Ladies that are losing 2lbs/week, what is your secret?
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I am pretty sure that the secret to sustained 2lbs/week loss is morbid obesity.
Well, I managed it for about 14 weeks (not sure if you count that as "sustained") starting from "only" severe (Class II) obesity.
I lost 2 lbs a week by starting out severely obese, logging my food and my exercise, and maintaining what MFP predicted would be a 500 cal/day (1 lb a week) deficit. (Sorry, I'm an outlier, a statistical anomaly, an uncontrolled mover when music plays, a late-to-perimenopauser. That's all I've been able to come up with to explain it.)5 -
The point that a 2lb per week loss is only safely possible for those very overweight to begin with seems to be lost on some posters.
If you have a smaller amount to lose, the pace will be slower.
If you have a lot to lose you can lose 2lb per week with an appropriate calorie allowance.
Things like taking lunch to work, pre logging,cutting out sweets, taking a water bottle everywhere etc etc which have been recomended above - sure, they may well have helped the posters of such to adhere to calorie allowance - but they dont change basic fact that only those with a lot to lose will lose it consistently as 2lb per week.15 -
paperpudding wrote: »The point that a 2lb per week loss is only safely possible for those very overweight to begin with seems to be lost on some posters.
If you have a smaller amount to lose, the pace will be slower.
If you have a lot to lose you can lose 2lb per week with an appropriate calorie allowance.
Things like taking lunch to work, pre logging,cutting out sweets, taking a water bottle everywhere etc etc which have been recomended above - sure, they may well have helped the posters of such to adhere to calorie allowance - but they dont change basic fact that only those with a lot to lose will lose it consistently as 2lb per week.
I feel this reply should be in BOLD, so have done just that 11 -
I know it's a generally accepted wisdom that 2lbs a week is only a safe rate of weight loss for people who were very obese to start with, but where has that figure come from? What are the risks/harms that come with losing weight at that rate from a lower starting weight?
(not saying that anyone should try to lose weight faster than this or change their goals - just wondering the reasoning behind a figure that is thrown around a lot on here)2 -
3011sophie wrote: »I know it's a generally accepted wisdom that 2lbs a week is only a safe rate of weight loss for people who were very obese to start with, but where has that figure come from? What are the risks/harms that come with losing weight at that rate from a lower starting weight?
(not saying that anyone should try to lose weight faster than this or change their goals - just wondering the reasoning behind a figure that is thrown around a lot on here)
It's simple math.
Firstly. Losing weight comes from a calorie deficit. There are 3500 calories in a 1lb of fat therefore in order to lose 2lbs of fat in 1 week you need to create a calorie deficit of 7000cal per week or 1000cal per day.
Next thing that needs to be understood is that a human requires a certain amount of calories per day to sustain life. As in not have organs (including heart and brain) begin to deteriorate and shut down. This is different for everyone but the ballpark figures are approx 1200cal/day for females and 1500cal/day for males.
Finally a person needs to eat a certain amount of food each day just so that they don't mentally fall apart from hunger.
So lets look at two extreme cases to illustrate in simple terms.
Person A is a 350lbs man who is 6' tall. Maintenance for this person would be somewhere in the vicinity of 3200cal per day. So in order for this person to lose at rate of 2lbs per week he would need to eat approx 2200cal per day. This 2200cal per day is still well in excess of the minimum required to sustain life and is sufficient food that this person shouldn't have too much trouble eating enough to not feel constantly hungry, miserable and deprived.
Person 2 is a 130lbs female who is 5'1. Maintenance for this person would be around 1500cal per day. So trying to achieve a 2lbs per week loss would require dropping their daily calorie intake to around 500cal per day. This is WAY below the number of calories needed for the body to function and very quickly the body would start to be damaged. This is not to mention how unrealistic trying to eat this little food every day would be from a mental point of view. This person would very quickly find themselves constantly miserable and wracked with hunger pangs.17 -
But where do these ballpark figures come from? Why is it 1200 and not 1100 or 1300? Or the individual's basal metabolic rate? What research has been used to figure out these ballpark figures?Next thing that needs to be understood is that a human requires a certain amount of calories per day to sustain life. As in not have organs (including heart and brain) begin to deteriorate and shut down. This is different for everyone but the ballpark figures are approx 1200cal/day for females and 1500cal/day for males.
But if men can safely go down to 1500 according to the minimum figures in the previous paragraph, why should this person be losing at 2lb a week and not 3.5lb a week? Is it the size of the deficit that is unsafe, or the minimum caloric intake itself?Person A is a 350lbs man who is 6' tall. Maintenance for this person would be somewhere in the vicinity of 3200cal per day. So in order for this person to lose at rate of 2lbs per week he would need to eat approx 2200cal per day. This 2200cal per day is still well in excess of the minimum required to sustain life and is sufficient food that this person shouldn't have too much trouble eating enough to not feel constantly hungry, miserable and deprived
I know that in reality it's a combination of the two - which is why I'm questioning how readily "1200/1500 calories minimum" and "no more than 2lbs a week" are quoted everywhere without consideration of how to calculate what might be safe for each individual, or how these figures were calculated in the first place, or what the specific risks are if you lose faster or eat a lower intake.
(sustainable is a whole different question - I'm asking more about the safety)0 -
Zombie threads are fine if they're still relevant!
I started out on calorieking and then moved over here when when CK shut down the logging function - basically I just set that I wanted to lose 1kg a week and then followed the guidance.
I am on week 37 and have lost 31kg so far - aiming to lose 32 in total, so in the very last stages of the weight loss journey...scales are teetering and will probably teeter for the next week or so.
I lost 1kg most weeks for the first few weeks. It took a little while for me to figure things out so in the beginning, I was eating less and eating low calorie substitutes. Over time, as I was losing weight, my preferred option was to maintain a deficit by doing more exercise so that I could eat more/eat the things I liked - and fitness and endurance became as important to me as the weight lsos. After the 25kg mark, i changed the settings to lose 1/2 kg a week instead of 1kg and also allowed my deficits to go down so that it took a few more weeks to lose 1kg. But 1kg a week was definitely possible.1 -
As well as @danp’s excellent example of calorie requirements for different size and weight people, there is also the amount of body fat one can burn in a day. (Not high fat ingestion like in Keto)
There is research out there that shows there is a limit in how much body fat the body can burn in a day no matter how fat you are, before the body resorts to fat free mass.
Nutrition wise, burning body fat as energy, as we do in a deficit, does not provide us with the nutrition we need.
Unless one is under a doctor’s supervision, bloodwork drawn regularly to check vitamin and mineral levels as well as other health markers, a high rate of loss, 2lbs a week for a woman 5’1, 145lbs (overweight at 27.5 BMI), for example, has a higher chance of nutritional deficits and short and/or long term negative health consequences.
The 1200 for women and 1500 for men has been shown, through published research, to provide the minimum nutritional needs for someone within average height and bone structure (outliers under 4’8-10, or over 6’6-8 may have different minimums, I don’t know).
Men have a higher calorie need (1500) than women (1200) even at the same height, as they have a higher muscle mass than women (not an absolute statement, a generalization), muscle burns calories even at rest, body fat doesn’t.
You could google scholar for the research on the minimum cal intake, fat burn, etc.
Cheers, h.3 -
Vfleming6416 wrote: »My metabolism has shot through the roof within the past couple of weeks but I've been losing about 2-3lbs consistently since mid-July 2019 (excluding a two week break from exercise). The following list are things I've done to keep it moving:
1. Significantly reduced processed foods and make most of my meals at home (mix of lean meat, veggies and fruits),
2. Eat about 5 to 6 snacks/meals daily,
3. Increased protein intake and spread evenly throughout each snack/meal to reduce hunger pangs and cravings (supplement with protein powders/shakes),
4. Drink a protein shake after exercise,
5. Replaced coffee cream with liquid protein shakes,
6. I don't eat heavy after work. My largest meal is lunch and I keep it light for dinner,
7. Rollerblade and Walk/jog (HIIT style) 6 days a week (I walk at work, home, stores, etc. It all adds up at the end of the day),
8. Sync Fitbit (set goals - I burn about 800 to 1500 calories a day from exercise. For the entire day, I tend to burn between 2,800 to 4,000 calories depending on how active I've been) with MyFitnessPal,
9. I wake up early to exercise before work and may exercise again after work (depends on time and if I feel up to it),
10. Manually set macro-nutrient percentages and calorie (I eat btwn 1,650 to 2,000 a day) in MyFitnessPal to where I'm comfortable and not hungry,
11. I allocate about 250 calories a day towards a sweet treat, (no depriving myself),
12. I have one to two cheat meals a week (preferably on the weekend when I do more exercise),
13. I plan activities with friends and family that involve walking,
14. I don't feel guilty if I overdo it one or two days, especially when my period is coming,
15. I love everything, including condiments, vitamins, and calorie overages, etc.,
16. I weigh or measure everything and try to only eat things that have a package with nutrition facts,
17. When eating at restaurants, I preview the menu and decide on my meal including appetizers, breads, etc. in advance so I can adjust the whole day if necessary,
18. I pack my tote with food for the whole day for work,
19. I take a tote with snacks when I'm running errands to reduce the urge to grab food on the go,
20. I plan my meals ahead of time and log it into MyFitnessPal, and
21. Carry a water bottle everywhere filled with water.
I hope this helps and between all the responses, you find what works best for you. You can do it! :-)
Losing at a rate of 2lbs per week requires creating a 7000cal per week deficit. Creating a deficit this large is only safe or even possible if you have significant amounts of weight to lose.
Most of the items on that list are completely irrelevant with the rest being perhaps, incidentally relevant in so far as they might contribute towards creating the required 1000cal per day deficit.
0 -
I'm not significantly overweight and completely well nourished. I eat almost 2,000 calories a day with well balanced macronutrients. I work out daily and walk a lot so I create a 7000cal or more deficit a week. I also have a set of habits that contribute to me staying fed with mostly whole foods and not eating much junk food so the additional information was provided to help the poster (and anyone else) with creating good habits for managing their nutrition. What works for one may not work for all so 2lbs a week is acceptable if health and nutrition isn't being sacrificed.0
-
3011sophie wrote: »
But where do these ballpark figures come from? Why is it 1200 and not 1100 or 1300? Or the individual's basal metabolic rate? What research has been used to figure out these ballpark figures?Next thing that needs to be understood is that a human requires a certain amount of calories per day to sustain life. As in not have organs (including heart and brain) begin to deteriorate and shut down. This is different for everyone but the ballpark figures are approx 1200cal/day for females and 1500cal/day for males.
But if men can safely go down to 1500 according to the minimum figures in the previous paragraph, why should this person be losing at 2lb a week and not 3.5lb a week? Is it the size of the deficit that is unsafe, or the minimum caloric intake itself?Person A is a 350lbs man who is 6' tall. Maintenance for this person would be somewhere in the vicinity of 3200cal per day. So in order for this person to lose at rate of 2lbs per week he would need to eat approx 2200cal per day. This 2200cal per day is still well in excess of the minimum required to sustain life and is sufficient food that this person shouldn't have too much trouble eating enough to not feel constantly hungry, miserable and deprived
I know that in reality it's a combination of the two - which is why I'm questioning how readily "1200/1500 calories minimum" and "no more than 2lbs a week" are quoted everywhere without consideration of how to calculate what might be safe for each individual, or how these figures were calculated in the first place, or what the specific risks are if you lose faster or eat a lower intake.
(sustainable is a whole different question - I'm asking more about the safety)
I support that Dan's post explains some of the thinking about safety.
Another factor is that some researchers have advanced the hypothesis that humans' bodies can only metabolize a certain amount of stored fat per day, per pound of fat in one's body. I've seen some estimates - extrapolated from related research as I understand it, not "measured" via reseach - that the number may be something in the 20s to low 30s of calories per pound of bodyfat per day. The weight loss rate maximums one usually sees here can be thought of as rough rules of thumb that give most people a risk-avoiding margin below that (and for many, it's well below that). The idea is that if weight loss is faster than fat metabolization can supply, unnecessarily large amounts of lean tissue will be lost, in addition to fat, and no one wants that, right? I grant that all of this is rather theoretical, even speculative . . . but the stakes are high, so a person might want to hedge their bets.
At the same time, it's also true that a number of people here - I'm one - have reported negative consequences from losing weight at a rate that was not wildly out of step with common targets (i.e., targets like "lose 2 pounds a week" or "eat no more than 1200 gross calories to lose weight, if you're female"). Those negative consequences have ranged from weakness and fatigue (which was my case) to significant hair loss to - in one case recently discussed on a thread - heart failure with massive edema. (https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1)
A "feature" (not!) in many of these "negative consequences" stories is that the person felt fine, wasn't excessively hungry, etc. . . . until, rather suddenly, bad things happened. In some cases (like many of the hair loss cases) the negative consequences trail the undereating by weeks to months.
So, part of the reasoning is: Why take unnecessary risks, just to lose weight fast?
Add that to the notion that losing a meaningful amount of weight is inherently slow (just 20 pounds at 2 pounds a week is still two and a half months), and ease of compliance becomes more of a factor. An aggressive weight loss target that a person can't stick with can result in slower weight loss, as a practical matter, than a slower rate that can be managed week in and week out, over the long haul. (I've seen this play out somewhat in my MFP friend feed, over the 4+ years I've been here: The "slow and steady" crowd among those with lots to lose seem to be more likely to stick around and really lose, vs. the "must lose fast, will do anything" crowd.)
Yet another factor is the learning dimension: We see a lot of yo-yo dieters here, or people otherwise coming back for 2nd, 5th, or 88th times. The perfect thing, I would think, would be to learn and practice a way of eating that's permanently sustainable (except for a moderate calorie change), in order to stay at a healthy weigh forever. That permanently sustainable thing is unlikely to have a big overlap with maximum-speed loss strategies.
So, lots of potential reasons to keep weight loss at a moderate rate. What are the reasons to lose weight fast? Frustration avoidance? Looking cuter a few weeks/months sooner?
I grant that, for a few people, obesity is in itself such a huge health risk or barrier (to needed surgery, say) that a person's doctor will direct them to lose weight very fast, and normally will supervise them very closely (such as with regular blood tests) to monitor for negative consequences. That is not the common scenario in which we are giving advice here on MFP.
YMMV, of course. Losing fast vs. more slowly is always a personal choice.8 -
Another factor is that some researchers have advanced the hypothesis that humans' bodies can only metabolize a certain amount of stored fat per day, per pound of fat in one's body. I've seen some estimates - extrapolated from related research as I understand it, not "measured" via reseach - that the number may be something in the 20s to low 30s of calories per pound of bodyfat per day. The weight loss rate maximums one usually sees here can be thought of as rough rules of thumb that give most people a risk-avoiding margin below that (and for many, it's well below that). The idea is that if weight loss is faster than fat metabolization can supply, unnecessarily large amounts of lean tissue will be lost, in addition to fat, and no one wants that, right? I grant that all of this is rather theoretical, even speculative . . . but the stakes are high, so a person might want to hedge their bets.
Thanks for your reply - do you happen to have a source for the estimates of maximum daily fat loss? It sounds like that might be holding the answer I'm trying to get to!
I've been doing some reading and it seems like the 1-2lb a week and 1200/1500 calorie minimum go back to the AHA and NIH recommendations respectively, but the AHA doesn't have a source for that specific figure, and the NIH recommendations are based on the fact that most of the studies included in a systematic review used that range of 1200/1500, but again doesn't explain why! The NIH also has an alternative recommendation for calculating caloric deficit for weight loss which is 30% of daily calorie needs, which would put the "average" 2000 calorie woman at 1400. But I don't think I've ever seen 30% restriction recommended on this forum or elsewhere.
I understand that there are risks associated with very low calorie diets and they should only be attempted under medical supervision, I'm really just curious as to where 1200/1500 and 2lb a week were originally decided as the arbitrary rule of thumb cut-off figures.
(I'm currently supposed to be writing my thesis and this is definitely an attempt to procrastinate!!)1 -
3011sophie wrote: »
But where do these ballpark figures come from? Why is it 1200 and not 1100 or 1300? Or the individual's basal metabolic rate? What research has been used to figure out these ballpark figures?Next thing that needs to be understood is that a human requires a certain amount of calories per day to sustain life. As in not have organs (including heart and brain) begin to deteriorate and shut down. This is different for everyone but the ballpark figures are approx 1200cal/day for females and 1500cal/day for males.
But if men can safely go down to 1500 according to the minimum figures in the previous paragraph, why should this person be losing at 2lb a week and not 3.5lb a week? Is it the size of the deficit that is unsafe, or the minimum caloric intake itself?Person A is a 350lbs man who is 6' tall. Maintenance for this person would be somewhere in the vicinity of 3200cal per day. So in order for this person to lose at rate of 2lbs per week he would need to eat approx 2200cal per day. This 2200cal per day is still well in excess of the minimum required to sustain life and is sufficient food that this person shouldn't have too much trouble eating enough to not feel constantly hungry, miserable and deprived
I know that in reality it's a combination of the two - which is why I'm questioning how readily "1200/1500 calories minimum" and "no more than 2lbs a week" are quoted everywhere without consideration of how to calculate what might be safe for each individual, or how these figures were calculated in the first place, or what the specific risks are if you lose faster or eat a lower intake.
(sustainable is a whole different question - I'm asking more about the safety)
Certainly part of it is phrasing. It's about playing the percentages. Could a woman eat 1000 calories for some amount of time and still manage to eat enough nutrients, protein, and fat? Yeah, probably. But it would be super difficult and chances are the vast majority wouldn't. So somewhere along the line, someone made the determination that 1200/1500 was a nice minimum cutoff point where a smallish woman/man could get enough of the stuff they need in a well-balanced diet.
As far as the rate of loss, and I apologize I don't have a source, my understanding is that the recommendation is to lose less than 1% of your body weight per week, and that this is based in some way on the rate at which your body can physically burn fat. If you lose weight faster than your body can burn fat (it doesn't just instantly vaporize it, it's a process), it has to start going after your muscle as well for fuel. I don't think this is a 100% confirmed number, but a generally accepted theory!
I would assume that MFP caps it's rate at 2 lbs per week because they are trying to keep users without much weight to lose from choosing a rate that is so unrealistic they hurt themselves, while allowing enough room for those who are heavier to still lose at a fast enough pace that they stay motivated.
It's really more about the balancing act than a rule, they don't want to take the responsibility of forcing people to use this tool in a specific way, but they also don't want the responsibility of people hurting themselves because the tool allows the far extremes. And on the forums, we don't (and shouldn't!) want to take that responsibility either. In the absence of knowing someones medical history, psychological history, and often lots of pertinent details they leave out, erring on the side of caution is just good form IMHO.
And as @AnnPT77 suggested, it's a lot of our experience, both personal and what we've seen here on the forums for years. We do get posters who are losing super fast, eating super low, everything's awesome, and they tell us it's silly to warn people off losing fast. Then they disappear for a few months. Then they return, shocked that they are struggling with fatigue, appetite, and either a thinner body they still don't like or yo-yo weight gain.
I think the Biggest Loser study is a good example of why aggressive weight loss has lots of drawbacks. Adaptive thermogenesis (as part of hormone disruption in general), a trickier transition to maintenance, focus on aggressive strategies of weight loss rather than learning how to eat and exercise for maintenance, long term consequences of the stress that fast weight loss puts on the body, these are all things to think about. None of these are carved in stone, but they are all real risks that real life people have experienced.
ETA: I didn't see your last post before saving this, that's why it might seem like I didn't take it into consideration 3 -
3011sophie wrote: »Another factor is that some researchers have advanced the hypothesis that humans' bodies can only metabolize a certain amount of stored fat per day, per pound of fat in one's body. I've seen some estimates - extrapolated from related research as I understand it, not "measured" via reseach - that the number may be something in the 20s to low 30s of calories per pound of bodyfat per day. The weight loss rate maximums one usually sees here can be thought of as rough rules of thumb that give most people a risk-avoiding margin below that (and for many, it's well below that). The idea is that if weight loss is faster than fat metabolization can supply, unnecessarily large amounts of lean tissue will be lost, in addition to fat, and no one wants that, right? I grant that all of this is rather theoretical, even speculative . . . but the stakes are high, so a person might want to hedge their bets.
Thanks for your reply - do you happen to have a source for the estimates of maximum daily fat loss? It sounds like that might be holding the answer I'm trying to get to!
I've been doing some reading and it seems like the 1-2lb a week and 1200/1500 calorie minimum go back to the AHA and NIH recommendations respectively, but the AHA doesn't have a source for that specific figure, and the NIH recommendations are based on the fact that most of the studies included in a systematic review used that range of 1200/1500, but again doesn't explain why! The NIH also has an alternative recommendation for calculating caloric deficit for weight loss which is 30% of daily calorie needs, which would put the "average" 2000 calorie woman at 1400. But I don't think I've ever seen 30% restriction recommended on this forum or elsewhere.
I understand that there are risks associated with very low calorie diets and they should only be attempted under medical supervision, I'm really just curious as to where 1200/1500 and 2lb a week were originally decided as the arbitrary rule of thumb cut-off figures.
(I'm currently supposed to be writing my thesis and this is definitely an attempt to procrastinate!!)
Unfortunately, no, I don't have a cite. I did a quick search, to see if I could find a scholarly source, but even on Google Scholar I can't think of search terms that will reliably narrow down the results. A non-scholar search returns all kinds of silly nonsense.
I swear I read a scholarly source for this at some point (I think a journal article rather than an actual research result), but I didn't bookmark it. Apologies!3 -
middlehaitch wrote: »As well as @danp’s excellent example of calorie requirements for different size and weight people, there is also the amount of body fat one can burn in a day. (Not high fat ingestion like in Keto)
There is research out there that shows there is a limit in how much body fat the body can burn in a day no matter how fat you are, before the body resorts to fat free mass.
Nutrition wise, burning body fat as energy, as we do in a deficit, does not provide us with the nutrition we need.
Unless one is under a doctor’s supervision, bloodwork drawn regularly to check vitamin and mineral levels as well as other health markers, a high rate of loss, 2lbs a week for a woman 5’1, 145lbs (overweight at 27.5 BMI), for example, has a higher chance of nutritional deficits and short and/or long term negative health consequences.
The 1200 for women and 1500 for men has been shown, through published research, to provide the minimum nutritional needs for someone within average height and bone structure (outliers under 4’8-10, or over 6’6-8 may have different minimums, I don’t know).
Men have a higher calorie need (1500) than women (1200) even at the same height, as they have a higher muscle mass than women (not an absolute statement, a generalization), muscle burns calories even at rest, body fat doesn’t.
You could google scholar for the research on the minimum cal intake, fat burn, etc.
Cheers, h.
I made mention of the fat burning limit earlier in the thread
Here is some research. (Sorry just the abstract. If you need further info the full article should be available)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15615615/
Equals something like 31cals per lbs of body fat per day.
Lyle McDonald also talks about it, I think in ref to his RFL hand book.
Cheers, h.3 -
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519304004175?via=ihub
This describes an analysis that concludes the maximum energy that can be extracted from stored fat is ~31 kcal (+/-3kcal) per pound of stored body fat per day. More stored fat -> more energy available from fat stores -> bigger deficit (without LBM loss)
If you are that interested, you might also want to look at reviews on this paper. There is disagreement.1 -
Thanks for bailing me out on the cites, @middlehaitch and @ahoy_m8 !1
-
Zombie thread delivers value! Love it.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions