Ladies that are losing 2lbs/week, what is your secret?

3011sophie wrote: »

Danp wrote: »

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 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?

Danp wrote: »

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

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?

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.