"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.

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

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

"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.

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.