Where does “slow down as you approach your target weight” come from?

Edintokyo

Quite often here, posters advise others to halve their weekly weight loss target when they get within 10 pounds of their ultimate goal weight.

What is the source of this advice?
Does it have any scientific basis?
What happens if you don’t follow this advice?

Rockmama1111

I don’t think it’s a recommendation to slow down, rather a managing of expectations. As you approach a healthy weight, the number of calories you need to maintain gets smaller and smaller. So unless you’re cutting extra calories every time you drop a pound, your deficit is getting smaller as you lose more weight.

tomcustombuilder

Your loss automatically slows as you lean out if you don’t lower calories further.

Unfortunately when the losses stop you’re at your new maintenance calories and raising will result in putting weight back on.

Too many people think once the weight is off they can go back to old eating habits

Edintokyo

Thanks for the comments.

I understand what you are both saying, but where do the values (10 pounds, half) come from?

Is there some specific scientific basis for this advice? Or are “10” and “half” merely nice sounding, easily relatable numbers to support an opinion?

Edintokyo

Also, maybe I worded my original post poorly, but it seems like we may be talking about two different things.

I was not referring to lowering you calorie intake. I was referring to the advice that if you are targeting loss of a pound per week, you should lower this to a half pound per week when you get within 10 pounds of your ultimate goal weight.

Retroguy2000

I think those numbers are just estimates.

It's relatively easy to lose a couple pounds per week when obese. To do the same when close to ideal weight would be very unhealthy.

sollyn23l2

It's that, generally, as you approach your goal weight, weight loss will slow down. You do not have as many calories available to cut. If you tried to maintain the faster weight loss, you would be undereating (you need to eat a certain amount of macronutrients per day)

AnnPT77

It's a rule of thumb, and they're inherently approximations, right?

IMO, it comes in part from researchers' belief that there are limits on how much stored body fat we can metabolize per day, and that it varies linearly with the number of pounds of body fat we carry. IMU, this was an indirect estimate, not a direct research finding, but I've read estimated numbers in the low 30s of calories of fat per pound per day.

It would be reasonable to assume, IMO, that if this hypothesis is correct, the exact number of calories would vary somewhat both individually and situationally, as many things about weight loss do. Rather than try to derive an equation for a reasonable, practical personalized value (depending as it would on weight, body fat percent, and possibly other variables), it perhaps makes sense to have reasonable rules of thumb that maintain a safety margin.

Right now, I'm at 130 pounds, +/-, and estimate around 25% body fat, +/-. That would be a fat mass of about 32.5 pounds. That would imply a theoretical fat-metabolization limit of about 1.95 pounds a week (975 calories if we assume 30 calories/pound), before I start cannibalizing lean tissue (if I'm lucky). But to run a 975 calorie deficit - even with a fairly high TDEE that I have for my size - I'd need to eat about 1225 calories daily.

Subjectively, that would make me miserable. (From experience when eating 1200+exercise when heavier, it would make me weak and fatigued, besides, and maybe result in some hair thinning.)

Objectively, purely to hit my current personal protein and fats minimums, I'd spend 850 of those calories, leaving me with 375 calories to get my 800g daily fruit/veggies, which are mostly carbs. In 375 calories, there's theoretically room for 93.75g of carbs, so I could squeak by. We know that real food-choice Tetris isn't that simple. It's not impossible, but good nutrition unquestionably gets more difficult.

Anecdotally, and maybe even with some research basis (dunno), there seems to be a tendency for people to get more of hunger/appetite kickback if trying to lose fast as they get leaner, possibly hormonal (part of our body's protective mechanisms, perhaps?). So, there's another brick in our rule-of-thumb wall.

And where does adaptive thermogenesis maybe get steeper, and wipe out more of our expected daily-life calorie burn? Human bodies are dynamic, after all: Calories in affects calories out.

So: A rule of thumb, with a substantial conservativism margin around it? Seems like a good idea to me. 🤷‍♀️

Some people believe that gradually increasing calories heading into maintenance avoids a sudden big water-retention jump that can be scary (more carbs, more sodium, not to mention more food food volume on tis way to becoming waste). Some people believe that increasing calories gradually can nudge out some adaptive thermogenesis on the way to maintenance calories, similar to what's argued for reverse-dieting strategies that aim to nudge RMR/BMR upward. I don't know.

Personally, I'd add an individual practical consideration, too: For me, it helped to practice at something near maintenance calories in the later stages of loss, and firmly groove in the sustainable long-term habits I'd need to stay at a healthy weight long term, ideally permanently. That's easier to sort out at a small rather than large deficit, maybe.

BTW: I did not find that my weight loss automagically slowed as I got close to goal weight, though I know that some people do have that experience. Personally, I had to slow my loss rate intentionally as I got lighter. Even then, I overshot goal weight by several pounds (i.e., below the intended weight). Maybe that's unusual, dunno.

If someone wants to shoot for faster loss all the way to goal weight, it's their call, of course. I didn't, and wouldn't, personally.

rileysowner

As to the scientific basis, I can't cite anything. However, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, it is generally considered a bad idea to go below your BMR for your daily calorie consumption. When you are closer to a healthy weight, it is more likely for say a 2 pound or even 1 pound per week goal that you would need to go below your BMR to produce a sufficient deficit. Second, the recommended minimum calories to achieve minimum required nutrition of 1500 calories per day for men and 1200 calories per day for women also means that when you are closer to your healthy weight it can become difficult to create a deficit large enough without going below those numbers. Third, as you approach your goal it is wise to keep the fact that you are transitioning to maintenance standing rather than a weight loss one. Reducing your deficit is a way to gradually transition from one to the other and hopefully learn the patterns needed to maintain.

There are likely other points that are not coming to my mind at the moment, and maybe someone else has research papers that are helpful on this. These are the practical things that come to my mind though.

ninerbuff

I can't really site anything either, but from MY EXPERIENCE a couple of things come into play:

Your body DOESN'T really want to keep losing weight so metabolic rate drops
You get hungrier as you approach goal weight and may tend to eat more than you think
You aren't burning as many calories as before through exercise


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Remoth

It doesn't have to slow down, but it's generally understood that it probably should. If you have 50 lbs to lose and you set your MFP to lose 2 lbs per week, you can cut back enough calories to lose those 2 pounds while still fueling your body with enough food to sustain itself. When you get closer to your healthy weight, your metabolism drops due to life being easier since you don't weigh as much.

The caloric deficit you need to sustain a 2 lb per week loss stays the same however (about 1000 cal per day). When you are close to your healthy weight, it's likely that 1000 calorie deficit will be eating into the food that your body needs to sustain itself in a healthy manner. You may start feeling malnourished and low on energy. Dropping the deficit to allow your body more food to sustain itself is recommended at this point and is a stepping stone to learn maintenance.

xrj22

I think the idea is that you should be gradual about getting back to "regular" eating because it is likely that you will gain a couple pounds of water weight if you make a sudden change in diet and come out of deficit mode. This is biological, and not a sign of fat gain. However, it is really disappointing to see your weigh jump up. So, coming off the diet gradually help avoid this. And also helpful to stay in control an adjust gradually to avoid a tendency to "celebrate" and over-do it.

Edintokyo

Thanks much to everyone who took the time to reply to my question.

I had seen this advice being put forth as unquestionable fact in various discussions here on MFP, and I was wondering where it came from. Based on the above, I guess it is safe to say that it may be more conjecture or popular consensus than anything else.

herringboxes

There is some pretty good logic behind it.

Do you have any logic that would back rapid loss near goal?

AnnPT77

.

Edintokyo wrote: »

Thanks much to everyone who took the time to reply to my question.

I had seen this advice being put forth as unquestionable fact in various discussions here on MFP, and I was wondering where it came from. Based on the above, I guess it is safe to say that it may be more conjecture or popular consensus than anything else.

Sure, that's another way of saying "common sense based on individuals' personal experience, plus the limited factual information available".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

Edintokyo

herringboxes wrote: »

There is some pretty good logic behind it.

Do you have any logic that would back rapid loss near goal?

I am not arguing with the logic. Nor am I proposing rapid loss near goal or any other alternative approach. I am merely asking about the origin of this advice.

Edintokyo

AnnPT77 wrote: »

.
Sure, that's another way of saying "common sense based on individuals' personal experience, plus the limited factual information available".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

That is precisely the meaning of the word conjecture: a guess about something based on how it seems and not on proof.

Historically, conjecture ("common sense based on individuals' personal experience, plus the limited factual information available") has been used to rationalize such things as:

• Phrenology (the study of the shape of skull as indicative of the strengths of different faculties)
• Bloodletting (to prevent or cure illness)
• Trepanation (skull drilling)
• The belief that eating fat makes you fat
• The belief that swimming after a meal causes cramps
• The belief that the Earth is flat
• Much, much more...

As for the link you included, I read the abstract and the summary of the paper at the other end, and really could not understand at all what it had to do with the discussion at hand.

The linked paper was a discussion of what happens when individuals are put into severe dietary restriction to the point that the body shifts from decreasing its fat mass (FM) to decreasing its fat free mass (FFM). According to the paper, the trigger for the shift is severe dietary restriction. I could find nothing to suggest that such a shift is triggered or exacerbated by a person coming within 10 pounds (or any units of measurement, for that matter) of some arbitrary weight-loss goal.

ddsb1111

For me personally, and being fairly small in stature, if I lost 2lbs a week I would have to cut out 1000 calories a day and I only burn 1600 calories a day. Medically it would be recommended to slow my weight loss down so I can eat enough to sustain my health. This doesn’t seem like an opinion to me. This seems like a scientific fact to keep me healthy. It would be surprising to find anyone who believes otherwise tbh 🤷🏼‍♀️

PAV8888

You may want to go back in time and read up on the Minnesota semi starvation experiment.

The online references are from studies referencing it mostly as opposed to directly about it, so may take a bit of digging. Then compare the amount of physical activity, the caloric deficit as an absolute value and as a percentage, and the results. Then consider the time when most of the symptoms showed up and/or showed degrees of exacerbatation--was it, for example, while the people were slightly overweight or top of normal weight or when the people were deeper within normal weight after several months of the large (but less large than what many people apply on mfp) deficit.

Then consider your own experiences with weight loss in the past. Then consider why and how people who lose a lot of weight rebound. Then consider even other things such as whether successful weight loss *especially one where you can even begin to discuss affording faster loss for an extended period of time* is something that you will do once and then auto-magically benefit from or it will be something that will be a life long chore... lets say analogous to brushing your teeth more than once a day every day as opposed to just a single time period of six months at some point of time in your life.

You say: "I am just investigating where the non highly scientific advice to taper and slow down comes from". You have been told about deficits as a percentage, loss of fat vs lean mass ratios and the fact that they may change as the person losing has less fat available to lose, prolonged and large deficits and both risks for adaptive thermogenesis and mental effects as a result of applying them.

Things are often defined by their alternatives.

Where does your scientific support for large deficits all the way to goal come from?

I mean maybe putting a hole in your skull is a good idea given the alternatives and maybe it's not. But I see very few benefits to losing faster when closer to goal as opposed to losing slower.

The one primary benefit I see is "getting it over faster".

And that is not a benefit in my books.

PAV8888

Here is another favourite of mine. Let's assume that I and you will be one of the what is it 80%, 90%, 98% who will NOT maintain a large weight loss for an extended period of time after the weight loss. I mean I don't have clear cut numbers sitting on my google-dex (or should that be new bing or chat gpt dex requiring manual clean-up). Sorry. Digressed. I don't have clear cut numbers. But we could probably agree that most people who achieve a "woohoo I lost 50lbs in six months, 100lbs in a year" whatever number in whatever length of time... most people don't actually maintain that loss for... FIVE years.

Yet, I am sure that I could dig up somewhere a magical "major health benefits by maintaining even a 10% or 20% weight loss". So not fully regaining weight is probably a good thing, right?

So, again... let's assume defeat! You re going to lose that weight and within twelve months regain it all and then more.

Because that is EXACTLY what most of the people reading this will do. NOT DELIBERATELY. But because if weight loss was only dependent on will-power and good sense there would not exist a problem with people losing weight! And because if everyone were exceptional and more stubborn and more able to rule their body than everyone else... then there would be no diet industry and no mfp for that matter.

So defeat is inevitable unless you're a statistical outlier. BUT, remember the bit about accruing health benefits by maintaining even a small degree of weight loss?

health benefits are good, right? so how about we hedge our bets and at least try to put that one in the bag...

So please explain to me.... how do you maximize your time at a health benefit inducing reduced weight in the defeat scenario? By rapid weight loss and rapid regain... or by slow weight loss that stretches the time to goal and maintenance to a very slow tapering extending to months or even years?

What puts you in a better position to control a potential rebound? Trying (and failing) to achieve a small deficit, or trying and (failing) to achieve maintenance?

I will tell you for whatever it's worth that after losing ~125lbs it took more than a year (probably just over a year actually--but hey memory starts to fade since we are going back to ~2016/7) before hunger cues calmed down and I stopped feeling the need to control food intake as tightly as I did at the beginning of maintenance.

But you do you boo!

Retroguy2000

Those last two posts seem... aggressive? OP was clearly asking if there was data behind the "slow down at 10 pounds" advice, which I took to mean is it actually 10 pounds, or 9, or 11, does it vary based on the individual and the weight, etc. He already explicitly said he wasn't arguing for the opposite position:

"I am not arguing with the logic. Nor am I proposing rapid loss near goal or any other alternative approach. I am merely asking about the origin of this advice."