Losing 2lbs a week at 185?

Options
Even though MFP allows you to set your calories for weight loss of up to 2lbs per week, I've noticed on a lot of forums where people say 2lbs per week is unrealistic. At 185 lbs, is it safe/possible to consistently lose 2lbs a week. And at what weight does that start becoming a problem?
«1

Replies

  • Zhost
    Zhost Posts: 97
    Options
    It is not unrealistic and can be done (n=1, me). It'd only be a problem if you were underweight or close to being underweight.
  • jennahaines108
    jennahaines108 Posts: 58 Member
    Options
    Like the stats terminology =)
  • Maries_wine_calories
    Options
    I lost 2+ lbs a week at that weight! Once I got within 5 lbs of my goal I adjusted my settings, it made sense to "step up" my calories to begin getting ready for maintenance life :) Good luck!
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    Options
    2 pounds is fine. There is a list around here somewhere with suggested weight loss per week depending on your current weight. Once you get down to 10-15 pounds above where you want to maintain, you'll want to drop to .5 or so a week. At 185, do the 2 pounds for awhile. You'll lose and if you listen to your body you'll be able to tell when to reassess.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    I agree with what MrM said (that was three posts ago). Plus, as MFP will not set you below 1200 calories, it's probable that you won't lose 2 pounds a week anyway eating to your goal (which you are expected to do).
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    It depends on how much weight you have to lose. Just saying 185 Lbs is pretty arbitrary...185 Lbs on a 5'9" female isn't that heavy...185 Lbs on a 5' nothing female is a different story...

    Basically, the less overall weight you have to lose, the slower you should go. With less weight to lose you don't have the fat stores to sustain a 1000 calorie per day deficit from maintenance to lose 2 Lbs per week...so you end up burning muscle and other lean mass at a greater rate than necessary to compensate for the lack of energy (calories).

    I would also add that a great many people have better dietary adherence with smaller deficits...they lose weight at a slower rate, but it tends to be steadier and more sustainable with a smaller deficit...because you can actually still eat food and enjoy yourself with a smaller deficit...and still lose weight.

    2 Lbs per week is generally reserved for those individuals who are obese, not those needing to lose a handful of vanity pounds.
  • dopeysmelly
    dopeysmelly Posts: 1,390 Member
    Options
    Zhost wrote: »
    It is not unrealistic and can be done (n=1, me). It'd only be a problem if you were underweight or close to being underweight.

    Actually, n=2, you and me.

    I lost at 2 lbs a week. I deliberately slowed it down as I approached my target weight by increasing calories gradually.

  • jennahaines108
    jennahaines108 Posts: 58 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    I'm 185 at 5'4". I am fairly muscular, so I'm not HUGE, but I definitely am starting to look round. And thanks for the advice. And for those of you who have lost 2lbs per week, were you 100% strict on dieting and exercise?
  • Ishtancon
    Ishtancon Posts: 14 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Yes, 2bls/ week is realistic and generally considered safe :)

    A solid workout routine, if you have not already implemented it, will make your goal easier as well.

    As far as when you should stop kind of depends on several factors. You should consult a doctor to *kitten* what is good for you.

  • Branstin
    Branstin Posts: 2,320 Member
    Options
    As a rule of thumb, the following weekly targets would give a balance between minimizing negative side effects and seeing a reasonable weekly weight loss:

    More than 75 lbs. 2 lbs./week
    40-75 lbs. 1.5 lbs./week
    10-40 lbs. 1 lb./week
    Less than 10 lbs. 0.5 lb./week

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants


  • jennahaines108
    jennahaines108 Posts: 58 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    I'm 185 at 5'4". I am fairly muscular, so I'm not HUGE, but I definitely am starting to look round. And thanks for the advice. And for those of you who have lost 2lbs per week, were you 100% strict on dieting and exercise?

    Just keep in mind that when we are overweight we generally do 2 things:

    Overestimate how much muscle we have
    Underestimate how much fat we have

    Understandable. But to put it in perspective, I had very little fat and a 6-pack at about 135lbs.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    I'm 185 at 5'4". I am fairly muscular, so I'm not HUGE, but I definitely am starting to look round. And thanks for the advice. And for those of you who have lost 2lbs per week, were you 100% strict on dieting and exercise?

    Whether you're trying to lose 1/2 Lb or 2 Lbs or maintain, it's about consistency...consistently hitting your targets. It's not about having some super restrictive diet or doing a gazillion hours of cardio every day...it's all about consistently hitting your calorie targets.

  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Branstin wrote: »
    As a rule of thumb, the following weekly targets would give a balance between minimizing negative side effects and seeing a reasonable weekly weight loss:

    More than 75 lbs. 2 lbs./week
    40-75 lbs. 1.5 lbs./week
    10-40 lbs. 1 lb./week
    Less than 10 lbs. 0.5 lb./week

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants


    I remember seeing a different list for suggest weight loss around here too.

    Anyway OP, I'm no professional, so I can only tell you from experience that I am also 5'4" and started losing 2 pounds a week at 163. It felt fine until I got down to about 150 and had to drop to 1 pound a week, and eventually .5 a week. Listen to your body, continue to research, good luck.
  • Blueseraphchaos
    Blueseraphchaos Posts: 843 Member
    Options
    Personal experience here...I'm 5'3, 180 lbs, and to lose 2 lbs a week right now at a light activity level, i could only net 1,100 calories. I'd be miserable. I did start out losing 2 lbs a week, but i dropped it down once i hit 190 or so. I had quite a bit of weight to lose, though. I still do and my goal is to make it to my first major goal weight without being miserable and hungry all the time.

    But that's just me personally. I'd hate to be eating 1,100 calories net per day. It is definitely possible to lose 2 lbs per week at that weight and height. But will the resulting loss in lean muscle mass as well be worth it?
  • katherine_startrek_fan
    Options
    At 5'10", I dropped down to a 1 1/2 pound weekly goal when I got to around 250 pounds since I could not manage on lower than 1,300 calories a day, even with exercise calories. Even then, I am only getting 1,510 base calories per day now at 237 pounds.

    Not sure how many calories you're getting, nor what your goal is, but it's more important to choose a weekly amount that you can maintain long term than to lose a little quickly and give up because you feel too restricted.
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options
    2lbs is safe but not something I would personally aim for at 5'6" / 179lbs let alone someone of your stats. Set something that is more realistic and attainable. You will most likely be miserable and bummed out when you are cutting cals so low to try to achieve 2 lbs a week and it doesn't end up happening.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    You'd be hard pressed to find an authority who said 2 lbs./week as a goal was too aggressive. Most people who aim for 2 lbs. will only achieve 1 or less due to measurement error, anyway.