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

It appears to be an attempt to suggest that anyone, even down to the last 5 lbs after losing 100 lbs can be more aggressive than some chart suggests would be reasonable loss goal amounts.

I think the other major thing being missed is real world people with other health, life issues, and the participants in these studies giving theoretical maximums possible.

Actually, the 31 gr per lb of fat wasn't even based on a study, but a look at stats from another study and running some theories with those stats through the mill to see what looked interesting.

There was actually nothing found that gave the other stat based on a study.

There is one study of males doing lifting that were already athletes showing no loss of LBM at 1.4% of BW deficit, compared to gain of LBM doing 0.7% of BW deficit.

But it seems the specifics of that study are being ignored and the final results are being suggested for anyone in any situation.

Merely a poor attempt at application of results of a study.

babylinguist wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

My question, are some people just looking for a justification to lose faster than the recommended safe guidelines of 1-2lb per week? That's kind of how it seems...

Wasn't why I was asking, trust me. I was just curious about the rationale behind it and how such a general thing could apply to the broad population. It's a merely scientific curiosity. I'm sorry if this whole thing got out of control. I just was thinking about how people have different goals and body compositions. Like, say I wanted to get down to the very lowest weight I could within the healthy range (which I don't), that's about 30lbs from my current 128lb at 5'0, is it really the same as someone losing 30lbs just to meet the upper range of the healthy bracket. Should we both be losing at the same rate of 1lb/week?

For the record, I couldn't imagine losing more than 1-2lbs per week personally.

Oh no, wasn't meaning you. Others in the thread .

Personally I do think the where you're trying to get to should be taken into account. The chart assumes somewhere in the healthy weight range I would think. I know from experience though (and we see it here all the time) it's bloody hard to lose even a pound a week in the lower range. I think for sanity alone it's better to go with a slower loss at the end (albeit frustrating!).

heybales wrote: »

There is one study of males doing lifting that were already athletes showing no loss of LBM at 1.4% of BW deficit, compared to gain of LBM doing 0.7% of BW deficit.

But it seems the specifics of that study are being ignored and the final results are being suggested for anyone in any situation.

Merely a poor attempt at application of results of a study.

Ah, someone discussing this.

Would one of the people claiming that it's great to be losing 2 lbs/week at a low body weight or low body fat level like to address that, because I think it's a real concern and would love to see a discussion of the evidence that supports both sides.

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

babylinguist wrote: »

Wasn't why I was asking, trust me. I was just curious about the rationale behind it and how such a general thing could apply to the broad population. It's a merely scientific curiosity. I'm sorry if this whole thing got out of control. I just was thinking about how people have different goals and body compositions. Like, say I wanted to get down to the very lowest weight I could within the healthy range (which I don't), that's about 30lbs from my current 128lb at 5'0, is it really the same as someone losing 30lbs just to meet the upper range of the healthy bracket. Should we both be losing at the same rate of 1lb/week?

For the record, I couldn't imagine losing more than 1-2lbs per week personally.

I think we've concluded that it doesn't, is the short answer to your question.

Can "anyone" safely lose 1lb per week? Yes, unless they weigh less than 66lbs to start. The obese person can do so with minimal physical hardship, the potentially difficult part being a lifestyle change that they aren't accustomed to. The already lean person has to put in maximum physical effort and have a number of other factors (psychology, opportunity, optimum nutrition) in their favour.

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone here other than you and maybe TimothyFish have concluded the bolded. I don't understand why you feel the chart originally posted about is too much of a generalization, but you are perfectly okay making this very generalized statement. This brings us back to this fictional 100 lb woman on MFP. She is not an athlete. She is most likely at, or close to, a healthy weight. In fact, considering the audience, she could very well be underweight. A petite woman's TDEE can easily be within 250-350 cals of her BMR. Several women have posted they feel it is unlikely that a woman eating so few calories would be able to do the amount of exercise required to achieve that deficit. And if she wants to lose 10 lbs, she would have to eat under her BMR and do all this exercise for two and a half months.

Ultimately, a ton of factors applies in the real world situation, like height, gender, what weight you are aiming for, how fit you are to start, and many more. There is no one standard to cover all the possible variables, so better to suggest cautious guidelines than to risk encouraging someone to starve themselves for fast weight loss, or tell them sorry there is no one right answer.

Nony_Mouse wrote: »
My question, are some people just looking for a justification to lose faster than the recommended safe guidelines of 1-2lb per week? That's kind of how it seems...

Yeah unfortunately I think that's what this has devolved into. I have no problem with people discussing the finer points of possible weight loss goals, but it's hard to sit by while a couple of people are trying to suggest that we should stop telling small women they shouldn't net 800 calories a day to lose weight faster.

ETA: And OP, I'm not talking about you either! I think it was a fair, and interesting question!