Is it impossible to lose 2lbs a week at my size?

mmapags

I think it depends on how much you are willing/able to burn above and beyond your BMR in additional cardio. I agree with most who have posted that it's probably not a good idea, and 1 lb per week is probably a better plan, however, 1200 cal per day of intake is the nominal threshold to keep your metabolism from going into "starvation mode." If you eat that much with about 275 cal per day of cardio exercise (probably about 45 min or so at a reasonable level), you can lose 1 lb per week. But if you do something around 700 calories per day of cardio on top of a 1200 cal per day diet, I think you find that the numbers work out and it should be possible without breaking the "starvation" barrier. Keep your diet at or above 1200 cal per day intake though.

Just for clarity's sake, the 1200 calorie threshold for women is the research based recommendation for minimum nutrition and has nothing to do with "starvation mode". Eating below that for an extended period of time could potentially result in adaptive thermogenesis but the recommendation is based on minimum nutrition needed to maintain healthy body function. And that is 1200 calories net. After factoring in exercise calorie burn.

Zakiya05

It probably isn't! BMR at those figures is about 1400. Eat 700. Deficit of 700 per day. 700x7 is 3400 which is only a pound I think.

Check me, please.

700x7 = 4900, about 1.5lbs. But considering I exercise regularly, my daily calories burned is closer to 1700 according to the TDEE calculator, so 700 would be a 1000 calorie deficit, which would equal -7000 a week, or 2lbs. 1200 is a deficit of 500...x7= 3500, or 1 lb per week.

Instead of worrying about calories deficit, I would be more concerned about increading my workouts. There's not much room to move in the calorie department before you start starving yourself and then your body starts holding the fat and eating muscle, becausae it thinks it's in crisis. I say eat more and workout harder. Burn fat (cardio) and feed your body what it needs to increase muscle mass. You will become lean and toned. You might be surpised at how different the same weight can look when you are toned vs. when it's fat.

TR0berts

At your size and goal weight, I'd switch your weekly goal to be only 0.5 lb loss. Anything more and you're likely to lose too much too fast (as in, you'll lose quite a bit of lean body mass), be unhealthy, and be miserable because you're not eating enough.

Ninkyou

If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.


In my opinion, it is not possible for you to safely lose 2 lbs a week. I think you should lower your expectations, as well as your set a smaller, sustainable goal.

auddii

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

mike_ny

Also, make sure you're including enough good fats in your diet. They aren't called essential fatty acids for nothing. A lot of people trying to lose weight quickly try to totally eliminate all fat figuring at 9 cals a gram they can cut the most calories which can put their bodies in a nutrient deficiency both for EFAs and also for fat soluble nutrients. That's penny wise and pounds foolish (pun intended). 700 calories isn't enough to sustain your body in itself and even at 1200, you have to manage your macros to make sure you are getting enough protein and essential fats and not just eating salads and hidden carbs in sweetened yogurt and diet shakes to fill out your numbers in calories alone.

Calories are just a raw measurement and not very valid without context (similar to measuring just weight without regard for a healthy lean to fat ratio). We sustain our bodies most optimally with nutritious food and a balanced diet and exercise while trying to stay within a daily calorie total.

susannamarie

It probably isn't! BMR at those figures is about 1400. Eat 700. Deficit of 700 per day. 700x7 is 3400 which is only a pound I think.

Check me, please.

You are confusing BMR with TDEE. Unless you are comatose, you are burning more than BMR.

davepearson86

Impossible? No

A good idea? No.

More muscle than fat? Yes

KateK8LoseW8

Impossible? No. Unhealthy? Absolutely yes. Also keep in mind that four pounds over one month is going to be a lot more obvious on your body than it would be on an overweight body. I lost four pounds last month and my pictures for the month showed a huge difference in my body, and I'm heavier than you. Four pounds back when I was over 200 pounds looked like nothing. Just keep it slowly and steady, I guarantee you will still be satisfied with your progress.

Legs_McGee

I lost 20 pounds in 2 months, which is an average of a little over 2 pounds a week. I didn't do it by drastically cutting my calories though; I just work out a lot.

TeaBea

At your size and goal weight, I'd switch your weekly goal to be only 0.5 lb loss. Anything more and you're likely to lose too much too fast (as in, you'll lose quite a bit of lean body mass), be unhealthy, and be miserable because you're not eating enough.

^This!^

Is your goal ...the "number" on the scale ..... or liking how you look?

nickyvw

I don't believe there is any safe and healthy way to lose 2 pounds a week at your size. I am 5'0" and 128.8 pounds, and I am losing .5 pounds a week, sometimes 1 whole pound (yippee). You and I are just lucky (ha) to be small people that will not lose a lot at once. Btw, I also work out 6 days a week. I eat 1400-1500 calories a day. Please do not fall below 1200 calories, and I would suggest eating back your exercise calories.

geekyjock76

Set your goal to no greater than 0.5 lbs per week which should translate to a deficit roughly 250 calories below actual maintenance. You honestly do not have the fat mass to warrant a larger deficit since the amount of fat that can be oxidized in a 24 hour period depends on total fat mass. This essentially means that once you cross a certain deficit threshold, you will not burn the extra calories from fat - it will come exclusively from lean mass (bone, connective tissue and muscle). Furthermore, the closer to this max deficit results in a risk of losing excessive lean mass.

Serah87

It probably isn't! BMR at those figures is about 1400. Eat 700. Deficit of 700 per day. 700x7 is 3400 which is only a pound I think.

Check me, please.

700x7 = 4900, about 1.5lbs. But considering I exercise regularly, my daily calories burned is closer to 1700 according to the TDEE calculator, so 700 would be a 1000 calorie deficit, which would equal -7000 a week, or 2lbs. 1200 is a deficit of 500...x7= 3500, or 1 lb per week.

:noway:

ladymiseryali

If you want to lose muscle, hair and damage your insides/metabolism, it's possible.

I hope you don't want to do that though. You don't have much to lose. Slow and steady AND HEALTHY is the better alternative.

_amluvstld_

You could probably starve it off and even then that's a big maybe. Why do that at the risk of your health, though? Not worth it.

astartig

I think it depends on how much you are willing/able to burn above and beyond your BMR in additional cardio. I agree with most who have posted that it's probably not a good idea, and 1 lb per week is probably a better plan, however, 1200 cal per day of intake is the nominal threshold to keep your metabolism from going into "starvation mode." If you eat that much with about 275 cal per day of cardio exercise (probably about 45 min or so at a reasonable level), you can lose 1 lb per week. But if you do something around 700 calories per day of cardio on top of a 1200 cal per day diet, I think you find that the numbers work out and it should be possible without breaking the "starvation" barrier. Keep your diet at or above 1200 cal per day intake though.

Just for clarity's sake, the 1200 calorie threshold for women is the research based recommendation for minimum nutrition and has nothing to do with "starvation mode". Eating below that for an extended period of time could potentially result in adaptive thermogenesis but the recommendation is based on minimum nutrition needed to maintain healthy body function. And that is 1200 calories net. After factoring in exercise calorie burn.

That's NOT net after calorie burn, that's 1200 calories straight up. doesn't matter if you exercise or not the 1200 for nutrition stays the same.

astartig

Set your goal to no greater than 0.5 lbs per week which should translate to a deficit roughly 250 calories below actual maintenance. You honestly do not have the fat mass to warrant a larger deficit since the amount of fat that can be oxidized in a 24 hour period depends on total fat mass. This essentially means that once you cross a certain deficit threshold, you will not burn the extra calories from fat - it will come exclusively from lean mass (bone, connective tissue and muscle). Furthermore, the closer to this max deficit results in a risk of losing excessive lean mass.

This is true.

gigglesinthesun

look at it this way ... you could eat nothing and keep all activity the same and you will lose weight. Do you think that this would be healthy? It's not, and it's unstainable.

You can drop down to 700 calories, there isn't a calorie police around and really no one cares, but your body will care. Will it care right away? Who knows, but eventually it will care. By the time you notice your nutrient levels will be severely low. Only today a lady was complaining about not having her period anymore.

What are you trying to achieve here? If it is a healthy lifestyle you are after, then don't go below 1200. Good luck :-)