I can't lose 2lbs a week?

2»

Replies

  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    The other issue with crash dieting, and why people on MFP will almost always tell you to lose slowly, is that when you lose weight quickly, you lose fat and LBM. (You always lose some LBM, it's not 100% fat, but the goal is to lose as much fat and as little LBM as possible). Then, if/when you gain the weight back, it's all fat. Do a couple cycles of crash diet/regain, and you're progressively increasing your body fat percentage. Even if you keep losing and regaining the same 15 pounds, you're building a body that has more body fat over time.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Others have mentioned it, you won't lose just fat, you will also lose muscle. This will result in having proportionally about the same amount of body fat, and not being happy at the new lower weight.

    Example, if you are 150 pounds and have 28% body fat, your fat is 42 pounds, and your lean body mass is 108 pounds. Suppose you lose 20 pounds at 2 pounds per week, but because of the fast rate, you lose 10 pounds of lean body mass and 10 pounds of fat, then your total weight would be 130 pounds, you would have 32 pounds of fat and 98 pounds of lean body mass, your body fat percent would now be 25%. While 25% might be okay, you are still likely to be jiggly and still have the tummy bulge and all the stuff you are currently not happy with.

    By taking a slower rate of weight loss, you will preserve that lean body mass while you lose weight, and you will eventually lower mostly fat instead of fat and muscle. At 20% body fat, you are going to be a lot happier than 25%.

    Note: the above are just example numbers, I do not know what your real body fat % is. But here is a visual on what body fat % ranges look like:

    body-fat-percentage-picture-men-women.jpg
  • Jarrod4275
    Jarrod4275 Posts: 37
    I started my journey on february 4th. I was 282 pounds and I decided to quit smoking, quit drinking and lose 82 pounds. TODAY I realized my goal and weighed in at 200 pounds. I lost an average of .4607 pounds per day. Some days I was up a little and others I was down a little more. I did it by changing my diet and exercise. I started eating Paleo and it changed my life. I would not say that I am 100% paleo with my diet but I cut out a majority of processed foods and canned foods from my diet. Lots of fruit, veggies, meat, eggs and nuts. I can't even begin to describe how it changed my life. Sleeping all night long is a HUGE one. It had been years since I could sleep through the night. The amount of energy I gained has been rediculous. Using this app, eating Paleo and using the 5k runner app has changed my life and I lost 2 pounds a week consistently. I am a male, 39 years old 6' tall. I eat approx 1700-2000 calories a day depending on my activity levels for those days. Eat clean. Swim, bike, run, sit ups and push ups and light weights work will shed it all very quickly!
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Ok, when you put it like that it does make sense. However, if a deficit of 1000 cals a day is needed to lose 2lbs a week. My maintenance cals is 2200 and I net 1200. Why can't I lose the 2lbs?
    You can, or you can try. It's not a popular plan here but it's not exactly forbidden in any diet plans I've ever seen including MFP's, it's just considered too aggressive in the forum. But there's no strong evidence that tiny deficits preserve lean body mass or that 1200 is a 'crash diet'.
  • patb987
    patb987 Posts: 44 Member
    OK, so I got a question then...

    I am also losing 2lbs a week and have been on track, I am limited to 1500 net cals a day, I typically am running 3 miles a day so I get about 450 cal added. I weigh 217 currently, I am 6ft male, and plenty of muscle, honestly think I will sit at 205. So from what I am reading on this thread, am I losing a lot of muscle mass the way I am doing this or burning fat? I haven't been doing any weight training yet until I hit my goal, I tend to eat a LOT during weight training so I wanted to lose the fat first then tone up.

    Thoughts?
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    For a person whose maintenance calories is 2200, taking a 1,000 calorie a day deficit is a 45% deficit. This is a very severe deficit and not considered safe unless for the very obese. A 20% deficit is considered "moderate".
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    OK, so I got a question then...

    I am also losing 2lbs a week and have been on track, I am limited to 1500 net cals a day, I typically am running 3 miles a day so I get about 450 cal added. I weigh 217 currently, I am 6ft male, and plenty of muscle, honestly think I will sit at 205. So from what I am reading on this thread, am I losing a lot of muscle mass the way I am doing this or burning fat? I haven't been doing any weight training yet until I hit my goal, I tend to eat a LOT during weight training so I wanted to lose the fat first then tone up.

    Thoughts?

    Yes, you are losing muscle mass.

    Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) 2106
    TDEE 3265
    20% cut to lose weight 2612

    The above is based on a setting of "3-5 hours moderate exercise per week". You may need more.

    If you are eating only 1950 per day, you are at about a 40% calorie deficit.
  • patb987
    patb987 Posts: 44 Member
    OK, so I got a question then...

    I am also losing 2lbs a week and have been on track, I am limited to 1500 net cals a day, I typically am running 3 miles a day so I get about 450 cal added. I weigh 217 currently, I am 6ft male, and plenty of muscle, honestly think I will sit at 205. So from what I am reading on this thread, am I losing a lot of muscle mass the way I am doing this or burning fat? I haven't been doing any weight training yet until I hit my goal, I tend to eat a LOT during weight training so I wanted to lose the fat first then tone up.

    Thoughts?

    Yes, you are losing muscle mass.

    Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) 2106
    TDEE 3265
    20% cut to lose weight 2612

    The above is based on a setting of "3-5 hours moderate exercise per week". You may need more.

    If you are eating only 1950 per day, you are at about a 40% calorie deficit.

    MFP says my maintain is 2450 (I have a desk job), when I ran my TDEE is says 2880 with a BMR of 1969.. So I am really only cutting back eating about 600 cals a day and burning the 450. Not sure if any of that matters, trying to get informed is all.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    OK, so I got a question then...

    I am also losing 2lbs a week and have been on track, I am limited to 1500 net cals a day, I typically am running 3 miles a day so I get about 450 cal added. I weigh 217 currently, I am 6ft male, and plenty of muscle, honestly think I will sit at 205. So from what I am reading on this thread, am I losing a lot of muscle mass the way I am doing this or burning fat? I haven't been doing any weight training yet until I hit my goal, I tend to eat a LOT during weight training so I wanted to lose the fat first then tone up.

    Thoughts?

    Yes, you are losing muscle mass.

    Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) 2106
    TDEE 3265
    20% cut to lose weight 2612

    The above is based on a setting of "3-5 hours moderate exercise per week". You may need more.

    If you are eating only 1950 per day, you are at about a 40% calorie deficit.

    MFP says my maintain is 2450 (I have a desk job), when I ran my TDEE is says 2880 with a BMR of 1969.. So I am really only cutting back eating about 600 cals a day and burning the 450. Not sure if any of that matters, trying to get informed is all.

    If you run 3 miles per day, that comes out to somewhere in the 3-5 hours/week range, so even if you are rather sedentary in your desk job, the TDEE I gave above is probably pretty accurate.

    2 pounds per week loss is for the obese, not for people who have not very many pounds to lose.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Example, if you are 150 pounds and have 28% body fat, your fat is 42 pounds, and your lean body mass is 108 pounds. Suppose you lose 20 pounds at 2 pounds per week, but because of the fast rate, you lose 10 pounds of lean body mass and 10 pounds of fat, then your total weight would be 130 pounds, you would have 32 pounds of fat and 98 pounds of lean body mass, your body fat percent would now be 25%. While 25% might be okay, you are still likely to be jiggly and still have the tummy bulge and all the stuff you are currently not happy with.

    By taking a slower rate of weight loss, you will preserve that lean body mass while you lose weight, and you will eventually lower mostly fat instead of fat and muscle. At 20% body fat, you are going to be a lot happier than 25%.
    Where did you get the 50/50 fat/muscle ratio?

    A 3:1 fat to muscle loss ratio -- still losing 25% of the weight in muscle -- would put your example person at 20% body fat and 20 pounds lighter.

    There was a thread earlier about this ratio, but the last I saw, no one had a good answer, but 50/50 seems extremely pessimistic.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Example, if you are 150 pounds and have 28% body fat, your fat is 42 pounds, and your lean body mass is 108 pounds. Suppose you lose 20 pounds at 2 pounds per week, but because of the fast rate, you lose 10 pounds of lean body mass and 10 pounds of fat, then your total weight would be 130 pounds, you would have 32 pounds of fat and 98 pounds of lean body mass, your body fat percent would now be 25%. While 25% might be okay, you are still likely to be jiggly and still have the tummy bulge and all the stuff you are currently not happy with.

    By taking a slower rate of weight loss, you will preserve that lean body mass while you lose weight, and you will eventually lower mostly fat instead of fat and muscle. At 20% body fat, you are going to be a lot happier than 25%.
    Where did you get the 50/50 fat/muscle ratio?

    A 3:1 fat to muscle loss ratio -- still losing 25% of the weight in muscle -- would put your example person at 20% body fat and 20 pounds lighter.

    There was a thread earlier about this ratio, but the last I saw, no one had a good answer, but 50/50 seems extremely pessimistic.

    I said the numbers were just an example, to understand the concept.
  • aedreana
    aedreana Posts: 979 Member
    My body fat percentage is 18.7% and muscle mass is 25.8%.

    Before I lost the ten vanity pounds, my body fat percentage was 24.2% and muscle mass 23.3%.

    I don't know what any of that means, except that I have no-assatall.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Example, if you are 150 pounds and have 28% body fat, your fat is 42 pounds, and your lean body mass is 108 pounds. Suppose you lose 20 pounds at 2 pounds per week, but because of the fast rate, you lose 10 pounds of lean body mass and 10 pounds of fat, then your total weight would be 130 pounds, you would have 32 pounds of fat and 98 pounds of lean body mass, your body fat percent would now be 25%. While 25% might be okay, you are still likely to be jiggly and still have the tummy bulge and all the stuff you are currently not happy with.

    By taking a slower rate of weight loss, you will preserve that lean body mass while you lose weight, and you will eventually lower mostly fat instead of fat and muscle. At 20% body fat, you are going to be a lot happier than 25%.
    Where did you get the 50/50 fat/muscle ratio?

    A 3:1 fat to muscle loss ratio -- still losing 25% of the weight in muscle -- would put your example person at 20% body fat and 20 pounds lighter.

    There was a thread earlier about this ratio, but the last I saw, no one had a good answer, but 50/50 seems extremely pessimistic.

    I said the numbers were just an example, to understand the concept.
    I thought you said the body fat percentage was an example because you didn't know hers. I didn't know the ratio you used was just an example. Still, an example ratio of 3:1 would put the hypothetical person at 20.7% body fat, down from 28% and at 130, down from 150.

    If she, hypothetically, had 42 pounds of fat, that fat could provide 1300 calories worth of energy, on top of whatever she ate. That would be 2500 calories on a 1200 calorie a day diet, against a 2500 or so TDEE. If any/much muscle was going to be lost it seems -- given my understanding of things, anyway -- that that wouldn't be much of an issue for a while, though it might be at closer to 130 with less fat available. A much bigger problem, it seems, would be getting enough protein, etc. and not being hangry eating only 1200.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    With 42 lbs. of body fat, I think you could lose 2 lbs. of fat a week. They say each lb. is good for what ... 31 calories per day? That's over 1200 calories. 2 lbs. a week is 1000. So you'd need less than 32 lbs. of body fat to aim for 2 lbs/week. I don't think anyone with 15 lbs. to lose doesn't have 32 lbs. of fat, assuming your goal weight is within healthy BMI range.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    With 42 lbs. of body fat, I think you could lose 2 lbs. of fat a week. They say each lb. is good for what ... 31 calories per day? That's over 1200 calories. 2 lbs. a week is 1000. So you'd need less than 32 lbs. of body fat to aim for 2 lbs/week. I don't think anyone with 15 lbs. to lose doesn't have 32 lbs. of fat, assuming your goal weight is within healthy BMI range.

    The point being that when you take an extreme calorie deficit, 45% in the OP's case, you are not just losing fat.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Ok, when you put it like that it does make sense. However, if a deficit of 1000 cals a day is needed to lose 2lbs a week. My maintenance cals is 2200 and I net 1200. Why can't I lose the 2lbs?

    It's not that you can't...it's that you don't have the fat stores required for that kind of loss without burning up a bunch of muscle. i seriously doubt you're going to end up looking the way you think you're going to look when a higher ratio of your loss is lean muscle rather than fat than it otherwise would be.

    That said, you probably have it in your head to go for it anyway...so just go for it and get back to us on how awesome you look after your crash diet.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Ok, when you put it like that it does make sense. However, if a deficit of 1000 cals a day is needed to lose 2lbs a week. My maintenance cals is 2200 and I net 1200. Why can't I lose the 2lbs?

    It's not that you can't...it's that you don't have the fat stores required for that kind of loss without burning up a bunch of muscle. i seriously doubt you're going to end up looking the way you think you're going to look when a higher ratio of your loss is lean muscle rather than fat than it otherwise would be.

    That said, you probably have it in your head to go for it anyway...so just go for it and get back to us on how awesome you look after your crash diet.
    What kind of fat store is necessary to supplement a 1200 calorie diet and a 2500 TDEE, in your opinion?
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    With 42 lbs. of body fat, I think you could lose 2 lbs. of fat a week. They say each lb. is good for what ... 31 calories per day? That's over 1200 calories. 2 lbs. a week is 1000. So you'd need less than 32 lbs. of body fat to aim for 2 lbs/week. I don't think anyone with 15 lbs. to lose doesn't have 32 lbs. of fat, assuming your goal weight is within healthy BMI range.

    The point being that when you take an extreme calorie deficit, 45% in the OP's case, you are not just losing fat.
    I've seen more studies that refute that than support it. Nearly every reputable source says it's safe to aim for up to 2 lbs/week loss, at any level of overweight.

Categories