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

Jthanmyfitnesspal

What does the crowd think of this one? Useful or confusing?

goal06082021

I think it's a little confusing - maybe include a column in the table at the bottom showing the calculation of TDEE - deficit = daily calorie budget ("eat this much," but maybe don't use that exact wording since that is a whole other IP in the health/wellness/fitness/dieting space).

It's slightly misleading in that MFP doesn't exactly use TDEE to give you your calorie budget. The "activity level" in the guided setup is meant to be activity outside of purposeful exercise, or NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis), and you're supposed to log purposeful exercise separately and eat back those "extra" calories. Other TDEE calculators like the one on calculator.net and others do count purposeful exercise toward your activity multiplier.

It's also a little confusing because the way the guided setup is worded is different - it doesn't ask what percentage deficit you want, rather rate of loss. Your chart shows 3 people with the same percentage deficit but different starting weights and therefore different TDEEs losing at different rates, because that's how math works, but that's not necessarily obvious to someone totally new to all of this. They'll see this graphic, then go into the guided setup and absolutely none of this will be there.

Edit to add: I also think "0.5-1% of bodyweight" is a more useful metric/framework when trying to manage expectations around rate of loss, because that other infographic usually gets whipped out when someone posts saying they've been dieting for four whole entire days and have only lost six measly pounds, what gives. They've been sold the idea by Woman's Day and other rags of that ilk that losing 40 lbs over a long weekend is a thing that is both normal to want and possible to achieve - people asking these questions don't need to get bogged down in TDEE and percentage deficits, they need a reset of their expectations for how fast this process should actually be, especially as time goes by and they get closer to goal. Maybe you don't need to taper that dramatically, stretch the last 10 lbs over 10 months and try to lose a quarter of a pound per week, but managing that transition from loss to maintenance is important to think about, to combat the idea that you "diet" until your body is an acceptable size and then go "back to normal." That's what the diet industry WANTS, they want you to gain it all back and then some and then pay for the hot new slimming solution that'll drop 60 pounds in 60 minutes for just $69.99!

cmriverside

You're trying to make your own infographic to replace this really good, easy, perfectly functional one? (I saw you telling kshama to retire it.) The old infographic is simple and applies to most people under 300 pounds.

When someone first signs up to Myfitnesspal they are told in the Goals setup to choose, "Lose 1 pound per week." As they approach a healthy weight, the site will adjust calories and hopefully they've learned something about not using an aggressive weight loss goal by the time they've gotten close to a healthy BMI. They'll definitely be hungry at a larger deficit as they approach a healthy weight. You can only wrangle your hormones for so long.

If they would read the sticky posts and the "Help" articles explaining how to use this site, all would work as designed.

I disagree with your purple made-up graphic and I'll stick to this one:

Jthanmyfitnesspal

@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.

kshama2001

Everything I've read from people with < 20 pounds to lose is that it is very, very slow, and so I agree with the ).5 #/wk recommendation.

I've also tried to lose two pounds per week with < 60 pounds to lose and gave that goal up at lunchtime, lol. Lots of people fail when they set overly aggressive goals. Slow and steady wins the race.

AnnPT77

I prefer a presentation in terms of weight loss rate.

I share the concern about NEAT/TDEE method confusion, but especially prefer the loss rate kind of recommendation because it's valid whether someone's logging accurately or not (or even not logging at all), and doesn't get into the territory about needing to figure out what your TDEE or NEAT actually are (the estimates aren't right for everyone, even if they *are* logging and doing it accurately).

Actual loss rate is actual loss rate, in any of those scenarios. Percent TDEE is fraught with hidden complexities, IMO. Further, recommending a loss rate puts it in the exact terms that appear in the MFP goal settings. The 4 options that appear in the infographic are the exact 4 choices MFP offers for weight loss rate (in imperial 😉) - neat, clear, consistent in MFP terms.

I disagree with you about slowing down close to goal, too. Unlike kshama's comment (apologies, kshama) I didn't personally find the last pounds slowed down all by themselves. I deliberately slowed, and I thought that was a good bet-hedge. If we believe the common researchers' contention that we can only metabolize a certain amount of stored body fat per pound of fat we have, per day, then slowing down when we have less body fat remaining is an idea that makes sense, as a generality. (How much to slow down, when, is more nuanced.)

Personally, I don't really care how fast people "would want to lose". IMO, the advice should be more in terms of health risk avoidance. When it's down to those last pounds of loss, the only risk of slow loss is frustration, in the common case. Those few excess pounds are unlikely to be a health risk in themselves. If someone chooses to lose faster (and can), that's their choice, of course.

I admit, personally I usually talk about half a pound a week for the last roughly 10 pounds rather than 20, but that's a quibble.

And it's pretty easy to point out that someone who's severely obese might be OK losing faster than 2 pounds (or 1%) per week for a while, but it would be a good idea to be under close medical supervision if doing so. (At that stage, there are decent odds the person has health risks just from the excess weight, and they should be talking with their doctor or RD about the risk of adding fast loss (a stressor) vs. the benefits of fast loss, and about what nutritional or other factors should be managed given their personal health history. This is not a great realm for advice from us internet amateurs who don't have those folks' full medical history.)

I agree that the "1% of your weight" in the current graphics' headline is ambiguous, but right below that, the table has rates clearly labeled as "per wk" which I think eliminates the ambiguity. (Headlines usually leave out details.)

I'd also suggest that your "25% of TDEE" recommendation can be iffy, for some subgroups, since the current one being iffy for some subgroups seems to be part of what you dislike about it. Recently, 25% of my TDEE would be about a pound to pound and a quarter per week, which I think would be too fast at my current size, stressful and punitive. (Coincidentally, 1.25 pounds a week would be about 1% of my current body weight, but I already said I think slower than that - as per the current infographic - is smarter when quite close to goal weight.)

Obviously, anyone here can post any infographic they like, or give any advice they like, and others can object to it. I'm not sure that point-blank telling other people the need to stop posting any particular infographic is exactly my definition of a polite objection, though. (There are people here - not talking about you or anyone who's participated in this thread so far, BTW - whom I'd *love* to tell to stop posting actual full-bore baby-feline nonsense, but I don't think that's an effective route, all told.) Disagree with the infographic, and say why? Post a counter-infographic? Sure, why not. I agree with you, polite is good.

That said, I do appreciate that you've started this debate thread, which is a community-spirited approach, trying to hash out a consensus. Thank you for that, sincerely!

frankwbrown

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.

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?

MargaretYakoda

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.

AnnPT77

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

lynn_glenmont

If you're going to start posting this on the other forums, you should correct the inaccuracy about MFP using a TDEE formula. It's not kind to contribute to newbie confusion.

scarlett_k

cmriverside wrote: »

I disagree with your purple made-up graphic and I'll stick to this one:

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.

sijomial

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.

wunderkindking

I have had no more difficulty losing weight within the healthy BMI range than I had losing the initial weight when I was obese.

However, I absolutely could not maintain the same deficit as when I was obese. Nor do I particularly think that eating roughly 800 calories a day for mostly sedentary days would be a grand idea for my health.

And for me that's what it comes down to.

I weigh 133lbs right now. I started summer at 140ish? With a plan of letting my weight 'drift' downward and seeing where I was in fall. That drift was not so much a drift because, lol, summer is busy and I haven't stopped moving in 3.5 months, so 'eat at maintenance and let the exercise determine the loss' was way more effective than I expected. Had that not happened my fall plan was (and still is for the last few pounds if they haven't gone on their own, though that seems unlikely now) is alternating a steeper deficit week with one at maintenance because I'm not precise and 'go hard, back off' is better for me and my lack of precision in logging. But the ACTUAL RESULT is still going to be that my rate of weight loss halves.

And. "Don't slow down keep the same deficit" in NO WAY prepares people to MAINTAIN loss. Which with a few pounds left SHOULD be on people's mind. Not 'Get through this, get 1000 calories a day back and figure out how to make those work without going hog wild" which can be a problem. "I got 250 calories back" is a lot easier to budget in without eating a pint of ben and jerry's a day.

frankwbrown

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.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

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

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

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

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.