Biggest Losers lose more than 2lbs/wk safely? How!?

The false timeline and other issues have already been noted. But just to add:

You can only oxidize a certain amount of fat a day. The amount you can oxidize depends on how much fat you have in the first place. So, the people on TBL have a lot more that they can oxidize. If you have a higher calorie deficit than the amount you can oxidize from fat, the rest will come from muscle and other important shiz.

So, do you really want to get in a net catabolic state?

It's also noteworthy that almost all of them get injuries, which is unavoidable at that activity level and calorie amount. They have professional trainers and doctors on staff to deal with the injuries and appropriately modify their training protocol, whereas for people without this kind of access, would require hospital/doctor visits and a physical therapist. I personally can't afford ($$$ or time) that kind of nonsense.

I just don't understand why its such a no-no to lose more than 2 lbs per week when the contestants on The Biggest Loser drop 10-20+ lbs in 7 days!

Granted, they have professional trainers and medical staff working with them, but essentially, they are only eating healthy and working out. That leads me to believe that if I eat healthy and incorporate muscle-friendly foods in my daily diet, my moderate exercise should be a positive factor, not a negative one threatening to eat away healthy muscle mass.

What am I missing in health education that makes Jillian Michaels' troops clear to drop buku weight, but not me?

I'm going for 4-5lbs per week... and I'm going to eat foods rich in muscle-building nutrients, drink Gatorade products, and get my rest to regenerate!

I have been losing 3.4 to 4 lbs a week for aprox 8 weeks. but I started off at 270 and I exercise aprox 2 hours a day I wake up at 4 am to exercise , and then work 12 to 14 hours and exercise again - every day .
Some weeks I lose nothing . One week I even gained 1 pound? but I know it's all about to slow down because the more you lose the slower it goes. I'm ready for that ,as I am probably not going to increase my exercise to something I will not be able to sustain for life and also am not willing to decrease my calories to where I am stuggling to maintain later. so what I'm saying is it's nice to lose 4 pounds a week .... but it's also nice to lose 1 or two pounds and keep them off.


Good luck in your goal, however much you lose every week will be awesome!

Amy

It's all water weight

HahahA . i have lost 47 lbs of water weight . I can't wait to go back home for Christmas and say that it was all water weight!! So funny !

The false timeline and other issues have already been noted. But just to add:

You can only oxidize a certain amount of fat a day. The amount you can oxidize depends on how much fat you have in the first place. So, the people on TBL have a lot more that they can oxidize. If you have a higher calorie deficit than the amount you can oxidize from fat, the rest will come from muscle and other important shiz.

So, do you really want to get in a net catabolic state?

Interesting. How can we calculate this amount of fat?

There is not a specific study that I am aware of, however, Lyle McDonald came up with an 'on paper' calculation based on studies of 31g of fat per day per lb of fat.

So just plugging in some numbers here,

31g x 170 lbs x 30% body fat = 1581g of fat, or 14,229 calories, or 3.95 lbs of fat to be potentially used before muscle needs to be used, per Mr. McDonald's cited theory? That still seems like a lot, especially if the weight or body fat percentage numbers are higher, just like you said.

170lb x 30% = 51g body fat x 31 cals = 1,581 x 7 = 11,067 per week / 3,500 = 3.162lb (not sure where your 3.95lb is from) based on a theoretical calculation - which I would definitely want to leave a buffer for as a cya.

Also, there are other issues on a large deficit, including possible higher AT impact, adherence issues, macro and micro sufficiency, hormonal imbalance etc.

Into read later. Too much math to just skim through properly at work.

Into read later. Too much math to just skim through properly at work.

I see the math geeks have ruined a nice easy read again

:laugh:

I've read somewhere that sometimes their 'week' is longer than an actual week.

Having talked to someone who has been a contestant, their "week" can be anywhere from 7-14 days.

And many of those people end up gaining weight back and struggling with disordered eating. Fast =/= best.

Go slow and get it right this time. Getting your mind right with what you are eating and how much takes time. Creating new routines and habits takes time. If you don't want to find yourself having to keep losing 50lbs or so then figure out how to stop the cycle of yo-yo dieting.

Stick with the 1-2lb/week loss and get not just your body fit, but your mind as well. Don't set yourself up for failure.

One of many reasons i love you Joy! also ill add that it isnt safe also they are surpervised by doctors through the whole show.

3.95 is by dividing 14,229 by 3600 calories burned to lose one pound. The # may indeed be 3500, I mix them up.

You said 31g of fat per pound of body fat. I thought that meant you could therefore oxidize 31g x your body weight x body fat percentage before your body couldn't do it anymore. My calculation actually points to

3.95 lb per day x 7 days = 27.65 lb of fat per week.

Where did I go wrong? Did you mean 31 calories, not 31g of fat? Big difference, since 31g of fat must be multiplied by 9 calories per g of fat to convert to calories

A lb of fat is approx. 3,500 calories. I laid out the math - it is 31 cals per g of BF.

Gotcha. I also found some sites verifying (restating?) 31 calories per *pound* of body fat per day. For a 220 lb person with 40% bf, that still translates to 5.5lb per week.

Yes, but did you miss my other points?

3.95 is by dividing 14,229 by 3600 calories burned to lose one pound. The # may indeed be 3500, I mix them up.

You said 31g of fat per pound of body fat. I thought that meant you could therefore oxidize 31g x your body weight x body fat percentage before your body couldn't do it anymore. My calculation actually points to

3.95 lb per day x 7 days = 27.65 lb of fat per week.

Where did I go wrong? Did you mean 31 calories, not 31g of fat? Big difference, since 31g of fat must be multiplied by 9 calories per g of fat to convert to calories

A lb of fat is approx. 3,500 calories. I laid out the math - it is 31 cals per g of BF.

Gotcha. I also found some sites verifying (restating?) 31 calories per *pound* of body fat per day. For a 220 lb person with 40% bf, that still translates to 5.5lb per week.

Yes, but did you miss my other points?

Well, the OP might be but I never was interested in those. I literally said the word "interesting" and asked you about the limitation on metabolizing body fat. Which you proceeded to wrongly state the basis of an equation twice, but that's neither here nor there

Dansinger says that "50 to 60 percent of [contestants’] weight-loss success comes from dietary change." They're used to consuming around 3000 calories a day, but on the show consume about 1500 calories a day. As he says, "few people are really in a position to cut their calories by 1500 a day, but that's what these people are able to do."

3.95 is by dividing 14,229 by 3600 calories burned to lose one pound. The # may indeed be 3500, I mix them up.

You said 31g of fat per pound of body fat. I thought that meant you could therefore oxidize 31g x your body weight x body fat percentage before your body couldn't do it anymore. My calculation actually points to

3.95 lb per day x 7 days = 27.65 lb of fat per week.

Where did I go wrong? Did you mean 31 calories, not 31g of fat? Big difference, since 31g of fat must be multiplied by 9 calories per g of fat to convert to calories

A lb of fat is approx. 3,500 calories. I laid out the math - it is 31 cals per g of BF.

Gotcha. I also found some sites verifying (restating?) 31 calories per *pound* of body fat per day. For a 220 lb person with 40% bf, that still translates to 5.5lb per week.

Yes, but did you miss my other points?

Well, the OP might be but I never was interested in those. I literally said the word "interesting" and asked you about the limitation on metabolizing body fat. Which you proceeded to wrongly state the basis of an equation twice, but that's neither here nor there

What are you talking about? Wrongly state what? I typed g instead of cals the first time by mistake and then corrected it in my clarifying post.

Oh, and you are welcome.

And thanks, again!

At first you said 31g of fat could be metabolized per lb of body fat, then again you said 31 calories per g of body fat. I believe you meant to say 31 calories per lb of body fat. Any of these three seem like they'd yield different numbers to you?

3.95 is by dividing 14,229 by 3600 calories burned to lose one pound. The # may indeed be 3500, I mix them up.

You said 31g of fat per pound of body fat. I thought that meant you could therefore oxidize 31g x your body weight x body fat percentage before your body couldn't do it anymore. My calculation actually points to

3.95 lb per day x 7 days = 27.65 lb of fat per week.

Where did I go wrong? Did you mean 31 calories, not 31g of fat? Big difference, since 31g of fat must be multiplied by 9 calories per g of fat to convert to calories

A lb of fat is approx. 3,500 calories. I laid out the math - it is 31 cals per g of BF.

Gotcha. I also found some sites verifying (restating?) 31 calories per *pound* of body fat per day. For a 220 lb person with 40% bf, that still translates to 5.5lb per week.

Yes, but did you miss my other points?

Well, the OP might be but I never was interested in those. I literally said the word "interesting" and asked you about the limitation on metabolizing body fat. Which you proceeded to wrongly state the basis of an equation twice, but that's neither here nor there

What are you talking about? Wrongly state what? I typed g instead of cals the first time by mistake and then corrected it in my clarifying post.

Oh, and you are welcome.

And thanks, again!

At first you said 31g of fat could be metabolized per lb of body fat, then again you said 31 calories per g of body fat. I believe you meant to say 31 calories per lb of body fat. Any of these three seem like they'd yield different numbers to you?

I laid out the math. No need for snark when I was actually trying to answer your question. Must have missed the first thank you.

It's important to remember that the famed 2lb/week limit for "safe" weight loss is only a guideline. For an average person, with an average amount of weight to lose, an average willingness to commit to exercise, and average willpower in regards to diet regime, it's a good idea. There are many people who fall outside that guideline. The biggest loser contestants have professional nutritionists and physical trainers with them the whole way. Their diet and exercise is regulated by these pros, thereby giving them the opportunity to maximize weight loss.

The biggest problem with losing more than 2lb/week is that it requires a very large caloric deficit. The average person will have a difficult time sticking to the very strict diet and exercise required to maintain that deficit while still getting all the nutrients their body needs. It's difficult enough at 2lbs lost per week that many people will still fall back into bad habits after or even during their weight loss. Or worse, neglect their nutritional requirements in favor of lower calorie options.

In order to really accelerate weight loss without putting yourself at risk of malnourishment, it's important to set up your macros appropriately, supplement correctly (vitamins, etc), and be willing to create the majority of your deficit through exercise. You have to be willing to educate yourself on how the body works. Sticking to that lifestyle is rough, especially for someone who is likely coming from a very indulgent and sedentary lifestyle.

To be clear: it's possible to lose more than 2lbs/week safely, it's just not easy. It requires a /lot/ of self-discipline and hard work. It's not for most people, and the strict lifestyle of making that happen will cause a lot of people to fail for lack of discipline. There is no "easy" button for fast, lasting weight loss. Even weight loss surgery often has great results up front (due to the forced VLCD/LCD that the surgery imposes) but ends up with weight gain later on. For most people, 2lbs/week is a great goal.

In for the math and a little background reading.

A while back I stumbled on that 31 cals / lb of fat and decided to look into. It comes from a theoretical model using the Minnesota starvation diet data (ref here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175)

Comments:

- The assumption that muscle is not affected is wrong. The curve that the author uses shows LBM loss at lower loss rates, just that the LBM loss is great at a point beyond 31 cal/lb. The author even writes in the abstract "a term indicating a slow decrease of much of the FFM moderated by the limited energy transferred from the fat store, and a final term showing an unprotected rapid decrease of the remaining part of the FFM."

- It's a model of best fit data with a fit that isn't mentioned in the abstract but looks wide in the graphs.

- It does not deal with obese people.

---

If people wish to play with the models - I suggest the development of

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/291/1/E23.long

The equations are much more clearly covered at the end of the paper, but it's a true math slog - only recommend if you want to spend a lot of time modelling.

In summary - I wouldn't trust that number very much as a "protective" limit - just that beyond a certain point - LBM loss goes from secondary factor to a primary factor.