Healthy BMI, wanting to lose 2 lbs per week
Rawr619
Posts: 82 Member
I know everyone says losing more than 2 lbs a week is dangerous, and that if you have a smaller amount of weight to lose (say 20 lbs), it is unhealthy to lose 2 lbs a week. I was just wondering if there is research to back this?
I am a healthy weight according to my BMI, but would like to lose an additional 20 lbs. I am not interested in losing more than 2 lbs a week, but 2 lb loss a week would be good. I'm not going to do something that would harm me, so I'm genuinely curious if there's research showing what amount to lose weekly is healthy.
I am a healthy weight according to my BMI, but would like to lose an additional 20 lbs. I am not interested in losing more than 2 lbs a week, but 2 lb loss a week would be good. I'm not going to do something that would harm me, so I'm genuinely curious if there's research showing what amount to lose weekly is healthy.
0
Replies
-
With the amount of deficit required to get to a 2lb a week deficit you'll probably be lacking adequate nutrition and will be eating a very low amount of calories. It's just simple math - not a big research problem.20
-
To be fair, with the amount I exercise I can eat over 1200-1400 calories a day and still be at a 2 lb deficit per week. So I do think there should be science backing it, not just an arbitrary number someone chose.0
-
There is some research regarding the amount of fat that can be utilized to fill in the amount of calories needed to cover your deficit. I honestly, can remember where I saw it, or who posted it, but essentially there is only a certain amount of calories that can come from fat, the rest is taken from muscle. That's why the higher deficits tend to lead to skinny fat, you lose a disproportionate amount from muscle than you would otherwise. If I could remember who it was, I would tag them in here for you. Maybe @Anvil_Head or @stevencloser
ETA: (or more to clarify) That was supposed to say I can't remember who posted it.7 -
I rock climb for 3 hours most days which burns a lot of calories, I also weight lift and run. If I didn't do these things, sure to lose 2 lbs a week would require a low amount of calories. But with these activities (that btw I love and am doing so often because I love, not because I'm trying to burn calories), it really increases the calories I burn.0
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »There is some research regarding the amount of fat that can be utilized to fill in the amount of calories needed to cover your deficit. I honestly, can remember where I saw it, or who posted it, but essentially there is only a certain amount of calories that can come from fat, the rest is taken from muscle. That's why the higher deficits tend to lead to skinny fat, you lose a disproportionate amount from muscle than you would otherwise. If I could remember who it was, I would tag them in here for you. Maybe @Anvil_Head or @stevencloser
Thank you! I will looks that up, but that actually makes sense. I appreciate the info, very insightful!0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »There is some research regarding the amount of fat that can be utilized to fill in the amount of calories needed to cover your deficit. I honestly, can remember where I saw it, or who posted it, but essentially there is only a certain amount of calories that can come from fat, the rest is taken from muscle. That's why the higher deficits tend to lead to skinny fat, you lose a disproportionate amount from muscle than you would otherwise. If I could remember who it was, I would tag them in here for you. Maybe @Anvil_Head or @stevencloser
Thank you! I will looks that up, but that actually makes sense. I appreciate the info, very insightful!
You're welcome. I hope you find the answers you are looking for. I know I hate the idea of slowing my losses down too, as I get closer, but when I was looking at it, it made sense to do it.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »There is some research regarding the amount of fat that can be utilized to fill in the amount of calories needed to cover your deficit. I honestly, can remember where I saw it, or who posted it, but essentially there is only a certain amount of calories that can come from fat, the rest is taken from muscle. That's why the higher deficits tend to lead to skinny fat, you lose a disproportionate amount from muscle than you would otherwise. If I could remember who it was, I would tag them in here for you. Maybe @Anvil_Head or @stevencloser
ETA: (or more to clarify) That was supposed to say I can't remember who posted it.
You summon me, my dark lord?
http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/
Article by the great Lyle McDonald, referencing I think the only real study about this topic (which is only theoretical to boot).7 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »There is some research regarding the amount of fat that can be utilized to fill in the amount of calories needed to cover your deficit. I honestly, can remember where I saw it, or who posted it, but essentially there is only a certain amount of calories that can come from fat, the rest is taken from muscle. That's why the higher deficits tend to lead to skinny fat, you lose a disproportionate amount from muscle than you would otherwise. If I could remember who it was, I would tag them in here for you. Maybe @Anvil_Head or @stevencloser
ETA: (or more to clarify) That was supposed to say I can't remember who posted it.
You summon me, my dark lord?
http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/
Article by the great Lyle McDonald, referencing I think the only real study about this topic (which is only theoretical to boot).
Per Greg Nuckols, the researcher later admitted that his calculations were off.
http://strengtheory.com/realistic-training-goals/
Regardless, what is theoretically possibly and what is actually possible due sustainability are very often two different things. That's why anecdotes from people who have lost weight are helpful. Science cannot well measure hunger and fatigue and generally feeling like crap. But go ahead and do what you want. Nobody is stopping you.
P. S. I don't know if you are male or female or if you are active. If the latter two, look up female athlete triad and energy availability. That is a serious risk of using a huge deficit.2 -
Yet there's bodybuilders who are super fit, and BMI says they're class 3 obese.0
-
Can you direct me to his statement?0
-
I rock climb for 3 hours most days which burns a lot of calories, I also weight lift and run. If I didn't do these things, sure to lose 2 lbs a week would require a low amount of calories. But with these activities (that btw I love and am doing so often because I love, not because I'm trying to burn calories), it really increases the calories I burn.
you may be able to burn enough calories to get a decent deficit and still get enough nutrition, but how WELL you would be able to rock climb without adequate fuelling is a different matter.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »Can you direct me to his statement?
Me? He mentions it in the fat loss section of that article. Says the researcher admitted it but he (Nuckols) can't find the source now. So who knows. Regardless, what was judged to be theoretically possible doesn't necessarily capture reality, which is my gripe about the 31 (or even 22) calories per pound of fat thing.0 -
girlinahat wrote: »I rock climb for 3 hours most days which burns a lot of calories, I also weight lift and run. If I didn't do these things, sure to lose 2 lbs a week would require a low amount of calories. But with these activities (that btw I love and am doing so often because I love, not because I'm trying to burn calories), it really increases the calories I burn.
you may be able to burn enough calories to get a decent deficit and still get enough nutrition, but how WELL you would be able to rock climb without adequate fuelling is a different matter.
Yeah, agreed. Your progress/stamina will probably take quite a knock. The body needs fuel, especially for those kind of activities. Is it really worth it to lose 20lbs so quickly?4 -
You probably didn't gain 2lbs of fat per week so why expect to lose it that quickly?4
-
I know everyone says losing more than 2 lbs a week is dangerous, and that if you have a smaller amount of weight to lose (say 20 lbs), it is unhealthy to lose 2 lbs a week. I was just wondering if there is research to back this?
I am a healthy weight according to my BMI, but would like to lose an additional 20 lbs. I am not interested in losing more than 2 lbs a week, but 2 lb loss a week would be good. I'm not going to do something that would harm me, so I'm genuinely curious if there's research showing what amount to lose weekly is healthy.
I wouldn't say it's dangerous per se, but has complications. That aggressive of a fat loss will have stalls where you'll need to know what you're doing and incorporate refeeds, macro tweaking etc to get fat loss reignited. The bigger issue is loss of lean mass. With that extreme a deficit, sure you could lose 2 lbs a week but a good portion (up to 50%, depending on training) will be muscle. Not good.1 -
I'm at a healthy bmi (around 21) and am currently in a short weight loss phase to get that a bit lower. Mathematically it's impossible for me to lose 2lbs a week and not get dangerously low in calories (it would put me at something like 800 calories a day). I'm aiming for .5lb a week which is very doable and I'm in no hurry since it's purely vanity weight I'm losing.
If someone had a much higher TDEE though, I guess it would be possible?0 -
Whether eating 1200-1400 is okay for you depends on the person and sometimes it's more of a sustainability question.
I'm at a healthy bmi as well and for me to lose 2 lbs a week I'd have to eat 848 calories a day (definitely below my bmr) which is way too little and it wouldn't be good for me.
Pretty much this.
It's true when I was exercising a lot more (when I was training for a half ironman, for example), I could have eaten more and lost 2 per week, but then it would have hurt my training. It's actually generally recommended that hard training or exercise not be combined with a severe deficit, although I admit I don't know the studies, just the advice from those involved in training plus my own experience being consistent with that. Actual athletes generally diet in the offseason, as any deficit would affect performance, but I don't mean that. (I did lose about 2 lb a week when running a lot and training for my first in a long time half marathon, but that was when I was still quite overweight.)
OP's a guy, I think, so may start with a much higher NEAT anyway, though, even before exercise is factored in. I think the 1% rule (or the calculations based on fat loss that are specific to person's stats, as discussed above) make more sense than a hard and fast rule about 1 lb or 2, although you still have to think of what's realistic given the amount you'd be eating.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Whether eating 1200-1400 is okay for you depends on the person and sometimes it's more of a sustainability question.
I'm at a healthy bmi as well and for me to lose 2 lbs a week I'd have to eat 848 calories a day (definitely below my bmr) which is way too little and it wouldn't be good for me.
Pretty much this.
It's true when I was exercising a lot more (when I was training for a half ironman, for example), I could have eaten more and lost 2 per week, but then it would have hurt my training. It's actually generally recommended that hard training or exercise not be combined with a severe deficit, although I admit I don't know the studies, just the advice from those involved in training plus my own experience being consistent with that. Actual athletes generally diet in the offseason, as any deficit would affect performance, but I don't mean that. (I did lose about 2 lb a week when running a lot and training for my first in a long time half marathon, but that was when I was still quite overweight.)
OP's a guy, I think, so may start with a much higher NEAT anyway, though, even before exercise is factored in. I think the 1% rule (or the calculations based on fat loss that are specific to person's stats, as discussed above) make more sense than a hard and fast rule about 1 lb or 2, although you still have to think of what's realistic given the amount you'd be eating.
Actually a female. I'm not arguing the fact that losing at a fast rate may be unhealthy, I was just looking for an actual reason why. The "you can lose 2 lbs a week if you need to lose x amount, and you can lose 1 lb a week if you weigh x" amount seem so arbitrary. And I did state I'm not going to attempt to lose weight super fact if it is indeed unhealthy. I have made a lot for gains rock climbing over the past several months, and I don't want to compromise my performance.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Whether eating 1200-1400 is okay for you depends on the person and sometimes it's more of a sustainability question.
I'm at a healthy bmi as well and for me to lose 2 lbs a week I'd have to eat 848 calories a day (definitely below my bmr) which is way too little and it wouldn't be good for me.
Pretty much this.
It's true when I was exercising a lot more (when I was training for a half ironman, for example), I could have eaten more and lost 2 per week, but then it would have hurt my training. It's actually generally recommended that hard training or exercise not be combined with a severe deficit, although I admit I don't know the studies, just the advice from those involved in training plus my own experience being consistent with that. Actual athletes generally diet in the offseason, as any deficit would affect performance, but I don't mean that. (I did lose about 2 lb a week when running a lot and training for my first in a long time half marathon, but that was when I was still quite overweight.)
OP's a guy, I think, so may start with a much higher NEAT anyway, though, even before exercise is factored in. I think the 1% rule (or the calculations based on fat loss that are specific to person's stats, as discussed above) make more sense than a hard and fast rule about 1 lb or 2, although you still have to think of what's realistic given the amount you'd be eating.
I'm at a computer now. Looks like OP is a female and in rereading the thread, she is active.
OP, studies are showing that when energy availability decrease to a level below 20-30 calories per kg of lean mass (9.6-13.6 calories per lb), your system starts to adapt. One of the big adaptations is that your reproductive system senses that now is not a good time to reproduce and you lose your period. Estrogen levels also decrease to a level where bone regeneration is stunted, which can mean bone loss leading to increased risk of stress fractures and even osteoporosis.
Mathematic example:
Example woman:
140 lbs
27% bodyweight
102 lbs LBM
13.6 x 102 lbs = 1387 net calories would be tipping point
A few articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435916/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/womens-physiology/body-fat-energy-availability-or-hormones-book-excerpt.html/
Video series from Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School: http://mdvideocenter.brighamandwomens.org/specialties/orthopedic-and-arthritis/female-athlete-triad-recognition-treatment-and-prevention/item/1
Starting around 23:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLcjhm4-CSg
4 -
I'd have to eat 1200 calories a day to lose 2 lbs a week. I'd be starving. And probably burn through my muscle mass like crazy as well (my BMR is 1550).
And did I mention I'd get HANGRY? Seriously, I can hardly stick to a 2000 weekly deficit as it is.4 -
I am tall so without exercise, with a normal BMI, I can lose 2 pounds per week with over 1500 calories. Right now my TDEE is 2600, I am only about ten pounds overweight.0
-
What are your stats? How much energy does your body use in a day? Depending on the answers to those questions, it might simply not be possible for you to lose at the rate of 2 pounds a week.
I'll use me for an example. I am 42 years, female, ~139 pounds, 5'5.5". On a fairly active day, which includes 45-60 minutes of walking and/or running and a desk job, I burn a total of about 1800-1900 calories. On a very active day (such as weekend where I'm not sitting at a desk) that might go up to 2000-2200. A 2 pound loss per week would require 1000 calories per day deficit, and I simply do not 'burn' enough to sustain that. So .5 to 1 pound per week is a reasonable goal for me.
Then take my husband. He is 5'9", 43, 225 pounds. He uses much more energy in a day. On a lazy day he burns about 2400. Based on his normal activity though its more like 3000. He can sustain a 1000 calorie deficit per day without issue.I know everyone says losing more than 2 lbs a week is dangerous, and that if you have a smaller amount of weight to lose (say 20 lbs), it is unhealthy to lose 2 lbs a week. I was just wondering if there is research to back this?
I am a healthy weight according to my BMI, but would like to lose an additional 20 lbs. I am not interested in losing more than 2 lbs a week, but 2 lb loss a week would be good. I'm not going to do something that would harm me, so I'm genuinely curious if there's research showing what amount to lose weekly is healthy.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Whether eating 1200-1400 is okay for you depends on the person and sometimes it's more of a sustainability question.
I'm at a healthy bmi as well and for me to lose 2 lbs a week I'd have to eat 848 calories a day (definitely below my bmr) which is way too little and it wouldn't be good for me.
Pretty much this.
It's true when I was exercising a lot more (when I was training for a half ironman, for example), I could have eaten more and lost 2 per week, but then it would have hurt my training. It's actually generally recommended that hard training or exercise not be combined with a severe deficit, although I admit I don't know the studies, just the advice from those involved in training plus my own experience being consistent with that. Actual athletes generally diet in the offseason, as any deficit would affect performance, but I don't mean that. (I did lose about 2 lb a week when running a lot and training for my first in a long time half marathon, but that was when I was still quite overweight.)
OP's a guy, I think, so may start with a much higher NEAT anyway, though, even before exercise is factored in. I think the 1% rule (or the calculations based on fat loss that are specific to person's stats, as discussed above) make more sense than a hard and fast rule about 1 lb or 2, although you still have to think of what's realistic given the amount you'd be eating.
Actually a female. I'm not arguing the fact that losing at a fast rate may be unhealthy, I was just looking for an actual reason why. The "you can lose 2 lbs a week if you need to lose x amount, and you can lose 1 lb a week if you weigh x" amount seem so arbitrary. And I did state I'm not going to attempt to lose weight super fact if it is indeed unhealthy. I have made a lot for gains rock climbing over the past several months, and I don't want to compromise my performance.
Think of it as % of current body mass - yes 2lb is arbitrary. It's a bigger chunk of a smaller body, though. And as you get close to where you want to be, weight-wise, it's harder to take out calories and still get enough nutrition to do all the things you want to. If it's just "vanity pounds", why not eat to maintain the weight you want to be, and let it get there when it does? That's what you will have to do eventually, anyway.
If your body is a system, and has an ideal weight range, then whatever maintains that is the healthy amount to eat, right? So say you are very far away from that, very fat. You could pretty safely eat close to that healthy amount and it would be way below what you were eating to maintain the fat. So you lose weight fast. You cannot safely eat way below that healthy amount to lose weight fast when you are already close to that healthy weight.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Can you direct me to his statement?
Me? He mentions it in the fat loss section of that article. Says the researcher admitted it but he (Nuckols) can't find the source now. So who knows. Regardless, what was judged to be theoretically possible doesn't necessarily capture reality, which is my gripe about the 31 (or even 22) calories per pound of fat thing.
Not having the actual statement is suboptimal to knowing what he actually said.
Nevertheless, the reality will of course always be lower than the max., so deficits have to be even lower.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »There is some research regarding the amount of fat that can be utilized to fill in the amount of calories needed to cover your deficit. I honestly, can remember where I saw it, or who posted it, but essentially there is only a certain amount of calories that can come from fat, the rest is taken from muscle. That's why the higher deficits tend to lead to skinny fat, you lose a disproportionate amount from muscle than you would otherwise. If I could remember who it was, I would tag them in here for you. Maybe @Anvil_Head or @stevencloser
ETA: (or more to clarify) That was supposed to say I can't remember who posted it.
You summon me, my dark lord?
http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/
Article by the great Lyle McDonald, referencing I think the only real study about this topic (which is only theoretical to boot).
Dark lord... I like it! Some days, having a conscience can really be bothersome.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions