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

Rayman79

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.

Quoting for emphasis!

If you want sustainable change don't get caught up in scale numbers. Eat well (at a low-moderate deficit) do less cardio and lift some weights.

Simple as that.

ell_v131

Go to www.fat2fitradio.com and calculate what your maintenance calories would be for 114 and eat that. The weight will come off slowly but in a healthy, sustainable way.

Sorry, if she eats at maintenance level, how would the weight go down if the calories are set to maintain weight? Just interested if I have missed something here

ell_v131

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.

Can you clarify this? Cause in my head if there is a 1200 minimum nutrition threshold, than that needs to be net. If you create a deficit by exercising, that would take away from the nutrition, no? Take an extreme case of burning 1000 calories in hours of vigorous exercise, the body would be left with only 200 calories for nutrition and maintenance, surely not sustainable/healthy.

Or?

I am no expert and would welcome some insight.

Hildy_J

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.

Agree with this ^^^

Good luck!

briandahawaiian

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!

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.

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.

Can you clarify this? Cause in my head if there is a 1200 minimum nutrition threshold, than that needs to be net. If you create a deficit by exercising, that would take away from the nutrition, no? Take an extreme case of burning 1000 calories in hours of vigorous exercise, the body would be left with only 200 calories for nutrition and maintenance, surely not sustainable/healthy.

Or?

I am no expert and would welcome some insight.

I believe your understanding is correct because of the logic you used and the other poster is mistaken.

TR0berts

Go to www.fat2fitradio.com and calculate what your maintenance calories would be for 114 and eat that. The weight will come off slowly but in a healthy, sustainable way.

Sorry, if she eats at maintenance level, how would the weight go down if the calories are set to maintain weight? Just interested if I have missed something here

The idea is that it is the maintenance level for 114 - the weight OP wants to get to. She weighs more than that, so her current maintenance Calories would be higher - I didn't do the calculations, so I don't know exactly what that would be. In the above case, eating for 114 lbs maintenance would be a deficit to what her current maintenance is.

ell_v131

Go to www.fat2fitradio.com and calculate what your maintenance calories would be for 114 and eat that. The weight will come off slowly but in a healthy, sustainable way.

Sorry, if she eats at maintenance level, how would the weight go down if the calories are set to maintain weight? Just interested if I have missed something here

Thank you, I didn't notice you were going for maintenance of a lighter person.

The idea is that it is the maintenance level for 114 - the weight OP wants to get to. She weighs more than that, so her current maintenance Calories would be higher - I didn't do the calculations, so I don't know exactly what that would be. In the above case, eating for 114 lbs maintenance would be a deficit to what her current maintenance is.

susannamarie

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.

Can you clarify this? Cause in my head if there is a 1200 minimum nutrition threshold, than that needs to be net. If you create a deficit by exercising, that would take away from the nutrition, no? Take an extreme case of burning 1000 calories in hours of vigorous exercise, the body would be left with only 200 calories for nutrition and maintenance, surely not sustainable/healthy.

Or?

I am no expert and would welcome some insight.

I missed this reply.

The reason for the 1200 minimum is to obtain nutrients which are usually lacking on a vlcd. It's really hard to plan a day under 1200 calories and not be short on vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, fat -- all of which are necessary.

That being said, carrying too large of a deficit is usually unwise.

Mr_Knight

I'm 5'1 and 123 lbs, trying to get to 114. I told MyFitnessPal I wanted to lose 2lbs a week...

You need a 1000 calorie/day deficit to lose 2 pounds a week. Given your already small size, your TDEE is not going to be much above that, unless you exercise like a fiend.

Basically, the only way for you to lose 2 pounds a week is to literally starve yourself.

maggie16sweetxoxo

Do not eat under 1200! Please don't do it! I've been down that road. Save yourself !

geekyjock76

Threads like these are exactly why MFP really needs to add notes in the weekly weight loss goal section.

astronomicals

thsi thread is ridiculous...

"To lose a kilo a week you need to have a 7000 calorie deficit a week. "

NOT TRUE AT ALL


i also dont buy these figures of healthy weight loss rates... i can lose over a pound a week and keep my lean mass and i have less than 40 pounds of fat in total.... I dont have gifted genetics either, I'm typically overweight.

BinaryPulsar

I agree with others that .5 of a pound a week is the best way to do it. You will be happy with the results. As you get closer to goal weight you may even only lose a pound a month and that's ok.

ni1966

Go to www.fat2fitradio.com and calculate what your maintenance calories would be for 114 and eat that. The weight will come off slowly but in a healthy, sustainable way.

Sorry, if she eats at maintenance level, how would the weight go down if the calories are set to maintain weight? Just interested if I have missed something here

By working out

Iwishyouwell

Of course you can lose 2lbs a week at your size. You've only got 9 lbs to goal. At 2lbs a week that's only 4.5 weeks. At your height 113 isn't necessarily unrealistic; heck a woman of your height, with a slight build, would still be healthy at 105. Contrary to popular belief, our bodies are built for feast AND famine. Undereating for a few weeks absolutely isn't likely to cause any damage. There are actual starving people who are able to go by on very little for months, and years.

The question isn't "can" you lose at that rate, but:

A. Where is that weight coming from? Mostly water, fat, or muscle?
B. When the weight is gone, will you realistically be able to transition into a maintenance program that you can sustain.

I've lost weight fast, and I've lost it slow. I've found that how you lose the weight is far, far less important than how you transition into a sustainable maintenance phase. That's your biggest concern right now, not whether you can actually lose 2lbs a week or not.

ell_v131

thsi thread is ridiculous...

"To lose a kilo a week you need to have a 7000 calorie deficit a week. "

NOT TRUE AT ALL

How is this statement untrue? A pound of.fat equals 3500 calories. There are 2.2 pounds in a kilo I think. So It's actually over 7000...

teamAmelia

Be patient. You only have nine pounds to lose. Even if you only lose 1 pound a week, that's just a little over 2 months, and you'll do that in a healthy way. 700 calories. AYKM?

Go4it1985

It is possible but it will be a challenge. It most likely cannot be done through calorie cutting alone because you cannot go below 1200 calories otherwise your body will go into "starvation mode" and this will mess with your metabolism.

You need a deficit of 7000 calories.

Using both calorie & exercising you could:

Calculate your Base Metabolic Rate or Total Daily Energy Expenditure Rate and then Cut 500 calories from that figure per day for a week (as long as you don't go under 1200 cals)
Burn up another 3500 calories throughout the week from exercise (e.g. 7 gym seshes burning up 500 calories (a bit less than an hour at the gym depending on your chosen activity/ies)

Iwishyouwell

It is possible but it will be a challenge. It most likely cannot be done through calorie cutting alone because you cannot go below 1200 calories otherwise your body will go into "starvation mode" and this will mess with your metabolism.

A myth. That's not how "starvation mode" works.