If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
I keep hearing, again and again, that a "healthy" rate of weight loss is
(depending on where you hear it) between 0.5 and about 2lb/week. There are a lot of old wives tales out there about weight loss and dieting. I'm wondering where these so-called "healthy weight loss targets" come from and whether they have any validity whatsoever. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
In article , "em"
wrote: I keep hearing, again and again, that a "healthy" rate of weight loss is (depending on where you hear it) between 0.5 and about 2lb/week. There are a lot of old wives tales out there about weight loss and dieting. I'm wondering where these so-called "healthy weight loss targets" come from and whether they have any validity whatsoever. I think it's the rate of loss for "successful" dieters. Folks who take it off slowly and sensibly are the ones who KEEP it off for the longer term--usually because they are actually learning to eat right, make exercise a habit, and pay attention to their nutritional, emotional, and physical needs. Folks who try the crash diet method--cabbage soup for 3 days to lose 10 pounds of water and muscle--tend not to learn anything, pack it back on, and say "Woe is me, there must be something wrong with my body. I need (insert quick fix here)." Amy Successful for 10 years. 168/117/... -- Check it out! http://www.tcfitnesschallenge.com/index.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
em wrote:
I keep hearing, again and again, that a "healthy" rate of weight loss is (depending on where you hear it) between 0.5 and about 2lb/week. There are a lot of old wives tales out there about weight loss and dieting. Like what? Are there really that many, or was this just a statement born out of frustration or to drive home your point? I'm wondering where these so-called "healthy weight loss targets" come from and whether they have any validity whatsoever. The idea is to improve body composition through fat loss while retaining lean mass (muscle, bone, organ tissue, etc.). Faster weight loss undermines that by increasing the amount of lean mass lost. Early on (when much of the weight lost is water), or when there is a lot of fat to be lost, a rate higher than 2 pounds a week may be okay. The problem is many dieters have no mechanism in place for determining the composition of the weight that is lost, no mechanism or knowledge of what can be done to help retain lean mass, and no way of knowing what their highest rate of scale weight loss without excessive lean loss might be. Women are especially at risk because they have a harder time retaining or building back lean mass. Some women and girls know of this and purposely disregard it. They have a scale weight number in mind, and taking steps to minimize lean loss is viewed as something that only slows progress toward the only goal that matters--that magic number on the scale (a particular number, or worse yet, the lowest number that can possibly be achieved at any cost). People that have worked with numerous people who are losing weight or have lost weight, and even those who have figured it out personally and have only themselves as examples, are the source of the "healthy weight loss targets." And the validity of the concept is unquestionable once it is properly understood. The underlying concept is simple: slower weight loss equals less lean mass loss. There is no specific target. The relationship is basically linear; the higher the rate of scale weight loss, the higher the percentage of lean loss. The different targets represent differing views on what is acceptable as far as lean loss is concerned. Some are more conservative than others. I understand how the term could be seen as vague. To understand it one needs to dig deeper. Whenever you see that term used, read any accompanying explanation. I think you'll find that the explanations involve body composition (minimizing lean mass loss), avoiding drastic measures and the possibility of the yo-yo effect (drastic diet causes excessive lean loss, then stalls out or is discontinued, then weight is regained quickly with fat replacing the lean mass that was lost along with a base metabolic rate decrease which leads to new fat gain), and how a slower rate of loss can be had with a way of eating that is more tolerable over the long term (consistency in compliance). I hope this clears that up for you. Bill Eitner |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
"Bill Eitner" wrote in message . net... em wrote: I keep hearing, again and again, that a "healthy" rate of weight loss is (depending on where you hear it) between 0.5 and about 2lb/week. There are a lot of old wives tales out there about weight loss and dieting. Like what? Bill, thanks for taking the time and explaining things so well. Are there really that many, or was this just a statement born out of frustration or to drive home your point? Both, maybe. There's a TON of bad advice out there. Everything from "negative calorie foods" to bogus diet pills. What is an "old wives tale"? Is it commonly heard, age-old bad advice that many people accept even though there is no scientific or realistic basis for the advice? Some people are really good at rattling off long lists. I'm not good at that, but here's at least a couple pieces of bad advice: - Eat healthier foods - Don't eat after a certain time at night - Exercise IMHO, its all bull. ANY piece of advice that doesn't lead directly to eating fewer calories, or a regular basis, than a person burns, is bad advice. Now, here is good advice: - Eat healthier foods AND cut down on the amount of food you eat. (Whether the food is healthy or not, of course, isn't a factor in weight loss.) - Cut your late night meal all together and don't replace it by eating more food during the day - Exercise, but don't increase the amount of food you eat each day When it comes to weight loss, everything boils down to hard numbers. To lose weight you eat fewer calories then your body uses. My goal isn't a number on a scale. I want my body to feel and look healthy. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
"A Ross" wrote in message ... In article , "em" wrote: I keep hearing, again and again, that a "healthy" rate of weight loss is (depending on where you hear it) between 0.5 and about 2lb/week. There are a lot of old wives tales out there about weight loss and dieting. I'm wondering where these so-called "healthy weight loss targets" come from and whether they have any validity whatsoever. I think it's the rate of loss for "successful" dieters. Folks who take it off slowly and sensibly are the ones who KEEP it off for the longer term--usually because they are actually learning to eat right, make exercise a habit, and pay attention to their nutritional, emotional, and physical needs. Folks who try the crash diet method--cabbage soup for 3 days to lose 10 pounds of water and muscle--tend not to learn anything, pack it back on, and say "Woe is me, there must be something wrong with my body. I need (insert quick fix here)." Amy Successful for 10 years. 168/117/... -- Check it out! http://www.tcfitnesschallenge.com/index.html I agree 100%, Amy, It took me a few months to lose the weight but I've managed to keep it off since 1996. Beverly 177/143/~140 since 1996 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
"Bill Eitner" wrote in message . net... em wrote: I keep hearing, again and again, that a "healthy" rate of weight loss is (depending on where you hear it) between 0.5 and about 2lb/week... Um, yeah. A lb of fat is 3500 calories. To lose 2 lbs a week, you need a 7000 calorie deficit - that's 1000 calories per day. A typical person's bmr is around 1400-1600, so you have to eat like 400 calories to achieve that, or exercise like crazy. It's not healthy, and difficult to achieve and/or maintain. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
"em" wrote:
I keep hearing, again and again, that a "healthy" rate of weight loss is (depending on where you hear it) between 0.5 and about 2lb/week. There are a lot of old wives tales out there about weight loss and dieting. I'm wondering where these so-called "healthy weight loss targets" come from and whether they have any validity whatsoever. Building on Amy's and Bill's responses - First point is calories and metabolism: The calorie content of stored fat is 3500-4000 per pound. Human metabolism can range from 5000 calories per day by a world class athlete (with zero correlation to a dieter who wants to lose 50+ pounds) down to 800 calories per pound for someone fasting to death in starvation (with all too much correlation to a dieter not doing "healthy" loss rates). But a healthy metabolism isn't going to be close to either extreme. More like 1500-2500 calories per day. If you burn 1000 calories of stored fat each day, that's just about as much as most folks are going to be able to pull off in a healthy fashion on a 1500-2500 total calorie budget. And sure enough that's 7000 calories per week or 2 pounds per week. Unless something extraordinary is going on, lose more than 2 pounds in any 1 week and some of what you lost is NOT fat. Nearly the only healthy way to lose stored fat faster than that is to have 100+ to lose to switch the body from an unhealthy metabolism to a healthy one that starts dropping excess fat faster than calories can account for. That sets the maximum loss rate - Once you have under 100+ pounds to lose any rate over 2 per week includes loss other than fat. Is it water loss? The body only has just so much water retention and once it's gone it's gone. That leaves lean mass and bone mass. It's not good to lose either of those. Saying 2 pounds per week max isn't an old wives tale. It is a practical maximum *very* hard to exceed or even consistently achieve. And if 2 per week is a practical maximum under ideal circumstances, then 0.5 per week is a fraction of that maximum that should be straightforward to achieve. Next is the principle that the more you have to lose the faster it comes off and the less you have to lose the slower it comes off: The body has its own idea of what it "wants" to weigh. It will change hormone levels to adjust its metabolism to resist change the farther it gets from that number. Try going below it and the only way is to cut and cut and cut calories in the face of ever increasing hunger* But also if the body is well above its ideal weight it will give up stored fat easily. What this trend does is set up a set of expectations that are always obsolete as you progress. Start out with water to lose and it drops in a week. Have 120 to lose and you may well lose 3 pounds per week, but that rate starts to decline as soon as you're down to 100 to lose. The rate of 2 per week might last until you have 40ish to lose. The rate of 1 per week might last until you have 20ish to lose. Dr Atkins wrote that the last 10 pounds is *supposed* to be lost "very slowly". He never defines what "very slowly" means but it sure isn't 1 per week. Given that he defines a stall as 4+ weeks without a new low he must have meant 1/2 or even more likely 1/4 pound per week loss rate. It is one of several bits of advice from him that applies across the board. *Selecting your goal weigh based on a rational number is HARD. How many people stall out well before they reach heir goal and quit actually hit their ideal weight and were really trying to go well below it? I don't think there's any way to gather meaningful data on the question but I figure it's most folks who complain about stalling who can really confirm they aren't cheating. That's why the 0.5 to 2.0 per week range isn't an old wives tale. Has there ever been a dieter in history who was happy with loss rates in the real world, though? I don't think so. It is SO tempting to BELIEVE that the unrealistic is going to happen because it's so strongly wanted. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message Dr Atkins wrote that the last 10 pounds is *supposed* to be lost "very slowly". He never defines what "very slowly" means but it sure isn't 1 per week. Given that he defines a stall as 4+ weeks without a new low he must have meant 1/2 or even more likely 1/4 pound per week loss rate. It is one of several bits of advice from him that applies across the board. I have to agree with that. I am 5'3" and after having my daughter weighed around 160. Yeah, I really really overdid the "eating for two" thing. It took me about 1 yr to get down to 135. It now has taken me 7 months to get down to 123, and 118-120 is my goal weight. I don't expect to reach that until fall. But the loss has been easy enough - not feeling deprived at all, and I'm eating the way I expect to eat indefinitely. *Selecting your goal weigh based on a rational number is HARD. How many people stall out well before they reach heir goal and quit actually hit their ideal weight and were really trying to go well below it? I don't think there's any way to gather meaningful data on the question but I figure it's most folks who complain about stalling who can really confirm they aren't cheating. It's real hard to know what's "realistic". I mean, I *want* to reach 120 or less. But I also don't want to exercise more than I currently am, or eat less than I currently am. So eventually, my body will settle into where it wants to be, and the weight loss will stop. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
"determined" wrote:
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message *Selecting your goal weigh based on a rational number is HARD. How many people stall out well before they reach heir goal and quit actually hit their ideal weight and were really trying to go well below it? I don't think there's any way to gather meaningful data on the question but I figure it's most folks who complain about stalling who can really confirm they aren't cheating. It's real hard to know what's "realistic". I mean, I *want* to reach 120 or less. Protein Power by Drs Eades has a chapter of directions to take measurements and do arithmatic. One of the results is a small range that's your ideal weight according to them. But I also don't want to exercise more than I currently am, or eat less than I currently am. I ended up 10 over my ideal weight with Atkins. I decided cutting portions wasn't worth those 10 pounds. To keep them off I would have had to permanently cut portions. After years of struggling through maintenance I wonder if my decision was the wrong one. So eventually, my body will settle into where it wants to be, and the weight loss will stop. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"healthy" weight loss
I suspect the old wive's tale comes from the fact that this is the range
many people are able to lose weight in. Even after a weightloss in this range, a person's features may look a little distorted for a time. After a couple of years things get back to normal looking. "em" wrote in message ... I keep hearing, again and again, that a "healthy" rate of weight loss is (depending on where you hear it) between 0.5 and about 2lb/week. There are a lot of old wives tales out there about weight loss and dieting. I'm wondering where these so-called "healthy weight loss targets" come from and whether they have any validity whatsoever. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study | Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 12 | August 8th, 2007 05:50 PM |
"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study | Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD | General Discussion | 11 | April 21st, 2007 08:07 PM |
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" | oregonchick | General Discussion | 7 | September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM |
Bad Headlines 101: "Weight Loss Could Signal Future Dementia In Women" | Kirk Is | General Discussion | 2 | July 17th, 2006 09:18 PM |
Claim, weight loss "cures" diabetes | [email protected] | General Discussion | 8 | June 13th, 2006 11:33 PM |