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

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.

mountainmare wrote: »

Doesn't the actual goal make a difference? I see all the time the statement about "as you get close to goal" or "when you are 5-10 lbs away from goal"
To me it makes a difference if your goal is the lowest BMI, or mid BMI-to just get to the top of healthy BMI--or you lose 100 lbs and that puts you near the bottom of overweight.
For me--pushing 70--to lose less than 1 pound (believe me that's not 1%) I'm at 1200 calories, to maintain at the very bottom of "overweight" is a bit less than 1400. Sometimes the discussions of gradual weight loss and "I would starve at under 1500 calories" get me discouraged. Not for my progress--I'm happy--but for the rest of my life.

I hear you. For us older folks, maintenance calories at a sedentary level of activity is pretty meager amount. I do well in the summer because my activity level is higher just in my daily routine. Last winter, I was laid up for 6 weeks after a fall on the ice and "maintenance" was just under 1300. Sad. But, once I recovered I resumed strength training and a bit of cardio and enjoyed the wiggle room in my calorie allotment

middlehaitch wrote: »

I lost at 1200 and got 1200 for maintenance. Upping my daily activity, exercising, and maintaining a good LBM (why some kind of resistance work is so often recommended here), means I can eat ~1600 cals.

Remember that your MFP maintenance is an estemate without exercise. You can choose to move more to eat more.

Cheers, h.

^^^All of this! As a 67 year old woman I lost less than a lb. a week at 1200 calories, and my maintenance was projected at 1250. It was discouraging. But by the time I hit my goal my NEAT had increased considerably, and I was more mindful of moderate purposeful exercise, and I maintain on an average week at around 1500, some weeks are as high as 1800-2000. Unless you plan on being a couch potato (or are ill or injured), I think the projected maintenance calories tend to be lower than the actuals for many people.

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.

I think the rules seem to be that only if you're in imminent danger of death due to factors relating to your obesity, then a medically-supervised, Very Low Calorie Diet is prescribed to make you lose faster than 2 lbs per week.