Why do People Say Losing 2 lbs per Week is Only for Overweight People?

new_arc87
new_arc87 Posts: 38 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I've read multiple times from community members that one should only try to lose 0.5 - 1 lbs per week as he gets closer to his weight goal. Why is this?

Replies

  • Poisonedpawn78
    Poisonedpawn78 Posts: 1,145 Member
    It is my understanding that as you approach a lower BF%, if you maintain a high weight loss it will tend to be more muscle than fat. Which is why everyone suggests while losing weight to do resistance training and eat your protein to minimize the muscle loss.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    The leaner/smaller you are, the more tightly you have to follow particular protocols in order to retain lean mass. The bigger you are, the more wiggle room you have. As such, 2 lb per week isn't a good goal for the vast majority of people that aren't very overweight.
  • vivelajackie
    vivelajackie Posts: 321 Member
    A lower body weight means your calorie goal for the day is also lower. The more aggressive you want to lose, the higher deficit you need to achieve. So, less calories means less to cut into. It's easier to go slower without being completely miserable and possibly malnurished.

    Exercise would allow you to eat some more and certainly encouraged, but it's that deficit that's doing the losing mostly.
  • Running_and_Coffee
    Running_and_Coffee Posts: 811 Member
    Because to lose 2 lbs a week, after an initial water weight loss of a few pounds, a smaller person would have to eat practically nothing. Which a smaller person might be motivated to do for a very short time, but not forever. And then it's really hard not to regain everything.
  • CiaIgle
    CiaIgle Posts: 72 Member
    As far as I understand, an absolute max is in the order of 2 pounds per week. Above that the things can get complicated.

    Loosing 2 pound per week represents a deficit of 7.000 kcals. In principle the safest way to do that is splitting those to 3.500 kcals deficit from food (that's 500 per day) and the rest via exercise (a lot of cardio at least 5 times a week).

    After loosing 60 pounds, and reviewing my stats, I lost more or less one pound every 5 days.
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    new_arc87 wrote: »
    I've read multiple times from community members that one should only try to lose 0.5 - 1 lbs per week as he gets closer to his weight goal. Why is this?

    It depends on how much energy your body uses in a day. Some general 'truths' to keep in mind: guys tend to burn more energy than gals, and bigger people tend to burn more energy than smaller people.

    So a big guy and/or a big gal would be more likely to have enough daily calorie burn to support a 1000 calorie per day deficit and aim for 2 pounds lost per week.

    A smaller guy: on the fence. Just depends on his stats, his activity, and his burn #. But keep in mind that a more active person is likely going to feel the need for more fuel so that can also limit how much of a deficit is possible.

    A smaller gal: is going to have a hard time creating a big deficit. Using myself as an example, my total daily burn with a decent amount of daily activity is around 1850-2050. I could not possibly have a 1000 calorie deficit and be healthy. Granted I am now at maintenance, but when I was working to lose my last 5-10 pounds, my total TDEE was not much higher and thus I could do about 1 pound per week on average rather than 2.
  • InkAndApples
    InkAndApples Posts: 201 Member
    If I tried to lose 2lbs per week my daily calorie goal would be around 900 :/

    It may be a biochemical fever dream (I have those occasionally) but isn't there a limit to the amount of fat the body metabolises at one time? I'd rather know I was losing a smaller amount of fat than risk muscle loss.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    InkAndApples wrote: »
    If I tried to lose 2lbs per week my daily calorie goal would be around 900 :/

    It may be a biochemical fever dream (I have those occasionally) but isn't there a limit to the amount of fat the body metabolises at one time? I'd rather know I was losing a smaller amount of fat than risk muscle loss.

    I don't have the research handy, but there was a study done a while back, where the researcher determined it was ~31 Cal/lb. However, he later noted that he had done some math incorrectly and it was only ~27 Cal/lb.
  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    As others have said -2 pounds a week requires a big deficit - you need to be 1000 calories per day in the hole every day to lose 2 pounds a week.

    When you're very big, that's much easier to achieve.

    A lightly active woman who is 5'5" and 200 pounds needs 2273 calories per day to maintain that weight.
    If that woman is only 125 pounds hse only needs 1800 calories

    The 200-pound woman could knock 1000 calories per day off and be at 1273 - which is low, but more do-able than the 800 calories the smaller woman would need to restrict herself to.

    So those numbers get smaller and less possible the shorter and lighter you are. If you're 5'0 and 110 pounds and trying to lose 10 pounds to get yoruself to 100? Trying to do 2 pounds a week would mean you'd have to eat 600 or fewer calories a day, for 5 weeks.
  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 997 Member
    Do you want to be as light as possible, or at low bodyfat with muscle?
    ggacltfs6sfe.jpg

    Slowing rate of loss preserves more muscle.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,953 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    InkAndApples wrote: »
    If I tried to lose 2lbs per week my daily calorie goal would be around 900 :/

    It may be a biochemical fever dream (I have those occasionally) but isn't there a limit to the amount of fat the body metabolises at one time? I'd rather know I was losing a smaller amount of fat than risk muscle loss.

    I don't have the research handy, but there was a study done a while back, where the researcher determined it was ~31 Cal/lb. However, he later noted that he had done some math incorrectly and it was only ~27 Cal/lb.

    That would be per pound of body fat, not per pound of body weight, as I understand it. Theoretical, IIRC, not experimental . . . but the stakes are high (your health!), so why take chances - plus slower loss is more doable.

Categories