Determining Factor of Realistic Weekly Goal? BF% vs. Weight

morkiemama

So I know that most new folks on MFP like to select a loss of 2lbs per week and do not take into consideration if it is realistic for them or not. Many people tote the advice that if you are X weight you should not be aiming for a 2lbs/week loss. This always made sense to me.

However, I was doing some reading this week and stumbled upon the idea that perhaps we should be looking at BF% instead of weight to determine if a 2lb/week loss is realistic. (See random article here: http://www.coachcalorie.com/is-losing-2lbs-per-week-realistic-for-everyone/ )

I had never considered this before, but I do think BF% is a better measure of progress than overall weight loss. I was just wondering what people thought of this premise? It seems like a logical argument, but I have not researched beyond the face of the issue yet.

timbrom

I'd agree that BF% is a much better thing measure than weight, because that also captures whether or not you are losing muscle mass, and when people say they want to lose weight, they pretty much always mean they want to lose fat (exceptions for athletes trying to make a certain weight class or something, but they already know this).

Unfortunately, measuring weight is easy, fairly accurate and accessible to most people. Measuring body fat is harder, tends to be less accurate (especially the cheaper methods) and isn't something most people know how to do, or even that it's a thing you can do.

morkiemama

I'd agree that BF% is a much better thing measure than weight, because that also captures whether or not you are losing muscle mass, and when people say they want to lose weight, they pretty much always mean they want to lose fat (exceptions for athletes trying to make a certain weight class or something, but they already know this).

Unfortunately, measuring weight is easy, fairly accurate and accessible to most people. Measuring body fat is harder, tends to be less accurate (especially the cheaper methods) and isn't something most people know how to do, or even that it's a thing you can do.

I have always agreed that BF% is a better thing to measure for progress, but I had never considered it as part of the pounds per week goal setting. What is your take on the phrasing of the issue? Would it be better to say a person with 30%+ body fat could consider losing 2lbs per week rather than basing the realistic goal on total weight?

timbrom

I'd agree that BF% is a much better thing measure than weight, because that also captures whether or not you are losing muscle mass, and when people say they want to lose weight, they pretty much always mean they want to lose fat (exceptions for athletes trying to make a certain weight class or something, but they already know this).

Unfortunately, measuring weight is easy, fairly accurate and accessible to most people. Measuring body fat is harder, tends to be less accurate (especially the cheaper methods) and isn't something most people know how to do, or even that it's a thing you can do.

I have always agreed that BF% is a better thing to measure for progress, but I had never considered it as part of the pounds per week goal setting. What is your take on the phrasing of the issue? Would it be better to say a person with 30%+ body fat could consider losing 2lbs per week rather than basing the realistic goal on total weight?

People (ought to) select the amount of weight loss per week based on the amount of weight (fat) they want to lose. So, in a sense, they are already selecting weight loss based on their body fat percentage, without actually quantifying their current and goal body fat percentages. I'm sure you could work out some formula for "at this body fat percentage you can lose fat at this rate" but like all formulas for determining such things the variance is going to be very large based on a number of factors (genetics, age, gender, gut flora), some of which are difficult or impossible to quantify.