If you set your weightloss to the minimum speed on map, how much did you end up losing on average…

For me, it's a trick question - not saying you mean it that way. 😉🙂

If I set MFP to lose half a pound a week, the minimum standard rate for those who use pounds rather than kilos, I'd lose over a pound a week, eating back exercise calories on top of the goal. That's because MFP's calorie estimate is wildly wrong for me, compared to nearly a full decade of logging and weight change experience, a rare but possible thing.

For many people, if they stuck to the MFP suggested calories for half a pound a week loss, they'd lose about half a pound a week . . . on average over many weeks. It wouldn't be the same amount every week on the scale, and it would take an extra long time to show clearly on the scale because the large daily water/waste weight fluctuations hide a small fat loss rate for longer than they hide a fast fat loss rate. Some people would find that frustrating.

I think we've suggested to you on other threads that you stick with some kind of calorie goal and activity routine for 4-6 weeks, or at least one full menstrual cycle if you have those, to get a personalized calorie estimate based on experience. It could take longer, maybe even twice as long (?), if shooting for a very slow loss rate.

Even with unusual calorie needs, when I cut around 250 calories from my personalized calorie needs estimate, I lost about half a pound a week on average over many weeks.

To be clear, a slow loss rate is a fine, perfectly reasonable thing to pursue . . . but it's also reasonable to expect it to take longer to validate the size of that deficit from personal experience, and longer to see the results play out. On the flip side, it is easier to stick with than a fast loss rate - in my experience, practically painless. And it works . . . slowly.

Try it for a couple of months, see what happens? Don't expect quick validation, though.

Best wishes!