Question about the "How Quick/How Much to Lose" Chart

2456

Replies

  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    edited May 2015
    kimny72 wrote: »

    This is the section I'm referring to; how does it differ from what I posted?

    Body composition adjustments should be gradual, with no excessive restrictions or unsafe behaviors or products. On average, weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week but should not exceed 1.5% of body weight loss per week.1,122 A higher rate of weight loss indicates dehydration or other restrictive or unsafe behaviors that will negatively affect performance and health.

    That says that your loss should not exceed 1.5%, it doesn't say everyone can or should do it.

    Nor did I say everyone can or should do it. :smile:

    [Edit: But when people on MFP post to say they are doing it, it would be nice if others didn't try to discourage them by saying it's unhealthy etc.]
  • manicautumn
    manicautumn Posts: 224 Member
    Some interesting answers here. I do agree with the rationale that its better to advise others on the side of caution. That is likely where the chart arose from, I assume, a safe-for-everyone guideline that is useful to newcomers and those seeking guidance.

    I don't mean to instigate fighting or to say the recommendations aren't valid. I'm just curious from a theoretical perspective about the motivations behind it and how general it is.

    The 1.5% thing is also interesting. Probably smarter for those heavier though. I don't think I could personally (knowing my body) could do it all the way through. Right now, at 130 (overweight for my height), I could do it for about 5 pounds with my FitBit adjustment, but getting below 125 gets iffy for that much. But, I guess that's why it's a maximum, not a goal.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Also be aware of those research studies and the participants allowed to join it.

    No diets or attempted or weight loss for the prior 6-9 months or longer sometimes.
    Many times within a certain BMI range.
    No other health issues besides being overweight.
    If starting exercise was the test, then no exercise over a certain small weekly amount.
    Tested out the wahzoo to confirm no issues with whatever extremes are being done to them.
    And then constant testing during the study, to tweak eating levels exactly, ect.

    How many of those factors apply to everyone that might see the recommendation?
    How many have exact figures to base their eating level on?

    I see a study too that showed 1.4% loss rate cause LBM loss, while the 0.7% showed increase.
    Sadly they didn't measure actual muscle mass changes, but increase of LBM rather than loss is good too.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/447514/athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet/p1


  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Worst 1st page of a thread ever.

    Not to mention that the oversized charts make it impossible to read most of the posts without
    having to cursor back and forth, which makes me dizzy.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/

    You keep posting that

    And yet it doesn't back up your assertions which has been addressed on other threads

    What's also interesting written in there is the fact that if certain sizes of people attempt that max 1.5%, you are also hitting what they call the VLCD, and they have a section detailing the negatives of such a diet.

    It's kind of a hodgepodge of recommendations and studies thrown together, with what appears little consideration of examples that don't match up between sections - examples that it would appear are not that rare and could be very common in the normal situation of someone going totally gung-ho on exercise while gung-ho on the diet at the same time.
  • Varamyr38
    Varamyr38 Posts: 258 Member
    gia07 wrote: »
    Way too loaded of a question for me on a Friday afteroon...

    Recommended 2 pounds per week (or less).. this is the healthy and wise choice for men and women based on their age, height, sex, weight, etc....

    I've lost three pounds this week. Time to go hit the fridge! haha

  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Worst 1st page of a thread ever.

    Not to mention that the oversized charts make it impossible to read most of the posts without
    having to cursor back and forth, which makes me dizzy.

    I'm sorry. :(
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Worst 1st page of a thread ever.

    Not to mention that the oversized charts make it impossible to read most of the posts without
    having to cursor back and forth, which makes me dizzy.

    I'm sorry. :(

    The chart was fine on my screen. Perhaps they were trying to read it on a phone.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    peleroja wrote: »
    1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.

    Okay, and are you trying to say that's a good thing? Because I'm a 118 pound person who would have to cut my calories to 700-900/day to lose 1.5lb/week...which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

    I know nothing about "the chart" but to me it seems pretty unlikely that 1.5% would be healthy for someone my size. I mean...I've been there eating less than 1000 calories a day and dropping weight like crazy but I was sick, both mentally and physically, while I was doing it.

    Not if you are exercising you wouldn't. If you aren't getting your 150 minutes a week of exercise, you really should be. The fact that you can lose weight without exercise doesn't mean you should be losing weight without exercise.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 Member
    peleroja wrote: »
    1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.

    Okay, and are you trying to say that's a good thing? Because I'm a 118 pound person who would have to cut my calories to 700-900/day to lose 1.5lb/week...which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

    I know nothing about "the chart" but to me it seems pretty unlikely that 1.5% would be healthy for someone my size. I mean...I've been there eating less than 1000 calories a day and dropping weight like crazy but I was sick, both mentally and physically, while I was doing it.

    Not if you are exercising you wouldn't. If you aren't getting your 150 minutes a week of exercise, you really should be. The fact that you can lose weight without exercise doesn't mean you should be losing weight without exercise.

    But wouldn't that still mean she would have to eat 1200 cals per day PLUS burn 400 calories with exercise? That would def make me sick and miserable :(
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    peleroja wrote: »
    1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.

    Okay, and are you trying to say that's a good thing? Because I'm a 118 pound person who would have to cut my calories to 700-900/day to lose 1.5lb/week...which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

    I know nothing about "the chart" but to me it seems pretty unlikely that 1.5% would be healthy for someone my size. I mean...I've been there eating less than 1000 calories a day and dropping weight like crazy but I was sick, both mentally and physically, while I was doing it.

    Not if you are exercising you wouldn't. If you aren't getting your 150 minutes a week of exercise, you really should be. The fact that you can lose weight without exercise doesn't mean you should be losing weight without exercise.

    But wouldn't that still mean she would have to eat 1200 cals per day PLUS burn 400 calories with exercise? That would def make me sick and miserable :(

    Well, that brings us back to the original point, namely that the oft-quoted conservative targets aren't so much based on what's physically healthy, but rather on what the average person can cope with on a long-ish term basis (depending on how much they have to lose).

    Different people have different tolerances for hunger and mild physical discomfort, and different perceptions about what 'trying hard' at the gym means.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    edited May 2015
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/

    You keep posting that

    And yet it doesn't back up your assertions which has been addressed on other threads

    This is the section I'm referring to; how does it differ from what I posted?

    Body composition adjustments should be gradual, with no excessive restrictions or unsafe behaviors or products. On average, weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week but should not exceed 1.5% of body weight loss per week.1,122 A higher rate of weight loss indicates dehydration or other restrictive or unsafe behaviors that will negatively affect performance and health.

    Why are you ignoring the part of the sentence that says "weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week"? As the sentence is constructed, the provision about 1.5% of bodyweight is in addition to the 1 to 2 lb raw-number limit. It's saying that in those instances where 2 lbs would exceed 1.5% of bodyweight (that is, at about 133 lbs and under), individuals should not attempt to lose 2 lbs a week in order to avoid negative effects on performance and health.


    ETA: I prefer the 30-calories-per-pound-of-body-fat approach to either the ubiquitous chart or the 1%/1.5% of BW limit). In theory, your body can recover roughly 30 kcal from each pound of body fat each day, giving you a theoretical upper limit for a daily deficit, beyond which you would be definitely tapping into lean body mass to cover any additional deficit. Given uneven energy expenditures and energy consumption from diet during the day, you're not likely to be able to perfectly align expenditure, consumption, and energy recovery from fat every moment of the day, so I like to give that theoretical upper limit a fairly wide leeway to try to preserve as much LBM as possible.

    When I started on MFP, I had approximately 70 lbs of body fat, and was averaging a loss of 2 lbs a week, which equates to a daily deficit of 1000 calories, or only about 50% of the theoretical upper limit of 2100 calories recoverable from stored body fat every day. Now that I'm down to an estimated 45 to 50 lbs of body fat, I've reduced my deficit substantially, to a theoretical 400 calories a day deficit goal, which I tend to view as a max deficit for me--unless I'm absolutely not hungry and have hit my protein and fiber goals already, I'll find something useful or fun to eat if I find myself with a bigger deficit at the end of the day. And at this point I'm not in any hurry, since I'm more concerned about falling prey to the infamous statistics about the vast majority of people regaining the weight they lose, so I give myself a lot more latitude for daily variations. I average a daily deficit more in the 250 to 300 calorie range during weeks I'm aiming to lose, and I have a lot of weeks that I'm happy just to maintain.
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    edited May 2015
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/

    You keep posting that

    And yet it doesn't back up your assertions which has been addressed on other threads

    This is the section I'm referring to; how does it differ from what I posted?

    Body composition adjustments should be gradual, with no excessive restrictions or unsafe behaviors or products. On average, weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week but should not exceed 1.5% of body weight loss per week.1,122 A higher rate of weight loss indicates dehydration or other restrictive or unsafe behaviors that will negatively affect performance and health.

    Why are you ignoring the part of the sentence that says "weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week"? As the sentence is constructed, the provision about 1.5% of bodyweight is in addition to the 1 to 2 lb raw-number limit. It's saying that in those instances where 2 lbs would exceed 1.5% of bodyweight (that is, at about 133 lbs and under), individuals should not attempt to lose 2 lbs a week in order to avoid negative effects on performance and health.

    It could be read that way, but then reference cited in that section would contradict that, as it says the number of pounds is dependent upon how much of a deficit the person can create (they were talking about athletes and active people here, so we can assume they were getting some pretty good exercise deficits):

    "Doing the math, the 500-to-1000 Calorie per day deficit means a person can lose 1-to-2 pounds per week, pretty much regardless of the person’s size (this is based on calories per pound of fat). The state associations are actually being generous by stating this on a % basis. Using the 1.5% rule, the lightest guy on a team gets to lose about 1.5-to-2.0 pounds per week. The 200-pounder gets to lose 4 lb per week."
  • HeySwoleSister
    HeySwoleSister Posts: 1,938 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/

    You keep posting that

    And yet it doesn't back up your assertions which has been addressed on other threads

    This is the section I'm referring to; how does it differ from what I posted?

    Body composition adjustments should be gradual, with no excessive restrictions or unsafe behaviors or products. On average, weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week but should not exceed 1.5% of body weight loss per week.1,122 A higher rate of weight loss indicates dehydration or other restrictive or unsafe behaviors that will negatively affect performance and health.

    Why are you ignoring the part of the sentence that says "weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week"? As the sentence is constructed, the provision about 1.5% of bodyweight is in addition to the 1 to 2 lb raw-number limit. It's saying that in those instances where 2 lbs would exceed 1.5% of bodyweight (that is, at about 133 lbs and under), individuals should not attempt to lose 2 lbs a week in order to avoid negative effects on performance and health.

    It could be read that way, but then reference cited in that section would contradict that, as it says the number of pounds is dependent upon how much of a deficit the person can create (they were talking about athletes and active people here, so we can assume they were getting some pretty good exercise deficits):

    "Doing the math, the 500-to-1000 Calorie per day deficit means a person can lose 1-to-2 pounds per week, pretty much regardless of the person’s size (this is based on calories per pound of fat). The state associations are actually being generous by stating this on a % basis. Using the 1.5% rule, the lightest guy on a team gets to lose about 1.5-to-2.0 pounds per week. The 200-pounder gets to lose 4 lb per week."

    Yeah, based on your posts on other threads, I have to point out that you clearly have very disordered thinking about food, and no newbs should be taking what you say as mentally healthy advice.
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    For everyone's general interest, I just found another similar paper (again aimed at athletes); this one states:
    "To reduce risk of adverse health and performance consequences, the rate of weight loss should not exceed 1-2 % of body weight per week."
    http://bitly.com/1FaPHAt
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member

    ETA: I prefer the 30-calories-per-pound-of-body-fat approach to either the ubiquitous chart or the 1%/1.5% of BW limit). In theory, your body can recover roughly 30 kcal from each pound of body fat each day, giving you a theoretical upper limit for a daily deficit, beyond which you would be definitely tapping into lean body mass to cover any additional deficit. Given uneven energy expenditures and energy consumption from diet during the day, you're not likely to be able to perfectly align expenditure, consumption, and energy recovery from fat every moment of the day, so I like to give that theoretical upper limit a fairly wide leeway to try to preserve as much LBM as possible.

    That's interesting. I never heard of that method of calculation before but for me it gives a slightly higher (theoretical) loss per week than using the 1.5% method.
    Thanks!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member

    ETA: I prefer the 30-calories-per-pound-of-body-fat approach to either the ubiquitous chart or the 1%/1.5% of BW limit). In theory, your body can recover roughly 30 kcal from each pound of body fat each day, giving you a theoretical upper limit for a daily deficit, beyond which you would be definitely tapping into lean body mass to cover any additional deficit. Given uneven energy expenditures and energy consumption from diet during the day, you're not likely to be able to perfectly align expenditure, consumption, and energy recovery from fat every moment of the day, so I like to give that theoretical upper limit a fairly wide leeway to try to preserve as much LBM as possible.

    That's interesting. I never heard of that method of calculation before but for me it gives a slightly higher (theoretical) loss per week than using the 1.5% method.
    Thanks!

    It wasn't my intention to encourage higher deficits, but I guess you're gonna do what you're gonna do.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    This is a study that recommends 1.5% of bodyweight as a maximum weight loss for active people. Unless your starting weight is less than 134lbs that will equate to more than 2lb/week. I think the 1 or 2lbs per week often quoted on MFP is a very conservative estimate that virtually anyone could achieve. It's all academic really but it doesn't make sense that the recommendation would be the same for everyone.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419563/

    "On average, weight loss goals should be approximately 1 to 2 lb (0.5 to 0.9 kg) per week but should not exceed 1.5% of body weight loss per week.1,122 A higher rate of weight loss indicates dehydration or other restrictive or unsafe behaviors that will negatively affect performance and health. One pound (0.5 kg) of fat is equal to 3500 kilocalories of energy; therefore, increases or decreases in calories to the level needed to maintain ideal lean mass will help to achieve body fat goals" ... from your link.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    peleroja wrote: »
    1.5% is 1.5 lbs for a 100 lb person. That is three times the 0.5 lbs that some people keep pushing.

    Okay, and are you trying to say that's a good thing? Because I'm a 118 pound person who would have to cut my calories to 700-900/day to lose 1.5lb/week...which doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

    I know nothing about "the chart" but to me it seems pretty unlikely that 1.5% would be healthy for someone my size. I mean...I've been there eating less than 1000 calories a day and dropping weight like crazy but I was sick, both mentally and physically, while I was doing it.

    Not if you are exercising you wouldn't. If you aren't getting your 150 minutes a week of exercise, you really should be. The fact that you can lose weight without exercise doesn't mean you should be losing weight without exercise.

    But wouldn't that still mean she would have to eat 1200 cals per day PLUS burn 400 calories with exercise? That would def make me sick and miserable :(

    The point is that it is possible and not out of reach, even for a 100 lb person. But many of us are not aiming to be 100 lbs. Even if 0.5 lbs makes sense for a few people, it is excessively low for some of the rest of us.
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    I've seen the chart that depicts what to set your MFP weekly goal for given how much you have to lose. I love it because I love numerical assessments and graphs and the like. However, I was wondering how generally true that is and whether it is really applicable to everyone.

    What chart is this? Can someone post a link, please?