Why has My fitness pal lowered my calorie allowance?
tinaruth19
Posts: 2 Member
Hi there, I'm hoping someone can help me, as I'm fairly new to this app. I've been using it regularly and logging in every day for 10 days. My calorie allowance for my weight, height and goal of 2lb weight loss per week was 1200 and the carbs fats etc were all set accordingly. However, this week, although I've Altered nothing, my calorie allowance has reduced to 920 and the fats and carbs etc have also been readjusted. Could this have happened because I only lost 1lb instead of the 2lb goal, as it's gonna to be a struggle to eat just that amount. Also if you excercise, can you actually eat more or is it best to use it to lower the consumed calories further. Thank you
0
Replies
-
Stick to your 1200, I think that there's a bug going around. There are several posts about the same thing on the forums -- MFP is supposed to recommend no less than 1200, no matter what your goal is.0
-
Yes, there is a glitch, which is part of the problem. The other problem is that you have your goal set for 2 lbs per week, which is far too aggressive for the amount you have to lose. You should be aiming for 0.5 - 1 lb per week loss with only 14 lbs to go.0
-
That must be a bug because MFP will never tell you to eat less than 1200.0
-
Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?0
-
Yestinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
0 -
It depends.tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
http://evidencemag.com/fat-loss-deficit/
0 -
tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
Yes, because 2 lbs is geared for people who have 75+ lbs to lose. Higher deficits when you have less weight to lose mean that you will be losing a decent chunk of muscle mass - the point of the smaller deficit is so you can focus on fat loss and retain as much lean body mass as possible. Behaviorally, it also helps with the transition to maintenance, because you are eating relatively close to the way you need to eat in order to maintain your goal weight and reduces the yo-yo effect that one often sees in dieting.0 -
First, two pounds a week is rather aggressive, for someone with so little to lose. As per the caloric altering, sounds like a glitch. You can go into custom and enter your goals manually.0
-
tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.0 -
Yes, there is a glitch, which is part of the problem. The other problem is that you have your goal set for 2 lbs per week, which is far too aggressive for the amount you have to lose. You should be aiming for 0.5 - 1 lb per week loss with only 14 lbs to go.
Can you explain why you say this? I'm about 20 to 30lbs to go (if I ever decide what I want my goal weight to be) and I'm on 2lbs a week and have no issues0 -
But she has way more body fat to draw from than the 28 she wants to lose, too.tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
Say she has 28 lbs. of excess fat and 28 of wanted fat. When she has 10 lbs. of excess fat left, she still has 38 lbs. of fat to draw from, which should fuel a pound a week without endangering muscle. (Not that we often achieve a pound a week loss with that low of body fat because we measure poorly, so shooting for a pound and achieving some fraction of a pound is usually preferred to shooting for a half pound and achieving nothing.)
I'm not advocating fast loss, I'm just saying most of us have plenty of body fat even near goal to fuel a 500 calorie deficit. So people can usually base their decision on other criteria.
0 -
tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
There is a difference in maximal possible loss and likely loss rates for the general population. Using the maximal loss for planning would be similar to basing a road trip on your vehicle's top end speed rather than on likely highway speeds.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
But she has way more body fat to draw from than the 28 she wants to lose, too.tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
Say she has 28 lbs. of excess fat and 28 of wanted fat. When she has 10 lbs. of excess fat left, she still has 38 lbs. of fat to draw from, which should fuel a pound a week without endangering muscle. (Not that we often achieve a pound a week loss with that low of body fat because we measure poorly, so shooting for a pound and achieving some fraction of a pound is usually preferred to shooting for a half pound and achieving nothing.)
I'm not advocating fast loss, I'm just saying most of us have plenty of body fat even near goal to fuel a 500 calorie deficit. So people can usually base their decision on other criteria.
I totally, 100% agree with you. I was just tempering my advice to slip it in past some of the more deeply indoctrinated on this website. I plan to stick to a 1 lb/wk deficit when I get closer to my goal and continue that until I reach it.brianpperkins wrote: »tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
There is a difference in maximal possible loss and likely loss rates for the general population. Using the maximal loss for planning would be similar to basing a road trip on your vehicle's top end speed rather than on likely highway speeds.
Not necessarily. The studies that demonstrated this number (31/lb/day) was done in real humans under real calorie restriction. There's no reason to think that you (we) are different from them in any physiologic way. I believe the original paper is Alpert, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2005.0 -
this.lishie_rebooted wrote: »
Yestinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
0 -
This too.Liftng4Lis wrote: »First, two pounds a week is rather aggressive, for someone with so little to lose. As per the caloric altering, sounds like a glitch. You can go into custom and enter your goals manually.
And weekly weight loss goals are set not just based on how much would be reasonable to lose based on your body fat %, but on actual diet compliance. With so little to lose, the calorie goal will be ridiculously low and will be difficult to sustain.
Why everyone thinks they need to lose 2lbs/week is beyond me. I've lost 30lbs in 7-8 months by choice because any faster than that and I am cranky and hungry.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
But she has way more body fat to draw from than the 28 she wants to lose, too.tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
Say she has 28 lbs. of excess fat and 28 of wanted fat. When she has 10 lbs. of excess fat left, she still has 38 lbs. of fat to draw from, which should fuel a pound a week without endangering muscle. (Not that we often achieve a pound a week loss with that low of body fat because we measure poorly, so shooting for a pound and achieving some fraction of a pound is usually preferred to shooting for a half pound and achieving nothing.)
I'm not advocating fast loss, I'm just saying most of us have plenty of body fat even near goal to fuel a 500 calorie deficit. So people can usually base their decision on other criteria.
I totally, 100% agree with you. I was just tempering my advice to slip it in past some of the more deeply indoctrinated on this website. I plan to stick to a 1 lb/wk deficit when I get closer to my goal and continue that until I reach it.brianpperkins wrote: »tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
There is a difference in maximal possible loss and likely loss rates for the general population. Using the maximal loss for planning would be similar to basing a road trip on your vehicle's top end speed rather than on likely highway speeds.
Not necessarily. The studies that demonstrated this number (31/lb/day) was done in real humans under real calorie restriction. There's no reason to think that you (we) are different from them in any physiologic way. I believe the original paper is Alpert, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2005.
Maximal, under controlled conditions, does not equal likely in the real world. Even the study you cite claims "This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups" in its abstract.
0 -
Yes, there is a glitch, which is part of the problem. The other problem is that you have your goal set for 2 lbs per week, which is far too aggressive for the amount you have to lose. You should be aiming for 0.5 - 1 lb per week loss with only 14 lbs to go.
Can you explain why you say this? I'm about 20 to 30lbs to go (if I ever decide what I want my goal weight to be) and I'm on 2lbs a week and have no issues
@Robbnva, there a few reasons why a lower calorie deficit is recommended when you have less to lose. First, you have to consider that less weight to lose means less fat - a person who is 20 lbs overweight is going to have less body fat than someone who is 70 lbs overweight. When we lose weight, we not only lose fat, but muscle, water, and tissue as well. The idea of the calorie deficit is that we are burning more calories than we intake, but if you do not have a lot of fat, the higher deficit means that more of that weight could be coming from lean body mass - exactly what you are trying to preserve. Eating enough protein and doing resistance training can help with the retention of lbm, but you still need to keep a reasonable deficit.
Many people seem to have the misconception that there is a fitness-model figure hiding underneath the fat, and if they just hurry up and lose weight, they'll look great. Then they hit goal and find themselves disappointed, because they've lost so much muscle that they don't look "toned," and basically look like a smaller, still squishy version of themselves. Then they have to fight to put muscle back on, either by bulking/cutting or recomping, and that can take a long time and be incredibly frustrating. Usually when you get within 10 lbs of goal, it's a good idea to re-evaluate your goal and determine whether losing more weight is actually going to get you the body type you want. We see a lot of people here desperate to lose the last 5 or 10 lbs, when realistically losing that weight still wouldn't get them the look they want and they need to focus on body composition - but I digress.
Another reason is the behavioral aspect - the idea with MFP is that you lower your deficit as you get closer to goal, which raises your calories closer to what you would intake as your maintenance calories. This gives you an opportunity to adopt the eating behaviors that would need in order to maintain your goal weight so you do not end up right back where you were. The problem with high calorie deficits is often seen in crash dieting - people restrict heavily until the weight comes off, then go back to eating "normally" once they've hit goal, gain the weight back, then the cycle repeats.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
But she has way more body fat to draw from than the 28 she wants to lose, too.tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
Say she has 28 lbs. of excess fat and 28 of wanted fat. When she has 10 lbs. of excess fat left, she still has 38 lbs. of fat to draw from, which should fuel a pound a week without endangering muscle. (Not that we often achieve a pound a week loss with that low of body fat because we measure poorly, so shooting for a pound and achieving some fraction of a pound is usually preferred to shooting for a half pound and achieving nothing.)
I'm not advocating fast loss, I'm just saying most of us have plenty of body fat even near goal to fuel a 500 calorie deficit. So people can usually base their decision on other criteria.
I totally, 100% agree with you. I was just tempering my advice to slip it in past some of the more deeply indoctrinated on this website. I plan to stick to a 1 lb/wk deficit when I get closer to my goal and continue that until I reach it.brianpperkins wrote: »tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
There is a difference in maximal possible loss and likely loss rates for the general population. Using the maximal loss for planning would be similar to basing a road trip on your vehicle's top end speed rather than on likely highway speeds.
Not necessarily. The studies that demonstrated this number (31/lb/day) was done in real humans under real calorie restriction. There's no reason to think that you (we) are different from them in any physiologic way. I believe the original paper is Alpert, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2005.
Maximal, under controlled conditions, does not equal likely in the real world. Even the study you cite claims "This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups" in its abstract.
I'm not disagreeing with you. If an individual lacks the will power to stick to a plan, they cannot expect to have the results achievable by the plan.0 -
Yes, there is a glitch, which is part of the problem. The other problem is that you have your goal set for 2 lbs per week, which is far too aggressive for the amount you have to lose. You should be aiming for 0.5 - 1 lb per week loss with only 14 lbs to go.
Can you explain why you say this? I'm about 20 to 30lbs to go (if I ever decide what I want my goal weight to be) and I'm on 2lbs a week and have no issues
@Robbnva, there a few reasons why a lower calorie deficit is recommended when you have less to lose. First, you have to consider that less weight to lose means less fat - a person who is 20 lbs overweight is going to have less body fat than someone who is 70 lbs overweight. When we lose weight, we not only lose fat, but muscle, water, and tissue as well. The idea of the calorie deficit is that we are burning more calories than we intake, but if you do not have a lot of fat, the higher deficit means that more of that weight could be coming from lean body mass - exactly what you are trying to preserve. Eating enough protein and doing resistance training can help with the retention of lbm, but you still need to keep a reasonable deficit.
Many people seem to have the misconception that there is a fitness-model figure hiding underneath the fat, and if they just hurry up and lose weight, they'll look great. Then they hit goal and find themselves disappointed, because they've lost so much muscle that they don't look "toned," and basically look like a smaller, still squishy version of themselves. Then they have to fight to put muscle back on, either by bulking/cutting or recomping, and that can take a long time and be incredibly frustrating. Usually when you get within 10 lbs of goal, it's a good idea to re-evaluate your goal and determine whether losing more weight is actually going to get you the body type you want. We see a lot of people here desperate to lose the last 5 or 10 lbs, when realistically losing that weight still wouldn't get them the look they want and they need to focus on body composition - but I digress.
Another reason is the behavioral aspect - the idea with MFP is that you lower your deficit as you get closer to goal, which raises your calories closer to what you would intake as your maintenance calories. This gives you an opportunity to adopt the eating behaviors that would need in order to maintain your goal weight so you do not end up right back where you were. The problem with high calorie deficits is often seen in crash dieting - people restrict heavily until the weight comes off, then go back to eating "normally" once they've hit goal, gain the weight back, then the cycle repeats.
0 -
Yes, there is a glitch, which is part of the problem. The other problem is that you have your goal set for 2 lbs per week, which is far too aggressive for the amount you have to lose. You should be aiming for 0.5 - 1 lb per week loss with only 14 lbs to go.
Can you explain why you say this? I'm about 20 to 30lbs to go (if I ever decide what I want my goal weight to be) and I'm on 2lbs a week and have no issues
@Robbnva, there a few reasons why a lower calorie deficit is recommended when you have less to lose. First, you have to consider that less weight to lose means less fat - a person who is 20 lbs overweight is going to have less body fat than someone who is 70 lbs overweight. When we lose weight, we not only lose fat, but muscle, water, and tissue as well. The idea of the calorie deficit is that we are burning more calories than we intake, but if you do not have a lot of fat, the higher deficit means that more of that weight could be coming from lean body mass - exactly what you are trying to preserve. Eating enough protein and doing resistance training can help with the retention of lbm, but you still need to keep a reasonable deficit.
Many people seem to have the misconception that there is a fitness-model figure hiding underneath the fat, and if they just hurry up and lose weight, they'll look great. Then they hit goal and find themselves disappointed, because they've lost so much muscle that they don't look "toned," and basically look like a smaller, still squishy version of themselves. Then they have to fight to put muscle back on, either by bulking/cutting or recomping, and that can take a long time and be incredibly frustrating. Usually when you get within 10 lbs of goal, it's a good idea to re-evaluate your goal and determine whether losing more weight is actually going to get you the body type you want. We see a lot of people here desperate to lose the last 5 or 10 lbs, when realistically losing that weight still wouldn't get them the look they want and they need to focus on body composition - but I digress.
Another reason is the behavioral aspect - the idea with MFP is that you lower your deficit as you get closer to goal, which raises your calories closer to what you would intake as your maintenance calories. This gives you an opportunity to adopt the eating behaviors that would need in order to maintain your goal weight so you do not end up right back where you were. The problem with high calorie deficits is often seen in crash dieting - people restrict heavily until the weight comes off, then go back to eating "normally" once they've hit goal, gain the weight back, then the cycle repeats.
That is a good explanation, thank you.0 -
tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
So I supposedly have 49lbs of fat to lose, which is weird because I'm only 20 to 30lbs away from my goal weight. So how do I calculate mine?0 -
tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
So I supposedly have 49lbs of fat to lose, which is weird because I'm only 20 to 30lbs away from my goal weight. So how do I calculate mine?
I don't follow you here... how do you know you have 49 lbs of fat to lose?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
But she has way more body fat to draw from than the 28 she wants to lose, too.tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
Say she has 28 lbs. of excess fat and 28 of wanted fat. When she has 10 lbs. of excess fat left, she still has 38 lbs. of fat to draw from, which should fuel a pound a week without endangering muscle. (Not that we often achieve a pound a week loss with that low of body fat because we measure poorly, so shooting for a pound and achieving some fraction of a pound is usually preferred to shooting for a half pound and achieving nothing.)
I'm not advocating fast loss, I'm just saying most of us have plenty of body fat even near goal to fuel a 500 calorie deficit. So people can usually base their decision on other criteria.
I totally, 100% agree with you. I was just tempering my advice to slip it in past some of the more deeply indoctrinated on this website. I plan to stick to a 1 lb/wk deficit when I get closer to my goal and continue that until I reach it.brianpperkins wrote: »tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
There is a difference in maximal possible loss and likely loss rates for the general population. Using the maximal loss for planning would be similar to basing a road trip on your vehicle's top end speed rather than on likely highway speeds.
Not necessarily. The studies that demonstrated this number (31/lb/day) was done in real humans under real calorie restriction. There's no reason to think that you (we) are different from them in any physiologic way. I believe the original paper is Alpert, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2005.
Maximal, under controlled conditions, does not equal likely in the real world. Even the study you cite claims "This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups" in its abstract.
I'm not disagreeing with you. If an individual lacks the will power to stick to a plan, they cannot expect to have the results achievable by the plan.
It has nothing to do with willpower. Even the study you cite claims the number is the maximal under controlled conditions and that other researchers have findings that counter this one. You pick the outlying study results, read what the maximal is, then use that one number as the basis for your posts. Then you want to blame the willpower of others if they don't reach maximal theoretical levels?
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
But she has way more body fat to draw from than the 28 she wants to lose, too.tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
Say she has 28 lbs. of excess fat and 28 of wanted fat. When she has 10 lbs. of excess fat left, she still has 38 lbs. of fat to draw from, which should fuel a pound a week without endangering muscle. (Not that we often achieve a pound a week loss with that low of body fat because we measure poorly, so shooting for a pound and achieving some fraction of a pound is usually preferred to shooting for a half pound and achieving nothing.)
I'm not advocating fast loss, I'm just saying most of us have plenty of body fat even near goal to fuel a 500 calorie deficit. So people can usually base their decision on other criteria.
I totally, 100% agree with you. I was just tempering my advice to slip it in past some of the more deeply indoctrinated on this website. I plan to stick to a 1 lb/wk deficit when I get closer to my goal and continue that until I reach it.brianpperkins wrote: »tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
There is a difference in maximal possible loss and likely loss rates for the general population. Using the maximal loss for planning would be similar to basing a road trip on your vehicle's top end speed rather than on likely highway speeds.
Not necessarily. The studies that demonstrated this number (31/lb/day) was done in real humans under real calorie restriction. There's no reason to think that you (we) are different from them in any physiologic way. I believe the original paper is Alpert, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2005.
Maximal, under controlled conditions, does not equal likely in the real world. Even the study you cite claims "This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups" in its abstract.
I'm not disagreeing with you. If an individual lacks the will power to stick to a plan, they cannot expect to have the results achievable by the plan.
It has nothing to do with willpower. Even the study you cite claims the number is the maximal under controlled conditions and that other researchers have findings that counter this one. You pick the outlying study results, read what the maximal is, then use that one number as the basis for your posts. Then you want to blame the willpower of others if they don't reach maximal theoretical levels?
I'm not using willpower as a judgemental word, it's simply a fact.
There's nothing magical about being in a study. If you know the study protocol, you can inflict it on yourself, presuming you have the willpower to stick to it. The fact that one is being measured and one is not does not change that you're following the same protocol.
Protocol X achieved results Y. If you follow protocol X yourself then generally, your results could be predicted to resemble result Y. Following a protocol without somebody inflicting it upon you requires you to exert your own will (ie. willpower).0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
But she has way more body fat to draw from than the 28 she wants to lose, too.tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
Say she has 28 lbs. of excess fat and 28 of wanted fat. When she has 10 lbs. of excess fat left, she still has 38 lbs. of fat to draw from, which should fuel a pound a week without endangering muscle. (Not that we often achieve a pound a week loss with that low of body fat because we measure poorly, so shooting for a pound and achieving some fraction of a pound is usually preferred to shooting for a half pound and achieving nothing.)
I'm not advocating fast loss, I'm just saying most of us have plenty of body fat even near goal to fuel a 500 calorie deficit. So people can usually base their decision on other criteria.
I totally, 100% agree with you. I was just tempering my advice to slip it in past some of the more deeply indoctrinated on this website. I plan to stick to a 1 lb/wk deficit when I get closer to my goal and continue that until I reach it.brianpperkins wrote: »tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
There is a difference in maximal possible loss and likely loss rates for the general population. Using the maximal loss for planning would be similar to basing a road trip on your vehicle's top end speed rather than on likely highway speeds.
Not necessarily. The studies that demonstrated this number (31/lb/day) was done in real humans under real calorie restriction. There's no reason to think that you (we) are different from them in any physiologic way. I believe the original paper is Alpert, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2005.
Maximal, under controlled conditions, does not equal likely in the real world. Even the study you cite claims "This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups" in its abstract.
I'm not disagreeing with you. If an individual lacks the will power to stick to a plan, they cannot expect to have the results achievable by the plan.
It has nothing to do with willpower. Even the study you cite claims the number is the maximal under controlled conditions and that other researchers have findings that counter this one. You pick the outlying study results, read what the maximal is, then use that one number as the basis for your posts. Then you want to blame the willpower of others if they don't reach maximal theoretical levels?
I'm not using willpower as a judgemental word, it's simply a fact.
There's nothing magical about being in a study. If you know the study protocol, you can inflict it on yourself, presuming you have the willpower to stick to it. The fact that one is being measured and one is not does not change that you're following the same protocol.
Protocol X achieved results Y. If you follow protocol X yourself then generally, your results could be predicted to resemble result Y. Following a protocol without somebody inflicting it upon you requires you to exert your own will (ie. willpower).
When the abstract of the study counters you ... you're the one that's wrong. There is a difference in optimal, controlled conditions and the real world. There is a reason why the study you cite is an outlying finding when compared to other studies on the same subject. You've then latched onto the maximum, not mean, for your entire series of diatribes.
Using your flawed logic, it is willpower that explains why you've never matched Usain Bolt sprint records or Scot Mendelson bench press records.0 -
Can you define the differences that you perceive between two individuals both doing the same moderate exercise and eating the same diet, where individual A is enrolled in a study and individual B is an MFP member? Because if you follow the same protocol, then the "optimal controlled conditions" that you're referring to are limited to simply who's paying attention. I am not of the opinion that my weight loss is controlled by how much attention is payed to me by others.0
-
In fact, your logic would imply that no study can ever be used ever to discuss diet and fitness results, or really anything.
Any study cited ever would be met by your closed mind as "an optimal controlled condition and not applicable to the real world." Can you explain to us how you would design a study that escapes your own criticism?0 -
tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
It would be just barely too aggressive.
You can derive about 31 calories per day per pound of your fat stores. At 28 lbs of fat to lose, that's (28 x 31 x 7)/3500 = 1.73 lbs per week. You should set your goal to between 1.5 and 2 lbs per week loss. At 24 lbs you can drop to 1.5 lbs per week, at 16 lbs you can drop to 1, and at 8 lbs you can drop to 0.5 per week.
So I supposedly have 49lbs of fat to lose, which is weird because I'm only 20 to 30lbs away from my goal weight. So how do I calculate mine?
Just stick to a 0.5 or 1lb/week goal if your general goal is another 20-30lbs. Might as well make the last 20-30 pounds enjoyable instead of trying to lose it as fast as possible and likely eat less than is desirable.0 -
tinaruth19 wrote: »Ok thank you for your replies, hopefully mfp will re set itself in a few days and i can try again. Although I have put 11st as my target, I was planning on moving it to 10st as I got closer. Would 2lbs still be considered too aggressive if I had 28lbs to loose?
Yes. .5 pounds a week.0 -
You should select a goal that makes you the happiest without exceeding a 31 calorie per pound per day deficit. Some people are motivated more by food and are happier with a smaller deficit. Some people are happy eating less and losing more and are happier with a larger deficit.
Assuming that your chosen deficit is a) sustainable (based on your mental state/happiness/satisfaction) and b) not unhealthy (based on lean body mass loss) then you're doing it right, regardless of the number. Some choose 0.5/wk and some choose 2, but nobody is objectively wrong, in contrast to the mantra of MFPers.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions