loss, proper nutrition, retain/build muscle, maximize performance. No one seems to "know" what is right or best, just a whole lot of theories and there is no one plan fits all. That being said, I found the following data below on acceptable fat loss rates based on body fat percentage, not based on overall weight or BMI. Thoughts?
Body Fat Level Rate of Fat Loss
Men: <15% Women: <24% <0.5-1.5 lb per week, or; 0.25-0.75% of body weight per week.
Men: 16-25% Women: 25-34% 1-2 lb per week, or; 0.75-1.5% of body weight per week.
Men: 26+% Women: 35+% 1.5-3.5 lb per week, or; 1.0-1.5% of body weight per week.
Personally, I find the higher end of these to be a bit aggressive. My current stats are 5'4", 150.4 lbs, ~27-28% body fat. This puts me in the middle category. Meaning I could potentially lose 1-2 lbs per week, or 1.125-2.25 lbs according to the percentage rate. My current rate of loss is set for 1 lb/week, and some days that even feels a bit aggressive to me. Perhaps the higher ends would be more applicable to someone with a more active job? Mine is a sedentary desk job, so my calorie burn without intentional exercise is rather low to begin with.
Man . I would have to lose .12 lbs per week if I was cutting ,(17p bf and 150 lbs)
Not looking to lose thank gosh that would take so long lol
Maybe I'm doing the calculation wrong but at 150lbs and the leanest category it's more like 0.38-1.1lb per week for you.
I also got 0.38-1.1 lb per week for leanest category and 150 lbs.0 -
As someone with a very significant amount to lose (down 25.3, 122.2 to goal) it actually does become easier to lose at that higher rate and even fall into a rate that's too fast. Personally, I have never disliked being active. It became more uncomfortable because of the weight. Now that I'm maintaining an active lifestyle and because I'm carrying the extra weight, I can easily create the 1% per week on 1500-1800 per day depending on activity. That being said, part of it is what's liveable. I know that I'm unhappy (perpetually and with much anger and resentment) if I have less than 1350-1400 to work with. I know this will naturally slow my pace but it also will make me more successful long term. There are also women that can be happy on 1200 a day.
So yes, I think those your ends are sustainable. But like with everything with weight loss, how you do it is personal.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions