Biggest Losers lose more than 2lbs/wk safely? How!?
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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."0
-
OP - good luck with that.
BL contestants exercise for HOURS every day, they don't eat much and they have a LOT of weight to lose. It's a TV show, not real life.
Make some sustainable changes to your life. Change your food and exercise routines and lose weight slowly and consistently and you will then be able to keep it off and enjoy the process of getting there.
Real life is not a TV show.0 -
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?0 -
It's all water weight
This, and the fact that morbidly obese people do tend to lose more "weight" because they have so much more to lose. Plus, they workout for many hours a day every day & have specially trained medical staff, nutritionists and personal trainers with them all the time.
Gatorade? Seriously isn't worth the sugars. My motto is (and has been) Eat Clean (as much as possible) Train Mean (cardio & heavy weights) Get Lean. I have lost 90 pounds. I skipped weights at first & was skinnyfat. Now I'm the same weight but smaller & very toned with definition. I lost 2 sizes in a few months because I added weight training.
Skinny isn't the goal, healthy, fit & strong is the goal :flowerforyou: Do yourself a favor, stop watching those shows, toss out your scale & rely on your tape measure & clothing.
Best wishes!
0 -
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.0 -
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?
JSF,B0 -
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.0 -
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.
I said "gotcha", which is pretty freakin' close to a thank you, and you chose to imply that I was being dense because I didn't acknowledge your other points. But hey, if I'm gonna get called snarky, I might as well take BOTH my "thank yous" back! :laugh: More importantly, sorry for asking. I'll just Google next time, much less complicated for both of us, I would imagine. Oh by the way, apology accepted for wasting my time with wrong units. I didn't miss your first and only apology when you cleared it up. See how that works?
Anyway. I dunno. Ultimately, if the OP was, say, between jobs, wanted to ride a bike to the gym for 45 minutes, swim there a couple hours, maybe do a Zumba class then ride back, and keep calorie intake reasonable because of all the time she's not spending next to the fridge, she could technically pull off some big numbers here and there. I understand the injury, joint strain and other issues brought up so far but there can be ways around that, depending on what your goals and dedication to said goals are. Of course, the OP said she's been a yo yo dieter, so it's important to focus on doing it right this time around
To Mr. Hot Bicep: I don't know what jsf is. I'm scared to ask now, for multiple reasons, so I just won't :laugh:0 -
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.0 -
Given that the model (and the study it is based on) do not deal with obese people, do you have any thoughts on a better protective limit? I'm still working through this information (holy hell, there is a lot) with the intention of using it to further tweak my own diet and exercise regime. As I've posted elsewhere, my primary goal is to spare as much LBM as possible while losing fat. My secondary goal is to attempt to *add* to my muscle mass along the way. It may be a bit of three steps forward, two steps back... but what I know so far indicates that it's possible. Once I've processed more of the information in your links, I may have a different view.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.0 -
Posts like this are why those types of shows should be pulled off the air...because people think they can reproduce those results at home.0
-
they also work out over 8 hrs a day for weeks. after the show, most of them gain it right back0
-
Superman flies on telly, why can't I?
IT IS NOT REAL.0 -
Given that the model (and the study it is based on) do not deal with obese people, do you have any thoughts on a better protective limit? I'm still working through this information (holy hell, there is a lot) with the intention of using it to further tweak my own diet and exercise regime. As I've posted elsewhere, my primary goal is to spare as much LBM as possible while losing fat. My secondary goal is to attempt to *add* to my muscle mass along the way. It may be a bit of three steps forward, two steps back... but what I know so far indicates that it's possible. Once I've processed more of the information in your links, I may have a different view.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.
What I can state:
- there is either a point or a spread (doesn't matter) where, by cutting calories, the weight loss incites more and more energy balance from LBM than fat stores. What that inflection point is does not matter to me. (I'm going to even suggest that in all likelyhood it is a function of bf%, so likely changes over the weight range) - We lose muscle tissue when we lose weight.
- there are protective processes - exercise and protein availability that can offset that somewhat (and only somewhat)
- strength training (in all its forms), physical movement drives muscular tissue development at varying levels (and is a long and complex subject)
- certain supplements can also drive or assist in muscle development (and have risks, etc...)
As a visual from what you are saying: We are continously taking three steps forward and two steps back, at the same time. This is the biological shuffle going on all the time.
I see really three schools:
- Cut and bulk - They keep both reasonable at about < 2 lbs per week, either way.
- "Culk" - Cut and train - keepin either the deficit small and weight training or micro cycling. These culk protocols are sometimes called "spinning your wheels" - It was my preferred method for a while, as just a personal preference.
- Large deficits w or w/o training - Large deficits, muscle be damned - I'll build it later (pos: fast results, neg: rate limited muscle re-building) or the training with the intent to protect against muscle loss.
It depends so much on starting points, preferences, mental game.
Which is optimum?
The one that lets you train the most and you are likeliest to adhere too for the long term. 2-3 years, not 6 months. And we can always change down the road.
Short answer: no - i have no idea of what a theoretical limit might be. But I can see how one might play around and test it on a personal limit (how much muscle are you willing to lose to try a protocol?)
Since I'm at the point that I only need to lose 10 lbs - I can drag this out for a few bulk/cut cycles and just focus on fitness.
If I was someone needing to lose much more, I'd likely have gone to 2 lbs a week HARD.
I'm going to look at those math models over the next month - but just because I enjoy that.
edit: bad bad typing.0 -
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.
I said "gotcha", which is pretty freakin' close to a thank you, and you chose to imply that I was being dense because I didn't acknowledge your other points. But hey, if I'm gonna get called snarky, I might as well take BOTH my "thank yous" back! :laugh: More importantly, sorry for asking. I'll just Google next time, much less complicated for both of us, I would imagine. Oh by the way, apology accepted for wasting my time with wrong units. I didn't miss your first and only apology when you cleared it up. See how that works?
Anyway. I dunno. Ultimately, if the OP was, say, between jobs, wanted to ride a bike to the gym for 45 minutes, swim there a couple hours, maybe do a Zumba class then ride back, and keep calorie intake reasonable because of all the time she's not spending next to the fridge, she could technically pull off some big numbers here and there. I understand the injury, joint strain and other issues brought up so far but there can be ways around that, depending on what your goals and dedication to said goals are. Of course, the OP said she's been a yo yo dieter, so it's important to focus on doing it right this time around
To Mr. Hot Bicep: I don't know what jsf is. I'm scared to ask now, for multiple reasons, so I just won't :laugh:
You seem to have read more into my comment than was intended.
I wanted to make it clear to you (and to others) that relaying on the 31 calorie number was not a good idea and wanted to make sure the points were not missed. Simple as that.
Gotcha = thank you? Really? lol. And wasting your time? Give me a break.
JSF, B.0 -
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.
Thank you for making a clearer point of why I caveated (and tried to point out the caveats more than once) the number - it is theoretical and should not be used as a 'goal'.0 -
Double post0
-
OP, I watch the show and enjoy it. Keep in mind though-they get the results they do because their entire lives while on the show are devoted to eating a carefully constructed diet, working out, and sleeping. When they aren't doing some assigned homework (a walk or jog, a swim, etc) or working out in the gym or doing challenges, they rest. Unless you have a life structure where you can do that--no working, no family, and a live in team of consultants, you can't expect or try for the same results.
If you want a healthy diet plan for you that will help you maximize weight loss safely, speak to your doctor and get referrals if necessary. If that's not realistic, just follow the MFP plan because it works. Just follow it as written-eat your exercise calories (while being mindful of the possibility of "too good to be true" on the burn #'s.)0 -
By the upthread formulas, My theoretical limit on "safe" weight loss (i.e. primarily fat, LBM-sparing loss) happens at about a 2700-kcal deficit (6'6" 290lb, 30%BF). The minimum macros I've set for myself require about 2000 calories, and I'm *trying* to create the caloric deficit through exercise. On my best workout days I can hit an estimated 5k calories burned, but on those days I eat a bit more protein... so 2700 deficit is about right. On a normal day I'm only at about a 1500 calorie deficit, with the average being about 2000. I average between 3 and 4 lbs lost per week. So, the 3500cal per lb of weight lost is proving out for me. I'm also getting stronger... I will have this thing figured out soon enough 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions