Harm in huge deficit for mordibly obese?
ditsyblond17
Posts: 155 Member
I see tons of people suggesting not go under BMR. My question is, how do We get enough of a deficit then to lose 2 pounds a week? I can afford to lose more than 2lb a week to start out. I was wondering if there's harm in a deficit of 1,500 from my TDEE of 2,700? That would have me at 1,200 to lose 3 pounds a week for a while until I'm in a healthier place.
Is this wrong? Even for a person weighing 320 pounds?
Is this wrong? Even for a person weighing 320 pounds?
0
Replies
-
Good question. The issue with eating at such a huge deficit is that you may get ravenously hungry and binge. Especially if you have a history of over eating. Raise it to 1500-1800?... At 320 you will still lose at a nice pace. Don't rush the process. Good luck!0
-
I've wondered this myself. I can't see why you shouldn't just go for a smaller deficit, and losing, as you said, up to 2 lbs./week.0
-
Height? Goal weight?0
-
If you're morbidly obese then a larger defecit is OK
But 1200 a day may be unsustainable and frustrating long term and make you crash and burn
You could try it when your willpower is stronger and move more for more calories / lessen the defecit later
0 -
Ah, okay. Was just curious if the only reason tend to steer aaay from it was simply binge tendencies. Which I have of course
I'm 320. 5'7 and sedentary. My BMR is 2,200. I am unsure how to calculate my deficit for 2-3 pounds a week. (Another post also active I just wrote ) I'm just so confused by it all. Obviously I'm New to this weight loss thing if I've allowed myself to get to 320 pounds 0 -
I'm not sure there's any actual physical harm you'll suffer, but you *will* be miserable. I promise you The Suckage will be ginormous.
Prepare yourself accordingly, and all should be well.
0 -
BMR itself is meaningless. However, huge deficits do mean that you will lose proportionately more muscle, as opposed to fat. Also, there is an increased risk of gallstones and possibly other risks, so some medical supervision may be wise.0
-
I don't think there is any harm in trying that. If you are miserable, bump it up by a couple of hundred calories a day.0
-
So based on sedentary TDEE (for those that know about that it's BMRx 1.2) is that the number I need to decrease 1,500 by if I want to lose 3 pounds a week?0
-
I am 5'7", started at 266 but I'm down to 253, and I couldn't even function properly on 1400 a day. I was getting headaches, I was tired all the time and I had no energy to work out. I also wanted to lose weight as quickly as possible. I binged because I was starving.. I felt like I was developing a really bad relationship with food.
I bumped it up to 1600 and I'm satisfied and feel healthy. Everyone is different. Since you are just starting out, you're doing to dump quite a bit of water weight, and then you're weight loss will slow down to the recommended 1-2 lbs. I've heard anything more than that can risk losing precious muscle. There's no need to rush this process..0 -
I'm 5"8, 140lbs ,sedentary. And trying to stick to 1200 calories is incredibly hard for me.
You could try it, and if you get the urge to binge because you're so hungry, just bump your calories back up to a more manageable deficit.
Wishing you the very best of luck
:flowerforyou: 0 -
Absolutely right. No rush. This is, after all, a long term weight loss lifestyle.0
-
You also need to keep the issue of loose skin in mind. The faster you lose, the greater your chances are of getting left with excess skin.
We all want to lose weight quickly and have our dream body NOW. But in this instance, a bit of patience will be rewarded 0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I'm 5"8, 140lbs ,sedentary. And trying to stick to 1200 calories is incredibly hard for me.
You could try it, and if you get the urge to binge because you're so hungry, just bump your calories back up to a more manageable deficit.
Wishing you the very best of luck :flowerforyou:
I am tall, very active (often burn 1500+ calories in a day) and I ate around 1200 calories for a couple of years without a problem.
I've recently started to eat a little more, but I don't NEED to in order to be comfortable or to get decent nutrition. I've got some unique issues, including an extremely low BMR due to health problems...but it CAN be done.
OP, I think that you have to try it for yourself to see whether or not it works and is reasonable for you.0 -
You're lucky azulviolet. I totally struggle
I was wondering if it would be even harder for OP because she weighs so much more??0 -
I had mine set to 2lbs/week but due to my size I think I lost on average 3.3lbs/week over the first 5 months.0
-
I'm 5'7" started at 270 and am now at 235. I would say if you plan to eat at that kind of deficit be sure to talk to a doctor first. My doctor recommended 2000 calories for me and that has produced fairly consistent 2 lbs a week (I started walking daily as well). With my current activity level 2000 is maintenance at my goal weight.
Remember your making changes to last a lifetime, think marathon not 100 meter sprint.0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »I'm not sure there's any actual physical harm you'll suffer, but you *will* be miserable. I promise you The Suckage will be ginormous.
Prepare yourself accordingly, and all should be well.
This. I'm in a similar situation to you and stuck to the 1200 calories for a few weeks but surprise surprise I cracked and ate way over calories for a few days last week. I've changed my goal to lose 1.5lb a week and I feel that's much more maintainable. See how you go but remember, it's not a race. I'm the most impatient person in the world but I'm learning there's no quick fix to this if you want to do the job properly!0 -
Your BMR isn't relevant; your TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) is. There are tons of calculators, but try this one: http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
At 5'7/320 and NO exercise AT ALL, your TDEE would be 2600.0 -
Thank you all for the advice. I just need to remember, it's a marathon. Not a Sprint. Hell, Not even a race. I just want to get there. I'm tired of being this way.
0 -
I understand. I am making good progress but sometimes it feels like I'm just crawling along. I keep reminding myself that the desire for instant gratification is part of what got me into this mess in the first place.0
-
IPOARM recommends 20-30% under your TDEE for those who are morbidly obese, but only for a short period of time, I believe.0
-
Potential harm of long term large deficits includes:
Gallstones
Hormonal imbalance
Adrenal/thyroid damage
Improper nutritional issues
Bingeing
Depression
Disordered thinking
Further loose skin issues
However, a short term period of 6-8 weeks of eating at a larger deficit isn't a big risk and may be recommended for someone who is morbidly obese. It may cause adherence problems and bingeing, so discuss with your doctor.
Edit: Also, it will like also result in adaptive thermogenesis. A reduced weight loss at a specific calorie level.
The risks listed above may be outweighed by current illness or other risks of being morbidly obese. Again, this is a discussion to have with a physician, face to face.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I'm 5"8, 140lbs ,sedentary. And trying to stick to 1200 calories is incredibly hard for me.
You could try it, and if you get the urge to binge because you're so hungry, just bump your calories back up to a more manageable deficit.
Wishing you the very best of luck :flowerforyou:
I am tall, very active (often burn 1500+ calories in a day) and I ate around 1200 calories for a couple of years without a problem.
I've recently started to eat a little more, but I don't NEED to in order to be comfortable or to get decent nutrition. I've got some unique issues, including an extremely low BMR due to health problems...but it CAN be done.
OP, I think that you have to try it for yourself to see whether or not it works and is reasonable for you.
The fact that you have a health issues today and an extremely low BMR may be related to your low calorie intake of several years. Please note - I am not saying it is the case, but a possibility as metabolic issues are known to arise for people that are highly active and also restrict calories a lot.
Of course, could be totally unrelated too.0 -
ditsyblond17 wrote: »I'm 320. 5'7 and sedentary. My BMR is 2,200.
Katch-McArdle formula would put your BMR at 1600 based on lean body mass - the purely weight based ones are off their scale at 320 lbs.
There's no specific issue eating below your BMR as calories are supplied from fat reserves and if you're sedentary eating below BMR is mathematically inevitable if you want to lose even 1 lb/week.0 -
If I were you, I would see a doctor and do it that way, so then you could loose more under doctors supervision.0
-
Thank you all so much. It is starting to make a bit more sense. I was using Harry Benedict formula and that says my BMR is a TON higher than what is given for lean body mass. No wonder I got to this weight. Technically it says I need to eat 1,600 to maintain, but I easily eat 1,000+ a day more before I was conscious of it. Even if I've learned nothing else so far, I've learned it's incredible the amount of food our eyes thinks our stomachs need.0
-
ditsyblond17 wrote: »I'm 320. 5'7 and sedentary. My BMR is 2,200.
Katch-McArdle formula would put your BMR at 1600 based on lean body mass - the purely weight based ones are off their scale at 320 lbs.
There's no specific issue eating below your BMR as calories are supplied from fat reserves and if you're sedentary eating below BMR is mathematically inevitable if you want to lose even 1 lb/week.
I'm not convinced, yet. Got a reference?
Revised HB ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/118172390 -
doesn't include the Katch-McArdle or any body fat considerations ?0
-
doesn't include the Katch-McArdle or any body fat considerations ?
Includes Cunningham. Which is the Katch McArdle, just adjusted for RMR. It also includes Nelson. Both are LBM equations and Nelson has BF on top of LBM.CONCLUSION:
In patients with obesity class II and III the equation of Harris-Benedict predicted the average BMR with acceptable precision for clinical use and was better fitting than most of the currently available predictive equations for basal metabolic rate (BMR). However, the recalculated version (by Roza et al.) was more accurate and should therefore be used instead of the original equation: BMR (men) = 88.362 + 4.799 x (length) + 13.397 x (weight) - 5.677 x (age); BMR (women) = 447.593 + 3.098 x (length) + 9.247 x (weight) - 4.330 x (age). The Nelson equation, including not only LBM but FM as additional predictor, was the best predicting equation ([108 LBM + 16.9 FM]0.239). Harris-Benedict equation had sufficient precision also in extreme obese subjects with a body weight > or = 120 kg, so there is no need for adaptation.
Edit: not that it's a major point - these equations still have a Standard Deviation of 10-15% I'd prefer to calculate from my own eating habits and MFP data.
If only someone had developed a tool to do that...
Oh, wait (see first link in my profile).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions