1-2 lbs healthy weekly weight loss range? But why?
viren19890
Posts: 778 Member
Hello,
So why isn't it like 5 lbs or 10 lbs or 0.5 lbs. Where did that range /numbers come from?
Who decided that range?
Sorry if this questions sounds ignorant but I'd like to know.
So why isn't it like 5 lbs or 10 lbs or 0.5 lbs. Where did that range /numbers come from?
Who decided that range?
Sorry if this questions sounds ignorant but I'd like to know.
0
Replies
-
I don't actually know for sure, but I would guess that is just an easier deficit to achieve in the given time frame through calorie cutting and exercise.0
-
I don't know who came up with it but my understanding is that if you drop too much at a time it's not good for your system in the sense that you are depriving your body of the nutrients it requires. I've also noticed from trying this a couple times that the faster I've lost weight the quicker it comes back!0
-
Your body can only utilize so much energy from fat per day, so...math?0
-
It's about math. 1 pound of fat loss equals approximately 3500 calories, so to lose that pound you need a deficit of 3500 calories over the week or the equivalent of 500 calorie deficit daily. To ensure that your body has enough energy to run, you have a daily minimum requirement aka your BMR. Standards for weight loss have been based on maintaining your BMR but eating less than your TDEE. Generally, ends up being between .5 - 2 pounds per week depending on how overweight the individual.0
-
To lose 5 pounds of fat in a week, you would need a calorie deficit of 17,500 calories. (3500 = 1 pound, 3500 x 5 = 17,500)
So that would mean a calorie deficit of 2500 calories per day. (17,500/7 = 2500) Which is more than a lot of people even burn in a day, which would mean they'd have to exercise each day and not even eat at all!
And that just doesn't work :-)
"Every diet comes with an equal and opposite binge" <--- smaller deficits over longer periods of time are better and easier to stick to :-)0 -
chandanista wrote: »Your body can only utilize so much energy from fat per day, so...math?
This. Your body can only use so much energy from fat every day. If your intake plus your body's fat burning capabilities are less than what your body needs your body makes up for it with breaking down your lean mass. The loss of lean mass means lower BMR in the end and poor body composition.0 -
chandanista wrote: »Your body can only utilize so much energy from fat per day, so...math?
This. Your body can only use so much energy from fat every day. If your intake plus your body's fat burning capabilities are less than what your body needs your body makes up for it with breaking down your lean mass. The loss of lean mass means lower BMR in the end and poor body composition.
This too.0 -
chandanista wrote: »Your body can only utilize so much energy from fat per day, so...math?
This. Your body can only use so much energy from fat every day. If your intake plus your body's fat burning capabilities are less than what your body needs your body makes up for it with breaking down your lean mass. The loss of lean mass means lower BMR in the end and poor body composition.
Not to mention the fact that weight loss is driven by caloric deficit, and too great a deficit can make it difficult to take in sufficient macro and micronutrients.0 -
If your caloric deficit is too high and you aren't getting enough of macronutrients, your body will start cannibalizing tissues other than fat. That's never a good thing. You don't want to go there.
Doctors have studied nutritional deficits thoroughly for almost 80 years now, and they've settled on the recommendation that a 250 - calorie/day deficit is relatively safe for those with a small amount of fat to burn, 500- for those with moderate amounts and up to but no more than 1000 calorie/day deficits for those who have a lot of weight to lose. That translates to 0.5 lbs / week to 2 lbs / week.
More than that and they are pretty adamant you need to be under a physician's care with regular bloodwork to make sure you're not shutting down your heart, kidneys, or other organs.0 -
People shouldn't focus so much on how many pounds per week. Just go at a nice sustainable deficit and be patient as the process takes time. Most people really are too impatient. The body weight scale is such a limiting tool. The body fluctuates with water so much on any given day. The liver alone as an organ can fluctuate several pounds in one day. The scale is only good as a trend over time, like every month. Smaller people might go even longer without seeing a change on the scale because 1 pound is a bigger percentage of their body weight. It is so silly to try and estimate the rate of change with all the factors in an individual body; hormones, health, stress, diet, allergies, sodium, water intake, DOMS, food digestion, and the list goes on and on.
The best thing to do is focus on the process; diet and deficit for fat loss, healthy foods, exercise for health. Focus on that and go about your business and keeping busy with purpose, and the results will happen when you are not looking. Looking at the scale is like watching grass grow. Focus on cultivation and the process, and the grass eventually grows too.0 -
To keep enough nutrition for the body and not to lose too much muscle. Makes sense to me.0
-
-
Marilyn0924 wrote: »To ensure that your body has enough energy to run, you have a daily minimum requirement aka your BMR. Standards for weight loss have been based on maintaining your BMR but eating less than your TDEE.
No. The "calories" from fat you are losing off your body are available to fuel bodily functions, there is no requirement to eat your BMR.
The figure was probably set by a committee, like most guidelines. They usually publish their reasoning.
Eating nothing will probably give a loss rate about 0.7 lbs/day so there is a floor on achievable weight loss.
0 -
If you try to lose that much weight (5 or 10 lbs a week) then you would have to eat a loooot less calories. A loot less calories seems feasible for people who really want to lose weight as fast as possible..so why don't they succeed?
Because your body goes into starvation mode if you try to cut your calories too much. It realizes it is not getting the nutrition it needs to sustain so it holds on to the calories and stores them as fat to be used as energy, since it thinks it is starving, so you end up actually gaining weight.
Also, you would begin to lose muscle as well. Why would you want to lose muscle? That is what gives you shape.
So what you are really trying to do when you only cut 300 to 500 calories from your diet is lower the amount of body fat you have while trying to maintain as much of the muscle you have.
Losing weight does not necessarily mean you will look better naked ( you will have the same shape but just be smaller...or even have worse shape due to muscle loss).
Lowering body fat (by making sure you limit your caloric deficit) = look better naked because you're losing mostly fat and maybe a liiiittle bit of muscle.
Weight is just a number on the scale that can fluctuate like crazy in a day (up to 8+ lbs sometimes!)
If you reaaally want to weigh yourself, do it in the morning on an empty stomach, naked, after you go to the bathroom.0 -
If you try to lose that much weight (5 or 10 lbs a week) then you would have to eat a loooot less calories. A loot less calories seems feasible for people who really want to lose weight as fast as possible..so why don't they succeed?
Because your body goes into starvation mode if you try to cut your calories too much. It realizes it is not getting the nutrition it needs to sustain so it holds on to the calories and stores them as fat to be used as energy, since it thinks it is starving, so you end up actually gaining weight.
Also, you would begin to lose muscle as well. Why would you want to lose muscle? That is what gives you shape.
So what you are really trying to do when you only cut 300 to 500 calories from your diet is lower the amount of body fat you have while trying to maintain as much of the muscle you have.
Losing weight does not necessarily mean you will look better naked ( you will have the same shape but just be smaller...or even have worse shape due to muscle loss).
Lowering body fat (by making sure you limit your caloric deficit) = look better naked because you're losing mostly fat and maybe a liiiittle bit of muscle.
Weight is just a number on the scale that can fluctuate like crazy in a day (up to 8+ lbs sometimes!)
If you reaaally want to weigh yourself, do it in the morning on an empty stomach, naked, after you go to the bathroom.
Also...of you are cutting off near the ideal amount of calories (around 500) then you can see where that leads to about 1 lb per week
500cals/day
7days/week x 500cals = 3500 cals
3500 cals = 1 lb of fat.0 -
If you try to lose that much weight (5 or 10 lbs a week) then you would have to eat a loooot less calories. A loot less calories seems feasible for people who really want to lose weight as fast as possible..so why don't they succeed?
Because your body goes into starvation mode if you try to cut your calories too much. It realizes it is not getting the nutrition it needs to sustain so it holds on to the calories and stores them as fat to be used as energy, since it thinks it is starving, so you end up actually gaining weight.
You end up gaining weight by eating too little ? This simply does not happen.
Why would the body lock away energy that it is short of, makes no sense.
A man who ate nothing for a year averaged a loss of about 0.7 lbs/day. He retained the weight loss for some years afterwards.0 -
Because we all want it quick these days it didn't go on over night so will take a while to come off I think to teach us a lesson to stop gaining weight lol0
-
Losing too fast can be physically harmful. The gall bladder can't handle the stress.0
-
If you try to lose that much weight (5 or 10 lbs a week) then you would have to eat a loooot less calories. A loot less calories seems feasible for people who really want to lose weight as fast as possible..so why don't they succeed?
Because your body goes into starvation mode if you try to cut your calories too much. It realizes it is not getting the nutrition it needs to sustain so it holds on to the calories and stores them as fat to be used as energy, since it thinks it is starving, so you end up actually gaining weight.
You end up gaining weight by eating too little ? This simply does not happen.
Why would the body lock away energy that it is short of, makes no sense.
A man who ate nothing for a year averaged a loss of about 0.7 lbs/day. He retained the weight loss for some years afterwards.
@yarwell!! Last line is a killer! LOL0 -
If you try to lose that much weight (5 or 10 lbs a week) then you would have to eat a loooot less calories. A loot less calories seems feasible for people who really want to lose weight as fast as possible..so why don't they succeed?
Because your body goes into starvation mode if you try to cut your calories too much. It realizes it is not getting the nutrition it needs to sustain so it holds on to the calories and stores them as fat to be used as energy, since it thinks it is starving, so you end up actually gaining weight.
You end up gaining weight by eating too little ? This simply does not happen.
Why would the body lock away energy that it is short of, makes no sense.
A man who ate nothing for a year averaged a loss of about 0.7 lbs/day. He retained the weight loss for some years afterwards.
I think I remember that guy--- I think he was part man/part bear?
Anyway, everyone knows the less you eat - the bigger you get! Thats why we are all here! We are starving!!!
ETA: Hey OP, good question! Ya dont know, now ya know!0 -
Thanks all for posting.
What about people who are 6 feet 8 inches tall and are at 350-400 lbs -even for them 1-2 lbs a week is gives as healthy range?
Why can't it be losing 5 lbs a week and still losing healthily ? what's the catch here?
Shouldn't we be able to create conditions in which we can lose more than 3-4lbs a week and still stay in healthy range? -just for argument sake- in a lab ? under perfect conditions. What are the requirements for that rate to be achieved?
What if -I'm eating 2300 cals a day and my BMR is 2100.
So 2100 is basic body requirements with existing muscle and all that I have. TDEE is 3300.
That's the scenario -so I wake up I burn 1000 calories on treadmill/weight lifting/HIIT workout whatver. Now technically I can eat 2300+1000 but I only eat my original 2300 calories but this time they are all the good kind of
calories. As in good foods, healthy nutritious food.
So basically I become fat eating unhealthy foods and now I'm burning all that excess fat for energy and refueling my body with healthy nutritious food. Am I able to recomp my body faster?
This is a "what if question lol just wondering how much and what is possible if conditions are perfect.
What so special about drugs that allow bodybuilders to keep burning fat and build muscle at the same time.
How can we do similar but with our foods? I know the usual argument -if we could've done with natural foods someone would've already done it but -is it really impossible?
0 -
No, it's not impossible to lose 5-10 lbs a week. It would require an enormous amount of daily exercise. Most people have jobs, school and their life to live so they can't spend 5-6 hours every day in a gym exercising. If you've watched The Biggest Loser, you will understand the commitment those contestants have to make to achieve the results. Their diet is tightly controlled, they dedicate most of their time to weight loss and they often end up as a mess. There have been tons of serious injuries during that show and many of the contestants regain a lot of the weight after the show is done and they return to their normal lives.0
-
viren19890 wrote: »What so special about drugs that allow bodybuilders to keep burning fat and build muscle at the same time.
How can we do similar but with our foods? I know the usual argument -if we could've done with natural foods someone would've already done it but -is it really impossible?
You cannot replicate the effects of steroids with any food or combination of foods. Steroids change the metabolic pathways in the body to help burn fat while sparing muscle. This change is also what causes serious and sometimes fatal damage to organs, which is why they are a controlled substance and should only be used to treat serious medical conditions under the close supervision of a medical professional.0 -
viren19890 wrote: »Thanks all for posting.
What about people who are 6 feet 8 inches tall and are at 350-400 lbs -even for them 1-2 lbs a week is gives as healthy range?
Why can't it be losing 5 lbs a week and still losing healthily ? what's the catch here?
Shouldn't we be able to create conditions in which we can lose more than 3-4lbs a week and still stay in healthy range? -just for argument sake- in a lab ? under perfect conditions. What are the requirements for that rate to be achieved?
What if -I'm eating 2300 cals a day and my BMR is 2100.
So 2100 is basic body requirements with existing muscle and all that I have. TDEE is 3300.
That's the scenario -so I wake up I burn 1000 calories on treadmill/weight lifting/HIIT workout whatver. Now technically I can eat 2300+1000 but I only eat my original 2300 calories but this time they are all the good kind of
calories. As in good foods, healthy nutritious food.
So basically I become fat eating unhealthy foods and now I'm burning all that excess fat for energy and refueling my body with healthy nutritious food. Am I able to recomp my body faster?
As usmcmp mentioned above, there are physiological limits to how much fat your body will metabolize in a given time period. Go ahead, create a huge deficit - you'll lose more weight, but a larger proportion of it will be lean body mass (of which muscle is a component). At a severe deficit, you also run the risk of compromising normal bodily/organ functions, which can trigger a lot of very undesirable side effects.viren19890 wrote: »This is a "what if question lol just wondering how much and what is possible if conditions are perfect.
What so special about drugs that allow bodybuilders to keep burning fat and build muscle at the same time.
How can we do similar but with our foods? I know the usual argument -if we could've done with natural foods someone would've already done it but -is it really impossible?
The drugs bodybuilders take alter the hormonal balance in their body (mainly, they create an increase of testosterone far beyond normal endogenous levels). They also put tremendous stress upon the organs and cause unwanted side effects. There are no natural foods which can alter the hormonal system in a way which mimics androgenic/anabolic steroids. That's not "the usual argument", that's scientific fact.0 -
viren19890 wrote: »Thanks all for posting.
What about people who are 6 feet 8 inches tall and are at 350-400 lbs -even for them 1-2 lbs a week is gives as healthy range?
Why can't it be losing 5 lbs a week and still losing healthily ? what's the catch here?
Shouldn't we be able to create conditions in which we can lose more than 3-4lbs a week and still stay in healthy range? -just for argument sake- in a lab ? under perfect conditions. What are the requirements for that rate to be achieved?
What if -I'm eating 2300 cals a day and my BMR is 2100.
So 2100 is basic body requirements with existing muscle and all that I have. TDEE is 3300.
That's the scenario -so I wake up I burn 1000 calories on treadmill/weight lifting/HIIT workout whatver. Now technically I can eat 2300+1000 but I only eat my original 2300 calories but this time they are all the good kind of
calories. As in good foods, healthy nutritious food.
So basically I become fat eating unhealthy foods and now I'm burning all that excess fat for energy and refueling my body with healthy nutritious food. Am I able to recomp my body faster?
This is a "what if question lol just wondering how much and what is possible if conditions are perfect.
What so special about drugs that allow bodybuilders to keep burning fat and build muscle at the same time.
How can we do similar but with our foods? I know the usual argument -if we could've done with natural foods someone would've already done it but -is it really impossible?
If you eat 2300 calories a day and want to lose 10 lbs per week, you would need a daily defect of 5000 calories therefore would need to burn 7300 calories a day. Similarly, for 5 lbs a week you would need a daily deficit of 2500 calories per day and would need to burn 4800 calories per day. It is probably not impossible, but realistically the average person cannot burn that much in one day. My daily burn is about 2600, and that is WITH a 1 hour intense workout that burns about 600 calories. To reach 4800 calorie burn, I would need to work out that intensely for 8 hours a day. On top of that, you would be famished and exhausted because you wouldn't really have fuel for those workouts.0 -
Either I'm unable to explain myself properly or I'm not understanding the points properly.
I'm asking why is this 1-2lbs a week considered healthy universally. A person who is much bigger/taller-shouldn't they have different healthy range?
When it comes to body-some things are individualistic but this number is universal?
If BMR is different person to person- and LBM differ person to person as well- shouldn't this range be different too ?0 -
jackjackattck wrote: »viren19890 wrote: »Thanks all for posting.
What about people who are 6 feet 8 inches tall and are at 350-400 lbs -even for them 1-2 lbs a week is gives as healthy range?
Why can't it be losing 5 lbs a week and still losing healthily ? what's the catch here?
Shouldn't we be able to create conditions in which we can lose more than 3-4lbs a week and still stay in healthy range? -just for argument sake- in a lab ? under perfect conditions. What are the requirements for that rate to be achieved?
What if -I'm eating 2300 cals a day and my BMR is 2100.
So 2100 is basic body requirements with existing muscle and all that I have. TDEE is 3300.
That's the scenario -so I wake up I burn 1000 calories on treadmill/weight lifting/HIIT workout whatver. Now technically I can eat 2300+1000 but I only eat my original 2300 calories but this time they are all the good kind of
calories. As in good foods, healthy nutritious food.
So basically I become fat eating unhealthy foods and now I'm burning all that excess fat for energy and refueling my body with healthy nutritious food. Am I able to recomp my body faster?
This is a "what if question lol just wondering how much and what is possible if conditions are perfect.
What so special about drugs that allow bodybuilders to keep burning fat and build muscle at the same time.
How can we do similar but with our foods? I know the usual argument -if we could've done with natural foods someone would've already done it but -is it really impossible?
If you eat 2300 calories a day and want to lose 10 lbs per week, you would need a daily defect of 5000 calories therefore would need to burn 7300 calories a day. Similarly, for 5 lbs a week you would need a daily deficit of 2500 calories per day and would need to burn 4800 calories per day. It is probably not impossible, but realistically the average person cannot burn that much in one day. My daily burn is about 2600, and that is WITH a 1 hour intense workout that burns about 600 calories. To reach 4800 calorie burn, I would need to work out that intensely for 8 hours a day. On top of that, you would be famished and exhausted because you wouldn't really have fuel for those workouts.
This is a great simplistic explanation.
OP- some people may lose more than 2 lbs per week. Some of that may be part of weekly/daily fluctuations or release of water weight retained from sodium or a new routine. Some of that may be fat- it may also be muscle.
Most people with long term goals should want to retain their muscle while dropping fat. And in order to do that drastic weight loss isnt recommended.
CICO for weight loss is just math.0 -
viren19890 wrote: »Either I'm unable to explain myself properly or I'm not understanding the points properly.
I'm asking why is this 1-2lbs a week considered healthy universally. A person who is much bigger/taller-shouldn't they have different healthy range?
When it comes to body-some things are individualistic but this number is universal?
If BMR is different person to person- and LBM differ person to person as well- shouldn't this range be different too ?
The rate at which someone can utilize their fat stores is directly related to the amount of fat they carry. Someone with 300 pounds of fat can lose weight faster (and in a safe manner) than someone with 50 pounds of fat.0 -
viren19890 wrote: »Either I'm unable to explain myself properly or I'm not understanding the points properly.
I'm asking why is this 1-2lbs a week considered healthy universally. A person who is much bigger/taller-shouldn't they have different healthy range?
When it comes to body-some things are individualistic but this number is universal?
If BMR is different person to person- and LBM differ person to person as well- shouldn't this range be different too ?
The rate at which someone can utilize their fat stores is directly related to the amount of fat they carry. Someone with 300 pounds of fat can lose weight faster (and in a safe manner) than someone with 50 pounds of fat.
Yeah that is what I was wondering. They can possibly lose more than 1-2lbs per week and still do it healthily. So it isn't universal but applies to most people that's why it's use far widely. Ok
Thanks.0 -
Thanks again everyone for your contributions.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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