Is 3 pounds a week too much?

beehiva
beehiva Posts: 5 Member
in Getting Started
Hi all. I am new to this counting thing. I have lost 13 pounds in 30 days after I started counting. This feels like a bit much when others are telling me that 1 pound is week is better for the long term. I am 39, father of 2, work out 3-4 times a week, have an office job, and am a weekend cyclist (I do about 60-80 miles or about 3000-4000 cals worth of riding on the weekends).

The biggest thing I leaned in the last 30 days is that my dinners were just disasters. I get tiered and cooking smart is hard. I would also eat as I cooked for me and the kids. I would also eat all night till I went to bed. Now, I just stop eating at my set intake. The result has been cool, 13 lbs lost. I just wounder if this is still ok and not too unhealthy.

I eat about 1700-1200 cals a day and generally burn about 3800 cals a week. I am 5'9 at I am at 182 lbs right now. I still eat if I am hungry and I dont always land under my limit for the day.

Replies

  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    edit:

    If you're working out 3-4 days per week and cycling that far on the weekend, for your height and weight, it seems REALLY aggressive. The first bit of loss is certainly much faster but it does level off.

    according to IIFYM's calculator... for a guy with your stats, it looks like your BMR is around 1750 calories and TDEE is 2600. Ballpark, figures.. of course. I'm also assuming you meant 1700-2200.. not 1200. 2200 is gonna have you at a 400 cal per day deficit. That's all good. I'd stick to the upper end of that... as the 2200 calories is at a 15% cut. You could probably still lose comfortably at more than that.

    How much are you trying to lose anyway?
  • Billy323
    Billy323 Posts: 182 Member
    Assuming you meant 1700-2200 cals per day then what you are doing sounds fine. 1 pound a week loss is probably assuming no exercise.
  • gregpack
    gregpack Posts: 426 Member
    Your loss the first week was probably a bit fast. It typically is for most people. It should slow.

    1% of your weight per week is a good rule of thumb.
  • beehiva
    beehiva Posts: 5 Member
    edit:

    If you're working out 3-4 days per week and cycling that far on the weekend, for your height and weight, it seems REALLY aggressive. The first bit of loss is certainly much faster but it does level off.

    according to IIFYM's calculator... for a guy with your stats, it looks like your BMR is around 1750 calories and TDEE is 2600. Ballpark, figures.. of course. I'm also assuming you meant 1700-2200.. not 1200. 2200 is gonna have you at a 400 cal per day deficit. That's all good. I'd stick to the upper end of that... as the 2200 calories is at a 15% cut. You could probably still lose comfortably at more than that.

    How much are you trying to lose anyway?

    Not a typo, I eat about 1700-1200 cals a day...on days that I ride (weekends I eat like a pig...pizza lots of beer....and I am in the 3500 cals a day range on the weekends) I eat all day but sometimes go over 1700 or just about 1200 and my work outs are about 200-250 cals worth Monday-Friday.

    My goal is to get a better weight to climbing ratio on the bike. I will be hitting 40 years old in April, I have a hilly 50 mile bike ride b-day party planned in Mexico. I'd like to set a new personal time as a b-day gift to myself. My best time was set in my late 20s when I was about 170 pounds. I'd like to hit the line below that....maybe 165ish.

    I am slowing coming down from about 210 and I started this count thing when I hit about 195 pounds. That loss took me months and yo-yoing tho.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    edit:

    If you're working out 3-4 days per week and cycling that far on the weekend, for your height and weight, it seems REALLY aggressive. The first bit of loss is certainly much faster but it does level off.

    according to IIFYM's calculator... for a guy with your stats, it looks like your BMR is around 1750 calories and TDEE is 2600. Ballpark, figures.. of course. I'm also assuming you meant 1700-2200.. not 1200. 2200 is gonna have you at a 400 cal per day deficit. That's all good. I'd stick to the upper end of that... as the 2200 calories is at a 15% cut. You could probably still lose comfortably at more than that.

    How much are you trying to lose anyway?

    Not a typo, I eat about 1700-1200 cals a day...on days that I ride (weekends I eat like a pig...pizza lots of beer....and I am in the 3500 cals a day range on the weekends) I eat all day but sometimes go over 1700 or just about 1200 and my work outs are about 200-250 cals worth Monday-Friday.

    My goal is to get a better weight to climbing ratio on the bike. I will be hitting 40 years old in April, I have a hilly 50 mile bike ride b-day party planned in Mexico. I'd like to set a new personal time as a b-day gift to myself. My best time was set in my late 20s when I was about 170 pounds. I'd like to hit the line below that....maybe 165ish.

    I am slowing coming down from about 210 and I started this count thing when I hit about 195 pounds. That loss took me months and yo-yoing tho.

    don't eat less than the 2200. 1700 is barely hitting your BMR. You're gonna continue the yo yo if you keep this approach.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    If you continue to lose at that rate, I'd say that you're going too fast, and you should eat more. If you slow down to a healthier 1-2 lb. weekly loss, then the early loss was probably water weight. If you keep losing 3 lb./week, though, you risk endangering your cycling fitness - in particular, the glycogen stores that keep your brain going on long rides.

    I'm 46, an inch taller than you, also a recreational cyclist (50-160 miles a week, usually more in the summer), and started off with a goal of losing 55-60 lb. (from 215 down to 160 or 155). In June 2013 (to take a representative month), when I weighed around 190 lb., I logged 2126 calories a day (total, not net), and averaged 650 calories a day in exercise (=4550/week); my net daily calories were 1476. I cycled 490 miles that month, including one century. With those figures I lost 4.11 lb, or 0.96 lb./week. I'm a writer and teacher, so fairly sedentary other than exercise, and I had set MFP's activity level to sedentary.

    That was a sustainable loss that produced visible benefits to my cycling as well as my waistline, and it didn't hurt my cycling performance much. In fact, I improved speed and endurance, though I might have improved more without a daily deficit of about 480 calories.

    I did experience faster loss in my first month, though not as much as you, probably from water loss. If you run a sustained calorie deficit, your muscle tissues won't store as much glycogen as if you eat at maintenance, so you'll lose not only the differential weight of glycogen but also the water that is bound with glycogen in the muscles. If you keep regular endurance exercise going, you'll reach an equilibrium (at least that was my experience). You don't want to eat at such an aggressive deficit that your glycogen stores are mostly depleted; that's a great way to invite a bonk.
  • beehiva
    beehiva Posts: 5 Member
    edit:

    If you're working out 3-4 days per week and cycling that far on the weekend, for your height and weight, it seems REALLY aggressive. The first bit of loss is certainly much faster but it does level off.

    according to IIFYM's calculator... for a guy with your stats, it looks like your BMR is around 1750 calories and TDEE is 2600. Ballpark, figures.. of course. I'm also assuming you meant 1700-2200.. not 1200. 2200 is gonna have you at a 400 cal per day deficit. That's all good. I'd stick to the upper end of that... as the 2200 calories is at a 15% cut. You could probably still lose comfortably at more than that.

    How much are you trying to lose anyway?

    Not a typo, I eat about 1700-1200 cals a day...on days that I ride (weekends I eat like a pig...pizza lots of beer....and I am in the 3500 cals a day range on the weekends) I eat all day but sometimes go over 1700 or just about 1200 and my work outs are about 200-250 cals worth Monday-Friday.

    My goal is to get a better weight to climbing ratio on the bike. I will be hitting 40 years old in April, I have a hilly 50 mile bike ride b-day party planned in Mexico. I'd like to set a new personal time as a b-day gift to myself. My best time was set in my late 20s when I was about 170 pounds. I'd like to hit the line below that....maybe 165ish.

    I am slowing coming down from about 210 and I started this count thing when I hit about 195 pounds. That loss took me months and yo-yoing tho.

    don't eat less than the 2200. 1700 is barely hitting your BMR. You're gonna continue the yo yo if you keep this approach.

    That was what I was afraid of and the reason for the question. Thanks. I'll aim for 1700. I want this to stick!
  • beehiva
    beehiva Posts: 5 Member
    If you continue to lose at that rate, I'd say that you're going too fast, and you should eat more. If you slow down to a healthier 1-2 lb. weekly loss, then the early loss was probably water weight. If you keep losing 3 lb./week, though, you risk endangering your cycling fitness - in particular, the glycogen stores that keep your brain going on long rides.

    I'm 46, an inch taller than you, also a recreational cyclist (50-160 miles a week, usually more in the summer), and started off with a goal of losing 55-60 lb. (from 215 down to 160 or 155). In June 2013 (to take a representative month), when I weighed around 190 lb., I logged 2126 calories a day (total, not net), and averaged 650 calories a day in exercise (=4550/week); my net daily calories were 1476. I cycled 490 miles that month, including one century. With those figures I lost 4.11 lb, or 0.96 lb./week. I'm a writer and teacher, so fairly sedentary other than exercise, and I had set MFP's activity level to sedentary.

    That was a sustainable loss that produced visible benefits to my cycling as well as my waistline, and it didn't hurt my cycling performance much. In fact, I improved speed and endurance, though I might have improved more without a daily deficit of about 480 calories.

    I did experience faster loss in my first month, though not as much as you, probably from water loss. If you run a sustained calorie deficit, your muscle tissues won't store as much glycogen as if you eat at maintenance, so you'll lose not only the differential weight of glycogen but also the water that is bound with glycogen in the muscles. If you keep regular endurance exercise going, you'll reach an equilibrium (at least that was my experience). You don't want to eat at such an aggressive deficit that your glycogen stores are mostly depleted; that's a great way to invite a bonk.

    I get on the scale every morning and I go with the mean number for the week...it could be water. That would make me feel better.

    Its good to hear from a cyclist! I live in San Diego and the riding is great here. I love to ride and take my 4 year old son with me on a tag-a-long bike....it is a great work out. So far tho, my speeds are getting better as I track it with a Garmin 305 unit. I'd hate to bonk on a ride and I'll look to try and slow down/eat more.

    I also think there is a problem with trying to nail down how many calories I burn in the gym and bike. I get wild number variations from different calculators. I do a 30 min circuit with weights and about 10 mins on a Row machine and my best guess is about 200-350 cals for the 40 min work out. This app gives me crazy numbers for my bike rides and the Garmin gives me much lower numbers (a HRM w/ GPS and chest strap).

Categories