Rates of loss per week: 2lbs, 1lb, .5lb

Just keep in mind that with a smaller deficit you'll need to be really tight with your logging. I totally agree that slower is better if it helps you stick with your plan. Just keep a close tabs om your intake.

MossiO wrote: »

So, from looking at threads here, I gather that the recommendations are for someone who is quite overweight to start out at 2lbs a week. And that usually is recommended until about, say 50lbs to goal weight. At which point the suggestions are to switch to 1lb a week. And then with about, maybe 20 lbs left, to switch to .5 a week. Is that about right? Your mileage may vary, of course.

I've been on 1lb a week, and down 20, but I'm finding it hard to stick to my calories, so I'm thinking of switching to .5lb a week, but I still have 30 to go.

If you need more calories, allow yourself more calories.

How many pounds per week to choose as your loss rate is a personal choice. I disagree with the chart that is often copied and pasted to threads about how many pounds to lose, as I think that most women need a smaller absolute deficit than men in order to sustain their diets. But some women many like that chart so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

But yes, eat more if you need it.

As stated above, rate of loss is totally up to you and what you think will be sustainable. In fact depending on your goals you don't necessarily have to reduce your rate of loss when close to your target. That conventional wisdom comes from the fact that it's harder to lose weight once you're already close to a normal weight because your overall calorie needs are already lower and targeting a faster rate of loss would drop you to an unsustainable amount of calories (for example, a male that weighs at the upper end of 'normal' with a maintenance target of 2200 calories per day would need to drop to 1200 calories in order to lose at 2 pounds per week. A 500 calorie deficit would be much more realistic and sustainable for him).

In reality, if your ultimate target is in the upper range of 'normal', you can continue to target a loss of 2 pounds per week to the very end. You should still have a reasonable amount of calories to eat even at the larger deficit. If you want to continue to lose once in the normal range (that is, drop from the upper end to the middle or lower end) then that's when you probably want to consider easing off your deficit and dropping down to 1 to 0.5 pounds per week.

I started with 40 pounds to lose in order to finish at the upper end of the normal' weight range for my height. I'm about 10 pounds from target now and plan to continue to target 2 to 2.5 pounds per week for another 5 weeks. After that I plan to shift to a long term 'maintenance deficit' of about 250 calories per day in order to slowly move towards the middle of my normal weight range or (more likely) to give me a bit of a weekly buffer for drinks and the occasional night out splurge without risking putting the weight back on.

The other benefit of tapering off your rate of loss is psychological. Not only does it help to temper your expectations to avoid discouragement when so close to your goal but it also helps to ease you into maintenance mode for the long term. Think of it as gradually coasting to a stop in your car as opposed to slamming on the brakes at the last minute.

Good luck. The most important thing is to think long term sustainability and to come up with a plan that will work for you.

DX2JX2 wrote: »

As stated above, rate of loss is totally up to you and what you think will be sustainable. In fact depending on your goals you don't necessarily have to reduce your rate of loss when close to your target. That conventional wisdom comes from the fact that it's harder to lose weight once you're already close to a normal weight because your overall calorie needs are already lower and targeting a faster rate of loss would drop you to an unsustainable amount of calories (for example, a male that weighs at the upper end of 'normal' with a maintenance target of 2200 calories per day would need to drop to 1200 calories in order to lose at 2 pounds per week. A 500 calorie deficit would be much more realistic and sustainable for him).

In reality, if your ultimate target is in the upper range of 'normal', you can continue to target a loss of 2 pounds per week to the very end. You should still have a reasonable amount of calories to eat even at the larger deficit. If you want to continue to lose once in the normal range (that is, drop from the upper end to the middle or lower end) then that's when you probably want to consider easing off your deficit and dropping down to 1 to 0.5 pounds per week.

I started with 40 pounds to lose in order to finish at the upper end of the normal' weight range for my height. I'm about 10 pounds from target now and plan to continue to target 2 to 2.5 pounds per week for another 5 weeks. After that I plan to shift to a long term 'maintenance deficit' of about 250 calories per day in order to slowly move towards the middle of my normal weight range or (more likely) to give me a bit of a weekly buffer for drinks and the occasional night out splurge without risking putting the weight back on.

The other benefit of tapering off your rate of loss is psychological. Not only does it help to temper your expectations to avoid discouragement when so close to your goal but it also helps to ease you into maintenance mode for the long term. Think of it as gradually coasting to a stop in your car as opposed to slamming on the brakes at the last minute.

Good luck. The most important thing is to think long term sustainability and to come up with a plan that will work for you.

The bolded information above is a prime example of why deficit should be tapered. The nutritional minimum for a male is 1500 calories per day. For a male to drop to 1200 they would risk hair loss, loss of energy, brittle nails, and muscle mass loss. Not very good outcomes. To continue to goal weight at such high rates of loss is a risky and ill advised strategy. It also, does not teach one to learn the proper habits of eating at close to maintenance so that the change is permanent. Thus, the prevalence of the cycle of crash dieting and regaining that we see around here regularly.

I did 10 days aiming at 0.5lb per week to begin with to get used to tracking and to restricting my intake (still felt hungry!). I then switched to 1 lb per week. In fact my loss has been higher (water at the start etc) and is settling at 1.3lb per week (about 8 weeks in) as I'm avoiding eating exercise calories. Am 17lb down and at the top end of the normal range now, aiming at another 11-18 lbs to aim just above the middle of the range. This rate feels really sustainable - I don't think I could have eaten at a much bigger deficit and stuck to it.

Your plan sounds good!