Healthy Rate of Loss

VeryKatie
VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
edited June 2020 in Health and Weight Loss
I see a lot of people commenting on those who have less than 20lb to lose saying they should aim for only 0.5 lb a week for a rate.

I have been unable to find any studies or websites that say is necessary to go that slowly.

Can anyone help me out with this? Is it just a way to make it easier since you can eat more? But I see people say you lose too much muscle if you lose 1 lb a week, but where are the studies?

I've been around for a while (initial loss and a couple babies) so I took it for gospel, but now im curious where that info comes from.

Everything I see online just says generally 1 to 2 lbs a week.

So for example my bmr is 1430. I am eating 1500 a day plus exercise calories. I seem to be losing 1 lb a week still. Though I've only been going for 5 weeks so I'm not sure if any of it is still water. I'm not having any trouble with eating 1500 a day. But I want to know if I should eat a bit more just because anyway. I was also able to stay in maintenance when I wanted to, until I got pregnant. Both pregnancies I gained the recommended amount. So I feel like what I'm doing is sustainable. But I also dont want to lose muscle mass if I don't have to. I dont have a lot of time/desire/energy to exercise and my weights are piled up under a bunch of junk in my unfinished garage (moved them out while we were finishing the basement and probably won't get them set up again till the garage is finished which may or may not happen this year). I used to do Strong Lifts 5x5 and will eventually get back into it when things are set up. I dislike most cardio other than walking and occasionally dancing on Xbox Kinect.

For reference:

Female
5' 6"
31 years old
2 kids (35 months and 16 months old)
Maintenance calories around 2000 (assumed, plus 1 lb a week loss recently kind of confirms it, though the data is newish)
Bmr around 1430
Eating 1500 a day currently plus 50% exercise calories.
Use Libra to see weight trend.
Current weight 135.6 lb
Goal weight 125 lb (pre-pregnancy weight). This is a good weight for me given my body shape.
I use a food scale for some things, spoons/cups for some things, and package weights for somethings and do not intend on using the food scale more heavily since 1) im losing weight just fine 2) I get obsessed and stressed too much when I use it more and 3) I feel like being exact doesn't matter as long as it is working and you're not at risk of eating less than 1200 a day (not for everyone, but it works for me. I used to use the scale a lot more when I was newer to this)...

Thanks!

Replies

  • xxzenabxx
    xxzenabxx Posts: 935 Member
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    I see a lot of people commenting on those who have less than 20lb to lose saying they should aim for only 0.5 lb a week for a rate.

    I have been unable to find any studies or websites that say is necessary to go that slowly.

    Can anyone help me out with this? Is it just a way to make it easier since you can eat more? But I see people say you lose too much muscle if you lose 1 lb a week, but where are the studies?

    I've been around for a while (initial loss and a couple babies) so I took it for gospel, but now im curious where that info comes from.

    Everything I see online just says generally 1 to 2 lbs a week.

    So for example my bmr is 1430. I am eating 1500 a day plus exercise calories. I seem to be losing 1 lb a week still. Though I've only been going for 5 weeks so I'm not sure if any of it is still water. I'm not having any trouble with eating 1500 a day. But I want to know if I should eat a bit more just because anyway. I was also able to stay in maintenance when I wanted to, until I got pregnant. Both pregnancies I gained the recommended amount. So I feel like what I'm doing is sustainable. But I also dont want to lose muscle mass if I don't have to. I dont have a lot of time/desire/energy to exercise and my weights are piled up under a bunch of junk in my unfinished garage (moved them out while we were finishing the basement and probably won't get them set up again till the garage is finished which may or may not happen this year). I used to do Strong Lifts 5x5 and will eventually get back into it when things are set up.

    Thanks!

    There’s no one size fits all. Some people can tolerate it and some can’t. I stuck to the 0.5 lbs per week for 11 weeks straight and only lost 5 lbs plus my sanity. I personally have to factor in maintenance days too because I can’t do the same thing day in day out and my family eat ALOT. We love parties! Now I’m going in for a 400-500 calorie deficit for about 4 weeks and then one week off. I also just watched one of Abby Pollocks videos on YouTube and she lost 1 lb per week even though she only had 20 lbs to lose and she’s so lean. Its about you and your psychology. I like variety whereas some other people prefer a small deficit every day. If you eat enough protein and lift weights you should maintain muscle mass.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited June 2020
    xxzenabxx wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    I see a lot of people commenting on those who have less than 20lb to lose saying they should aim for only 0.5 lb a week for a rate.

    I have been unable to find any studies or websites that say is necessary to go that slowly.

    Can anyone help me out with this? Is it just a way to make it easier since you can eat more? But I see people say you lose too much muscle if you lose 1 lb a week, but where are the studies?

    I've been around for a while (initial loss and a couple babies) so I took it for gospel, but now im curious where that info comes from.

    Everything I see online just says generally 1 to 2 lbs a week.

    So for example my bmr is 1430. I am eating 1500 a day plus exercise calories. I seem to be losing 1 lb a week still. Though I've only been going for 5 weeks so I'm not sure if any of it is still water. I'm not having any trouble with eating 1500 a day. But I want to know if I should eat a bit more just because anyway. I was also able to stay in maintenance when I wanted to, until I got pregnant. Both pregnancies I gained the recommended amount. So I feel like what I'm doing is sustainable. But I also dont want to lose muscle mass if I don't have to. I dont have a lot of time/desire/energy to exercise and my weights are piled up under a bunch of junk in my unfinished garage (moved them out while we were finishing the basement and probably won't get them set up again till the garage is finished which may or may not happen this year). I used to do Strong Lifts 5x5 and will eventually get back into it when things are set up.

    Thanks!

    There’s no one size fits all. Some people can tolerate it and some can’t. I stuck to the 0.5 lbs per week for 11 weeks straight and only lost 5 lbs plus my sanity. I personally have to factor in maintenance days too because I can’t do the same thing day in day out and my family eat ALOT. We love parties! Now I’m going in for a 400-500 calorie deficit for about 4 weeks and then one week off. I also just watched one of Abby Pollocks videos on YouTube and she lost 1 lb per week even though she only had 20 lbs to lose and she’s so lean. Its about you and your psychology. I like variety whereas some other people prefer a small deficit every day. If you eat enough protein and lift weights you should maintain muscle mass.

    I'm not currently set up to lift weights. I eat 75+ g of protein a day and higher fat. I use a weekly average for 1500 a day rather than doing exactly 1500 a day.

    The main question will i lose more muscle at 1 lb a week than 0.5 lb a week without lifting... i will probably lose my mind and give up if I lose as slowly as 0.5 lb a week tbh...
  • xxzenabxx
    xxzenabxx Posts: 935 Member
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    xxzenabxx wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    I see a lot of people commenting on those who have less than 20lb to lose saying they should aim for only 0.5 lb a week for a rate.

    I have been unable to find any studies or websites that say is necessary to go that slowly.

    Can anyone help me out with this? Is it just a way to make it easier since you can eat more? But I see people say you lose too much muscle if you lose 1 lb a week, but where are the studies?

    I've been around for a while (initial loss and a couple babies) so I took it for gospel, but now im curious where that info comes from.

    Everything I see online just says generally 1 to 2 lbs a week.

    So for example my bmr is 1430. I am eating 1500 a day plus exercise calories. I seem to be losing 1 lb a week still. Though I've only been going for 5 weeks so I'm not sure if any of it is still water. I'm not having any trouble with eating 1500 a day. But I want to know if I should eat a bit more just because anyway. I was also able to stay in maintenance when I wanted to, until I got pregnant. Both pregnancies I gained the recommended amount. So I feel like what I'm doing is sustainable. But I also dont want to lose muscle mass if I don't have to. I dont have a lot of time/desire/energy to exercise and my weights are piled up under a bunch of junk in my unfinished garage (moved them out while we were finishing the basement and probably won't get them set up again till the garage is finished which may or may not happen this year). I used to do Strong Lifts 5x5 and will eventually get back into it when things are set up.

    Thanks!

    There’s no one size fits all. Some people can tolerate it and some can’t. I stuck to the 0.5 lbs per week for 11 weeks straight and only lost 5 lbs plus my sanity. I personally have to factor in maintenance days too because I can’t do the same thing day in day out and my family eat ALOT. We love parties! Now I’m going in for a 400-500 calorie deficit for about 4 weeks and then one week off. I also just watched one of Abby Pollocks videos on YouTube and she lost 1 lb per week even though she only had 20 lbs to lose and she’s so lean. Its about you and your psychology. I like variety whereas some other people prefer a small deficit every day. If you eat enough protein and lift weights you should maintain muscle mass.

    I'm not currently set up to lift weights. I eat 75+ g of protein a day and higher fat. I use a weekly average for 1500 a day rather than doing exactly 1500 a day.

    The main question will i lose more muscle at 1 lb a week than 0.5 lb a week without lifting... i will probably lose my mind and give up if I lose as slowly as 0.5 lb a week tbh...

    Yes you will that’s why I suggest you buy a pair of dumbbells/kettle bell or resistance bands or you can use your own body weight. Nerd fitness have a good at home body weight workout. I understand gyms are closed at the moment so this is the best we can do.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited June 2020
    xxzenabxx wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    xxzenabxx wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    I see a lot of people commenting on those who have less than 20lb to lose saying they should aim for only 0.5 lb a week for a rate.

    I have been unable to find any studies or websites that say is necessary to go that slowly.

    Can anyone help me out with this? Is it just a way to make it easier since you can eat more? But I see people say you lose too much muscle if you lose 1 lb a week, but where are the studies?

    I've been around for a while (initial loss and a couple babies) so I took it for gospel, but now im curious where that info comes from.

    Everything I see online just says generally 1 to 2 lbs a week.

    So for example my bmr is 1430. I am eating 1500 a day plus exercise calories. I seem to be losing 1 lb a week still. Though I've only been going for 5 weeks so I'm not sure if any of it is still water. I'm not having any trouble with eating 1500 a day. But I want to know if I should eat a bit more just because anyway. I was also able to stay in maintenance when I wanted to, until I got pregnant. Both pregnancies I gained the recommended amount. So I feel like what I'm doing is sustainable. But I also dont want to lose muscle mass if I don't have to. I dont have a lot of time/desire/energy to exercise and my weights are piled up under a bunch of junk in my unfinished garage (moved them out while we were finishing the basement and probably won't get them set up again till the garage is finished which may or may not happen this year). I used to do Strong Lifts 5x5 and will eventually get back into it when things are set up.

    Thanks!

    There’s no one size fits all. Some people can tolerate it and some can’t. I stuck to the 0.5 lbs per week for 11 weeks straight and only lost 5 lbs plus my sanity. I personally have to factor in maintenance days too because I can’t do the same thing day in day out and my family eat ALOT. We love parties! Now I’m going in for a 400-500 calorie deficit for about 4 weeks and then one week off. I also just watched one of Abby Pollocks videos on YouTube and she lost 1 lb per week even though she only had 20 lbs to lose and she’s so lean. Its about you and your psychology. I like variety whereas some other people prefer a small deficit every day. If you eat enough protein and lift weights you should maintain muscle mass.

    I'm not currently set up to lift weights. I eat 75+ g of protein a day and higher fat. I use a weekly average for 1500 a day rather than doing exactly 1500 a day.

    The main question will i lose more muscle at 1 lb a week than 0.5 lb a week without lifting... i will probably lose my mind and give up if I lose as slowly as 0.5 lb a week tbh...

    Yes you will that’s why I suggest you buy a pair of dumbbells/kettle bell or resistance bands or you can use your own body weight. Nerd fitness have a good at home body weight workout. I understand gyms are closed at the moment so this is the best we can do.

    I own weights but can't set them up right now. I can start with body weight (you are your own gym). My youngest child just started sleeping through the night after 15 months so I've been trying to catch up from not sleeping through the night myself for 2.5 years (dealing with getting my sleep cycle refular so the insomnia lessens). This is why I said I dont have a lot of desire to exercise right now. Maybe in a month or 2.

    Specifically im looking for the research that says I would lose more muscle at 1 lb vs 0.5. I can't find it myself through Google. What is the likely amount difference?
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    Back in the days of Anvilhead and others, there were links and discussions of studies that showed a max of how much fat can actually be burned in a day. These values ranged from 11-26 calories per pound of body fat (the higher number from the starvation study).

    The .5-1% max loss rate, combined with the max amount of fat one can even actually burn, combined with the lowest intake where one can still get enough vitamins/minerals to be “healthy” and you’re probably going to end up pretty close to the generic ranges that are commonly given.

    However-if you have to make weight for something, don’t care if you keep your muscle, are willing to sacrifice some health to get to goal, or have some other unique situation, or are usually tall (or some other unique physical characteristic), you can lose faster.

  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    I’ll see if I can find some of the discussions where those studies were referenced. But the search function (particularly with a very prolific poster) isn’t always perfect.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,941 Member
    I'm a not very tall, not very heavy, not very young woman. Mpf sets my maintenance calories at around 1540 calories per day. If I wanted to slim down a bit and chose a 1lbs goal per week I'd only have 1040 calories to eat per day. That's very, very little. It's certainly something that would make me feel hungry and give up very quickly. I doubt I'd get all nutrition I need. Hey, small children eat more than that.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited June 2020
    mmapags wrote: »
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    Back in the days of Anvilhead and others, there were links and discussions of studies that showed a max of how much fat can actually be burned in a day. These values ranged from 11-26 calories per pound of body fat (the higher number from the starvation study).

    The .5-1% max loss rate, combined with the max amount of fat one can even actually burn, combined with the lowest intake where one can still get enough vitamins/minerals to be “healthy” and you’re probably going to end up pretty close to the generic ranges that are commonly given.

    However-if you have to make weight for something, don’t care if you keep your muscle, are willing to sacrifice some health to get to goal, or have some other unique situation, or are usually tall (or some other unique physical characteristic), you can lose faster.

    I think this is the kind of study you are referring to:
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

    As you get leaner, a large deficit puts you in danger of exceeding the amount of body fat you can access and utilize in a day. Then...lean mass gets sacrificed.

    Thanks! So... it looks like about 70 cals/kgd (290 kj/kgd) which is ... hm. Nope I can't be right. Must be just fat mass ... lol I gotta read this better. Otherwise thats 4000 calories decifit a day and that makes no sense. ...

    I think i cannot do math while watching the Wiggles...

    Ok say its fat mass. And I'm 25% (a total guess). If im 61 ish kg. Then I have about 15.3 kg fat. So at 69 kcal/kgd I can lose from mostly fat up to 1000 cals a day.

    Which... still seems rather high since I dont intend to lose more than 1 lb a week for sure... because. Food. Happiness.

    I feel like i must be interpreting it wrong.
    Because even if I assume 15% fat... thats still 638 calories today. I wonder if those assumed percents include water or something. Or is it still saying you lose ffm too. Brain not working at the moment.

    Now that i had your link I found this following post that I'm going to read!

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/916230/study-suggests-you-can-run-larger-deficit-than-we-think

    Either way i have a headache today so I am eating maintence today lol. Maybe I will increase a bit till I get exercising... i just really didn't want to buy a whole new wardrobe before I go back to work at the end of July. Petty I know.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,216 Member
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    Back in the days of Anvilhead and others, there were links and discussions of studies that showed a max of how much fat can actually be burned in a day. These values ranged from 11-26 calories per pound of body fat (the higher number from the starvation study).

    The .5-1% max loss rate, combined with the max amount of fat one can even actually burn, combined with the lowest intake where one can still get enough vitamins/minerals to be “healthy” and you’re probably going to end up pretty close to the generic ranges that are commonly given.

    However-if you have to make weight for something, don’t care if you keep your muscle, are willing to sacrifice some health to get to goal, or have some other unique situation, or are usually tall (or some other unique physical characteristic), you can lose faster.

    I think this is the kind of study you are referring to:
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

    As you get leaner, a large deficit puts you in danger of exceeding the amount of body fat you can access and utilize in a day. Then...lean mass gets sacrificed.

    Thanks! So... it looks like about 70 cals/kgd (290 kj/kgd) which is ... hm. Nope I can't be right. Must be just fat mass ... lol I gotta read this better. Otherwise thats 4000 calories decifit a day and that makes no sense. ...

    I think i cannot do math while watching the Wiggles...

    Ok say its fat mass. And I'm 25% (a total guess). If im 61 ish kg. Then I have about 15.3 kg fat. So at 69 kcal/kgd I can lose from mostly fat up to 1000 cals a day.

    Which... still seems rather high since I dont intend to lose more than 1 lb a week for sure... because. Food. Happiness.

    I feel like i must be interpreting it wrong.
    Because even if I assume 15% fat... thats still 638 calories today. I wonder if those assumed percents include water or something. Or is it still saying you lose ffm too. Brain not working at the moment.

    Now that i had your link I found this following post that I'm going to read!

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/916230/study-suggests-you-can-run-larger-deficit-than-we-think

    Either way i have a headache today so I am eating maintence today lol. Maybe I will increase a bit till I get exercising... i just really didn't want to buy a whole new wardrobe before I go back to work at the end of July. Petty I know.

    Suggest you read the whole thread, and the out-links, not just the top post.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    The one thing I never liked about that "study" is it's not really a study.

    The guys took the data from a study (MN starvation experiment) and extrapolated some theories from it.

    That was never tested on anyone. Not really a study.
    And it doesn't have to be tested to max limit for months on end starving people - that would never fly before a review board anyway.

    And from the original study data, the means of getting to fat mass lost made their data points kind of iffy to base their formula on. I thought anyway.
    Compared to other studies that have done their BF lost and weight lost and seemed to show it doesn't always apply.

    One major bugaboo is the fact Fat Free Mass (LBM) includes water - you start using more carbs you are going to release more water that was bound to them in storage.
    Ok fine you've lost LBM - water. Shouldn't count in any math dealing with fat loss.

    And after that complaining - here's a calc to make it easier to see what they are saying.

    http://www.weightrainer.net/losscalc.html


  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited June 2020
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    Back in the days of Anvilhead and others, there were links and discussions of studies that showed a max of how much fat can actually be burned in a day. These values ranged from 11-26 calories per pound of body fat (the higher number from the starvation study).

    The .5-1% max loss rate, combined with the max amount of fat one can even actually burn, combined with the lowest intake where one can still get enough vitamins/minerals to be “healthy” and you’re probably going to end up pretty close to the generic ranges that are commonly given.

    However-if you have to make weight for something, don’t care if you keep your muscle, are willing to sacrifice some health to get to goal, or have some other unique situation, or are usually tall (or some other unique physical characteristic), you can lose faster.

    I think this is the kind of study you are referring to:
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

    As you get leaner, a large deficit puts you in danger of exceeding the amount of body fat you can access and utilize in a day. Then...lean mass gets sacrificed.

    Thanks! So... it looks like about 70 cals/kgd (290 kj/kgd) which is ... hm. Nope I can't be right. Must be just fat mass ... lol I gotta read this better. Otherwise thats 4000 calories decifit a day and that makes no sense. ...

    I think i cannot do math while watching the Wiggles...

    Ok say its fat mass. And I'm 25% (a total guess). If im 61 ish kg. Then I have about 15.3 kg fat. So at 69 kcal/kgd I can lose from mostly fat up to 1000 cals a day.

    Which... still seems rather high since I dont intend to lose more than 1 lb a week for sure... because. Food. Happiness.

    I feel like i must be interpreting it wrong.
    Because even if I assume 15% fat... thats still 638 calories today. I wonder if those assumed percents include water or something. Or is it still saying you lose ffm too. Brain not working at the moment.

    Now that i had your link I found this following post that I'm going to read!

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/916230/study-suggests-you-can-run-larger-deficit-than-we-think

    Either way i have a headache today so I am eating maintence today lol. Maybe I will increase a bit till I get exercising... i just really didn't want to buy a whole new wardrobe before I go back to work at the end of July. Petty I know.

    Suggest you read the whole thread, and the out-links, not just the top post.

    Yeah i read it all and basically... is said thats just a maximum for obese people... so it wouldnt really apply to me.

    I'm just so curious where it comes from and what the theoretical overall difference in muscle loss would be if i continue eating 1500 a day vs 1700 a day with the same activity level... which basically consists of pushing 70 lb strollers on flat ground, carrying 55 lbs of kids up and down the stairs a million times a day, and diving at children as they are about to dive off the couch.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,216 Member
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    Back in the days of Anvilhead and others, there were links and discussions of studies that showed a max of how much fat can actually be burned in a day. These values ranged from 11-26 calories per pound of body fat (the higher number from the starvation study).

    The .5-1% max loss rate, combined with the max amount of fat one can even actually burn, combined with the lowest intake where one can still get enough vitamins/minerals to be “healthy” and you’re probably going to end up pretty close to the generic ranges that are commonly given.

    However-if you have to make weight for something, don’t care if you keep your muscle, are willing to sacrifice some health to get to goal, or have some other unique situation, or are usually tall (or some other unique physical characteristic), you can lose faster.

    I think this is the kind of study you are referring to:
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

    As you get leaner, a large deficit puts you in danger of exceeding the amount of body fat you can access and utilize in a day. Then...lean mass gets sacrificed.

    Thanks! So... it looks like about 70 cals/kgd (290 kj/kgd) which is ... hm. Nope I can't be right. Must be just fat mass ... lol I gotta read this better. Otherwise thats 4000 calories decifit a day and that makes no sense. ...

    I think i cannot do math while watching the Wiggles...

    Ok say its fat mass. And I'm 25% (a total guess). If im 61 ish kg. Then I have about 15.3 kg fat. So at 69 kcal/kgd I can lose from mostly fat up to 1000 cals a day.

    Which... still seems rather high since I dont intend to lose more than 1 lb a week for sure... because. Food. Happiness.

    I feel like i must be interpreting it wrong.
    Because even if I assume 15% fat... thats still 638 calories today. I wonder if those assumed percents include water or something. Or is it still saying you lose ffm too. Brain not working at the moment.

    Now that i had your link I found this following post that I'm going to read!

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/916230/study-suggests-you-can-run-larger-deficit-than-we-think

    Either way i have a headache today so I am eating maintence today lol. Maybe I will increase a bit till I get exercising... i just really didn't want to buy a whole new wardrobe before I go back to work at the end of July. Petty I know.

    Suggest you read the whole thread, and the out-links, not just the top post.

    Yeah i read it all and basically... is said thats just a maximum for obese people... so it wouldnt really apply to me.

    I'm just so curious where comes from and what the theoretical overall muscle difference in muscle loss would be if i continue eating 1500 a day vs 1700 a day with the same activity level... which basically consists of pushing 70 lb strollers on flat ground, carrying 55 lbs of kids up and down the stairs a million times a day, and diving at children as they are about to dive off the couch.

    It's a confusing thread (including some posts by confused people). I don't think that what I bolded is true of the study cited in the OP of that thread. I think what heybales said is corrected: Based on Minnesota starvation experiment. But still wouldn't necessarily apply to you in any practical way, for other reasons he mentioned.

    In particular, in the thread you linked, I think there was confusion in the comments between the OP study, and a later study that was linked about obese people in extreme deficits who were strength training. (That one doesn't really apply to you either. ;) ).

    I still don't think there's a study that will answer your exact question. Repeating myself: Bets, and bet hedging.

    @heybales: Interesting calculator. I understand that the same limitations still apply. ;)
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    edited June 2020
    mmapags wrote: »
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    Back in the days of Anvilhead and others, there were links and discussions of studies that showed a max of how much fat can actually be burned in a day. These values ranged from 11-26 calories per pound of body fat (the higher number from the starvation study).

    The .5-1% max loss rate, combined with the max amount of fat one can even actually burn, combined with the lowest intake where one can still get enough vitamins/minerals to be “healthy” and you’re probably going to end up pretty close to the generic ranges that are commonly given.

    However-if you have to make weight for something, don’t care if you keep your muscle, are willing to sacrifice some health to get to goal, or have some other unique situation, or are usually tall (or some other unique physical characteristic), you can lose faster.

    I think this is the kind of study you are referring to:
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

    As you get leaner, a large deficit puts you in danger of exceeding the amount of body fat you can access and utilize in a day. Then...lean mass gets sacrificed.

    That’s good but it’s not quite what I was thinking of.

    There’s a particular thread I’m thinking of where a number of these things were brought up and discussed (it was an OP asking a question similar to this thread - but I believe OP was male and wanted to run a very significant deficit).

    There was discussion about the Minnesota starvation study piece but also something by maybe Alan Aragon (but don’t quote that because I’m still trying to find the discussion-and I don’t think his was a study but more empirical observations) providing more realistic/actionable numbers. With links to some sources of info/studies/etc. The discussion was fairly recent (in my terms-last 2-ish years probably).

    It was a really good discussion so I hope I can find it.

    With my luck though, the thread is one that digressed into memes, gifs and name calling and got deleted, but I’ll keep looking.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    Back in the days of Anvilhead and others, there were links and discussions of studies that showed a max of how much fat can actually be burned in a day. These values ranged from 11-26 calories per pound of body fat (the higher number from the starvation study).

    The .5-1% max loss rate, combined with the max amount of fat one can even actually burn, combined with the lowest intake where one can still get enough vitamins/minerals to be “healthy” and you’re probably going to end up pretty close to the generic ranges that are commonly given.

    However-if you have to make weight for something, don’t care if you keep your muscle, are willing to sacrifice some health to get to goal, or have some other unique situation, or are usually tall (or some other unique physical characteristic), you can lose faster.

    I think this is the kind of study you are referring to:
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

    As you get leaner, a large deficit puts you in danger of exceeding the amount of body fat you can access and utilize in a day. Then...lean mass gets sacrificed.

    Thanks! So... it looks like about 70 cals/kgd (290 kj/kgd) which is ... hm. Nope I can't be right. Must be just fat mass ... lol I gotta read this better. Otherwise thats 4000 calories decifit a day and that makes no sense. ...

    I think i cannot do math while watching the Wiggles...

    Ok say its fat mass. And I'm 25% (a total guess). If im 61 ish kg. Then I have about 15.3 kg fat. So at 69 kcal/kgd I can lose from mostly fat up to 1000 cals a day.

    Which... still seems rather high since I dont intend to lose more than 1 lb a week for sure... because. Food. Happiness.

    I feel like i must be interpreting it wrong.
    Because even if I assume 15% fat... thats still 638 calories today. I wonder if those assumed percents include water or something. Or is it still saying you lose ffm too. Brain not working at the moment.

    Now that i had your link I found this following post that I'm going to read!

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/916230/study-suggests-you-can-run-larger-deficit-than-we-think

    Either way i have a headache today so I am eating maintence today lol. Maybe I will increase a bit till I get exercising... i just really didn't want to buy a whole new wardrobe before I go back to work at the end of July. Petty I know.

    Suggest you read the whole thread, and the out-links, not just the top post.

    Yeah i read it all and basically... is said thats just a maximum for obese people... so it wouldnt really apply to me.

    I'm just so curious where comes from and what the theoretical overall muscle difference in muscle loss would be if i continue eating 1500 a day vs 1700 a day with the same activity level... which basically consists of pushing 70 lb strollers on flat ground, carrying 55 lbs of kids up and down the stairs a million times a day, and diving at children as they are about to dive off the couch.

    It's a confusing thread (including some posts by confused people). I don't think that what I bolded is true of the study cited in the OP of that thread. I think what heybales said is corrected: Based on Minnesota starvation experiment. But still wouldn't necessarily apply to you in any practical way, for other reasons he mentioned.

    In particular, in the thread you linked, I think there was confusion in the comments between the OP study, and a later study that was linked about obese people in extreme deficits who were strength training. (That one doesn't really apply to you either. ;) ).

    I still don't think there's a study that will answer your exact question. Repeating myself: Bets, and bet hedging.

    @heybales: Interesting calculator. I understand that the same limitations still apply. ;)

    Whoops missed a post in my haste to reply lol.

    @AnnPT77 @PAV8888 @heybales And everyone else so far, thanks for your insights!

    @ahoy_m8 I agree on sleep. My pregnancies and kiddos totally threw off my sleep rhythms. That combined with a lifelong inability to fall asleep very quickly (something my mom, brother, sister, and son all have issues with too, maybe its genetic, but I also think we tend to be the more stressed out people in the family) is definitely a factor in wanting to get things sorted out there. There were times in my life when I did have it ironed out and I felt so great during those times, and felt generally more energetic, less steessed and less over-hungry. Its not a fast fix though.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited June 2020
    @Duck_Puddle
    Thanks for looking for a thread for me!

    @heybales I tried your linked calculator. Like mfp it gives me 1850 cals to maintain but by spreadsheeting thru the years I find its more like 2100. I guess I am more active than I think. I always choose lightly active since I'm a stay at home mom (though starting July its back to my desk job). But even at my desk job I seemed to maintain on more like 2000. I'm still looking thru the rest of it to see what it says.
  • Someonerandom1
    Someonerandom1 Posts: 13 Member
    I have almost the exact same stats and goals as you. Started at 165 last year and currently 134.5. I’m shooting for .5lb a week because I want to start practicing for maintenance. Plus I don’t have a deadline or anything like that. I lost like 1lb/month for March and April. Then I suddenly lost 4.5lbs in May so I bumped up my calories a bit this past week. I was at 1600 plus exercise calories and now I’m shooting for 1700 plus exercise calories. I usually gross 1900-2000 calories a day and always hit a minimum of 100-125g of protein.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,941 Member
    I regained some weight when I was very unhappy, and my thyroid meds were too low and I was feeling extra tired and it was easier to buy snacks than not to. I decided to lose at a rate of 0.5lbs per week and it was nearly spot on (0.26kg/week). Yeah, it took a while, but I also had a day every week or two where I had a pack of crisps or liquorice. I would not have managed a bigger deficit anyway. It just fitted my lifestyle perfectly, and retransitioning back to maintenance was easy.

Categories