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.

Trying out a new info-graphic: How fast can I safely lose weight?

Jthanmyfitnesspal
Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
in Debate Club
What does the crowd think of this one? Useful or confusing?

lqznm2kagrl6.png
«13

Replies

  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    @cmriverside : Hey, that's why we're on the debate forum!

    I object to that infographic on a few grounds:

    There is no particular reason to lose at 0.5lbs/week when you have <20lbs to lose. Most people would want to lose faster than that (e.g., 1lb per week).

    Also, there is no particular reason to lose at 2lbs per week if you have >60lbs to lose. A 1000kcal deficit could easily be in excess of 30% of TDEE for that case, which is rather high.

    Finally, the grammar of "1% of your weight maximum" is unclear. It doesn't say in what time interval. (I presume you mean per week.) Also, it isn't particularly consistent with the examples given. A 200lb man could easily be only 30lbs overweight, for example, and the table says he should shoot for 1lb/week loss, not 2lb/week.

    The best part of the infographic are the points at the bottom.

    Anyway, you can keep posting it and I can keep objecting to it. That's fine, so long as we are all polite to each other. It's a free forum, after all.
  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,067 Member
    This thread interests me, because it deals with something I've been thinking about for a while.
    I'd read that a safe rate of weight loss is 1-2 pounds/week. This bothered me, because it's so general, lacks context, and it ignores some obvious issues like the differences between a 120 pound person and a 400 pound person. Certainly, a safe rate will likely differ for these two, and may be above or below that 1-2 lb recommendation.

    I agree with both  @Jthanmyfitnesspal and  @cmriverside, as there are parts I like (and dislike) about both graphics (although I tend to prefer the one  @cmriverside likes). But rather than critque these two graphics (I'll leave that to others), I'd like to give my 2 cents worth:

    Should you measure loss in pounds, or percentage?
    If in percentage, should it be a current weight percentage or a TDEE deficit percentage?
    IMO, neither...

    My thinking is, your loss rate ought to take into account both your current weight and your amount of excess weight (a problem with this is of course that your amount of excess weight is not necessarily obvious nor easy to determine). But the idea is, the closer you are to your ideal weight, the fewer pounds per week you should be attempting to lose. What that percentage can safely be, I do not know, but I will use 3% for some examples.

    So, some examples...
    1. current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 300 = 3.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 100 = 3.0 lbs/wk
    2. current weight 200 pounds with excess weight of 20 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 200 = 2.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 20 = 0.6 lbs/wk
    3. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 30 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 30 = 0.9 lbs/wk
    4. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 15 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 15 = 0.45 lbs/wk

    It's a complex subject and I am not well informed, but my suspicion is that the more weight you have to lose, the more weight you can safely lose per week.
    I suggest there might be a rule of thumb that goes something like this:
    You can safely lose per week up to x% of your excess weight, or y% of your current weight, whichever is lower.

    I look forward to the continuation of this debate. :D

    P.S. It occurs to me now that one might want to consider body fat percent in the equation. Two people, one weighing 150 lbs, the other 300 lbs, could both have 50% body fat. How to we factor that in?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,377 Member
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    This thread interests me, because it deals with something I've been thinking about for a while.
    I'd read that a safe rate of weight loss is 1-2 pounds/week. This bothered me, because it's so general, lacks context, and it ignores some obvious issues like the differences between a 120 pound person and a 400 pound person. Certainly, a safe rate will likely differ for these two, and may be above or below that 1-2 lb recommendation.

    I agree with both  @Jthanmyfitnesspal and  @cmriverside, as there are parts I like (and dislike) about both graphics (although I tend to prefer the one  @cmriverside likes). But rather than critque these two graphics (I'll leave that to others), I'd like to give my 2 cents worth:

    Should you measure loss in pounds, or percentage?
    If in percentage, should it be a current weight percentage or a TDEE deficit percentage?
    IMO, neither...

    My thinking is, your loss rate ought to take into account both your current weight and your amount of excess weight (a problem with this is of course that your amount of excess weight is not necessarily obvious nor easy to determine). But the idea is, the closer you are to your ideal weight, the fewer pounds per week you should be attempting to lose. What that percentage can safely be, I do not know, but I will use 3% for some examples.

    So, some examples...
    1. current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 300 = 3.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 100 = 3.0 lbs/wk
    2. current weight 200 pounds with excess weight of 20 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 200 = 2.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 20 = 0.6 lbs/wk
    3. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 30 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 30 = 0.9 lbs/wk
    4. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 15 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 15 = 0.45 lbs/wk

    It's a complex subject and I am not well informed, but my suspicion is that the more weight you have to lose, the more weight you can safely lose per week.
    I suggest there might be a rule of thumb that goes something like this:
    You can safely lose per week up to x% of your excess weight, or y% of your current weight, whichever is lower.

    I look forward to the continuation of this debate. :D

    P.S. It occurs to me now that one might want to consider body fat percent in the equation. Two people, one weighing 150 lbs, the other 300 lbs, could both have 50% body fat. How to we factor that in?

    Some interesting ideas in there (to which I need to give more thought). Quick reaction: There's a tradeoff between simple advice, and nuanced advice.

    Thinking if you start considering too many variables, it gets too non-simple. I'm particularly skeptical about including body fat percent in there, because hardly anyone has a decent body fat percentage estimate, and trying to get one tends to lead to all kinds of complexity when it comes up in threads.
  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,067 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    This thread interests me, because it deals with something I've been thinking about for a while.
    I'd read that a safe rate of weight loss is 1-2 pounds/week. This bothered me, because it's so general, lacks context, and it ignores some obvious issues like the differences between a 120 pound person and a 400 pound person. Certainly, a safe rate will likely differ for these two, and may be above or below that 1-2 lb recommendation.

    I agree with both  @Jthanmyfitnesspal and  @cmriverside, as there are parts I like (and dislike) about both graphics (although I tend to prefer the one  @cmriverside likes). But rather than critque these two graphics (I'll leave that to others), I'd like to give my 2 cents worth:

    Should you measure loss in pounds, or percentage?
    If in percentage, should it be a current weight percentage or a TDEE deficit percentage?
    IMO, neither...

    My thinking is, your loss rate ought to take into account both your current weight and your amount of excess weight (a problem with this is of course that your amount of excess weight is not necessarily obvious nor easy to determine). But the idea is, the closer you are to your ideal weight, the fewer pounds per week you should be attempting to lose. What that percentage can safely be, I do not know, but I will use 3% for some examples.

    So, some examples...
    1. current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 300 = 3.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 100 = 3.0 lbs/wk
    2. current weight 200 pounds with excess weight of 20 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 200 = 2.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 20 = 0.6 lbs/wk
    3. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 30 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 30 = 0.9 lbs/wk
    4. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 15 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 15 = 0.45 lbs/wk

    It's a complex subject and I am not well informed, but my suspicion is that the more weight you have to lose, the more weight you can safely lose per week.
    I suggest there might be a rule of thumb that goes something like this:
    You can safely lose per week up to x% of your excess weight, or y% of your current weight, whichever is lower.

    I look forward to the continuation of this debate. :D

    P.S. It occurs to me now that one might want to consider body fat percent in the equation. Two people, one weighing 150 lbs, the other 300 lbs, could both have 50% body fat. How to we factor that in?

    Some interesting ideas in there (to which I need to give more thought). Quick reaction: There's a tradeoff between simple advice, and nuanced advice.

    Thinking if you start considering too many variables, it gets too non-simple. I'm particularly skeptical about including body fat percent in there, because hardly anyone has a decent body fat percentage estimate, and trying to get one tends to lead to all kinds of complexity when it comes up in threads.

    Yes, body fat percent, i.e. excess weight, has the problem that it is not easily determined.
    Still, it might be worth mentioning a person should consider that when setting their goals.
    And I agree that one shouldn't overcomplicate it. But how do you explain things so that people who have less weight to lose don't get discouraged when they see others--who may have a lot more to lose--losing weight at what seems like an unattainable rate (perhaps because it is)?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,377 Member
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    This thread interests me, because it deals with something I've been thinking about for a while.
    I'd read that a safe rate of weight loss is 1-2 pounds/week. This bothered me, because it's so general, lacks context, and it ignores some obvious issues like the differences between a 120 pound person and a 400 pound person. Certainly, a safe rate will likely differ for these two, and may be above or below that 1-2 lb recommendation.

    I agree with both  @Jthanmyfitnesspal and  @cmriverside, as there are parts I like (and dislike) about both graphics (although I tend to prefer the one  @cmriverside likes). But rather than critque these two graphics (I'll leave that to others), I'd like to give my 2 cents worth:

    Should you measure loss in pounds, or percentage?
    If in percentage, should it be a current weight percentage or a TDEE deficit percentage?
    IMO, neither...

    My thinking is, your loss rate ought to take into account both your current weight and your amount of excess weight (a problem with this is of course that your amount of excess weight is not necessarily obvious nor easy to determine). But the idea is, the closer you are to your ideal weight, the fewer pounds per week you should be attempting to lose. What that percentage can safely be, I do not know, but I will use 3% for some examples.

    So, some examples...
    1. current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 300 = 3.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 100 = 3.0 lbs/wk
    2. current weight 200 pounds with excess weight of 20 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 200 = 2.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 20 = 0.6 lbs/wk
    3. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 30 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 30 = 0.9 lbs/wk
    4. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 15 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 15 = 0.45 lbs/wk

    It's a complex subject and I am not well informed, but my suspicion is that the more weight you have to lose, the more weight you can safely lose per week.
    I suggest there might be a rule of thumb that goes something like this:
    You can safely lose per week up to x% of your excess weight, or y% of your current weight, whichever is lower.

    I look forward to the continuation of this debate. :D

    P.S. It occurs to me now that one might want to consider body fat percent in the equation. Two people, one weighing 150 lbs, the other 300 lbs, could both have 50% body fat. How to we factor that in?

    Some interesting ideas in there (to which I need to give more thought). Quick reaction: There's a tradeoff between simple advice, and nuanced advice.

    Thinking if you start considering too many variables, it gets too non-simple. I'm particularly skeptical about including body fat percent in there, because hardly anyone has a decent body fat percentage estimate, and trying to get one tends to lead to all kinds of complexity when it comes up in threads.

    Yes, body fat percent, i.e. excess weight, has the problem that it is not easily determined.
    Still, it might be worth mentioning a person should consider that when setting their goals.
    And I agree that one shouldn't overcomplicate it. But how do you explain things so that people who have less weight to lose don't get discouraged when they see others--who may have a lot more to lose--losing weight at what seems like an unattainable rate (perhaps because it is)?

    I think the current (percent of bodyweight) infographic answers that by implication: Less to lose, should lose slower. It doesn't exactly say *why* that would be recommended, other than the "need enough calories to be healthy and get good nutrition" at the bottom. Typically, on top of that, IME any infographic is usually popping up in a thread where there's text discussion, too, even if not posted by the same person who posts the infographic.
  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,067 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    frankwbrown wrote: »
    This thread interests me, because it deals with something I've been thinking about for a while.
    I'd read that a safe rate of weight loss is 1-2 pounds/week. This bothered me, because it's so general, lacks context, and it ignores some obvious issues like the differences between a 120 pound person and a 400 pound person. Certainly, a safe rate will likely differ for these two, and may be above or below that 1-2 lb recommendation.

    I agree with both  @Jthanmyfitnesspal and  @cmriverside, as there are parts I like (and dislike) about both graphics (although I tend to prefer the one  @cmriverside likes). But rather than critique these two graphics (I'll leave that to others), I'd like to give my 2 cents worth:

    Should you measure loss in pounds, or percentage?
    If in percentage, should it be a current weight percentage or a TDEE deficit percentage?
    IMO, neither...

    My thinking is, your loss rate ought to take into account both your current weight and your amount of excess weight (a problem with this is of course that your amount of excess weight is not necessarily obvious nor easy to determine). But the idea is, the closer you are to your ideal weight, the fewer pounds per week you should be attempting to lose. What that percentage can safely be, I do not know, but I will use 3% for some examples.

    So, some examples...
    1. current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 300 = 3.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 100 = 3.0 lbs/wk
    2. current weight 200 pounds with excess weight of 20 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 200 = 2.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 20 = 0.6 lbs/wk
    3. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 30 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 30 = 0.9 lbs/wk
    4. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 15 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 15 = 0.45 lbs/wk

    It's a complex subject and I am not well informed, but my suspicion is that the more weight you have to lose, the more weight you can safely lose per week.
    I suggest there might be a rule of thumb that goes something like this:
    You can safely lose per week up to x% of your excess weight, or y% of your current weight, whichever is lower.

    I look forward to the continuation of this debate. :D

    P.S. It occurs to me now that one might want to consider body fat percent in the equation. Two people, one weighing 150 lbs, the other 300 lbs, could both have 50% body fat. How to we factor that in?

    Some interesting ideas in there (to which I need to give more thought). Quick reaction: There's a tradeoff between simple advice, and nuanced advice.

    Thinking if you start considering too many variables, it gets too non-simple. I'm particularly skeptical about including body fat percent in there, because hardly anyone has a decent body fat percentage estimate, and trying to get one tends to lead to all kinds of complexity when it comes up in threads.

    Yes, body fat percent, i.e. excess weight, has the problem that it is not easily determined.
    Still, it might be worth mentioning a person should consider that when setting their goals.
    And I agree that one shouldn't overcomplicate it. But how do you explain things so that people who have less weight to lose don't get discouraged when they see others--who may have a lot more to lose--losing weight at what seems like an unattainable rate (perhaps because it is)?

    I think the current (percent of bodyweight) infographic answers that by implication: Less to lose, should lose slower. It doesn't exactly say *why* that would be recommended, other than the "need enough calories to be healthy and get good nutrition" at the bottom. Typically, on top of that, IME any infographic is usually popping up in a thread where there's text discussion, too, even if not posted by the same person who posts the infographic.

    Since this thread is about the infographic, after all, I must concur.
  • scarlett_k
    scarlett_k Posts: 812 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I disagree with your purple made-up graphic and I'll stick to this one:

    cfpqwo9vvrsi.png



    I don't suppose you know the source of this one? I always wondered why it's repeated over and over yet there's no citation for the information on there. For all we know that one is "made up" too!

    That's not to say I think the OP's one is any cop; it's confusing at best.
  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,067 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    The TDEE explanation is good to inform newbies but of course MFP doesn't calculate your TDEE to set someone's calorie goal so that part may confuse rather than inform. As MFP uses different BMR multipliers it's not a "standard formula". There's more than enough confusion around accounting for exercise already!

    But I do agree that rates of loss are more nuanaced than the simplistic infographic you dislike and you make some very good points

    I don't think the "general suggestions" are particularly good on the old infographic and although somewhat helpful they are painted with a very broad brush.
    Someone losing the last 1 - 20lbs of a 100lb loss is in a very different situation to someone losing just 1 - 20lbs.
    Someone losing that 1 - 20lbs down to a goal of 200lbs is in a very different situation to someone losing to a goal of 100lbs.
    Someone having a large deficit for a short period of time isn't going to have the same issues as someone with a big deficit for a protracted length of time.

    I dislike the group think that insists the last few pounds to goal are particulalrly hard and MUST be done very slowly - although true for many and a good idea for many it's not universal. Telling a larger person with a high calorie goal that it's desperately hard and a mistake to cut 500 cals / day is simply being a pessimist for no good reason and can demotivate. Hard to cut 500cals off a 1700 allowance, yes - but it's not hard to cut 500 off a 3,500 allowance and still hit all nutritional bases.

    Overall I'm not convinced simple infographics work too well for a subject that is complex and very variable between individuals and situations.
    What I do see a lot is posts from newbies that simply don't have enough information and context to allow anyone to work out the person's situation and needs in which case a simple message like the "1% of bodyweight per week maximum" can be as least help to a degree.

    PS - how would your format look on a mobile device? I think it might be very busy and hard to read.

    I completely agree. You say it better than I ever could. :smile:
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    Some great feedback here. I really appreciate the discussion.

    I do wish that MFP would take your stats and give you your estimated TDEE with a table of choices and some advice on each one. I bet a lot of people join the site and pick 2lbs/week loss. Yikes!

    As far as I can tell by playing around with it, MFPs formula is VERY CLOSE to the Mifflin st. Jeor BMR formula with the usual multiplier that varies by what activity level you select. It's amazingly simple and I'm amazed how well it worked for me. I hear it doesn't work for everyone!

    @frankwbrown suggests a 3lb/week loss rate for a 300lb person. I think 3lbs per week is too high a rate for just about any weight. For an average male, that would be a 54% deficit relative to sedentary TDEE. Yikes!

    It seems several people advocate a slower loss rate when closer to goal weight. I think this is entirely reasonable, if you want. I have personally lost around 20lbs at a rate of about 1lb/week, which is almost exactly a 25% deficit for me. Some weeks I actually went faster than that by under-eating my exercise bonus. When I need a little correction, I'll go back into ~25% deficit for a few weeks.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    It seems several people advocate a slower loss rate when closer to goal weight. I think this is entirely reasonable, if you want. I have personally lost around 20lbs at a rate of about 1lb/week, which is almost exactly a 25% deficit for me. Some weeks I actually went faster than that by under-eating my exercise bonus. When I need a little correction, I'll go back into ~25% deficit for a few weeks.

    Very similar for me, my initial loss was 24lbs at circa 1lb/week to get to what was a 175lb goal weight.
    It was a comfortable rate of loss for me, left me a decent weekly calorie budget and as I was always good at maintaining before I lost that chunk of weight, I simply added 3,500 a week and flipped to maintenance without issue. If I had decided to lose the last 20 pounds over 40 weeks (as per the “General Suggestions”) there's a good chance I would have become bored and frustrated which for me are precursors for giving up.

    That isn't intended to discount or diminish that some people struggle to lose the last few pounds and/or adjust from deficit to maintenance, just underlines there isn't just one way to manage weight loss or the transition to maintenance.

    BTW - for last few years I've lost "the last few pounds" in Spring (I tend to let my weight drift up a bit in Winter). I've lost them very slowly (so slow I don’t really notice the restriction) I've also lost them relatively quickly some years when I had a deadline (short term restriction to a defined goal doesn’t bore or frustrate me, it just increases my focus). Both approaches worked fine for me.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,426 Member
    edited August 2021
    MFPs formula is VERY CLOSE to the Mifflin st. Jeor BMR formula

    It is the Mifflin formula.

    https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited August 2021
    Prior to the fitness trackers helping with TDEE and exercise estimates syncing to MFP, I had that spreadsheet that kept getting bigger and bigger per suggestions made.

    And this whole aspect of safe amount to lose was a big challenge, because I wanted info from studies.
    There was never anything exactly like comparing fast and slow rates for remaining amounts left - but there were studies showing negative effects when it was too big, compared to other studies not showing those negative effects at more reasonable rate. Or positive effects at a certain level. So I ended up just setting bounds, and actually auto-switched between methods depending on what allowed the biggest deficit. I also stopped at BMR as a safety line in case there were some strange scenario that just allowed a huge deficit when not a good idea.

    There was research for the 10-20% off est TDEE, but I've seen studies since then showing 25-30% when above the obese range is fine and there was some daily activity being done (not bed-bound).

    There was research about a 2% of weight to be lost method, but that requires knowing what a healthy goal weight is, and obviously a cut-off at some point.

    There was study about still gaining slight amount of muscle on a 0.7% of weight deficit weekly, while lifting of course, so not a bad boundary, but again some cut-off needed.

    Since this sheet was replacing MFP NEAT method with TDEE method which required manual tweaking of MFP anyway - I didn't do anything with MFP block deficit methods, but it was interesting to compare where the 250,500,750, 1000 lines were.

    And of course this didn't take into account the extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit that sijomial mentions, or be better for smaller deficit.
    Only 10 to lose and active - might be able to handle 2 lbs weekly before any ill effects.
    Not active - perhaps too fast.
    Sliding into the last 10 after losing 200 and no diet breaks - or there were diet breaks - big potential difference there.

    Now there is the extra research on alternate week diets with tad higher deficit not a being a problem with that maintenance week in there.

    And I do like a different set of ranges that seemed to be closer to the studies I looked at, which many do use block deficit amounts. But this seems to be if you are starting in that range, even that may be aggressive if a long diet and no breaks.
    <15
    15-30
    30-50
    >50

    ETA:
    The strangeness that occurs with % of weight to be lost, or % of current weight, is why I actually prefer the % TDEE method too - but it is hard to translate that into the standard MFP setup to keep things simple.
    And that method too has the upper end at likely a slower rate than what could be reasonable.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,377 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Prior to the fitness trackers helping with TDEE and exercise estimates syncing to MFP, I had that spreadsheet that kept getting bigger and bigger per suggestions made.

    And this whole aspect of safe amount to lose was a big challenge, because I wanted info from studies.
    There was never anything exactly like comparing fast and slow rates for remaining amounts left - but there were studies showing negative effects when it was too big, compared to other studies not showing those negative effects at more reasonable rate. Or positive effects at a certain level. So I ended up just setting bounds, and actually auto-switched between methods depending on what allowed the biggest deficit. I also stopped at BMR as a safety line in case there were some strange scenario that just allowed a huge deficit when not a good idea.

    There was research for the 10-20% off est TDEE, but I've seen studies since then showing 25-30% when above the obese range is fine and there was some daily activity being done (not bed-bound).

    There was research about a 2% of weight to be lost method, but that requires knowing what a healthy goal weight is, and obviously a cut-off at some point.

    There was study about still gaining slight amount of muscle on a 0.7% of weight deficit weekly, while lifting of course, so not a bad boundary, but again some cut-off needed.

    Since this sheet was replacing MFP NEAT method with TDEE method which required manual tweaking of MFP anyway - I didn't do anything with MFP block deficit methods, but it was interesting to compare where the 250,500,750, 1000 lines were.

    And of course this didn't take into account the extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit that sijomial mentions, or be better for smaller deficit.
    Only 10 to lose and active - might be able to handle 2 lbs weekly before any ill effects.
    Not active - perhaps too fast.
    Sliding into the last 10 after losing 200 and no diet breaks - or there were diet breaks - big potential difference there.

    Now there is the extra research on alternate week diets with tad higher deficit not a being a problem with that maintenance week in there.

    And I do like a different set of ranges that seemed to be closer to the studies I looked at, which many do use block deficit amounts. But this seems to be if you are starting in that range, even that may be aggressive if a long diet and no breaks.
    <15
    15-30
    30-50
    >50

    ETA:
    The strangeness that occurs with % of weight to be lost, or % of current weight, is why I actually prefer the % TDEE method too - but it is hard to translate that into the standard MFP setup to keep things simple.
    And that method too has the upper end at likely a slower rate than what could be reasonable.

    I was hoping you'd show up, @heybales.

    Do you care to comment on any of the "extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit or be better for a smaller deficit", in a general sense (not try to quantify, just identify)?

    Seems like pre-existing health conditions, age, fitness level, energy demands compared with current fitness level, nutrition quality, and things like that might be relevant at n=1 to what might make a loss rate riskily fast or unnecessarily slow.

    One of the things I think about, sometimes write about - but don't know whether I'm right to do so - is what the aggregate stress burden on the person may be, encompassing both physical and psychological stressors.

    Do you have an opinion about what type of too-simplistic guidance (something meme-able, basically) might be most reasonable - as reasonable as such a thing can get - in an MFP context? ("No" is a perfectly valid answer to that question.)

    FWIW, I think the MFP context typically includes other posts with at least some more nuanced discussion, maybe even personalized advice if the OP's given enough info; but also sometimes includes some howlingly stupid nonsense that seems simple, and that certain OPs will grab like a life-preserver in a sea of complex comments that may overwhelm them. 🤷‍♀️
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Where did you come up with your conclusions about how much one can "safely" lose per week? When I look at it I guess I am confused as to whether this is your opinion or if there is some data supporting it.

    None of these rules are very well motivated. Most experts (MFP or the Mayo Clinic, see below) advise 0.5 - 2 lbs/week loss rates, with no more than 2. Some (e.g., MFP) also put in a minimum number of calories (e.g., 1000kcals/day). A TDEE deficit of about 25% remains within these bounds.

    Of course, I'm not anyone's doctor, and even then, the final decision is up to the individual. Maybe you want to go to 30%, for example. What I'm really advocating is that % of TDEE is a very useful way to think of your deficit, rather than just considering absolute calorie numbers.

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/weight-loss/art-20047752
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    I find both to be a little confusing.

    First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
    IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.

    My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
    Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.

    As for the one @cmriverside shared?
    It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
    However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
    I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
    It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.

    My 2¢

    Also cilantro tastes like soap.

    Amen to aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level for the general population. We see so many people very confused in their first post.

    As such, I see no point in bringing TDEE up in the initial graphic, ESPECIALLY since MFP uses NEAT, not TDEE.

    I think “exercise not EXTRA fries” aligns perfectly with your philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions” :)

    If someone wants to make a version of this graphic without the potentially distracting background I will happily use that instead.

    @tinkerbellang83: did the graphic originally come from you, on your IG? If so, would you please share the source of the data? (You may have just made a graphic out of the info that was previously commonly shared in text form. I prefer the graphic - it stands out.)
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,377 Member
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Where did you come up with your conclusions about how much one can "safely" lose per week? When I look at it I guess I am confused as to whether this is your opinion or if there is some data supporting it.

    None of these rules are very well motivated. Most experts (MFP or the Mayo Clinic, see below) advise 0.5 - 2 lbs/week loss rates, with no more than 2. Some (e.g., MFP) also put in a minimum number of calories (e.g., 1000kcals/day). A TDEE deficit of about 25% remains within these bounds.

    Of course, I'm not anyone's doctor, and even then, the final decision is up to the individual. Maybe you want to go to 30%, for example. What I'm really advocating is that % of TDEE is a very useful way to think of your deficit, rather than just considering absolute calorie numbers.

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/weight-loss/art-20047752

    And how do you learn your actual TDEE? Experientially, via weight loss.

    Which has a rate. Even before doing the math to figure a personal average TDEE; and rate holds as relevant for any weight loss method. Percent TDEE works for calorie counting (kind of squishily if counting NEAT method), not other methods.

    I admit, I'm individually a hard case on this: NEAT method works better for me personally than TDEE method. I can handle the TDEE idea, do the math to estimate my average TDEE, and I even comment about % TDEE rules of thumb on threads sometimes.

    "Not very good at math" is unfortunately fairly common. I've been in threads where the OP needed the "0.5-1% of bodyweight" arithmetic done for them, even.

    Truth in advertising: I don't think I've ever posted the current infographic. I don't hate it, though, for a simplified meme-ification of a key concept. It leaves out much, much nuance and justification. That's what simplification does. Sometimes simplification works better than nuance.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,138 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    I find both to be a little confusing.

    First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
    IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.
    My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general
    population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
    Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.

    As for the one @cmriverside shared?
    It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
    However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
    I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
    It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.

    My 2¢

    Also cilantro tastes like soap.


    The handle is my instagram account user name. It's nothing to do with bad foods or goods foods otherwise it would be exercise no fries, it's just my own reminder to move a little more eat a little less as portion sizes has been a problem of mine.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,138 Member
    edited August 2021
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    I find both to be a little confusing.

    First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
    IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.

    My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
    Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.

    As for the one @cmriverside shared?
    It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
    However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
    I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
    It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.

    My 2¢

    Also cilantro tastes like soap.

    Amen to aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level for the general population. We see so many people very confused in their first post.

    As such, I see no point in bringing TDEE up in the initial graphic, ESPECIALLY since MFP uses NEAT, not TDEE.

    I think “exercise not EXTRA fries” aligns perfectly with your philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions” :)

    If someone wants to make a version of this graphic without the potentially distracting background I will happily use that instead.

    @tinkerbellang83: did the graphic originally come from you, on your IG? If so, would you please share the source of the data? (You may have just made a graphic out of the info that was previously commonly shared in text form. I prefer the graphic - it stands out.)

    Yes it was one of several I put together from commonly shared information here /general nutrition advice a couple of years ago. It comes in handy when you're responding to a lot of new folk particularly at the start of the year when everyone wants to lose 30lbs in a week, so I don't have to copy/paste stuff from thread to thread.

    I think this one and Mildred get used the most. Feel free to b@$tardise it with a less criss-crossy background.

    ETA Mildred for those who aren't familiar:
    r0txbtz4die7.jpg
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,464 Member
    edited August 2021
    So, some examples...
    1. current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 300 = 3.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 100 = 3.0 lbs/wk
    2. current weight 200 pounds with excess weight of 20 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 200 = 2.0 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 20 = 0.6 lbs/wk
    3. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 30 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 30 = 0.9 lbs/wk
    4. current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 15 pounds:
      1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
      3% of excess weight = 3% x 15 = 0.45 lbs/wk

    According to this, I could lose 2.2 or 2.1 pounds/week


    jdraxlgis8st.jpeg



    According to this, I could lose 2 pounds/ week.

    But my tdee is about 2000. 71, female, sedentary. Exercise as much as I can, but not much.
    If I cut 1000 calories a day. That leaves me with about 1000 calories to eat.
    If I cut my calories by 25% of tdee or 500 calories, that leaves me with 1500 calories=a lot more reasonable.



    So your chart works for me. The traditional one, not so much.






  • frankwbrown
    frankwbrown Posts: 13,067 Member
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    @frankwbrown suggests a 3lb/week loss rate for a 300lb person. I think 3lbs per week is too high a rate for just about any weight. For an average male, that would be a 54% deficit relative to sedentary TDEE. Yikes!
    I don't disagree. That 3 lb/week is 1% of body weight for a 300 lb person, and I chose 3% of excess weight arbitrarily, so that the example had 3% of excess weight as the same 3 lb/week. This sort of underscores the idea that the general suggestion of 1% of body weight (max) applies more to people in the 100-200 lb range, rather than extremely obese people, for whom even 1% of body weight is probably excessive.
    It happens that I started my weight loss in July of last year at 330 lbs (over 50% body fat). I chose 2 lb/week, hoping I could lose close to 100 pounds in one year. I currently weigh 237 and am now looking at adopting an alternating maint/slow loss plan. I think I should be able to get down to 220, but that will likely take quite some time.
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    It seems several people advocate a slower loss rate when closer to goal weight. I think this is entirely reasonable, if you want. I have personally lost around 20lbs at a rate of about 1lb/week, which is almost exactly a 25% deficit for me. Some weeks I actually went faster than that by under-eating my exercise bonus. When I need a little correction, I'll go back into ~25% deficit for a few weeks.
    I like the idea of using x% deficit of TDEE. My problem is determining my TDEE.
    Mifflin-St Jeor estimates my BMR at around 1850, but the result of an RMR test I had done was only 1907. I think I have a lower than average BMR for someone my size, age, etc. I also think my Garmin watch overestimates my calories burned.
    If I tell MFP I want to lose 1 lb/week and am sedentary, it gives me a net calories consumed/day of 1850. So I assume MFP thinks I burn ~2350 calories/day, without exercise.

    Thank you all for the information you're sharing here. I really appreciate it.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Prior to the fitness trackers helping with TDEE and exercise estimates syncing to MFP, I had that spreadsheet that kept getting bigger and bigger per suggestions made.

    And this whole aspect of safe amount to lose was a big challenge, because I wanted info from studies.
    There was never anything exactly like comparing fast and slow rates for remaining amounts left - but there were studies showing negative effects when it was too big, compared to other studies not showing those negative effects at more reasonable rate. Or positive effects at a certain level. So I ended up just setting bounds, and actually auto-switched between methods depending on what allowed the biggest deficit. I also stopped at BMR as a safety line in case there were some strange scenario that just allowed a huge deficit when not a good idea.

    There was research for the 10-20% off est TDEE, but I've seen studies since then showing 25-30% when above the obese range is fine and there was some daily activity being done (not bed-bound).

    There was research about a 2% of weight to be lost method, but that requires knowing what a healthy goal weight is, and obviously a cut-off at some point.

    There was study about still gaining slight amount of muscle on a 0.7% of weight deficit weekly, while lifting of course, so not a bad boundary, but again some cut-off needed.

    Since this sheet was replacing MFP NEAT method with TDEE method which required manual tweaking of MFP anyway - I didn't do anything with MFP block deficit methods, but it was interesting to compare where the 250,500,750, 1000 lines were.

    And of course this didn't take into account the extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit that sijomial mentions, or be better for smaller deficit.
    Only 10 to lose and active - might be able to handle 2 lbs weekly before any ill effects.
    Not active - perhaps too fast.
    Sliding into the last 10 after losing 200 and no diet breaks - or there were diet breaks - big potential difference there.

    Now there is the extra research on alternate week diets with tad higher deficit not a being a problem with that maintenance week in there.

    And I do like a different set of ranges that seemed to be closer to the studies I looked at, which many do use block deficit amounts. But this seems to be if you are starting in that range, even that may be aggressive if a long diet and no breaks.
    <15
    15-30
    30-50
    >50

    ETA:
    The strangeness that occurs with % of weight to be lost, or % of current weight, is why I actually prefer the % TDEE method too - but it is hard to translate that into the standard MFP setup to keep things simple.
    And that method too has the upper end at likely a slower rate than what could be reasonable.

    I was hoping you'd show up, @heybales.

    Do you care to comment on any of the "extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit or be better for a smaller deficit", in a general sense (not try to quantify, just identify)?

    Seems like pre-existing health conditions, age, fitness level, energy demands compared with current fitness level, nutrition quality, and things like that might be relevant at n=1 to what might make a loss rate riskily fast or unnecessarily slow.

    One of the things I think about, sometimes write about - but don't know whether I'm right to do so - is what the aggregate stress burden on the person may be, encompassing both physical and psychological stressors.

    Do you have an opinion about what type of too-simplistic guidance (something meme-able, basically) might be most reasonable - as reasonable as such a thing can get - in an MFP context? ("No" is a perfectly valid answer to that question.)

    FWIW, I think the MFP context typically includes other posts with at least some more nuanced discussion, maybe even personalized advice if the OP's given enough info; but also sometimes includes some howlingly stupid nonsense that seems simple, and that certain OPs will grab like a life-preserver in a sea of complex comments that may overwhelm them. 🤷‍♀️

    Let's get readdddyyyyy to ramble!!! (no, not rumble, ramble)

    I really wish I'd kept track of points from studies better, I noted some in that big spreadsheet, but I always recall when reading through them, the studies that were using diabetics, so a body already under stress to some degree, usually seemed to have negative effects at deficits that didn't seem that far off base.
    Perhaps that was only perception, and I easily missed the studies where they had bigger deficits and nothing but great results. And rainbows.
    But things like bigger drops in LBM, or the created deficit they kept in place from initial TDEE testing showed less effect, showing the metabolic adaptation occurred.
    They did all have great effects of helping the disease because fat was lost, just some of the negatives that might have been avoided I thought.

    I know one study that Lyle McDonald found and turned into a free super-fat loss brochure was where the folks walked slow like 5-6 hr daily for some brief period of time, created a huge totally extreme deficit by any normal standard - and lost vast majority of fat weight.
    But they had a lot of fat to lose - and their total daily activity was fueled primary by fat. (that study also made me investigate the other "study" which wasn't a study, about max fat burn potential).

    Those types of variables I saw does convince me some things can help a faster rate be reasonable on some bodies, and some bodies are under enough stress already a slower rate is probably better.
    And the bummer is we don't usually know - push what you think is your line and you easily could go over causing slight negative effects, and never realize it until it's gone too far.
    Go way over the line and it's usually easy - so tired, workouts get terrible, sleep is terrible, hair falls out....
    I figure go for the decent safety zone, even if your body could go with faster rate, how much time are you really spending extra in a diet anyway, plus if done right it's good learning for maintenance.

    The number of people through the years here on MFP, I think mainly PCOS, where they thought they had plateaued for a month or more, taking a big deficit, but losing inches slowly. When they took the advice to eat a tad more to slow the rate, got a whoosh effect, kept the smaller deficit, and kept on losing from then on. Exactly the effect research says happens when cortisol goes down, indicating it was likely up. I can't even recall if those ladies are still on my friend's list.

    Originally what caught my attention on MFP was the number of mostly women that appeared they should be creating a huge extreme deficit but didn't have any problems for a long time (actually reasonable rate of loss), had an issue when they went from walking as only exercise to more intense stuff. They weren't logging exercise to eat calories back anyway, so why would it matter.
    But they hadn't been weighing foods so probably eating more than they thought. And the exercise wasn't that intense originally - so the deficit really wasn't that big.
    Then they'd exercise more intensely and rate would slow. They'd be told to weigh food and discover they had been overeating. Now they were creating a big deficit and loss stopped. And it wasn't until they followed advice to stop that big deficit, and they'd lose again but slower.

    Those are just n=1 examples, but when they hit what studies seem to touch on, I see it as verification.


    I do like the graphic using the MFP deficit amounts because it is was/will be seen during setup or changes. (I think the ranges are too safe and slow for vast majority though).
    I think useful would be a comment that it's a deficit from what you burn in total that day, which includes exercise.
    And take a diet break week every 10 lbs lost, eat at maintenance for a week.

    I think that last item would help make up for accidental bigger deficits than reasonable.
    If you are reasonable, say 1 lb weekly, you may need a mental break after 10 weeks.
    If you are attempting say an unreasonable for you 2 lb weekly, your body will get that break after 5 weeks and likely need it.

    I agree the math on 0.5-1% probably is glazed over when looked at on the graphic as true as it is, just leave it off since the range deficits include it anyway hopefully.

    As you said - many comment on it anyway when posting, and you discern perhaps the math can be understood.

    And usually a context is given. I've seen the graphic get around to some non-regulars who have posted it with nary a word. And I'll be like my now teenage son - "that's random (and likely not useful)".
    Still good advice.

    I always thought MFP should at least include a few words for the deficit ranges. Fitbit at least uses the word Extreme.

    Perhaps a link at bottom of graphic to study/article stating extreme diets are part of the 80% failure rate to reach or maintain goal weight - or whatever the current % is, and don't go extreme!

Categories