Why 0.5lbs per 25lbs overweight?

Lose too fast and you could end up with loose skin... Lose too much muscle ..

Slow and steady is safest

part of the reason for that recommendation (based on my understanding) is that the less you have to lose the less bodyfat you have...and if you lose fast because of low calorie goals you do lose muscle mass...you will anyway but the bigger the deficit the more muscle you do lose even with strength/resistance training.

Most people want fast results...but what does that get you? Did you gain 1lb a week...probably not. The faster you want to lose the bigger the deficit...and then when you have lost that weight what then? you start adding back in the calories to maintenance....or some people just go back to "normal" and gain it all back because they were too restrictive.

1 pound is fine honestly until you're down to 10 pounds or something.

Most medical recommendations I've seen are for a target of roughly 1% of your current body weight per week. That is however a general guideline, chat with your doctor.

This content has been removed.

cmoll520 wrote: »

Part of it is that it may be hard to sustain the calorie deficit needed for more than that. My calorie deficit as a 5'5" woman to lose 1lb a week is 1200 calories. I can do that but realistically I probably couldn't have a bigger deficit and sustain it for long.

I think this is it, really.

I don't use the MFP method, but I get 1400 calories for a .5 loss even if lightly active. So that would mean 1150 for a 1 lb loss.

Sure, I also exercise, so would be eating more than that, but I do worry that doing lots of exercise on such a low number can contribute to more lost muscle mass than is necessary. In that I'm 5 lbs from goal, it does me no good to lose faster if more is muscle mass--the whole point at this stage is to reduce my body fat and eventually increase my lean mass.

My interpretation of it was not that it's a healthy max, but that it's a general indication of a moderate goal (as opposed to aggressive goal).

If I pretend I am 5 lbs from goal and sedentary, I actually could not healthily lose 1 lb a week. (I'd have to eat less than 1100 cals.) Sure, I could eat 1200 and try to burn ~150ish more, but I wouldn't get to eat any more... so I'd still be netting less than 1200 (going by MFP). I might feel crummy on this plan.

If I pretend I'm exactly 25 lbs from goal and sedentary, I'd still be under 1200 to lose 1 lb a week. I'd have to burn more (but not a lot more -- like one leisurely walk would do me). This *might* feel okay, if I can adjust to 1200. But as I lose, it would quickly get below 1200 and become aggressive.

If I were lightly active, I could eat more and lose 1 lb a week. (Between 1300 and 1500, for the 5 lb and 25 lb from goal markers.) And as I'd approach 1300, I might still find that tough -- the easier, less aggressive option would still be 1550 (or a custom target in between).

But not everyone can bump their activity level, because of their jobs, and would be stuck trying to bump the deficit with exercise, without getting any extra food (above 1200) for it. And bottoming out your calorie target to the minimum and then loading on exercise and not eating it back is... aggressive.

So I don't know, I read it as a rough and quick way of assessing what might be the most sustainable target, one rung up being the more aggressive target. Many people don't do well on an aggressive target (mood swings, fatigue, overeating, etc).

Ultimately, people have to run their own numbers (or have someone help them) and look at the actual options for calorie targets and what speed that theoretically translates to, and then try things to see how they feel.