Why do they say losing more than 2 pounds per week is not healthy?

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
I never could understand why people say this. If a person is working out and eating the right foods but they lose more than 2 pounds per week does that mean they should stop working out? What evidence supports that losing more than 2-3 pounds weekly is not healthy?

I'm wondering if this is just more gibberish that gets spouted over and over until everyone believes it to be true.
 
Mar 15, 2003
12,668
103
106
Originally posted by: Arkitech
I never could understand why people say this. If a person is working out and eating the right foods but they lose more than 2 pounds per week does that mean they should stop working out? What evidence supports that losing more than 2-3 pounds weekly is not healthy?

I'm wondering if this is just more gibberish that gets spouted over and over until everyone believes it to be true.

Well, see.. We're americans.. Most of us at least.. Americans, especially non-geeky americans, like simple answers.. 2lbs a week is a healthy average for the general population.. Now a 400lb man can drop 20lbs in a week.. Is that unhealthy? Not as unhealthy as having 20 extra pounds of fat! Of course, 2lbs is a nice, safe, easy to remember guideline.. Once you get closer to your goal you should stabalize to that.. But it's horse crap to say that losing more than that is unhealthy (though, obviously, 20lbs a week for a few weeks in a row is unhealthy)..
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Arkitech
I never could understand why people say this. If a person is working out and eating the right foods but they lose more than 2 pounds per week does that mean they should stop working out? What evidence supports that losing more than 2-3 pounds weekly is not healthy?

I'm wondering if this is just more gibberish that gets spouted over and over until everyone believes it to be true.

Well, see.. We're americans.. Most of us at least.. Americans, especially non-geeky americans, like simple answers.. 2lbs a week is a healthy average for the general population.. Now a 400lb man can drop 20lbs in a week.. Is that unhealthy? Not as unhealthy as having 20 extra pounds of fat! Of course, 2lbs is a nice, safe, easy to remember guideline.. Once you get closer to your goal you should stabalize to that.. But it's horse crap to say that losing more than that is unhealthy (though, obviously, 20lbs a week for a few weeks in a row is unhealthy)..


That makes a lot more sense than some of the things that I've read.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
At the same time gaining or losing weight to fast puts a strain on your body. Also you are more likely to gain it back if you lose it REALLY fast. Also puts a lot of stress on your heart.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
I dunno bout you but my weight fluctuates alot day by day. I will have differences of 5-10 lbs during the week. It's always going up and down...
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: lozina
I dunno bout you but my weight fluctuates alot day by day. I will have differences of 5-10 lbs during the week. It's always going up and down...

You must have an ultra fast metabolism. What do you weigh normally?
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: lozina
I dunno bout you but my weight fluctuates alot day by day. I will have differences of 5-10 lbs during the week. It's always going up and down...

You must have an ultra fast metabolism. What do you weigh normally?

I weigh in the neighborhood of 180 lbs at 6'4"

Yeah my metabolism is tough to keep up with.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Ark, 2 lbs/week is an average. Which means, in most people, losing more weight per week can mean they are either seriously dehydrating themselves, or are losing too much lean muscle mass, or both. The 2 lbs target is ideal for holding on to your muscle.

It's basiaclly a warning against fad diets and fasts. Yes, it is posible to lose more than 2 lbs/week of fat without dehydrating yourself or losing muscle mass, but not for most people who think food deprivation is the key to weight loss.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Ark, 2 lbs/week is an average. Which means, in most people, losing more weight per week can mean they are either seriously dehydrating themselves, or are losing too much lean muscle mass, or both. The 2 lbs target is ideal for holding on to your muscle.

It's basiaclly a warning against fad diets and fasts. Yes, it is posible to lose more than 2 lbs/week of fat, but not for most people who think food deprivation is the key to weight loss.

But what is average? If a person who was eating 3000 calories a day drops down to 1200 calories which is what they should be eating (in this example) and they lose 5 pounds per week are they losing muscle or fat? I'm really suspicious of terms like "average" and "normal" these days when it comes to body weight. It seems like there's way to many factors involved to say whats average. But then again what do I know, I'm just working on a theory. :D
 
Mar 15, 2003
12,668
103
106
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Amused
Ark, 2 lbs/week is an average. Which means, in most people, losing more weight per week can mean they are either seriously dehydrating themselves, or are losing too much lean muscle mass, or both. The 2 lbs target is ideal for holding on to your muscle.

It's basiaclly a warning against fad diets and fasts. Yes, it is posible to lose more than 2 lbs/week of fat, but not for most people who think food deprivation is the key to weight loss.

But what is average? If a person who was eating 3000 calories a day drops down to 1200 calories which is what they should be eating (in this example) and they lose 5 pounds per week are they losing muscle or fat? I'm really suspicious of terms like "average" and "normal" these days when it comes to body weight. It seems like there's way to many factors involved to say whats average. But then again what do I know, I'm just working on a theory. :D

As I said before in my long winded reasoning, it's the easy answer.. "Doctor, how much weight should I be losing?" What's easier than 2 lbs? You're right - there are a million factors - current weight, height, family history, health complications, metabolisms, etc.. The 2 lbs a week is a lazy, lazy answer and is a mental panacea of sorts.. Hear me out on this.. It's a little far fetched.. Everyone knows that it's fairly easy to lose 2 pounds a week - especially if you're a lard ass like many of us americans are.. If EVERYONE that is on a weight loss program is convinced that 2lbs is normal and safe and preferred they'd be inspired by the 2 lb lost - even though that's pretty insignificant - instead of pushing themselves a bit harder.. It's complacency through ignorance, baby...
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Amused
Ark, 2 lbs/week is an average. Which means, in most people, losing more weight per week can mean they are either seriously dehydrating themselves, or are losing too much lean muscle mass, or both. The 2 lbs target is ideal for holding on to your muscle.

It's basiaclly a warning against fad diets and fasts. Yes, it is posible to lose more than 2 lbs/week of fat, but not for most people who think food deprivation is the key to weight loss.

But what is average? If a person who was eating 3000 calories a day drops down to 1200 calories which is what they should be eating (in this example) and they lose 5 pounds per week are they losing muscle or fat? I'm really suspicious of terms like "average" and "normal" these days when it comes to body weight. It seems like there's way to many factors involved to say whats average. But then again what do I know, I'm just working on a theory. :D

As I said before in my long winded reasoning, it's the easy answer.. "Doctor, how much weight should I be losing?" What's easier than 2 lbs? You're right - there are a million factors - current weight, height, family history, health complications, metabolisms, etc.. The 2 lbs a week is a lazy, lazy answer and is a mental panacea of sorts.. Hear me out on this.. It's a little far fetched.. Everyone knows that it's fairly easy to lose 2 pounds a week - especially if you're a lard ass like many of us americans are.. If EVERYONE that is on a weight loss program is convinced that 2lbs is normal and safe and preferred they'd be inspired by the 2 lb lost - even though that's pretty insignificant - instead of pushing themselves a bit harder.. It's complacency through ignorance, baby...


Interesting thoughts, you could have something there.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Amused
Ark, 2 lbs/week is an average. Which means, in most people, losing more weight per week can mean they are either seriously dehydrating themselves, or are losing too much lean muscle mass, or both. The 2 lbs target is ideal for holding on to your muscle.

It's basiaclly a warning against fad diets and fasts. Yes, it is posible to lose more than 2 lbs/week of fat, but not for most people who think food deprivation is the key to weight loss.

But what is average? If a person who was eating 3000 calories a day drops down to 1200 calories which is what they should be eating (in this example) and they lose 5 pounds per week are they losing muscle or fat? I'm really suspicious of terms like "average" and "normal" these days when it comes to body weight. It seems like there's way to many factors involved to say whats average. But then again what do I know, I'm just working on a theory. :D

As I said before in my long winded reasoning, it's the easy answer.. "Doctor, how much weight should I be losing?" What's easier than 2 lbs? You're right - there are a million factors - current weight, height, family history, health complications, metabolisms, etc.. The 2 lbs a week is a lazy, lazy answer and is a mental panacea of sorts.. Hear me out on this.. It's a little far fetched.. Everyone knows that it's fairly easy to lose 2 pounds a week - especially if you're a lard ass like many of us americans are.. If EVERYONE that is on a weight loss program is convinced that 2lbs is normal and safe and preferred they'd be inspired by the 2 lb lost - even though that's pretty insignificant - instead of pushing themselves a bit harder.. It's complacency through ignorance, baby...

Sigh, OK. Go ahead and believe that. But realize that rapid weight loss usually means the loss of lean muscle, dehydration, and the kicking in of your body's starvation defenses. Ever wonder why people end up fatter after yo-yo dieting? It's because the body becomes more adept at storing energy as fat when threatened with starvation in preparation for the next fast.

Your body doesn't care that you want to lose weight. It only cares how much energy it has stored much like you care how much money you have saved in the bank. Make the body think it's starving and that it NEEDS those energy stores, and it will do everything it can to save it, or replenish what it lost. Not only that, but your body then sets a higher setpoint for fat stores, because the last setpoint was too easily lost.

The more rapid the weight loss, the more likely the person is to gain it back, and more.
 

amcdonald

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
4,012
0
0
For me 2lbs a week is more or less impossible. I'm 5'7"150. For someone around 6'7" 350 its very conservative.
Its based on caloric intake. I need ~1500 calories a day not including any physical activity, so thats 10500 a week. a physical pound of fat is 5600 calories. So, for me to actually lose 2lbs a week I'd need to workout a few times and not eat anything all week. Thats unhealthy.
for a guy consuming ~3500 calories a day just existing, 2lbs a week is a conservative goal. He can still eat 1900 calories a day, and do nothing.
Of course the 2lbs you might lose in a week is a combination of water weight and fat.
 
Mar 15, 2003
12,668
103
106
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Amused
Ark, 2 lbs/week is an average. Which means, in most people, losing more weight per week can mean they are either seriously dehydrating themselves, or are losing too much lean muscle mass, or both. The 2 lbs target is ideal for holding on to your muscle.

It's basiaclly a warning against fad diets and fasts. Yes, it is posible to lose more than 2 lbs/week of fat, but not for most people who think food deprivation is the key to weight loss.

But what is average? If a person who was eating 3000 calories a day drops down to 1200 calories which is what they should be eating (in this example) and they lose 5 pounds per week are they losing muscle or fat? I'm really suspicious of terms like "average" and "normal" these days when it comes to body weight. It seems like there's way to many factors involved to say whats average. But then again what do I know, I'm just working on a theory. :D

As I said before in my long winded reasoning, it's the easy answer.. "Doctor, how much weight should I be losing?" What's easier than 2 lbs? You're right - there are a million factors - current weight, height, family history, health complications, metabolisms, etc.. The 2 lbs a week is a lazy, lazy answer and is a mental panacea of sorts.. Hear me out on this.. It's a little far fetched.. Everyone knows that it's fairly easy to lose 2 pounds a week - especially if you're a lard ass like many of us americans are.. If EVERYONE that is on a weight loss program is convinced that 2lbs is normal and safe and preferred they'd be inspired by the 2 lb lost - even though that's pretty insignificant - instead of pushing themselves a bit harder.. It's complacency through ignorance, baby...

Sigh, OK. Go ahead and believe that. But realize that rapid weight loss usually means the loss of lean muscle, dehydration, and the kicking in of your body's starvation defenses. Ever wonder why people end up fatter after yo-yo dieting? It's because the body becomes more adept at storing energy as fat when threatened with starvation in preparation for the next fast.

Your body doesn't care that you want to lose weight. It only cares how much energy it has stored much like you care how much money you have saved in the bank. Make the body think it's starving and that it NEEDS those energy stores, and it will do everything it can save it, or replenish what it lost.

The more rapid the weight loss, the more likely the person is to gain it back, and more.

I'm not advocating "rapid weight loss"... I just think that the 2lbs a week adage is a gross oversimplification made by a lazy weight loss/ health care industry.. While I can safely lose up to 5 lbs a week (based on experience) my middle aged mother with back problems and high blood pressure should lose around 1lb/week.. I just wish that doctors had a simple diagnostic sytem that really helps individuals set realistic and healthy goals instead of saying some crap they learned on the back of a "Special K" cereal box..
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Amused
Ark, 2 lbs/week is an average. Which means, in most people, losing more weight per week can mean they are either seriously dehydrating themselves, or are losing too much lean muscle mass, or both. The 2 lbs target is ideal for holding on to your muscle.

It's basiaclly a warning against fad diets and fasts. Yes, it is posible to lose more than 2 lbs/week of fat, but not for most people who think food deprivation is the key to weight loss.

But what is average? If a person who was eating 3000 calories a day drops down to 1200 calories which is what they should be eating (in this example) and they lose 5 pounds per week are they losing muscle or fat? I'm really suspicious of terms like "average" and "normal" these days when it comes to body weight. It seems like there's way to many factors involved to say whats average. But then again what do I know, I'm just working on a theory. :D

As I said before in my long winded reasoning, it's the easy answer.. "Doctor, how much weight should I be losing?" What's easier than 2 lbs? You're right - there are a million factors - current weight, height, family history, health complications, metabolisms, etc.. The 2 lbs a week is a lazy, lazy answer and is a mental panacea of sorts.. Hear me out on this.. It's a little far fetched.. Everyone knows that it's fairly easy to lose 2 pounds a week - especially if you're a lard ass like many of us americans are.. If EVERYONE that is on a weight loss program is convinced that 2lbs is normal and safe and preferred they'd be inspired by the 2 lb lost - even though that's pretty insignificant - instead of pushing themselves a bit harder.. It's complacency through ignorance, baby...

Sigh, OK. Go ahead and believe that. But realize that rapid weight loss usually means the loss of lean muscle, dehydration, and the kicking in of your body's starvation defenses. Ever wonder why people end up fatter after yo-yo dieting? It's because the body becomes more adept at storing energy as fat when threatened with starvation in preparation for the next fast.

Your body doesn't care that you want to lose weight. It only cares how much energy it has stored much like you care how much money you have saved in the bank. Make the body think it's starving and that it NEEDS those energy stores, and it will do everything it can save it, or replenish what it lost.

The more rapid the weight loss, the more likely the person is to gain it back, and more.

I'm not advocating "rapid weight loss"... I just think that the 2lbs a week adage is a gross oversimplification made by a lazy weight loss/ health care industry.. While I can safely lose up to 5 lbs a week (based on experience) my middle aged mother with back problems and high blood pressure should lose around 1lb/week.. I just wish that doctors had a simple diagnostic sytem that really helps individuals set realistic and healthy goals instead of saying some crap they learned on the back of a "Special K" cereal box..

And two aspirin every 4 hours is a simplification based on an average body weight, and drug reaction. So? BFD. It's a safe number that will not kick in the body's starvation defenses, and thus will be less likely to result in yo-yo dieting and ending up fatter than you were before. It's not set in stone. The world wont stop turning if you lose 3 pounds one week. But it's a good baseline to follow so you don't sabotage what you're trying to do.

Plus, the whole idea of following a scale is absurd. One could lose 3 lbs of fat in one week, yet gain 2 lbs of lean muscle.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Amused
Ark, 2 lbs/week is an average. Which means, in most people, losing more weight per week can mean they are either seriously dehydrating themselves, or are losing too much lean muscle mass, or both. The 2 lbs target is ideal for holding on to your muscle.

It's basiaclly a warning against fad diets and fasts. Yes, it is posible to lose more than 2 lbs/week of fat, but not for most people who think food deprivation is the key to weight loss.

But what is average? If a person who was eating 3000 calories a day drops down to 1200 calories which is what they should be eating (in this example) and they lose 5 pounds per week are they losing muscle or fat? I'm really suspicious of terms like "average" and "normal" these days when it comes to body weight. It seems like there's way to many factors involved to say whats average. But then again what do I know, I'm just working on a theory. :D

As I said before in my long winded reasoning, it's the easy answer.. "Doctor, how much weight should I be losing?" What's easier than 2 lbs? You're right - there are a million factors - current weight, height, family history, health complications, metabolisms, etc.. The 2 lbs a week is a lazy, lazy answer and is a mental panacea of sorts.. Hear me out on this.. It's a little far fetched.. Everyone knows that it's fairly easy to lose 2 pounds a week - especially if you're a lard ass like many of us americans are.. If EVERYONE that is on a weight loss program is convinced that 2lbs is normal and safe and preferred they'd be inspired by the 2 lb lost - even though that's pretty insignificant - instead of pushing themselves a bit harder.. It's complacency through ignorance, baby...

Sigh, OK. Go ahead and believe that. But realize that rapid weight loss usually means the loss of lean muscle, dehydration, and the kicking in of your body's starvation defenses. Ever wonder why people end up fatter after yo-yo dieting? It's because the body becomes more adept at storing energy as fat when threatened with starvation in preparation for the next fast.

Your body doesn't care that you want to lose weight. It only cares how much energy it has stored much like you care how much money you have saved in the bank. Make the body think it's starving and that it NEEDS those energy stores, and it will do everything it can to save it, or replenish what it lost. Not only that, but your body then sets a higher setpoint for fat stores, because the last setpoint was too easily lost.

The more rapid the weight loss, the more likely the person is to gain it back, and more.

But again there are a million different factors that can determine how much a person will lose. For some reason it kind of bothers me that somewhere a group of people pulled a number out their ass and said this is whats average for healthy weight loss. Out of all the areas of expertise it seems like weight loss is one of the most unpredictable, there are thousands of different studies that prove a thousand different things when it comes to losing weight and physical fitness. I guess what this proves to me is that there are way to many factors to pin only one type of opinion to an individual. I think Freedomsbeat has a great idea in that physicians should advise their patients through some means of a diagnostic measurement specific to each individual.

 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Just for perspective (assume 2200 kcal BMR)

*Losing two pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily caloric deficit of 1000 kcal (intake = 1200 kcal)

*Losing two pounds per week with 1 hour aerobic exercise per day (assume 600 kcal per hour) still requires a 500 kcal deficit (intake = 1700 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily deficit of 2500 kcal (impossible)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with 1 hour per day workout (5600 kcal): daily deficit = 2000 kcal (intake 200 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week and still eating 2200 kcal per day would require a bit over 4 hours of aerobic work every single day of the week to burn the 2500 kcal per day.


Make sense? Only the second example is reasonable for the average person. Even a psycho like me only gets in about 10-15 hours per week on the bike, but I also eat a very normal diet. I'm sure I easily approach 3000 kcal per day, but then I have to in order to properly recover from all the cycling I do and I stil lose weight.
 
Mar 15, 2003
12,668
103
106
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Just for perspective (assume 2200 kcal BMR)

*Losing two pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily caloric deficit of 1000 kcal (intake = 1200 kcal)

*Losing two pounds per week with 1 hour aerobic exercise per day (assume 600 kcal per hour) still requires a 500 kcal deficit (intake = 1700 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily deficit of 2500 kcal (impossible)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with 1 hour per day workout (5600 kcal): daily deficit = 2000 kcal (intake 200 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week and still eating 2200 kcal per day would require a bit over 4 hours of aerobic work every single day of the week to burn the 2500 kcal per day.


Make sense? Only the second example is reasonable for the average person. Even a psycho like me only gets in about 10-15 hours per week on the bike, but I also eat a very normal diet. I'm sure I easily approach 3000 kcal per day, but then I have to in order to properly recover from all the cycling I do and I stil lose weight.

But consider the case of a 5'2, 400 lb woman - a caloric deficit of 2500kcal may not be impossible for her considering that her prior diet consisted of big macs and bags of chips for snacks.... Listen, I see your point.. I just don't like generalizations..
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Just for perspective (assume 2200 kcal BMR)

*Losing two pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily caloric deficit of 1000 kcal (intake = 1200 kcal)

*Losing two pounds per week with 1 hour aerobic exercise per day (assume 600 kcal per hour) still requires a 500 kcal deficit (intake = 1700 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily deficit of 2500 kcal (impossible)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with 1 hour per day workout (5600 kcal): daily deficit = 2000 kcal (intake 200 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week and still eating 2200 kcal per day would require a bit over 4 hours of aerobic work every single day of the week to burn the 2500 kcal per day.


Make sense? Only the second example is reasonable for the average person. Even a psycho like me only gets in about 10-15 hours per week on the bike, but I also eat a very normal diet. I'm sure I easily approach 3000 kcal per day, but then I have to in order to properly recover from all the cycling I do and I stil lose weight.


Best answer in the entire thread. 2 pounds of fat = 7,000 calories. That's a LOT to lose. A lot of the so called "miracle diets" is just dehydration, etc
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Just for perspective (assume 2200 kcal BMR)

*Losing two pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily caloric deficit of 1000 kcal (intake = 1200 kcal)

*Losing two pounds per week with 1 hour aerobic exercise per day (assume 600 kcal per hour) still requires a 500 kcal deficit (intake = 1700 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily deficit of 2500 kcal (impossible)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with 1 hour per day workout (5600 kcal): daily deficit = 2000 kcal (intake 200 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week and still eating 2200 kcal per day would require a bit over 4 hours of aerobic work every single day of the week to burn the 2500 kcal per day.


Make sense? Only the second example is reasonable for the average person. Even a psycho like me only gets in about 10-15 hours per week on the bike, but I also eat a very normal diet. I'm sure I easily approach 3000 kcal per day, but then I have to in order to properly recover from all the cycling I do and I stil lose weight.

But consider the case of a 5'2, 400 lb woman - a caloric deficit of 2500kcal may not be impossible for her considering that her prior diet consisted of big macs and bags of chips for snacks.... Listen, I see your point.. I just don't like generalizations..
Well, sure you can throw my model out the window when you're talking about extremes in body fat % but it makes sense for the average person who needs to knock off 20-40 lbs. When you do the math (as I did) it's apparent why the 2 pounds/week thing is reasonable.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Just for perspective (assume 2200 kcal BMR)

*Losing two pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily caloric deficit of 1000 kcal (intake = 1200 kcal)

*Losing two pounds per week with 1 hour aerobic exercise per day (assume 600 kcal per hour) still requires a 500 kcal deficit (intake = 1700 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with no exercise requires a daily deficit of 2500 kcal (impossible)

*Losing 5 pounds per week with 1 hour per day workout (5600 kcal): daily deficit = 2000 kcal (intake 200 kcal)

*Losing 5 pounds per week and still eating 2200 kcal per day would require a bit over 4 hours of aerobic work every single day of the week to burn the 2500 kcal per day.


Make sense? Only the second example is reasonable for the average person. Even a psycho like me only gets in about 10-15 hours per week on the bike, but I also eat a very normal diet. I'm sure I easily approach 3000 kcal per day, but then I have to in order to properly recover from all the cycling I do and I stil lose weight.

But consider the case of a 5'2, 400 lb woman - a caloric deficit of 2500kcal may not be impossible for her considering that her prior diet consisted of big macs and bags of chips for snacks.... Listen, I see your point.. I just don't like generalizations..

Fine, if you want a personalized weight loss plan, go pay for one. Pay for dozens of tests, hours of a doctors time, and hours of a trainer's time.... only to be told another arbitary number like 3.4.
 
Mar 15, 2003
12,668
103
106
Originally posted by: AmusedFine, if you want a personalized weight loss plan, go pay for one. Pay for dozens of tests, hours of a doctors time, and hours of a trainer's time.... only to be told another arbitary number like 3.4.


Why are you so angry? I'm trying to have a thoughtful, intelligent conversation and you get all huffy and such.. Relax.. Or shall I say, grow up?
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: AmusedFine, if you want a personalized weight loss plan, go pay for one. Pay for dozens of tests, hours of a doctors time, and hours of a trainer's time.... only to be told another arbitary number like 3.4.


Why are you so angry? I'm trying to have a thoughtful, intelligent conversation and you get all huffy and such.. Relax.. Or shall I say, grow up?

I think the point is that the two-pound thing is applicable 90% of the time and that Americans have a funny way of getting so wrapped up in the minutiae of dieting that they forget to actually lose weight. ;)

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: AmusedFine, if you want a personalized weight loss plan, go pay for one. Pay for dozens of tests, hours of a doctors time, and hours of a trainer's time.... only to be told another arbitary number like 3.4.

Why are you so angry? I'm trying to have a thoughtful, intelligent conversation and you get all huffy and such.. Relax.. Or shall I say, grow up?

:confused:

I'm not angry. Just blunt.

And my answer is thoughtful, because this is what would be required for what you're demanding.