Scientifically Are the Last 10 lbs REALLY the Hardest?
ErinMcMom
Posts: 228 Member
I've been thinking...
So many people talk about how the last few pounds (10 or so) are the most difficult to lose, how they are very stubborn and slow to go, and it doesn't make sense to me at all.
Scientifically/mathematically speaking, since weight loss is calories in<calories out= weight loss, If you are eating at a calorie deficit it shouldn't matter whether the 10 pounds take you to your goal or whether they are somewhere in the middle of your journey, 3500 calories is still a pound. Right?
What am I missing here? Is the thought that "the last 10 pounds are the hardest to lose" just an old wives tale? Maybe it just feels like they are the hardest because you're so close to goal and just want to get there? If it's true, how is that explained? What's the deal?
Anybody here a dietician/nutritionist that knows?
So many people talk about how the last few pounds (10 or so) are the most difficult to lose, how they are very stubborn and slow to go, and it doesn't make sense to me at all.
Scientifically/mathematically speaking, since weight loss is calories in<calories out= weight loss, If you are eating at a calorie deficit it shouldn't matter whether the 10 pounds take you to your goal or whether they are somewhere in the middle of your journey, 3500 calories is still a pound. Right?
What am I missing here? Is the thought that "the last 10 pounds are the hardest to lose" just an old wives tale? Maybe it just feels like they are the hardest because you're so close to goal and just want to get there? If it's true, how is that explained? What's the deal?
Anybody here a dietician/nutritionist that knows?
0
Replies
-
Because for your last 10 lbs you will be eating at a much smaller deficit than your first 10 lbs.
Common sense really.
To clarify. If you have 75 lbs to lose you can eat at a 1000 cal def per day relatively easy and lose 2lbs per week. When you get closer to your goal weight, eating at that same 1000 cal deficit will be extremely difficult as your BMR has significantly decreased0 -
Because for your last 10 lbs you will be eating at a much smaller deficit than your first 10 lbs.
Common sense really.
What if you maintained the same deficit all the way through the finish line, would they be slower then? No, right?0 -
Because for your last 10 lbs you will be eating at a much smaller deficit than your first 10 lbs.
Common sense really.
What if you maintained the same deficit all the way through the finish line, would they be slower then? No, right?
Read my edit.
It isn't good to maintain the same deficit. What if a person has a TDEE of 1400. That would mean they would have to eat 400 calories a day to lose at the same rate they were heavier (TDEE of 2200)0 -
I've been thinking...
So many people talk about how the last few pounds (10 or so) are the most difficult to lose, how they are very stubborn and slow to go, and it doesn't make sense to me at all.
Scientifically/mathematically speaking, since weight loss is calories in<calories out= weight loss, If you are eating at a calorie deficit it shouldn't matter whether the 10 pounds take you to your goal or whether they are somewhere in the middle of your journey, 3500 calories is still a pound. Right?
What am I missing here? Is the thought that "the last 10 pounds are the hardest to lose" just an old wives tale? Maybe it just feels like they are the hardest because you're so close to goal and just want to get there? If it's true, how is that explained? What's the deal?
Anybody here a dietician/nutritionist that knows?
because your metabolic rate decreases as you carry less mass which means your daily maintenance is getting lower and lower as you get close to goal. duh0 -
Made up numbers just to use for example:
Somone has 75 lbs to lose and they start with a 1000 cal def per day. Their daily expenditure is 2400 calories per day which mean they have to net 1400 calories to lose 2 lbs a week.
That person then lost 65 lbs and now has 10 to go. However since she lost a ton of weight, her daily expenditure is now only 1500 calories. Now she has to net 500 calories just to lose the same weight.
Its not good.0 -
It is SLOWER, not necessarily harder. You cannot maintain the same level of weight loss as when you had more to lose. If you take too steep a deficit, then you will likely gain it right back when you start eating at what should be your normal maintenance calories.0
-
I actually assume that this is a bit of a perception bias, that the last 10 pounds seem more difficult because they are the last 10. I'm sure I will be told otherwise though. I tend to agree with you OP that scientifically speaking if it is just calories in calories out then there should be little to no difference.
Now people may point out that as your weight drops your BMR drops and therefore your calorie deficit decreases. This is true but you can of course adjust for that by working out more to increase your TDEE and maintain your deficit at the same level while eating the same amount of food or you could drop your food intake.
Perhaps the fact that you have to ramp it up a bit (either eat even less or exercise more) is all people mean when they say that last 10 pounds is harder but honestly that increase in difficulty should be linear...in otherwords the last 10 pounds might be more difficult than dropping from 20 pounds to 10 pounds overweight but no more so than dropping from 20 to 10 pounds is harder than dropping from 50 to 40 was.0 -
It's slower, because you are burning less calories than you would normally (because your body mass is lower). I'm sure someone can explain it better than I can. Basically, the amount someone is burning each day when they are 250 pounds is significantly more than for the same person doing the same activity at 150 pounds, etc etc.
So yes, it takes longer, even if you have the exact same calorie intake, to lose the weight, even when you're doing the same exact thing as you were beforehand.
0 -
It's a much smaller window. Smaller margin of error.0
-
I've been thinking...
So many people talk about how the last few pounds (10 or so) are the most difficult to lose, how they are very stubborn and slow to go, and it doesn't make sense to me at all.
Scientifically/mathematically speaking, since weight loss is calories in<calories out= weight loss, If you are eating at a calorie deficit it shouldn't matter whether the 10 pounds take you to your goal or whether they are somewhere in the middle of your journey, 3500 calories is still a pound. Right?
What am I missing here? Is the thought that "the last 10 pounds are the hardest to lose" just an old wives tale? Maybe it just feels like they are the hardest because you're so close to goal and just want to get there? If it's true, how is that explained? What's the deal?
Anybody here a dietician/nutritionist that knows?
because your metabolic rate decreases as you carry less mass which means your daily maintenance is getting lower and lower as you get close to goal. duh
Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I think what you say here is true, but perhaps the "duh" was a bit unnecessary given what you apparently believed just yesterday.0 -
The closer you get to goal, the less body fat you have to lose. People recommend slower when closer because they're encouraging people to maintain muscle mass. If you lose fast at the end, you're going to lose a disproportionate amount of lean tissue.Because for your last 10 lbs you will be eating at a much smaller deficit than your first 10 lbs.
Common sense really.
What if you maintained the same deficit all the way through the finish line, would they be slower then? No, right?
You get a lot of threads by people who say they've hit their goal and are surprised by how flabby they appear. A lot of them lost fast without thought to maintaining the muscle they already had. They then have to start the long process of body recomp which they wouldn't have had to do nearly as much if they'd chosen a smaller deficit toward the end.
Also, lifting heavy and eating enough protein can help retain as much muscle as possible as well.
Edit to add: I answered a question that wasn't really asked. Need to wait till my brain catches up sometimes.0 -
So really, they are not more difficult or more stubborn to get rid of, the only difference is that your deficit has been dialed down to match your newer TDEE so it takes a longer period of time to reach the 3500 calorie deficit. Did I get it right?
By the way, "Duh" isn't really a kind response when someone is asking an honest question.
Additionally, since MFP doesn't tell users to decrease their calorie deficit as they get closer to goal, there are potentially many people that would continue rocking their initial deficit setting all the way to their goal weight and they'd never know that it should have been changed. So I'm not sure it's "common sense".0 -
So really, they are not more difficult or more stubborn to get rid of, the only difference is that your deficit has been dialed down to match your newer TDEE so it takes a longer period of time to reach the 3500 calorie deficit. Did I get it right?
By the way, "Duh" isn't really a kind response when someone is asking an honest question.
Additionally, since MFP doesn't tell users to decrease their calorie deficit as they get closer to goal, there are potentially many people that would continue rocking their initial deficit setting all the way to their goal weight and they'd never know that it should have been changed. So I'm not sure it's common sense.
Yupp.
If those same people read the guides on this site, they would know
0 -
because your metabolic rate decreases as you carry less mass which means your daily maintenance is getting lower and lower as you get close to goal. duh
Duh? Really??! Is it really necessary for people to be be so damn rude on here all of the time?0 -
rude much?
because your metabolic rate decreases as you carry less mass which means your daily maintenance is getting lower and lower as you get close to goal. duh0 -
It's pretty difficult to scentifically measure "difficult" because "difficult" is usually little other than opinion.0
-
It's pretty difficult to scentifically measure "difficult" because "difficult" is usually little other than opinion.
Yeah, this.
Hard to objectify subjective opinion.0 -
There is, I believe, also the "hill factor".
If you watch runners or cyclists (non-professional) go up a hill, they'll do various forms of attack and persist until they get ALMOST to the top. Then they stop trying so hard because... they're almost there. They've put in so much effort so far, surely they can just rest a little bit before the top... etc. Think about a common phrase we use to help people through things: "Keep going, you're almost there!".
Continuing to pursue your goal with the same vigor when you are near the end as when you did at the beginning is tough. For some close is enough to stop the effort required (even if they don't change their goal). This is where a lot of dissonance sets in and things get "uncomfortable". You think of all the effort you've put in and you "deserve" to be at the end already..... but there's still more work ahead.... is that last bit really worth it?
Plan on having it feel hard. Really hard. Plan on needing every ounce of self discipline to make it through to your actual goal. Be ready for that challenge. It will come.0 -
I've been thinking...
So many people talk about how the last few pounds (10 or so) are the most difficult to lose, how they are very stubborn and slow to go, and it doesn't make sense to me at all.
Scientifically/mathematically speaking, since weight loss is calories in<calories out= weight loss, If you are eating at a calorie deficit it shouldn't matter whether the 10 pounds take you to your goal or whether they are somewhere in the middle of your journey, 3500 calories is still a pound. Right?
What am I missing here? Is the thought that "the last 10 pounds are the hardest to lose" just an old wives tale? Maybe it just feels like they are the hardest because you're so close to goal and just want to get there? If it's true, how is that explained? What's the deal?
Anybody here a dietician/nutritionist that knows?
because your metabolic rate decreases as you carry less mass which means your daily maintenance is getting lower and lower as you get close to goal. duh
Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I think what you say here is true, but perhaps the "duh" was a bit unnecessary given what you apparently believed just yesterday.
^^^ I noticed that as well in the other thread yesterday... ^^^
Anyways... To answer the OP's question, scientifically, all that is required for fat loss is a calorie deficit no matter if you have 100 or 10 pounds to lose. Period. It can seem to be harder when you get closer to your goal because of all the reasons already explained but it is still a matter of a deficit to continue losing fat.0 -
OP I think I would boil this down to this:
I agree with you that scientifically/mathematically speaking the "difficulty" of the last 10 pounds is illusory however given the vast vast amount of people who subjectively experience that last 10 pounds to be the most difficult I think we can all brace for having that subjective experience ourselves.0 -
So really, they are not more difficult or more stubborn to get rid of, the only difference is that your deficit has been dialed down to match your newer TDEE so it takes a longer period of time to reach the 3500 calorie deficit. Did I get it right?
By the way, "Duh" isn't really a kind response when someone is asking an honest question.
Additionally, since MFP doesn't tell users to decrease their calorie deficit as they get closer to goal, there are potentially many people that would continue rocking their initial deficit setting all the way to their goal weight and they'd never know that it should have been changed. So I'm not sure it's "common sense".
MFP bottoms out at 1200 calories net, so these people could keep the same settings but the actual deficient would change. When you are working with a smaller deficient it leaves more room for error, so say someone has a fun Friday night those extra 500 calories just ate the deficient for the whole week. Many actually start eating near maintenance to better figure out what number that is for them and just burn calories with exercise to create their deficient. Your body can also not healthily (is that a word) drop weight in the final tens lbs as fast is it can when someone was much larger. I think "harder" just means either takes more work and/or more discipline, early on you can have slip up and slack and still lose...also many people are actually looking for a range not a number since they will fluctuate several lbs at any weight. These fluctuations can mask the final 5-10 lbs, many seem to move to body recomp when this close to goal and focus on body fat %.0 -
The closer you get to goal, the less body fat you have to lose. People recommend slower when closer because they're encouraging people to maintain muscle mass. If you lose fast at the end, you're going to lose a disproportionate amount of lean tissue.
This. My understanding--although I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong--is that it's safer to have a larger deficit when you are more overweight, since, especially if you are exercising, you are more likely to lose fat as the majority of your loss. When your fat percentage is lower, there's much more risk that it comes from LBM, which you don't want, so even apart from everything else you don't want to maintain the same deficit.
Just from personal experience I found when I lost before that weight came off easily until I got to 10-15 pounds from goal (meaning going from 23 or a little more BMI to 21+ BMI), and then it didn't--it required the addition of some pretty time-intensive cardio to get me where I wanted (which also fit with my goals at the time). But I also wasn't counting then and didn't adjust what I was eating--in fact, if anything I felt satisfied enough at 23 vs. where I'd been that I was more careless with my diet--so no doubt a lot of that was just the lowered BMR. I'm curious to see what happens this time, although I expect it to be as hard or harder given that I'm older.0 -
I think it's because it's not as linear as some people would like to believe -- at least, fat loss isn't. As you get closer to your ideal weight, you proportionally have a lot less fat to lose ideally (as you want to maintain as much LBM as possible). So, if you still have a huge deficit as you get closer to your goal weight, you'll likely sacrifice more LBM. To minimize that effect, people suggest a smaller and smaller deficit the closer you get to your goal weight. That, in turn, results in slower weight loss overall.
Like many things, I think there is a law of diminishing returns in weight loss. It may start off as generally linear (not on a daily basis, but overall trend), but the closer you get, the more effort you have to put in to get that extra benefit. So, instead of a linear graph, think of one that tapers off at the end.
This is also why very obese people can manage very low calorie diets whereas that wouldn't be recommended for much leaner people.0 -
Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I wasn't disputing that Americans eat more today in calories compared to generations past. The point about weighing 1000lbs was to show how absurd it is to simplify weight loss to calories. Your metabolism can change for a myriad of reasons. Feed two individuals 3,500 calories and one may gain weight, the other may lose or maintain. You can't treat it as a simple math equation.0 -
Not the hardest, just took FOREVER to lose.0
-
your body evolved to survive food shortages, not to have 6 pack abs in a society that has a constant, abundant supply of food.
when you realise that, then it makes total sense.
the more fat you have, the easier it is to lose, because you're in no danger of starving to death. However, once your body fat pecentage is in the healthy range, then if you are continuously not eating enough food to meet your body's energy needs, then your body's going to change how it burns fat in order to protect you from starvation. When you don't eat enough, your body will start to burn skeletal muscle as well as fat to make the energy shortfall... this makes your fat stores last longer and greatly increase your chances of surviving the food shortage. The less fat you have in your body, the more likely your body's going to burn muscle along with the fat, as opposed to just burning fat. Loss of lean mass = slower metabolism, because your muscle cells are an energy expensive tissue. Your body saves energy this way... good news for surviving a food shortage but bad news if you want 6 pack abs.
And yes the does make losing the last 10lb of fat more difficult, and it makes it more likely you'll lose 10lb of weight yet still have more flab than you want, because a significant amount of the weight you lost was muscle, not fat. Additionally, adaptive thermogeneis can further slow the metabolism and make fat loss even harder... again, the less fat you have to lose the more likely your body's going to do this, because it's a mechanism for surviving a food shortage.
The less you have to lose, the more conservative you need to be with your deficit to avoid loss of lean mass along with the fat. Once you're in the healthy body fat percentage range, then aim to lose fat really slowly, e.g. 0.5lb/week. Additionally, having refeed days (where you eat at or slightly above maintenance) and even entire weeks where you eat at maintenance, can help.0 -
I think you all are ignoring the feedback loops the body has to protect itself from starvation. You're also not defining "last".
Are you talking about going from 26% body fat to 25%? Probably not that hard.
Are you talking about going from 10% to 8%? Totally different ballgame.0 -
Personally I think there's no science to back this up because...that "last 10 pounds" is often just in our own head...while our body might not need to lose it...say "vanity pounds"...because you might not need to lose it, it makes it harder?0
-
Because for your last 10 lbs you will be eating at a much smaller deficit than your first 10 lbs.
Common sense really.
What if you maintained the same deficit all the way through the finish line, would they be slower then? No, right?
You may think you are maintaining that deficit, but your body will adapt and you won't.
So while on paper it looks like 1000, results say otherwise.
That's why many of the first posts saying to make it smaller is better.
Going slower by wise purposeful choices is much better than going slower from bad choices and your body just forced it on you.
10 to 1 the former group is actually getting to eat more while losing their 1/2 lb weekly, compared to the latter group getting the same loss but eating a whole lot less.
Throw in binges the latter group does because of eating so little, and it'll take the former group less time too.0 -
Says the person who a thread ago was declaring that if Americans truly ate 300 calories more per day than we used to we would all be one thousand pounds by now.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1287703-burning-and-eating-calories-back-what-s-the-point?page=2
I wasn't disputing that Americans eat more today in calories compared to generations past. The point about weighing 1000lbs was to show how absurd it is to simplify weight loss to calories. Your metabolism can change for a myriad of reasons. Feed two individuals 3,500 calories and one may gain weight, the other may lose or maintain. You can't treat it as a simple math equation.
Well you can actually - perhaps what you mean to say is that the equation in question would not be linear and there would be many variables to this equation such as age, activity level, medical issues etc, etc.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions