.5lbs a week for every 25lbs

Options
mgonyer123
mgonyer123 Posts: 74 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I've read this a few times here. Is that a good general rule? Why?
«1

Replies

  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    I'm not sure what you mean exactly?

    If you have 25 lbs to lose you should have no problem losing a pound a week or so.
  • IsaackGMOON
    IsaackGMOON Posts: 3,358 Member
    Options
    Having a relatively aggressive caloric deficit can potentially mean you lose some muscle mass. This isn't something you want, and it's a pretty big regret of mine.

    You also want to lift heavy in a caloric deficit, so you preserve as much muscle.

    I think that's why :#
  • Lasmartchika
    Lasmartchika Posts: 3,440 Member
    Options
    Do you mean...

    If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal

    ???
  • DuckReconMajor
    DuckReconMajor Posts: 434 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    I wonder the same thing. I'd always heard 1% of your weight, which is going to be around 1-3 lb for just about everyone. I can get on board with 0.5lb for the last 10 lb to lose, but when you have more than 20 to go I don't see why you couldn't go 1 lb/week
  • mgonyer123
    mgonyer123 Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    Lasmartchika wrote: »
    Do you mean...

    If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal

    ???

    Yes that. I've actually read it a few times here so I was curious where that kind of info came from.
  • galgenstrick
    galgenstrick Posts: 2,086 Member
    Options
    I Don't know where that came from. There is no good reason you have to lose that slow for your last 25 pounds. 1pound a week is perfectly fine, you can go slower if you want but I don't see any reason to...
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    Your fat cells can only release energy at a limited pace and if your deficit is more than that amount, you'll lose other tissue (like muscle) and/or your body will have to find ways to stop using so much energy by shutting down other processes.
  • elphie754
    elphie754 Posts: 7,574 Member
    Options
    LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
    Your fat cells can only release energy at a limited pace and if your deficit is more than that amount, you'll lose other tissue (like muscle) and/or your body will have to find ways to stop using so much energy by shutting down other processes.

    Source?
  • lewispwest
    lewispwest Posts: 498 Member
    Options
    I've had to stick to 1.5lbs a week even though I have 20lbs left to lose as if I go any higher on my calories I just don't lose weight.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    They're all just rules of thumb .. and I've never seen any actual science to back it up

    What we know is that:
    1. Most medics advise 1-2lb per week as a good weight loss
    2. Some respected sites talk about 1% of bodyweight being a good target
    3. Morbidly obese people who lose at a greater rate than 3.3lbs per week are almost guaranteed to get kidney issues like gallstones (ETA - it was over 70% on the study I saw)
    4. Lose weight too quickly and you will rip through your LBM at a greater rate than you need to
    5. Don't make it a deprivation diet (well not too much) and you have more chance of not crashing and burning and you'll hit a decent maintenance level more easily

    The sliding scale and the 0.5 per 25lbs are both MFP advice that are picked up and repeated ad nauseum .. I have no issue with either .. they're good enough to be going on with though if you bear in mind that it's an average weight loss calculated over 6-8 weeks as weight loss isn't linear to begin with
  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    Options
    No matter how little you lose per week, it's faster than when you gained it. Most people, when gaining weight, put on five or six pounds a year. In ten years, that's fifty or sixty pounds. If you lose at the rate of even as little as half a pound a week, that's twenty-six pounds a year! Have patience and it will happen. Don't try to rush it or you'll rebel and fall right back into your old habits.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Lasmartchika wrote: »
    Do you mean...

    If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal

    ???

    Are far as I can tell, this was posted by someone on the Yahoo Answers website and then people started posting it here (over and over again). I have seen nothing to indicate that this is anything but anecdotal on the part of the person who posted it on Yahoo Answers. Their account is no longer active, so we have no way of asking them.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,739 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    I have seen at least one paper where 0.7% of bodyweight in more LBM preserving than 1.5%. For obese, 1.5% would still be OK.

    Rate of loss has to do with amount of free fat available, so BF %, which is too hard to determine, which is why I use BMI obese/overweight/upper end of normal/lower end of normal as proxies.

    Some people are at the bottom end of their normal range and do not have much free fat. They are the ones who would benefit the most from slowing down to 0.5lb

    But at the same time, for the extreme vast majority of people there is no over-riding need to rush to get to maintenance and 1lb is a great loss goal well within 20% of TDEE, and 0.7% parameters for most people

    Slowing down gives people time to develop strategies to cope at maintenance and, with a smaller deficit, they are closer to practising eating like they will in the future.

    A large deficit short-circuits this practice effect; but, more importantly, feeds into the mind-set of "I am dieting to reach my goal" / "I am at my goal, my diet is now done"

    Smaller deficits also make it easier to persevere and stay on target instead of being hangry and too tired to exercise and give skin as much time as possible to adapt.

    Furthermore, if you believe that adaptive thermogenesis exists, a sharper deficit, and/or a deficit that includes eating very little food, are both more likely to trigger a larger adaptation.

    Since the cost of avoiding both extra LBM loss and avoiding the sharper deficit that might trigger adaptation is some amount of extra time spent on phase 1 (weight loss) instead of spent on phase 2 (maintenance)... why take the risk?

    The only reason would be because Phase 1 is somehow much more onerous that Phase 2.

    But, if you lose weight while eating at (or very near) your future maintenance... what does it matter whether your are maintaining or losing weight... you are eating the same ;-)

    It only starts to matter when you have the intention of "changing" your diet between phases... which I don't think is the greatest of ideas

    [short of sleep, so forgive if any of this doesn't make much sense]
  • mgonyer123
    mgonyer123 Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    Interesting. Thank you!
  • pmm3437
    pmm3437 Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    This is the 1st mention ive seen of this suggested rule, and I've been on this site for 6 months, so not sure where you've seen it before.

    Generally speaking, slower weight loss rate is more muscle preserving, and the capped healthy rate is usually espoused to be 2lb./week without supervision.

    I am currently using a variable loss rate that will be similar to the curve generated by this type of plan. Its caused by eating at a fixed calorie level based on a % of TDEE of my goal weight, so it will naturally slow as I get closer to goal, My BMR etc for my current weight naturally declines as I lose, shrinking the overall deficit.

    I didn't make the choice to do it this way based on a recommendation, but simply to get used to following a nutrition plan that will continue thru reaching goal weight. I wont have to change my routine and eating habits after 12 months of structure and routine have been established.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Lasmartchika wrote: »
    Do you mean...

    If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal
    If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal

    ???

    Are far as I can tell, this was posted by someone on the Yahoo Answers website and then people started posting it here (over and over again). I have seen nothing to indicate that this is anything but anecdotal on the part of the person who posted it on Yahoo Answers. Their account is no longer active, so we have no way of asking them.

    Actually I developed this one in particular, may be a similar one circulating elsewhere. I based this off of essentially two sources. the main one was talking about BF% and what the deficit you should be in. Lower BF% smaller deficit. Since most people don't know their BF% I made this chart to coincide with your goal weight as the baseline instead of BF%, assuming that the goal weight would put you in a healthy bf% range. The other info used was TDEE calculators that reduce the % cut from TDEE depending on how much you have to lose. This one fits MFP's way of calculating and is easy to follow.
  • ercarroll311
    ercarroll311 Posts: 295 Member
    Options
    pmm3437 wrote: »
    This is the 1st mention ive seen of this suggested rule, and I've been on this site for 6 months, so not sure where you've seen it before.

    I see it on nearly any post where someone asks why they aren't losing weight or how to set their calorie goals... probably at least 10 times in the last month on the forums.
  • ManiacalLaugh
    ManiacalLaugh Posts: 1,048 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    As someone who has lost 90 lbs, I've actually found this guideline to be generally true. Excluding the variables in the strictness of your diet, the severity of your deficit, whether you're working out or not, etc..., this can be a helpful guide in knowing your approximate target if you're attempting to lose a decent amount of weight in a reasonable amount of time. (I've lost weight too quickly before, so even though I consider myself a turtle loser right now, I still feel better off losing at approximately the rate this scale provides.)

    It's a guideline. It's not perfect. But just like your BMI number, your BF%, and your weight on the scale, it's another tool to knowing how it all works.

    ETA - I find it "generally true" as I lost about 2 lbs/week in the beginning and am now losing approximately 1 lb/week.
  • KateSimpson17
    KateSimpson17 Posts: 282 Member
    Options
    I only had 20 lbs to lose to begin with, so far I've been losing about 1.5 a week and haven't had any problems. If I was only going to lose .5 a week it would take like 10 months to lose that, when it's perfectly plausible for me to lose it in less than half that. It seems like an odd rule to me, and maybe it's helpful for some people, but from my research, as long as you're not consistently averaging more than 2 lbs a week it's perfectly healthy.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    kateyb94 wrote: »
    I only had 20 lbs to lose to begin with, so far I've been losing about 1.5 a week and haven't had any problems. If I was only going to lose .5 a week it would take like 10 months to lose that, when it's perfectly plausible for me to lose it in less than half that. It seems like an odd rule to me, and maybe it's helpful for some people, but from my research, as long as you're not consistently averaging more than 2 lbs a week it's perfectly healthy.

    depends how much you have to lose. if you try for 2lbs/week when you only have 20 lbs to go a larger % of your loss will come from lean muscle, not the fat you want to lose.

Categories