Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Trying out a new info-graphic: How fast can I safely lose weight?
Options
Replies
-
Prior to the fitness trackers helping with TDEE and exercise estimates syncing to MFP, I had that spreadsheet that kept getting bigger and bigger per suggestions made.
And this whole aspect of safe amount to lose was a big challenge, because I wanted info from studies.
There was never anything exactly like comparing fast and slow rates for remaining amounts left - but there were studies showing negative effects when it was too big, compared to other studies not showing those negative effects at more reasonable rate. Or positive effects at a certain level. So I ended up just setting bounds, and actually auto-switched between methods depending on what allowed the biggest deficit. I also stopped at BMR as a safety line in case there were some strange scenario that just allowed a huge deficit when not a good idea.
There was research for the 10-20% off est TDEE, but I've seen studies since then showing 25-30% when above the obese range is fine and there was some daily activity being done (not bed-bound).
There was research about a 2% of weight to be lost method, but that requires knowing what a healthy goal weight is, and obviously a cut-off at some point.
There was study about still gaining slight amount of muscle on a 0.7% of weight deficit weekly, while lifting of course, so not a bad boundary, but again some cut-off needed.
Since this sheet was replacing MFP NEAT method with TDEE method which required manual tweaking of MFP anyway - I didn't do anything with MFP block deficit methods, but it was interesting to compare where the 250,500,750, 1000 lines were.
And of course this didn't take into account the extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit that sijomial mentions, or be better for smaller deficit.
Only 10 to lose and active - might be able to handle 2 lbs weekly before any ill effects.
Not active - perhaps too fast.
Sliding into the last 10 after losing 200 and no diet breaks - or there were diet breaks - big potential difference there.
Now there is the extra research on alternate week diets with tad higher deficit not a being a problem with that maintenance week in there.
And I do like a different set of ranges that seemed to be closer to the studies I looked at, which many do use block deficit amounts. But this seems to be if you are starting in that range, even that may be aggressive if a long diet and no breaks.
<15
15-30
30-50
>50
ETA:
The strangeness that occurs with % of weight to be lost, or % of current weight, is why I actually prefer the % TDEE method too - but it is hard to translate that into the standard MFP setup to keep things simple.
And that method too has the upper end at likely a slower rate than what could be reasonable.
I was hoping you'd show up, @heybales.
Do you care to comment on any of the "extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit or be better for a smaller deficit", in a general sense (not try to quantify, just identify)?
Seems like pre-existing health conditions, age, fitness level, energy demands compared with current fitness level, nutrition quality, and things like that might be relevant at n=1 to what might make a loss rate riskily fast or unnecessarily slow.
One of the things I think about, sometimes write about - but don't know whether I'm right to do so - is what the aggregate stress burden on the person may be, encompassing both physical and psychological stressors.
Do you have an opinion about what type of too-simplistic guidance (something meme-able, basically) might be most reasonable - as reasonable as such a thing can get - in an MFP context? ("No" is a perfectly valid answer to that question.)
FWIW, I think the MFP context typically includes other posts with at least some more nuanced discussion, maybe even personalized advice if the OP's given enough info; but also sometimes includes some howlingly stupid nonsense that seems simple, and that certain OPs will grab like a life-preserver in a sea of complex comments that may overwhelm them. 🤷♀️1 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »What does the crowd think of this one? Useful or confusing?
Where did you come up with your conclusions about how much one can "safely" lose per week? When I look at it I guess I am confused as to whether this is your opinion or if there is some data supporting it.5 -
Where did you come up with your conclusions about how much one can "safely" lose per week? When I look at it I guess I am confused as to whether this is your opinion or if there is some data supporting it.
None of these rules are very well motivated. Most experts (MFP or the Mayo Clinic, see below) advise 0.5 - 2 lbs/week loss rates, with no more than 2. Some (e.g., MFP) also put in a minimum number of calories (e.g., 1000kcals/day). A TDEE deficit of about 25% remains within these bounds.
Of course, I'm not anyone's doctor, and even then, the final decision is up to the individual. Maybe you want to go to 30%, for example. What I'm really advocating is that % of TDEE is a very useful way to think of your deficit, rather than just considering absolute calorie numbers.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/weight-loss/art-200477520 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »I find both to be a little confusing.
First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.
My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.
As for the one @cmriverside shared?
It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.
My 2¢
Also cilantro tastes like soap.
Amen to aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level for the general population. We see so many people very confused in their first post.
As such, I see no point in bringing TDEE up in the initial graphic, ESPECIALLY since MFP uses NEAT, not TDEE.
I think “exercise not EXTRA fries” aligns perfectly with your philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”
If someone wants to make a version of this graphic without the potentially distracting background I will happily use that instead.
@tinkerbellang83: did the graphic originally come from you, on your IG? If so, would you please share the source of the data? (You may have just made a graphic out of the info that was previously commonly shared in text form. I prefer the graphic - it stands out.)4 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Where did you come up with your conclusions about how much one can "safely" lose per week? When I look at it I guess I am confused as to whether this is your opinion or if there is some data supporting it.
None of these rules are very well motivated. Most experts (MFP or the Mayo Clinic, see below) advise 0.5 - 2 lbs/week loss rates, with no more than 2. Some (e.g., MFP) also put in a minimum number of calories (e.g., 1000kcals/day). A TDEE deficit of about 25% remains within these bounds.
Of course, I'm not anyone's doctor, and even then, the final decision is up to the individual. Maybe you want to go to 30%, for example. What I'm really advocating is that % of TDEE is a very useful way to think of your deficit, rather than just considering absolute calorie numbers.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/weight-loss/art-20047752
And how do you learn your actual TDEE? Experientially, via weight loss.
Which has a rate. Even before doing the math to figure a personal average TDEE; and rate holds as relevant for any weight loss method. Percent TDEE works for calorie counting (kind of squishily if counting NEAT method), not other methods.
I admit, I'm individually a hard case on this: NEAT method works better for me personally than TDEE method. I can handle the TDEE idea, do the math to estimate my average TDEE, and I even comment about % TDEE rules of thumb on threads sometimes.
"Not very good at math" is unfortunately fairly common. I've been in threads where the OP needed the "0.5-1% of bodyweight" arithmetic done for them, even.
Truth in advertising: I don't think I've ever posted the current infographic. I don't hate it, though, for a simplified meme-ification of a key concept. It leaves out much, much nuance and justification. That's what simplification does. Sometimes simplification works better than nuance.1 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »I find both to be a little confusing.
First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.
My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general
population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.
As for the one @cmriverside shared?
It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.
My 2¢
Also cilantro tastes like soap.
The handle is my instagram account user name. It's nothing to do with bad foods or goods foods otherwise it would be exercise no fries, it's just my own reminder to move a little more eat a little less as portion sizes has been a problem of mine.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »I find both to be a little confusing.
First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.
My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.
As for the one @cmriverside shared?
It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.
My 2¢
Also cilantro tastes like soap.
Amen to aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level for the general population. We see so many people very confused in their first post.
As such, I see no point in bringing TDEE up in the initial graphic, ESPECIALLY since MFP uses NEAT, not TDEE.
I think “exercise not EXTRA fries” aligns perfectly with your philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”
If someone wants to make a version of this graphic without the potentially distracting background I will happily use that instead.
@tinkerbellang83: did the graphic originally come from you, on your IG? If so, would you please share the source of the data? (You may have just made a graphic out of the info that was previously commonly shared in text form. I prefer the graphic - it stands out.)
Yes it was one of several I put together from commonly shared information here /general nutrition advice a couple of years ago. It comes in handy when you're responding to a lot of new folk particularly at the start of the year when everyone wants to lose 30lbs in a week, so I don't have to copy/paste stuff from thread to thread.
I think this one and Mildred get used the most. Feel free to b@$tardise it with a less criss-crossy background.
ETA Mildred for those who aren't familiar:
3 -
So, some examples...
- current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
1% of current weight = 1% x 300 = 3.0 lbs/wk
3% of excess weight = 3% x 100 = 3.0 lbs/wk - current weight 200 pounds with excess weight of 20 pounds:
1% of current weight = 1% x 200 = 2.0 lbs/wk
3% of excess weight = 3% x 20 = 0.6 lbs/wk - current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 30 pounds:
1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
3% of excess weight = 3% x 30 = 0.9 lbs/wk - current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 15 pounds:
1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
3% of excess weight = 3% x 15 = 0.45 lbs/wk
According to this, I could lose 2.2 or 2.1 pounds/week
According to this, I could lose 2 pounds/ week.
But my tdee is about 2000. 71, female, sedentary. Exercise as much as I can, but not much.
If I cut 1000 calories a day. That leaves me with about 1000 calories to eat.
If I cut my calories by 25% of tdee or 500 calories, that leaves me with 1500 calories=a lot more reasonable.
So your chart works for me. The traditional one, not so much.
3 - current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
-
I don't disagree. That 3 lb/week is 1% of body weight for a 300 lb person, and I chose 3% of excess weight arbitrarily, so that the example had 3% of excess weight as the same 3 lb/week. This sort of underscores the idea that the general suggestion of 1% of body weight (max) applies more to people in the 100-200 lb range, rather than extremely obese people, for whom even 1% of body weight is probably excessive.Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »@frankwbrown suggests a 3lb/week loss rate for a 300lb person. I think 3lbs per week is too high a rate for just about any weight. For an average male, that would be a 54% deficit relative to sedentary TDEE. Yikes!It happens that I started my weight loss in July of last year at 330 lbs (over 50% body fat). I chose 2 lb/week, hoping I could lose close to 100 pounds in one year. I currently weigh 237 and am now looking at adopting an alternating maint/slow loss plan. I think I should be able to get down to 220, but that will likely take quite some time.
I like the idea of using x% deficit of TDEE. My problem is determining my TDEE.Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »It seems several people advocate a slower loss rate when closer to goal weight. I think this is entirely reasonable, if you want. I have personally lost around 20lbs at a rate of about 1lb/week, which is almost exactly a 25% deficit for me. Some weeks I actually went faster than that by under-eating my exercise bonus. When I need a little correction, I'll go back into ~25% deficit for a few weeks.Mifflin-St Jeor estimates my BMR at around 1850, but the result of an RMR test I had done was only 1907. I think I have a lower than average BMR for someone my size, age, etc. I also think my Garmin watch overestimates my calories burned.
If I tell MFP I want to lose 1 lb/week and am sedentary, it gives me a net calories consumed/day of 1850. So I assume MFP thinks I burn ~2350 calories/day, without exercise.
Thank you all for the information you're sharing here. I really appreciate it.
3 -
Prior to the fitness trackers helping with TDEE and exercise estimates syncing to MFP, I had that spreadsheet that kept getting bigger and bigger per suggestions made.
And this whole aspect of safe amount to lose was a big challenge, because I wanted info from studies.
There was never anything exactly like comparing fast and slow rates for remaining amounts left - but there were studies showing negative effects when it was too big, compared to other studies not showing those negative effects at more reasonable rate. Or positive effects at a certain level. So I ended up just setting bounds, and actually auto-switched between methods depending on what allowed the biggest deficit. I also stopped at BMR as a safety line in case there were some strange scenario that just allowed a huge deficit when not a good idea.
There was research for the 10-20% off est TDEE, but I've seen studies since then showing 25-30% when above the obese range is fine and there was some daily activity being done (not bed-bound).
There was research about a 2% of weight to be lost method, but that requires knowing what a healthy goal weight is, and obviously a cut-off at some point.
There was study about still gaining slight amount of muscle on a 0.7% of weight deficit weekly, while lifting of course, so not a bad boundary, but again some cut-off needed.
Since this sheet was replacing MFP NEAT method with TDEE method which required manual tweaking of MFP anyway - I didn't do anything with MFP block deficit methods, but it was interesting to compare where the 250,500,750, 1000 lines were.
And of course this didn't take into account the extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit that sijomial mentions, or be better for smaller deficit.
Only 10 to lose and active - might be able to handle 2 lbs weekly before any ill effects.
Not active - perhaps too fast.
Sliding into the last 10 after losing 200 and no diet breaks - or there were diet breaks - big potential difference there.
Now there is the extra research on alternate week diets with tad higher deficit not a being a problem with that maintenance week in there.
And I do like a different set of ranges that seemed to be closer to the studies I looked at, which many do use block deficit amounts. But this seems to be if you are starting in that range, even that may be aggressive if a long diet and no breaks.
<15
15-30
30-50
>50
ETA:
The strangeness that occurs with % of weight to be lost, or % of current weight, is why I actually prefer the % TDEE method too - but it is hard to translate that into the standard MFP setup to keep things simple.
And that method too has the upper end at likely a slower rate than what could be reasonable.
I was hoping you'd show up, @heybales.
Do you care to comment on any of the "extra variables that might allow a bigger deficit or be better for a smaller deficit", in a general sense (not try to quantify, just identify)?
Seems like pre-existing health conditions, age, fitness level, energy demands compared with current fitness level, nutrition quality, and things like that might be relevant at n=1 to what might make a loss rate riskily fast or unnecessarily slow.
One of the things I think about, sometimes write about - but don't know whether I'm right to do so - is what the aggregate stress burden on the person may be, encompassing both physical and psychological stressors.
Do you have an opinion about what type of too-simplistic guidance (something meme-able, basically) might be most reasonable - as reasonable as such a thing can get - in an MFP context? ("No" is a perfectly valid answer to that question.)
FWIW, I think the MFP context typically includes other posts with at least some more nuanced discussion, maybe even personalized advice if the OP's given enough info; but also sometimes includes some howlingly stupid nonsense that seems simple, and that certain OPs will grab like a life-preserver in a sea of complex comments that may overwhelm them. 🤷♀️
Let's get readdddyyyyy to ramble!!! (no, not rumble, ramble)
I really wish I'd kept track of points from studies better, I noted some in that big spreadsheet, but I always recall when reading through them, the studies that were using diabetics, so a body already under stress to some degree, usually seemed to have negative effects at deficits that didn't seem that far off base.
Perhaps that was only perception, and I easily missed the studies where they had bigger deficits and nothing but great results. And rainbows.
But things like bigger drops in LBM, or the created deficit they kept in place from initial TDEE testing showed less effect, showing the metabolic adaptation occurred.
They did all have great effects of helping the disease because fat was lost, just some of the negatives that might have been avoided I thought.
I know one study that Lyle McDonald found and turned into a free super-fat loss brochure was where the folks walked slow like 5-6 hr daily for some brief period of time, created a huge totally extreme deficit by any normal standard - and lost vast majority of fat weight.
But they had a lot of fat to lose - and their total daily activity was fueled primary by fat. (that study also made me investigate the other "study" which wasn't a study, about max fat burn potential).
Those types of variables I saw does convince me some things can help a faster rate be reasonable on some bodies, and some bodies are under enough stress already a slower rate is probably better.
And the bummer is we don't usually know - push what you think is your line and you easily could go over causing slight negative effects, and never realize it until it's gone too far.
Go way over the line and it's usually easy - so tired, workouts get terrible, sleep is terrible, hair falls out....
I figure go for the decent safety zone, even if your body could go with faster rate, how much time are you really spending extra in a diet anyway, plus if done right it's good learning for maintenance.
The number of people through the years here on MFP, I think mainly PCOS, where they thought they had plateaued for a month or more, taking a big deficit, but losing inches slowly. When they took the advice to eat a tad more to slow the rate, got a whoosh effect, kept the smaller deficit, and kept on losing from then on. Exactly the effect research says happens when cortisol goes down, indicating it was likely up. I can't even recall if those ladies are still on my friend's list.
Originally what caught my attention on MFP was the number of mostly women that appeared they should be creating a huge extreme deficit but didn't have any problems for a long time (actually reasonable rate of loss), had an issue when they went from walking as only exercise to more intense stuff. They weren't logging exercise to eat calories back anyway, so why would it matter.
But they hadn't been weighing foods so probably eating more than they thought. And the exercise wasn't that intense originally - so the deficit really wasn't that big.
Then they'd exercise more intensely and rate would slow. They'd be told to weigh food and discover they had been overeating. Now they were creating a big deficit and loss stopped. And it wasn't until they followed advice to stop that big deficit, and they'd lose again but slower.
Those are just n=1 examples, but when they hit what studies seem to touch on, I see it as verification.
I do like the graphic using the MFP deficit amounts because it is was/will be seen during setup or changes. (I think the ranges are too safe and slow for vast majority though).
I think useful would be a comment that it's a deficit from what you burn in total that day, which includes exercise.
And take a diet break week every 10 lbs lost, eat at maintenance for a week.
I think that last item would help make up for accidental bigger deficits than reasonable.
If you are reasonable, say 1 lb weekly, you may need a mental break after 10 weeks.
If you are attempting say an unreasonable for you 2 lb weekly, your body will get that break after 5 weeks and likely need it.
I agree the math on 0.5-1% probably is glazed over when looked at on the graphic as true as it is, just leave it off since the range deficits include it anyway hopefully.
As you said - many comment on it anyway when posting, and you discern perhaps the math can be understood.
And usually a context is given. I've seen the graphic get around to some non-regulars who have posted it with nary a word. And I'll be like my now teenage son - "that's random (and likely not useful)".
Still good advice.
I always thought MFP should at least include a few words for the deficit ranges. Fitbit at least uses the word Extreme.
Perhaps a link at bottom of graphic to study/article stating extreme diets are part of the 80% failure rate to reach or maintain goal weight - or whatever the current % is, and don't go extreme!
2 -
frankwbrown wrote: »
I don't disagree. That 3 lb/week is 1% of body weight for a 300 lb person, and I chose 3% of excess weight arbitrarily, so that the example had 3% of excess weight as the same 3 lb/week. This sort of underscores the idea that the general suggestion of 1% of body weight (max) applies more to people in the 100-200 lb range, rather than extremely obese people, for whom even 1% of body weight is probably excessive.Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »@frankwbrown suggests a 3lb/week loss rate for a 300lb person. I think 3lbs per week is too high a rate for just about any weight. For an average male, that would be a 54% deficit relative to sedentary TDEE. Yikes!It happens that I started my weight loss in July of last year at 330 lbs (over 50% body fat). I chose 2 lb/week, hoping I could lose close to 100 pounds in one year. I currently weigh 237 and am now looking at adopting an alternating maint/slow loss plan. I think I should be able to get down to 220, but that will likely take quite some time.
I like the idea of using x% deficit of TDEE. My problem is determining my TDEE.Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »It seems several people advocate a slower loss rate when closer to goal weight. I think this is entirely reasonable, if you want. I have personally lost around 20lbs at a rate of about 1lb/week, which is almost exactly a 25% deficit for me. Some weeks I actually went faster than that by under-eating my exercise bonus. When I need a little correction, I'll go back into ~25% deficit for a few weeks.Mifflin-St Jeor estimates my BMR at around 1850, but the result of an RMR test I had done was only 1907. I think I have a lower than average BMR for someone my size, age, etc. I also think my Garmin watch overestimates my calories burned.
If I tell MFP I want to lose 1 lb/week and am sedentary, it gives me a net calories consumed/day of 1850. So I assume MFP thinks I burn ~2350 calories/day, without exercise.
Thank you all for the information you're sharing here. I really appreciate it.
I think the prior post with examples shows the 1% at almost goal weight isn't a good idea either.
150 lbs and need to lose 10 - 1.5 lb weekly deficit?
If starting at 10 lbs to lose - perhaps doable, but if you had lost 100 already and down to that amount - tad fast.
I like your 3% method better.
Oh, your RMR (awake but resting) should be higher than your BMR by a bit - that doesn't sound off too bad.
Using a common conversion from RMR to BMR, calculated BMR would be about 1751.
So about 100 less than Mifflin BMR.
Had you been in a diet when you got RMR test? Sounds like it, so to be expected.1 -
Shiver me timbers! Please don't put any weight (pun intended) in my examples. 🙄😂corinasue1143 wrote: »So, some examples...- current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
1% of current weight = 1% x 300 = 3.0 lbs/wk
3% of excess weight = 3% x 100 = 3.0 lbs/wk - current weight 200 pounds with excess weight of 20 pounds:
1% of current weight = 1% x 200 = 2.0 lbs/wk
3% of excess weight = 3% x 20 = 0.6 lbs/wk - current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 30 pounds:
1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
3% of excess weight = 3% x 30 = 0.9 lbs/wk - current weight 150 pounds with excess weight of 15 pounds:
1% of current weight = 1% x 150 = 1.5 lbs/wk
3% of excess weight = 3% x 15 = 0.45 lbs/wk
According to this, I could lose 2.2 or 2.1 pounds/week...
1 - current weight 300 pounds with excess weight of 100 pounds:
-
That suggestion was an attempt to address my suspicion that someone close to their goal might be better advised to plan on losing less than 1% of their body weight, and maybe even less than 1 lb/week. Hence, my example of "weight:150; weight to lose:15" shows that even 3% of "weight to lose" is less than 1% of current weight (i.e. 1.5 lb/wk).frankwbrown wrote: »
I don't disagree. That 3 lb/week is 1% of body weight for a 300 lb person, and I chose 3% of excess weight arbitrarily, so that the example had 3% of excess weight as the same 3 lb/week. This sort of underscores the idea that the general suggestion of 1% of body weight (max) applies more to people in the 100-200 lb range, rather than extremely obese people, for whom even 1% of body weight is probably excessive.Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »@frankwbrown suggests a 3lb/week loss rate for a 300lb person. I think 3lbs per week is too high a rate for just about any weight. For an average male, that would be a 54% deficit relative to sedentary TDEE. Yikes!It happens that I started my weight loss in July of last year at 330 lbs (over 50% body fat). I chose 2 lb/week, hoping I could lose close to 100 pounds in one year. I currently weigh 237 and am now looking at adopting an alternating maint/slow loss plan. I think I should be able to get down to 220, but that will likely take quite some time.
I like the idea of using x% deficit of TDEE. My problem is determining my TDEE.Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »It seems several people advocate a slower loss rate when closer to goal weight. I think this is entirely reasonable, if you want. I have personally lost around 20lbs at a rate of about 1lb/week, which is almost exactly a 25% deficit for me. Some weeks I actually went faster than that by under-eating my exercise bonus. When I need a little correction, I'll go back into ~25% deficit for a few weeks.Mifflin-St Jeor estimates my BMR at around 1850, but the result of an RMR test I had done was only 1907. I think I have a lower than average BMR for someone my size, age, etc. I also think my Garmin watch overestimates my calories burned.
If I tell MFP I want to lose 1 lb/week and am sedentary, it gives me a net calories consumed/day of 1850. So I assume MFP thinks I burn ~2350 calories/day, without exercise.
Thank you all for the information you're sharing here. I really appreciate it.
I think the prior post with examples shows the 1% at almost goal weight isn't a good idea either.
150 lbs and need to lose 10 - 1.5 lb weekly deficit?
If starting at 10 lbs to lose - perhaps doable, but if you had lost 100 already and down to that amount - tad fast.
I like your 3% method better.
As for "10 lbs to lose" vs "lost 100 already", I wonder how long would one need to go on maintenance, after having lost 100 lbs, to erase that difference?
Yes, I was nine months into my weight loss, and I had lost ~63 lbs at that point. Coincidently, I was experiencing a plateau around that time.Oh, your RMR (awake but resting) should be higher than your BMR by a bit - that doesn't sound off too bad.
Using a common conversion from RMR to BMR, calculated BMR would be about 1751.
So about 100 less than Mifflin BMR.
Had you been in a diet when you got RMR test? Sounds like it, so to be expected.
My average resting HR dropped from 64 bpm last year to around 51-52 bpm in March when I had the RMR test. I had been assuming this was an indication that my cardiovascular system was improving due to my significant aerobic exercise. Now, I wonder if it wasn't, at least in part, the result of metabolic adaptation.
That said, I've essentially been on maintenance for about a month now, and my resting HR is still 51 bpm.
2 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »I find both to be a little confusing.
First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.
My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general
population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.
As for the one @cmriverside shared?
It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.
My 2¢
Also cilantro tastes like soap.
The handle is my instagram account user name. It's nothing to do with bad foods or goods foods otherwise it would be exercise no fries, it's just my own reminder to move a little more eat a little less as portion sizes has been a problem of mine.
Apologies. I didn’t mean for my comment about your Instagram handle to be personal.
I have had a few people publicly fat shame me and some of my loved ones, so I may be a bit sensitive on that account. Including a time at a Mariners game when I hadn’t seen my adult son in ages, and had the absolute gall to order one sundae in a plastic ball cap to share with him. Nothing like having your family outing ruined by brodudes who think spending 45 minutes making oinking noises and comments about whales to a couple of strangers sitting two rows in front at the ballpark is the perfect way to spend an afternoon.
The kicker is, I wasn’t even that fat at the time. And my son is huge - as in over 6 feet tall. But not fat. And the section was 1/2 empty. If the sight of us enjoying a treat was so offensive they could easily have moved.
Which is kind of where I’m going with my thinking about “extra fries”
If they’re in your calorie budget they’re fine. Even if it’s a second helping.
Anyhow. Off topic. Sorry.
8 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »I find both to be a little confusing.
First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.
My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.
As for the one @cmriverside shared?
It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.
My 2¢
Also cilantro tastes like soap.
Amen to aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level for the general population. We see so many people very confused in their first post.
As such, I see no point in bringing TDEE up in the initial graphic, ESPECIALLY since MFP uses NEAT, not TDEE.
I think “exercise not EXTRA fries” aligns perfectly with your philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”
If someone wants to make a version of this graphic without the potentially distracting background I will happily use that instead.
@tinkerbellang83: did the graphic originally come from you, on your IG? If so, would you please share the source of the data? (You may have just made a graphic out of the info that was previously commonly shared in text form. I prefer the graphic - it stands out.)
Yes it was one of several I put together from commonly shared information here /general nutrition advice a couple of years ago. It comes in handy when you're responding to a lot of new folk particularly at the start of the year when everyone wants to lose 30lbs in a week, so I don't have to copy/paste stuff from thread to thread.
So the popular graphic also has no basis beyond "common knowledge" or "general advice" either? Interesting. Seems to be a pattern on MFP. Repeat things enough in a way people think "oh yeah that looks/sounds legit" and they become accepted as "the truth".
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, folks, even if it is presented to you in a palatable way. Question everything!3 -
@tinkerbellang83 : I really like that graphic! I wonder if I could add in the %TDEE as a comment (although it's already pretty info-packed).
@frankwbrown : Your story is inspiring! You are rather an expert, having applied this so successfully. Thank you so much for you comments. I wish you continued success.
You ask a great question: "As for "10 lbs to lose" vs "lost 100 already", I wonder how long would one need to go on maintenance, after having lost 100 lbs, to erase that difference?"
No one really knows the answer to this question, but I can tell you that the last time I dropped 22lbs (several years ago), I went on maintenance for a year to make sure I didn't gain it back (after may failures). After about 8 months, it seemed like I had it reasonably in hand. But I still need to go into deficit regularly to keep within a 5lb band, so maybe the answer is "never."2 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »@tinkerbellang83 : I really like that graphic! I wonder if I could add in the %TDEE as a comment (although it's already pretty info-packed).
@frankwbrown : Your story is inspiring! You are rather an expert, having applied this so successfully. Thank you so much for you comments. I wish you continued success.
You ask a great question: "As for "10 lbs to lose" vs "lost 100 already", I wonder how long would one need to go on maintenance, after having lost 100 lbs, to erase that difference?"
No one really knows the answer to this question, but I can tell you that the last time I dropped 22lbs (several years ago), I went on maintenance for a year to make sure I didn't gain it back (after may failures). After about 8 months, it seemed like I had it reasonably in hand. But I still need to go into deficit regularly to keep within a 5lb band, so maybe the answer is "never."
But once again, jthan, Myfitnesspal doesn't use TDEE, so you making an infographic to explain TDEE is just muddying the waters. If someone wants to figure out their TDEE, they will. This site just doesn't use it in its calculations so why make an infographic about it? If you do, make sure to write in huge letters that it's an alternate idea.
I mean, this is the biggest misunderstanding on this site.
Those two graphics that tinkerbellang83 made are fantastic for answering the many many many varying questions on these forums.
Keep it simple. The 1% graphic answers all the issues in as few words as possible. Yes, 1% is not the right amount for every situation, hence the, "That doesn't mean that's what you should aim for..." and then the table for various weights and loss rate. Give people some credit for just wanting a start point. We don't have to explain every single detail of weight loss.
Well, that's not true - someone will explain. I just am not that person.
9 -
cmriverside wrote: »But once again, jthan, Myfitnesspal doesn't use TDEE, so you making an infographic to explain TDEE is just muddying the waters. If someone wants to figure out their TDEE, they will. This site just doesn't use it in its calculations so why make an infographic about it? If you do, make sure to write in huge letters that it's an alternate idea.
I mean, this is the biggest misunderstanding on this site.
The statement that MFP uses NEAT not TDEE is a bit nuanced. For those who don't understand these terms:
RMR: Resting Metabolic Rate, the number of calories you would burn in a day in a comatose state
NEAT: Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis, the number of additional daily calories you burn due to non-exercise activities
EAT: Exercise Activity Thermogenesis. Additional calories due to workouts. There are other names for this, including just "Exercise calories"
TDEE: Total Daily Energy Expenditure. The sum of above, TDEE = RMR + NEAT + EAT. You can compute this for a single day or you can compute an average over many days.
MFC uses the formula in @tinkerbellang83's infographic to come up with your plan. This can be thought of as either your RMR + NEAT, if you want to add in for workouts separately, or it can be thought of as your mean TDEE, if you don't want to add in for workouts.
What's my point? It's that MFP is totally flexible in how you want to use their plan number. You could use it as your TDEE.2 -
scarlett_k wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »I find both to be a little confusing.
First @Jthanmyfitnesspal
Colored backgrounds are more difficult for some people to read. I would stick with plain black and white. Your chosen font is clear, and sans serif, which is a plus.
IMO, the examples at the bottom aren’t needed.
My comment will let others address the math, except to suggest that when creating a graphic for the general population, aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level helps with the general population actually understanding what you’re trying to get across. Algebra, when used, should be expressed in very simple terms.
Editing to say I don’t mean a short mathematical equation. I mean specific written instructions, along with the equation.
As for the one @cmriverside shared?
It’s definitely at an accessible reading level. This is good.
However, the background is a kitten nightmare. Very very visually distracting. Hard for some dyslexic people, and those with other processing disorders.
I know the website at the top left is to give credit for the graphic, but personally I don’t like the vibe behind “exercise not extra fries”
It goes against my philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”.
My 2¢
Also cilantro tastes like soap.
Amen to aiming for a 5th grade math and reading level for the general population. We see so many people very confused in their first post.
As such, I see no point in bringing TDEE up in the initial graphic, ESPECIALLY since MFP uses NEAT, not TDEE.
I think “exercise not EXTRA fries” aligns perfectly with your philosophy of “no bad foods, only unwise portions”
If someone wants to make a version of this graphic without the potentially distracting background I will happily use that instead.
@tinkerbellang83: did the graphic originally come from you, on your IG? If so, would you please share the source of the data? (You may have just made a graphic out of the info that was previously commonly shared in text form. I prefer the graphic - it stands out.)
Yes it was one of several I put together from commonly shared information here /general nutrition advice a couple of years ago. It comes in handy when you're responding to a lot of new folk particularly at the start of the year when everyone wants to lose 30lbs in a week, so I don't have to copy/paste stuff from thread to thread.
So the popular graphic also has no basis beyond "common knowledge" or "general advice" either? Interesting. Seems to be a pattern on MFP. Repeat things enough in a way people think "oh yeah that looks/sounds legit" and they become accepted as "the truth".
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, folks, even if it is presented to you in a palatable way. Question everything!
It's general advice from most national health administrations that has been geared towards MFP users based on the experiences of long term users who have sucessfully used the app however this is a global website so advice and individual requirements are of course going to vary. It also clearly states it's a general suggestion not the only possible way.
I agree you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet, it is a personal responsibility to fact check what you read even from what might seem like legitimare sources I mean look at all the "Dr's" who sell snake oil supplements. That's not to say that just because it's repeated as common knowledge it's wrong though.
The infographic is only shared here and on my instagram, I'm not trying to be a tiktok or insta expert but I do give a lot of my time back here responding to those who are new as a way of giving back to a knowledgeable community that better helped me to understand how to lose weight sustainably and safely. This was just a method of sharing the same advice with the many new threads without repeating myself constantly and it's often accompanied by text directed towards the OPs specific query.
Ps I'm not your disagree-er
5 -
I prefer @tinkerbellang83 's chart for general use in helping people see how MFP works and how to understand calorie and weight loss goals, so I think it's the right one for questions involving basic setup and questions about how weight loss works in the context of this app. I believe the discussion there should center on NEAT and not stray into TDEE which is confusing for anyone who just wants to use the app as designed. Most people don't need to know the actual formula or sources MFP uses behind the user interface.
I think @Jthanmyfitnesspal 's chart is great for discussions that go beyond just using the app as designed (there are many), when people are looking for a more in-depth discussion of the science behind weight management models and differences in how to calculate goals when the app is too restrictive or generic for what they want to do.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions