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.
Choosing a realistic rate of loss?
RunsWithBees
Posts: 1,508 Member
I’ve seen time and time again in these forums that people say if someone has under 20 pounds to lose (for example only, just a ballpark number, some say more or less) that they shouldn’t aim for a loss of 2 pounds per week, they should aim for 1.5 or 1 pound. And when they only have 10 pounds to lose, they should only aim to lose 0.5 pounds per week. Just curious why MFP even allows the other options for people if they are indeed unsafe? Why not have a built-in safeguard that doesn’t allow someone to choose an unhealthy rate of loss, based on how much they input that they weigh and desire to lose? They have a similar safeguard for the calorie counts, not allowing them to go lower than 1200 for women and 1500 for men. Wouldn’t this be a good idea for rates of loss too? Maybe have it unable to be set to lose more than 1% of body weight per week? Of course there will always be someone who will find a way to bypass the system and do it their way anyway, but wouldn’t this help protect a majority of users? Would this kind of limitation help more people realistically achieve their desired weight loss by improving their calorie allowance, hence improving adherence to the deficit? Is it unrealistic or unreasonable to limit people’s choices in this matter?
4
Replies
-
Simply put you can't. Way too many variables as far as building the site that way. Same reason why you can accidentally say you eat 100,000 cals of food or whatever if you accidentally put in 100 of the item insread of just 1. You have to allow people to be smarter than the machine. That said, common sense isn't too common.4
-
It already caps at 1200, so that minimizes the damage. Some people just won't get a 1000 calorie deficit even if they pick 2 pounds a week. When MFP should do, however, is display a clearer warning when someone is auto-capped at 1200 that this rate of weight loss is not going to happen on 1200 calories. Way too many threads where the poster feels discouraged that they aren't losing as much as they were supposed to because they chose 2 pounds a week.9
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »It already caps at 1200, so that minimizes the damage. Some people just won't get a 1000 calorie deficit even if they pick 2 pounds a week. When MFP should do, however, is display a clearer warning when someone is auto-capped at 1200 that this rate of weight loss is not going to happen on 1200 calories. Way too many threads where the poster feels discouraged that they aren't losing as much as they were supposed to because they chose 2 pounds a week.
The sheer number of threads about people wanting to lose 2 lbs per week and so many posters telling them that’s not safe is why I’m posting the question.2 -
Tankiscool wrote: »Simply put you can't. Way too many variables as far as building the site that way. Same reason why you can accidentally say you eat 100,000 cals of food or whatever if you accidentally put in 100 of the item insread of just 1. You have to allow people to be smarter than the machine. That said, common sense isn't too common.
Fingers crossed!
2 -
I asked a similar question in 2017 and saved the answer as I'll need to read it again when I get to the last 25 lbs:
3 -
monkeefan1974 wrote: »Tankiscool wrote: »Simply put you can't. Way too many variables as far as building the site that way. Same reason why you can accidentally say you eat 100,000 cals of food or whatever if you accidentally put in 100 of the item insread of just 1. You have to allow people to be smarter than the machine. That said, common sense isn't too common.
Fingers crossed!
Right?
That said I think mfp could do a better job of it as well. They could link articles in the setup screen or something that alerts the user. However their IT /web Development team seems to need some help to say the least lol as I think they spend alot of time fixing things rather than developing things3 -
-
I don't know if putting a limit like that would really work. For example, I input my own calorie goal and don't use MFP method (I use TDEE). Therefore I don't input a rate of loss or goal weight. If I entered 1500 cals as my goal I could still lose over 2lbs per week, according to MFP it would be perfectly fine for my stats since it assumes it would be 1500 before exercise. Point is, even if there was a safeguard there is a way around it and it is up to the user to do what is best for them, or learn the hard way unfortunately.2
-
I think it would be hard to put controls for several reasons, but in part because there is not exact agreement on at what level people should lose at. There is certainly general consensus that you should slow as you get close to your goal, but not everyone agrees on "if you are within x pound, it needs to be x rate". Some people will be more aggressive than others.2
-
I think it would be hard to put controls for several reasons, but in part because there is not exact agreement on at what level people should lose at. There is certainly general consensus that you should slow as you get close to your goal, but not everyone agrees on "if you are within x pound, it needs to be x rate". Some people will be more aggressive than others.
This seems right. It’s not what I usually see people answering in posts though, that’s why I was curious
1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »monkeefan1974 wrote: »Most common knowledge upon which weight loss apps is based, including MFP, is obsolete. People are routinely water-fasted (zero calories per day) for up to 40 days without harm or deficiency. See True North Health Center for examples. So the silly MFP message "You are not eating enough calories ..." can either be ignored or considered supportive that your calorie intake may produce results. Further, calorie burn calculations like those generated by MMF which are often used in "calories in minus calories out" calculations have now been proven to be a total fabrication. See the work of Dr. Herman Ponzer (
https://youtu.be/l7C80sIJv74)
The best way to use MFP and MMF is to unsync them so computed exercise calories are NOT incorporated into your daily calorie target which totally screws up your weight loss performance. Use MMF for fitness only and MFP for weight loss. Start with a target of 500 calories per day and you'll see consistent weekly weight loss performance.
Interesting. I’m not looking to lose weight though, I’ve been in maintenance for 5 years was just curious about what’s considered a “safe rate of loss” and how MFP might moderate it or not.
500 calories a day (compounded bt not eating exercise calories back) is certainly not a safe rate of weight loss for anyone.
Agreed! It sounds like torture to me!
1 -
So what is the evidence for all of these opinions? I read "The Fast 800" written by Dr Michael Mosley, which is based on the most recent evidence. I've been losing over 2kg (4 lb for those still using ancient units of measure) a week for the last 7 weeks. I feel great and am being monitored by my doctor. No issues.13
-
It's not as simplistic as rates of loss, the amount of weight to be lost and the duration are also highly varied. Say I just wanted to lose 4lbs, there would be zero negative results from me losing at 2lbs/week for just two weeks. But that's very different from someone losing a lot of weight over an extended period of time.
What I would say is that MFP is dreadfully overdue in making its goal setup much, much smarter.
The number of people who select inappropriate goals, don't understand what the activity settings mean, don't understand how exercise is accounted for is a condemnation of how lacking in guidance the setup process is.10 -
What are the overall statistics for successful weight loss?
My quick google search says: "Weight watchers found that people rarely lost more than 5 percent of body weight over six months, and much of that body weight was gained back within two years".
Off the top of my head, I was going to say 80% plus fail to maintain a 10% loss for 1 year
<confirmed: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/1/222S/4863393, and I think this is one of the weight control registry articles that started me on the path of trying to educate myself into how I might improve my chances of success>
People read articles about huge weight losses fast.
That's what they're keyed on.
MFP advertises it in the blogs they quote.
The government recommendations (which are more geared towards being simple to understand and not causing great harm vs causing the most good) say 0.5 to 2lbs a week. Nobody will be sued for repeating that... because it is the government consensus recommendation.
So why would MFP stick its head out and recommend something different, especially if it might impact its bottom line?
The site gets money by having people visit which leads to advertising and subscription revenue. It is successful because a lot of people join. And a lot of people join because it is perceived as successful.
Telling people to aim for lower goals may reduced the appeal of joining.
Why would the site do that? <-- the site, just like weight watchers and slimming world WANTS CUSTOMERS. Again and again... and forever!
In the past 53 months I almost gave up before I really got started, and I also learned, observed, and discovered a number of things. I can either share what I believe to be true... or I can stay silent and let people I think I can help flounder about. Hence I post.
6 -
What are the overall statistics for successful weight loss?
My quick google search says: "Weight watchers found that people rarely lost more than 5 percent of body weight over six months, and much of that body weight was gained back within two years".
Off the top of my head, I was going to say 80% plus fail to maintain a 10% loss for 1 year
<confirmed: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/1/222S/4863393, and I think this is one of the weight control registry articles that started me on the path of trying to educate myself into how I might improve my chances of success>
People read articles about huge weight losses fast.
That's what they're keyed on.
MFP advertises it in the blogs they quote.
The government recommendations (which are more geared towards being simple to understand and not causing great harm vs causing the most good) say 0.5 to 2lbs a week. Nobody will be sued for repeating that... because it is the government consensus recommendation.
So why would MFP stick its head out and recommend something different, especially if it might impact its bottom line?
The site gets money by having people visit which leads to advertising and subscription revenue. It is successful because a lot of people join. And a lot of people join because it is perceived as successful.
Telling people to aim for lower goals may reduced the appeal of joining.
Why would the site do that? <-- the site, just like weight watchers and slimming world WANTS CUSTOMERS. Again and again... and forever!
This says a lot of what I already suspected! Thanks for sharing 🙂0 -
It's not as simplistic as rates of loss, the amount of weight to be lost and the duration are also highly varied. Say I just wanted to lose 4lbs, there would be zero negative results from me losing at 2lbs/week for just two weeks. But that's very different from someone losing a lot of weight over an extended period of time.
What I would say is that MFP is dreadfully overdue in making its goal setup much, much smarter.
The number of people who select inappropriate goals, don't understand what the activity settings mean, don't understand how exercise is accounted for is a condemnation of how lacking in guidance the setup process is.
Timeframe is definitely a factor! Thanks for sharing 🙂0 -
I'd add that in my understanding there are some sound, scientifically-based methods of more rapid weight loss than the usual recommendations one sees around here, but they're much more complex to manage than "eat less with decent nutrition and lose weight slowly", and they're not suitable for everyone (not for every body composition, or for every level of ability to accurately handle complex schedules with discipline). (Unfortunately, a lot of folks very evidently struggle with even the level of math it takes to understand basic MFP, the basics of nutrition, and the discipline to stick to a moderate, gradual routine. I put myself in that category.)
There are also people using MFP to manage a rather extreme doctor-supervised pre- or post-surgical routine in conjunction with weight loss surgery of various sorts, or doctor-supervised unusual regimes for other health reasons, or who are simply very, very physically small.
I routinely advise people to take the slow and sensible route you (OP) describe. It's the mainstream. But it's not the only stream.
Even if the MFP programmers could make the mainstream the only possible or easy stream, I'm not convinced that that would be the best possible overall solution.
At some point, I think we just have to hold people responsible for being rational adults, and give them flexible tools which they may need in some cases (like that "lose 4 pounds in 2 weeks then stop" thing) but that they could misuse if they want to be silly and take dumb risks.
I agree that some of the written matter around the set-up could be clearer and provide better guidance for the common cases. But hey, it gives us a chance to make new friends on the forums . . . or enemies . . . or maybe woo-stalkers?
6 -
Who defines a unsafe rate when there are so many variables?
For example when speaking of a universal percentage rate for loss. There are individuals that have health risks so great they out weigh the cons of rapid weight loss.
Having the current varible built in is more helpful since people are going to do what they want for their needs.
2 -
When I started I had a lot of weight to lose (70+ pounds.) Of course I set my Goals at, "Lose 2 pounds per week," because why wouldn't I? It gave me 1200 calories.
That worked. For a while. Then hungry set in. I was losing two pounds per week. I started exercising more regularly when I realized Myfitnesspal gave me more food to eat when I did so. I had no idea what I was doing. Heck, I was still living on bread and cereal and cheese and crackers and ice cream and pizza. Just at Net 1200 calories. In two or three months I became extremely fatigued, irritable, sleepy, depressed. My hair started falling out. I had skin and nail problems. I still had about 30 pounds to lose to get into a healthy BMI.
Hm.
I did some reading and raised my calories to 1600 (plus exercise calories - all of them.) I stayed there for the rest of my weight loss.
I think common sense can be learned. I felt horrible and really had to raise calories. I'm glad I listened, though I wish I'd listened sooner. Some of us learn the hard way. Okay, all of us pretty much learn the hard way.3 -
Losing the weight with a high rate of loss is never a problem for me. My issue is I lose the weight then start eating like a pig again lol.
This time around (close to goal not with standing) I'm losing between 0.5 and 2lbs per month. Much more sustainable, and I'm not hangry all the time.5 -
MFP seems to want to be a place that anyone can use to lose weight and/or get fit regardless of how they are doing it. But they do build in the bare minimum parameters to generally keep people from using it to hurt themselves - can't close your diary under a certain calorie level, can't choose more than 2 lbs per week.
I don't think it's MFP's responsibility to make sure people are doing anything safely, they are just trying to make sure they aren't encouraging anyone to do it unsafely. I don't have a problem with that, as how safe or unsafe something is depends on far too many variables.
So why do we tell people to lose slower here on the boards? IMHO...- Most of us who have been here for awhile and post a lot finally managed to lose weight and maintain successfully when we committed to logging here and losing at a manageable pace, so I think it's understandable that we believe/assume that it might be a key to success.
- Losing too quickly does have dangers and risks. The problem is that "too quickly" isn't the same for everyone, and as we are sitting here at a keyboard with limited info and no medical history, we err on the side of caution.
Having said that, risks are exactly that - risks, not guarantees. Someone can lose weight aggressively fast, and luck out and not suffer any consequences. Also, as @AnnPT77 mentioned, there are certain situations and strategies that can mitigate some of that risk, but blindly guiding some random internet stranger through that minefield is a road most of us don't want to take. And if someone is morbidly obese, or has some other specific medical conditions, the risks of losing weight quickly are overshadowed by the risks of carrying the extra weight for any longer than necessary. Of course, making that decision and then guarding against those risks is best handled with the assistance of a medical professional.
I do wish MFP provided more guidance on how and why to choose a rate of loss, but I can understand if it is not cut and dry how to frame it so they choose to leave it vague. As we see here all the time, even with all the info laid out in front of them, many people will still choose to white knuckle a painful and stressful race to a possibly unrealistic goal anyway. Learning the hard way is a frustrating but common human trait 5
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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