The 1 percent rule - how much fat can we really metabolize per day/week?

I started a similar thread last year. Not much else available then:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10507624/limit-to-the-amount-of-fat-that-can-be-burned-in-a-day#latest

try2again wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

I am mostly curious about when it is safe to use the 1 percent rule, what that means, and when it is time to return to the standard recommendation of 2lbs per week?

I think the "standard recommendation" of 2 lbs/week is just a different expression of the 1% rule, assuming the majority of people will fall in a range where 2 lbs/week would be the high end of 1%.

Agreed... probably also because we think of 2lb/wk as roughly 7000 calories per week deficit, whether that's accurate or seems debateable, but let's assume it's close enough.. I think to shoot for any more than 2 ACTUAL pounds per week would require even higher calorie deficits and that is just realistically too difficult for most people.

I don't even know how I would make a 10-11,000 calorie per week deficit work for me, assuming I still had all of my weight to lose (I don't, I'm at or near target weight, just need to recomp some fat:muscle).

jasondjulian wrote: »

try2again wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

I am mostly curious about when it is safe to use the 1 percent rule, what that means, and when it is time to return to the standard recommendation of 2lbs per week?

I think the "standard recommendation" of 2 lbs/week is just a different expression of the 1% rule, assuming the majority of people will fall in a range where 2 lbs/week would be the high end of 1%.

Agreed... probably also because we think of 2lb/wk as roughly 7000 calories per week deficit, whether that's accurate or seems debateable, but let's assume it's close enough.. I think to shoot for any more than 2 ACTUAL pounds per week would require even higher calorie deficits and that is just realistically too difficult for most people.

I don't even know how I would make a 10-11,000 calorie per week deficit work for me, assuming I still had all of my weight to lose (I don't, I'm at or near target weight, just need to recomp some fat:muscle).

Yes, according to the rule, I could still "safely" lose 2 lbs/week, but it would give me a calorie allowance of close to 1000. Not happening.

jemhh wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

jemhh wrote: »

Can't really speak much on the 1% part but as for the 31 cal/lb of fat, Lyle McDonald has said that he does not feel that it is relevant to dieting in an optimal manner. I can't give you direct links but he has a Facebook page on which he has repeated this several times. I would completely ignore the 31 cal thing.

I was wondering about that since it contradicts some of the current wisdom of slowing to 1lb and then .5lb per week as you get closer to your goal weight.

Well, and the other part of the conversation is that even if 31 cals/lb of fat was accurate, even if 1% of bodyweight per week loss is accurate as far as being "safe", it doesn't mean that either one is necessarily optimal. What is optimal for a person is what is sustainable. For some people that could be 1% of bodyweight per week. For others it might be a half pound per week. People seem to look at 1% of bodyweight and 1-2 lbs per week as what they "should" lose when those are really just guidelines to what is considered to be a safe rate of loss.

I was racking my brain trying to come up with that word! (optimal) Thank you!

Cmriverside's post got me thinking about my own experience and how I've gone about doing things since I started here back in 2012. For context, I'm male, currently 29yo, and stand 6'1".

All in all, on day one of MFP I was only a few pounds heavier on the scale than I am now (178 vs. 173), however I was not in nearly the sort of shape I am now having really gotten into lifting since mid-2015. Not being as knowledgeable, like many I set my loss rate for 2 lbs/week which give me 1200 or just a little over and I was able to deal with that pretty well. However, at that time I wasn't using a food scale or logging exhaustively on weekends and didn't necessarily lose to match 2lb/week but dropped from 178 down to a low of 159 just before getting married in June of 2013. I estimate that period of weight loss occurred with a lean body mass of around 140 lbs, equating to going from ~20% body fat to ~12% but with not too much muscle mass to write home about. I had my goals set to a limit of 1240 calories for the longest time, convinced that I'd be happy with my body if I just kept losing weight. My adherence and logging consistency was lackluster and I floated around in the 160s until late 2014/early 2015.

I'd gained fat back up to as high as 175. I knew how I could get back down into the low 160s but knew that I wasn't appreciably happy with how my body looked at that lower weight compared to how I looked then; I finally realized I needed to add some muscle to look the way I desired. I started lifting with adjustable dumbbells and a cheap bench in spring of 2015, but it wasn't until 8/3/15 (A Monday, surprise surprise), that I finally upped my calorie target to a more reasonable number of 2240 (+exercise). Being a few years ago I'm unsure of the origin of that target; probably in the ethos of "eat big, lift big" or something along those lines. Being overweight through adolescence and spending the last three years thinking about 1250 calories, 2240 seemed like a mountain of food. To make an excessively long story at least a little shorter, I've probably added at least 10 lbs of muscle since that point and sit a 173 lbs with decent-but-could-be-better definition. Presently, my target is set for 1800 calories but I generally shoot for just being in the window between that point and my TDEE (~2500) and typically average a little over 2100 when I'm on the ball as far as caloric compliance is concerned. Years removed from trying to hit 1250 (at least during the week), I don't remember, and can't imagine how I felt trying to eat that little at what I'd describe as similar levels of leanness.

lorrpb wrote: »

2 lbs/week is good if you have 75 lbs or more to lose
50-75 lbs is 1.5 per week
20-50 is 1 lb per week
under 20 lbs to lose is .5 per week
This makes a lot more sense to me than 1% of bodyweight. It's probably safe to say that no one under 175 should be aiming for 1% loss per week.

This makes more sense to me as well. Maybe the 1% guideline works better at higher weights or those who have a bit more to lose.

To lose 1% of my body weight per week I'd need a 700-calorie daily deficit off a maintenance amount of 1700. If I were more active I could achieve it by not eating all my activity calories back, but I'd still be netting under 1200 and hangry all the time, and that's just not pretty.

NovusDies wrote: »

lorrpb wrote: »

2 lbs/week is good if you have 75 lbs or more to lose
50-75 lbs is 1.5 per week
20-50 is 1 lb per week
under 20 lbs to lose is .5 per week
This makes a lot more sense to me than 1% of bodyweight. It's probably safe to say that no one under 175 should be aiming for 1% loss per week.

That works just fine if you are in the vicinity of 75lbs or under. The problem is what happens when your "or more" is substantially more? It seems like there should be a logical place where the 1 percent rule kicks above a certain weight.

I personally don't use the rule. I think it is too aggressive regardless of my situation. I have been taking the 1 percent and substracting 1 from it. That might change to .5 at some point depending on how I feel when more of this weight is gone.

Right, more than 75 to lose would be 2 lbs or up to 1%. Wish you the best in your journey.

NovusDies wrote: »

lorrpb wrote: »

2 lbs/week is good if you have 75 lbs or more to lose
50-75 lbs is 1.5 per week
20-50 is 1 lb per week
under 20 lbs to lose is .5 per week
This makes a lot more sense to me than 1% of bodyweight. It's probably safe to say that no one under 175 should be aiming for 1% loss per week.

That works just fine if you are in the vicinity of 75lbs or under. The problem is what happens when your "or more" is substantially more? It seems like there should be a logical place where the 1 percent rule kicks above a certain weight.

I personally don't use the rule. I think it is too aggressive regardless of my situation. I have been taking the 1 percent and substracting 1 from it. That might change to .5 at some point depending on how I feel when more of this weight is gone.

Slower is always fine, especially if more sustainable, no matter what the rule of thumb for "safe maximum" might be. I think sometimes we forget to point that out, because it's much more common to be trying to persuade someone that 2 pounds a week is Not A Good Plan if you're going from (say) 140 to 120. Our rhetorical reflexes may be cranked a little off by those common experiences.

I suspect there's individual variability, too, in what loss rate causes negative consequences. Some of us at X weight might be able to sustain Y weight loss rate, where other same-demographic people would find themselves dragging through their days, so need to go a little slower.

I've seen threads where it's explicitly stated that people who are morbidly obese can perhaps safely lose > 1%, but often coupled with "under close medical supervision". I'm completely speculating, but I'd guess that someone who is morbidly obese may have the fat mass to theoretically support rather extreme loss rates, but may be more likely to be medically fragile in some ways (inherently, or because medications need to be managed carefully with rapidly declining weight).

NovusDies wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Slower is always fine, especially if more sustainable, no matter what the rule of thumb for "safe maximum" might be. I think sometimes we forget to point that out, because it's much more common to be trying to persuade someone that 2 pounds a week is Not A Good Plan if you're going from (say) 140 to 120. Our rhetorical reflexes may be cranked a little off by those common experiences.

I suspect there's individual variability, too, in what loss rate causes negative consequences. Some of us at X weight might be able to sustain Y weight loss rate, where other same-demographic people would find themselves dragging through their days, so need to go a little slower.

I've seen threads where it's explicitly stated that people who are morbidly obese can perhaps safely lose > 1%, but often coupled with "under close medical supervision". I'm completely speculating, but I'd guess that someone who is morbidly obese may have the fat mass to theoretically support rather extreme loss rates, but may be more likely to be medically fragile in some ways (inherently, or because medications need to be managed carefully with rapidly declining weight).

The funny thing is I am comfortable physically with less calories, I am in no danger of binging or feeling deprived but I am uncomfortable going too fast. About a month ago I raised my calories by 250 to slow myself down some because I felt a rate closer to 3.5 was too much. I was doing fine otherwise though. So for me sustainability has a health component too which I suppose should exist for everyone.

My aggressiveness has been on a slide downward. When I started I was more afraid of being dead due to weight complications. The first time I stepped on the scale (about 6 weeks in) I had already lost a nice chunk of which some was water but I was feeling better (less pain) so I relaxed a bit. 2 month later when I weighed again I relaxed even more. Now that 25 percent is gone staying alive is still a factor but so is being healthy after weight loss... hence this thread.

Somewhere along the way my thinking has changed which has greatly helped. I view myself as eating a healthy amount of calories with a bonus of losing weight instead of I have to lose weight so I need to eat this way. This is assisted by my unorthodox weighing schedule which is like unwrapping a present occasionally. If I don't continually focus on "the problem" and just live my life time doesn't seem to drag as much... this makes it more sustainable because I still have a long journey ahead.

I think those are great insights. The point ought to be health and happiness, not just at some distant future point, but along the road as well. In that light, what you did makes perfect sense: Quicker loss out of the major health danger zone, then slowing down to minimize risks of long-term severe calorie deficits, and to be able to enjoy the path. For someone even moderately overweight, it's necessarily a long path. 50 pounds to goal at 2 pounds a week - a bad plan, even if someone could stick to it consistently - is still half a year.

I look at the "max 1% weekly" idea not so much as some precise scientifically well-founded barrier not to be breached ever, but rather as a rough risk-management guideline or rule of thumb, something that will avoid material health risks for the majority of otherwise averagely healthy people when they're not closely medically supervised (possibly at the cost of maximum-speed loss, which is a small cost IMO). Part of the problem with it is that it does break down at the low end - a woman my size, 5'5", really shouldn't be trying to lose as much as 1.3 pounds a week to get from 130 to 120 IMO (though maybe the timespan involved would make it doable for someone young and very robust, I dunno - if so, pretty situational).

I also think that part of the benefit of gradual weight loss is the opportunity to learn and practice eating routines that one can use forever to stay at a healthy weight. Extreme loss rates, which will more often require measures people wouldn't want to stick with forever, can torpedo the learning opportunity. Since statistics suggest losing weight is easier than maintaining the loss, that learning process just might be important.

This is all on top of the "can one stick it out?" dimension. I'm as guilty of cognitive biases as anyone else, but it sure seems like I've seen more dropouts and start/stop/regain/restart cycles from "pedal to the metal" methodology folks on average, vs. the slow and steady, who often seem better able to plod along mostly steadily toward goal (and get there faster from initial start to final goal, BTW). Not universally true, of course.

CSARdiver wrote: »

You could identify the sum of biochemical pathways and potential output based on cellular weight. It would be a gross approximation, but imagine this would be very close to 1% or 1-2 lbs/week.

So is the 1% figure that gets posted so often (and I've repeated myself, I'm sure) based on the biochemical process's capabilities, or on observed weight loss limits averaged over time? I do believe that it's a good guideline (except as others have mentioned once you get close to goal), I just have never been sure what it was really based on.