Why is losing 0.5 a week better?

n_green_l · April 2019

So I've read in a quite a lot of threads that if you only have say 14lbs to lose it's best to lose 0.5lb a week. Why is that? Why not aim for 2lbs?

kimny72 · April 2019

nataliegreenlouise wrote: »

So I've read in a quite a lot of threads that if you only have say 14lbs to lose it's best to lose 0.5lb a week. Why is that? Why not aim for 2lbs?

Weight loss is all about a calorie deficit. To lose 2 lbs per week, you would need to be in a 1000 cal deficit every day. For most people with so little to lose, they would have to eat an unhealthy small amount of food to carry that deficit, or an unhealthy sudden level of unfueled exercise.

Also, your body can only burn so much fat at one time, and the leaner you are, the less it has to work with, making it far more likely you are losing a lot of muscle rather than fat. Your body might also decide that rather than burning a lot of muscle it will instead not do some of the things that it uses calories for, so it might not grow your hair, or repair your brain cells, or fuel your immune system.

Also also, losing weight fast, forcing your body to make those kinds of decisions, is very stressful, and can cause negative symptoms that it will take your body months to repair recover from.

sunfastrose · April 2019

It's not so much better as literally unable to be done in a healthy way. The larger you are the more calories you burn; as you lose weight, you burn less. When you have that little to lose the amount of calories you can cut and still eat enough to maintain activity is not enough to add up to losing that much weight.

ceiswyn · April 2019

The main reason is that if you're close to your ideal weight, you would have to significantly undereat in order to lose 2 lb per week.

The maths is inexorable: losing 2 lb per week requires a calorie deficit of 1000 calories every day.

A woman who is morbidly obese can have maintenance calories of around 3000. Taking a deficit of 1000 still leaves her eating 2000 calories a day, which is plenty for good nutrition.

A woman who only has 14 lb to lose is either only a little overweight, or even just within the 'normal' range. She probably has maintenance calories closer to 1700, less if she's short. Taking a deficit of 1000 would leave her eating... 700 calories a day. It is almost impossible to squeeze the basic nutritional requirements into that little food.

In addition, the morbidly obese person has lots of spare fat lying around to burn. The slightly overweight person doesn't, and so can't actually metabolise that 2 lb of fat per week. In order to function on only 700 calories a day, her body would have to burn muscle as well, and also start cutting 'non-essential' services. Heart muscle would be damaged, she'd start to lose her hair, she would have no energy - just a bad idea all round!

Crafty_camper123 · April 2019

1) Because when you have less to lose you have less body mass. This means that for a person aiming for 2lbs a week loss would mean they would be undereating. Undereating causes all kinds of health problems. To lose 1 lb a week, one must burn 3,500 calories. (2lbs would be 7,000 calories). I'll use my stats as an example of why this is not advised. I am 5'3 F, 130 and am in to lose my last 10 lbs. My TDEEcounting light exercise is around 1700 calories a day to maintain my weight. To lose 2 lbs a week, I would have to eat 700 calories a day (1000 calorie deficit per day). Which is extreemly unhealthy and could cause problems like loss of periods, hair loss, and heart problems to name a few. Meanwhile, I know someone who is a 6'0 Male, 420 lbs. He has a lot of weight to lose. His TDEE with some light exercise would be 3,985 to maintain. He would need to eat 2,985 to lose 2lbs a week. He could do so wil no ill effects to his health. As he gets closer to a healthy weight, his caloric requirements would lessen, and he too would have to slow down his rate of loss.

2) Compliance. Even if you ate the minimum 1200 calories a day, and then ate all your excercise calories back to equal a net total of 1200, it is very hard to stick to. I tried this on several occasions with little lasting success. I wanted it off and I wanted it yesterday! This caused me to get hungry, cranky, and throw in the towel after just a few months. I would gain back anything I lost. Last year, I set it to lose .5lbs a week and took it slower. I also ate back most of my excersise calories. This made it much easier to do without feeling deprived. It took 9 months, but I lost 20 lbs and have kept it off over the last 6 months so far. I've never been able to do that until I slowed my goal to .5 loss a week.

Why is losing 0.5 a week better?

Replies

Categories