Why 2 pounds/week max of weight loss?

dapzzz

It doesn't really make sense to me. You can lose a lot more if you incorporate cardio.

Like, suppose you do a 500 calorie deficit each day from eating 500 less calories than your base metabolic rate.

Then you do 1000 calories of cardio a day (roughly 1 hour say on an elliptical machine).

That is 1500 calories lost per day...3 pounds per week.

And obviously, some people can do more than one hour of cardio per day, and other are will to create larger food deficits than 500 calories/day.

So it seems to me that if you have a LOT of free time to do cardio, you could shed weight quite a bit faster, without starving yourself.

FitFabFlirty92

You could, but then you would create too big a deficit and possibly stall your progress. That's why people recommend losing only 2 pounds or less per week. Also, if you're very overweight, it is normal to lose more than that early on in your weight loss journey. But if you're not too far off from your goal (30-40 pounds to lose), it's not medically healthy or safe to drop more than two pounds of weight each week. You should be eating back your exercise calories and maintaining a deficit that's right for weight loss, but not so big you stall.

jellybeanmusic

You should eat under your TDE, but over your BMR (net). Which means, if you're working out, you should eat more to make up some of the deficit in order for your organs to still have the right fuel to function.

Also, whilst I'm sure some people could burn 1000 cals in an hour, I use a heart rate monitor and even when I'm working very hard, only get to about 400 per hour. So for a lot of people, burning that much a day just isn't possible.

By eating too little and pushing yourself too hard in the gym, you're just asking for your body to feel unwell.

neanderthin

Not to mention the more someone is in a deficit the less energy they have which equates to less intensity, which means less calories burned. Not to mention the ratio of fat to muscle loss doing just cardio in a big deficit will be slanted towards muscle loss, so you smaller, but fatter, yeah, that sounds wonderful.

SideSteel

Basically what neanderthin said.
Generally, the fatter you are, the faster you can lose fat.

Hendrix7

You must also consider body composition during and at the end of the weight loss.

You only need to look around the forums here at the many threads made by people with tons of loose skin or zero muscle mass to realise it's not always a case of simply losing scale weight as fast as humanly possible

2013james

There is basically no difference between what you are suggesting and eating nothing, or very little, while doing no exercise and barely moving.

Just because you achieve a massive deficit through exercise doesn't make it any healthier than achieving it by starving yourself. (you may improve your aerobic fitness slightly, but that's all)

You will also burn away a lot of muscle which will hurt your potential for long term *fat loss* and your ability to keep it off in the long run.

myofibril

So it seems to me that if you have a LOT of free time to do cardio, you could shed weight quite a bit faster, without starving yourself.

You're right. It's how pro TdF riders can consume many thousands of calories per day yet still end up losing fat with no appreciable muscle loss. Many people do not have the time or the inclination to do it that way however.

You can also get really good body composition results using this method as well, with a certain number of caveats.

Firstly, you need to ensure you are eating a sufficient amount (so not under BMR as you suggest.) Usually your bodyweight in lbs times 15 is a good place to start.

You have to ensure sufficient macro / micro intake.

Sufficient resistance training must also take place.

Cardio has never been the problem, even a lot of it. It is excessive calorie deficits which cardio can add to if used recklessly.

MaraDiaz

Most cardio is hard on the joints, all cardio and everything else active puts some wear and tear on them. Add to this a massive calorie deficit and you could be asking for injuries that will prevent workouts for weeks or months to come.

NovemberJune

It doesn't really make sense to me. You can lose a lot more if you incorporate cardio.

Like, suppose you do a 500 calorie deficit each day from eating 500 less calories than your base metabolic rate.

Then you do 1000 calories of cardio a day (roughly 1 hour say on an elliptical machine).

That is 1500 calories lost per day...3 pounds per week.

And obviously, some people can do more than one hour of cardio per day, and other are will to create larger food deficits than 500 calories/day.

So it seems to me that if you have a LOT of free time to do cardio, you could shed weight quite a bit faster, without starving yourself.

500 under BMR would be more than a 500 calorie deficit. BMR doesn't include regular daily activities, like walking around the house, etc. You mean 500 under TDEE like PP said. Also, this is MFP, not The Biggest Loser

DebbieLyn63

It doesn't really make sense to me. You can lose a lot more if you incorporate cardio.

Like, suppose you do a 500 calorie deficit each day from eating 500 less calories than your base metabolic rate.

Then you do 1000 calories of cardio a day (roughly 1 hour say on an elliptical machine).

That is 1500 calories lost per day...3 pounds per week.

And obviously, some people can do more than one hour of cardio per day, and other are will to create larger food deficits than 500 calories/day.



So it seems to me that if you have a LOT of free time to do cardio, you could shed weight quite a bit faster, without starving yourself.

It depends on how much someone has to lose. Someone who is obese can safely lose more than 2 pounds a week, but when you get closer to goal weight, you have less stored fat to use for energy and you can't safely continue with that large of a deficit for an extended amount of time. But someone starting out at 300-400 pounds could easily lose 5-10 pounds per week and do it safely for a while.

susannahsutton1

I agree with the OP's maths but apparently it depends on your starting point. If you are obese*, then you can lose more than 2 lb per week. However, it is not a linear relationship (maths geek alert) between weight loss and calorie deficit, because there is a base amount of calories required for your body to behave, including burning fat etc

*Another rule of thumb is that if you are under 200lb, apparently your body won't support burning enough to lose more than 2lb per week, if you are over 200lb it will

MissyGorman2012

So, is it a myth that any more than 2 lbs a week is muscle IF you do have a large amount to lose?

DebbieLyn63

So, is it a myth that any more than 2 lbs a week is muscle IF you do have a large amount to lose?

Pretty much. Altho if you simply cut your calories down and don't exercise, then your muscles will atrophy as you lose weight. A 400 pound man has a lot more muscle mass just to carry around his body weight, so he can handle some muscle loss while he gets back to a healthy weight. Getting in some exercise will help him save quite a bit of it tho.

susannahsutton1

I believe so from the reading I have done and my own progress, plus that of my MFP friends who have a large amount to use. Once I get under 200lb, I am going to increase my daily calorie allowance so that I only have a 1000 deficit for a 2lb weekly loss. Incidentally, because I was poorly yesterday, I didn't hit my calorie allowance for the day and my MFP profile went all red at me saying EAT MORE.

MissyGorman2012

So, is it a myth that any more than 2 lbs a week is muscle IF you do have a large amount to lose?

Pretty much. Altho if you simply cut your calories down and don't exercise, then your muscles will atrophy as you lose weight. A 400 pound man has a lot more muscle mass just to carry around his body weight, so he can handle some muscle loss while he gets back to a healthy weight. Getting in some exercise will help him save quite a bit of it tho.

Thanks!

dapzzz

So I was/am somewhat concerned by the point you guys raise about cardio killing muscle, not fat.

A few comments:

1. I try to counterbalance this by lifting throughout the week. Hopefully this sends the right signals to my body to keep the muscle and not lose the fat (hopefully my body is intelligent enough to realize that it should be burning fat for energy, not muscle, since that muscle will be needed tomorrow for the bench press and squat rack ).
2. I've ordered a scale with a body fat percentage monitor...I guess by tracking my body fat % over time as well as my weight, I can get a good sense of how much of my weight loss is fat versus muscle.

Greenrun99

So I was/am somewhat concerned by the point you guys raise about cardio killing muscle, not fat.

A few comments:

1. I try to counterbalance this by lifting throughout the week. Hopefully this sends the right signals to my body to keep the muscle and not lose the fat (hopefully my body is intelligent enough to realize that it should be burning fat for energy, not muscle, since that muscle will be needed tomorrow for the bench press and squat rack ).
2. I've ordered a scale with a body fat percentage monitor...I guess by tracking my body fat % over time as well as my weight, I can get a good sense of how much of my weight loss is fat versus muscle.

1. Your body needs fuel, there is no signal because your lifting that tells your body to use more fat.. Large deficits = Muscle loss.
2. Some of those BF% scales are not very accurate but you will have an idea.

Please don't post when you hit a plateau in your weight loss.

dapzzz

Most cardio is hard on the joints, all cardio and everything else active puts some wear and tear on them. Add to this a massive calorie deficit and you could be asking for injuries that will prevent workouts for weeks or months to come.

As a guy who suffers from occasional knee tendinitis, I definitely feel you on that. I never go running on cement for example...it kills my knees

For cardio, I do things like basketball, the treadmill or the elliptical machine. Swimming is another low-impact thing I've thought of doing.

dapzzz

1. Your body needs fuel, there is no signal because your lifting that tells your body to use more fat.. Large deficits = Muscle loss.
2. Some of those BF% scales are not very accurate but you will have an idea.

Please don't post when you hit a plateau in your weight loss.

1. So our bodies are too dumb to figure out that it should burn the fat for fuel, rather than muscle, especially if someone needs that muscle for weights? OK, I can buy that...sounds unfortunate though. I've not noticed myself getting any weaker though with my weight-training exercises.

2. Yeah, that is the sense I get. But hopefully the overall trend will be accurate. I will take *tons* and tons of measurements, hopefully this will give me the basic trend.

3. I hope to reach a plateau at some point I'm 230 and my target weight is 210-215.

MaraDiaz

Most cardio is hard on the joints, all cardio and everything else active puts some wear and tear on them. Add to this a massive calorie deficit and you could be asking for injuries that will prevent workouts for weeks or months to come.

As a guy who suffers from occasional knee tendinitis, I definitely feel you on that. I never go running on cement for example...it kills my knees

For cardio, I do things like basketball, the treadmill or the elliptical machine. Swimming is another low-impact thing I've thought of doing.

In that case pay attention to how you feel while exercising if you do decide to create that much of a deficit. If your muscles get fatigued and feel unstable or just 'wobbly' you're risking injury because you aren't properly supporting your joints, nevermind what muscle fatigue does to coordination.

Also, get extra sleep if possible to make up for the wear and tear you're going to be putting on your body.

Also I am not a doctor, nutritionist, nor personal trainer, so really, you should sit down with one of those before creating such a large deficit.