Losing 1% per week

You will find initially, you will lose weight at a faster rate.
Generally, ( but not always ), your weight loss reduces. This is because your body weighs less and requires less calories to function.
You can however control this (to a degree ), by increasing physical activity and reducing your caloric intake.
Always be mindful, your calories should not be restricted below 1200 calories.
By consuming a wide range of nutritious foods and staying physically active will ensure weight loss.

Well done on you weight loss

issiahs wrote: »

For sure, I'll make sure to start eating a bit more then. I eat 1700 calories on days I don't exercise, and on the days I do exercise I eat about 2000. I'm 5'5 too. My exercise may burn more than I think though because I am set to lose a pound a week, but I always end up losing more. I skateboard for exercise, so it's kind of hard to gauge. I would invest in a fitbit, but everyone says how exaggerated the burns are so it seems pointless. Thanks for the info and the warnings.

I think the idea is you start off losing a lot more then it goes down and averages out over time.
So losing more initially is normal

You're fine to keep doing what you're doing. At 1700 calories a day plus exercise calories when relevant your loss range should be something in the 1.0 to 1.5 range. That should be perfectly safe and realistic.

There's really no reason for you to change, your weight loss will gradually slow down enough as you get closer to your target weight.

I'd agree with the 0.5 to 1.0% range per week. I found that my weekly losses would typically cycle within this range with very few expections.

issiahs wrote: »

For sure, I'll make sure to start eating a bit more then. I eat 1700 calories on days I don't exercise, and on the days I do exercise I eat about 2000. I'm 5'5 too. My exercise may burn more than I think though because I am set to lose a pound a week, but I always end up losing more. I skateboard for exercise, so it's kind of hard to gauge. I would invest in a fitbit, but everyone says how exaggerated the burns are so it seems pointless. Thanks for the info and the warnings.

For sure, you want to be looking at what you're actually losing, not what some calculator says you theoretically should be losing.

The 1% is a general rule of thumb that should keep most people in a safe, sustainable range. The "slower close to goal" idea is an extension of that same strategy to keep health risks on the low side while losing. Yes, goal weights differ for a variety of reasons, so it's imprecise, but its still useful as an approximation.

In reality, individuals' bodies probably respond differently to over-restriction, so some might be fine losing faster than others. But why take chances with health?

It's nearly always fine to lose at slower rates; the exception might be someone who needs rapid loss to counter some acute health risk.

Underlying these kinds of rules of thumb is some theoretical work suggesting that the average person can metabolize a maximum of X calories of body fat daily per pound of existing body fat, after which it will start metabolizing lean tissue to make up the rest of a bigger deficit. Therefore, for healthiest results, loss rate should decline as remaining body fat declines.

I've seen estimates of X in the mid-20s to low 30s of calories. There's also research suggesting that exercise, especially strength exercise, reduces the chance of lean tissue loss. For most people, the 1% rule is on the conservative side of the "X calories per pound of fat" calculation . . . as a reasonable generalized risk reduction guideline should be.

I strongly disagree with those saying loss rate will always automagically decline as one gets lighter. It won't do that for everyone. I had to consciously, intentionally put on the brakes by eating more, or I would've lost weight too fast in the later stages. Some will slow down automatically; some won't.