This 1lb..1 1/2 lb. per week thing...

Rowing for weight loss or weight control? Start here.

This 1lb..1 1/2 lb. per week thing...

Postby icomefrombirmingham » July 26th, 2007, 9:22 am

I don't understand why a 1 lb. to 1 1/2 lb. per week weight loss is considered "safe" or more desirable than e.g. a 5lb. per week loss or even a 5lb. one week and nothing for the rest of the month loss.
Yet I read this frequently.

Can someone please explain the science and/or the research?

It seems to me that as long as the weight is being lost by:
a) eating sensible healthy foods in reasonable quantities, rather than on a "fad" diet and;
b) by burning more calories than I consume with sensible excercise
then why would the amount of weight lost in a given week/time period matter?

Thanks,
Brent
icomefrombirmingham
2k Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 2:48 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario

Re: This 1lb..1 1/2 lb. per week thing...

Postby rtmmtl » July 26th, 2007, 6:17 pm

icomefrombirmingham wrote:I don't understand why a 1 lb. to 1 1/2 lb. per week weight loss is considered "safe" or more desirable than e.g. a 5lb. per week loss or even a 5lb. one week and nothing for the rest of the month loss.
Yet I read this frequently.

Can someone please explain the science and/or the research?

It seems to me that as long as the weight is being lost by:
a) eating sensible healthy foods in reasonable quantities, rather than on a "fad" diet and;
b) by burning more calories than I consume with sensible excercise
then why would the amount of weight lost in a given week/time period matter?

Thanks,
Brent


http://www.google.com/search?q=DO+NOT+L ... =firefox-a
Bob
rtmmtl
500m Poster
 
Posts: 76
Joined: August 30th, 2006, 1:43 pm

Re: This 1lb..1 1/2 lb. per week thing...

Postby icomefrombirmingham » July 26th, 2007, 10:47 pm

rtmmtl wrote:
icomefrombirmingham wrote:I don't understand why a 1 lb. to 1 1/2 lb. per week weight loss is considered "safe" or more desirable than e.g. a 5lb. per week loss or even a 5lb. one week and nothing for the rest of the month loss.
Yet I read this frequently.

Can someone please explain the science and/or the research?

It seems to me that as long as the weight is being lost by:
a) eating sensible healthy foods in reasonable quantities, rather than on a "fad" diet and;
b) by burning more calories than I consume with sensible excercise
then why would the amount of weight lost in a given week/time period matter?

Thanks,
Brent


http://www.google.com/search?q=DO+NOT+L ... =firefox-a


Well thanks for the effort to explain...but the first six of these articles were more or less anecdotal. I am looking for something rational to answer the question. I need to know WHY people tend to gain weight back if they lose more then two pounds per week. i.e. if there is a scientific explanation.
Regards,
Brent
icomefrombirmingham
2k Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 2:48 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario

Re: This 1lb..1 1/2 lb. per week thing...

Postby rtmmtl » July 26th, 2007, 11:23 pm

icomefrombirmingham wrote:
rtmmtl wrote:
icomefrombirmingham wrote:I don't understand why a 1 lb. to 1 1/2 lb. per week weight loss is considered "safe" or more desirable than e.g. a 5lb. per week loss or even a 5lb. one week and nothing for the rest of the month loss.
Yet I read this frequently.

Can someone please explain the science and/or the research?

It seems to me that as long as the weight is being lost by:
a) eating sensible healthy foods in reasonable quantities, rather than on a "fad" diet and;
b) by burning more calories than I consume with sensible excercise
then why would the amount of weight lost in a given week/time period matter?

Thanks,
Brent


http://www.google.com/search?q=DO+NOT+L ... =firefox-a


Well thanks for the effort to explain...but the first six of these articles were more or less anecdotal. I am looking for something rational to answer the question. I need to know WHY people tend to gain weight back if they lose more then two pounds per week. i.e. if there is a scientific explanation.
Regards,
Brent


Google: "Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 2,760,000 for DO NOT LOSE MORE THAN 2 POUNDS A WEEK"

If you can't find some useful info out of 2,760,000 hits maybe you should forget about it.

Or.....put the question to Google in a different way.
Bob
rtmmtl
500m Poster
 
Posts: 76
Joined: August 30th, 2006, 1:43 pm

Postby PaulH » July 27th, 2007, 2:08 am

My understanding is that a greater weight loss would typically put too much strain on your system. Losing 2 pounds a week would mean cutting 500 calories per day from your required amount and exercising for an hour a day. Cutting more calories than that can put you into a starvation mode which makes it harder to lose weight now, and more likely to regain the weight later. Exercising for more than that can start to put strain on all sorts of physical systems, depending on the exercise, especially when you are, by definition, not getting enough food.

Having said all that, individuals are different, so it's entirely possible that you could do more (or less).
PaulH
6k Poster
 
Posts: 967
Joined: March 15th, 2006, 10:03 pm
Location: Hants, UK

Re: This 1lb..1 1/2 lb. per week thing...

Postby icomefrombirmingham » July 27th, 2007, 9:43 am

rtmmtl wrote:
icomefrombirmingham wrote:
rtmmtl wrote:
icomefrombirmingham wrote:I don't understand why a 1 lb. to 1 1/2 lb. per week weight loss is considered "safe" or more desirable than e.g. a 5lb. per week loss or even a 5lb. one week and nothing for the rest of the month loss.
Yet I read this frequently.

Can someone please explain the science and/or the research?

It seems to me that as long as the weight is being lost by:
a) eating sensible healthy foods in reasonable quantities, rather than on a "fad" diet and;
b) by burning more calories than I consume with sensible excercise
then why would the amount of weight lost in a given week/time period matter?

Thanks,
Brent


http://www.google.com/search?q=DO+NOT+L ... =firefox-a


Well thanks for the effort to explain...but the first six of these articles were more or less anecdotal. I am looking for something rational to answer the question. I need to know WHY people tend to gain weight back if they lose more then two pounds per week. i.e. if there is a scientific explanation.
Regards,
Brent


Google: "Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 2,760,000 for DO NOT LOSE MORE THAN 2 POUNDS A WEEK"

If you can't find some useful info out of 2,760,000 hits maybe you should forget about it.

Or.....put the question to Google in a different way.


Oops, sorry, I didn't read all 2,760,000 pages. I'll get back to you when I have. I posted the question here in case anyone could give me a specific referrence.
Again, thanks for the effort to explain.
Regards,
Brent
icomefrombirmingham
2k Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 2:48 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario

Postby icomefrombirmingham » July 27th, 2007, 10:12 am

PaulH wrote:My understanding is that a greater weight loss would typically put too much strain on your system. Losing 2 pounds a week would mean cutting 500 calories per day from your required amount and exercising for an hour a day. Cutting more calories than that can put you into a starvation mode which makes it harder to lose weight now, and more likely to regain the weight later. Exercising for more than that can start to put strain on all sorts of physical systems, depending on the exercise, especially when you are, by definition, not getting enough food.

Having said all that, individuals are different, so it's entirely possible that you could do more (or less).


Thanks for the reply. I know from my own experience that fairly rapid weight loss can be followed by (often more) weight gain.....252-214 (in 2-3 months)-283 (in the 2-3 years following)!!!
I'm trying to reconcile in my brain whether this is physiological/biochemical.....or....purely psychological mental.

If it's biochemical anyone would be defeating their long term purpose by losing weight rapidly. If it's psychological...the sky's the limit! :)
Regards,
Brent
icomefrombirmingham
2k Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 2:48 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario

Postby timmyj » July 28th, 2007, 8:01 am

it is a matter of sustainability....you can lose weight however it works best for you in your life. I have found that slow and steady wins the race and I was 248 pounds and have managed to get down to 205 with weight watchers....that works for me. I don't think health is the primary reason for the 1-2 pounds, it is just-percentage wise-the better way to be successful. Good luck
timmyj
Paddler
 
Posts: 5
Joined: August 7th, 2006, 2:16 pm

Postby Liquid » July 30th, 2007, 9:10 am

Simple...

Losing beyond 2 lbs. a week starts to slow your metabolism down (making it harder to lose weight) and you may not have enough strength to exercise as before. It is also best to adjust weight slowly, rapid gains and losses are not healthy.
Liquid
500m Poster
 
Posts: 61
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 4:39 pm

Postby icomefrombirmingham » July 30th, 2007, 10:51 am

timmyj,
Congratulations! You must feel great. My sister-in-law and a client of mine have had great success with WWs.

The last ime I lost weight (2001), I did it by really controlling my intake. No increase in excercise. I went from 252 to 217lbs in around 10 weeks as I recall. So that's 3.5 lbs per week.

Then from 2001 to 2007 I went from 217 to 285 lbs!! So I am conscious that too rapid weight loss may have had an undesirable longer-term effect.

Now (May 27th), when my new doc. said my BP reading was high, I decided that that's enough.

I joined the Y and started eating sensibly. That really means no junk food in the evenings, no cookies with cups of tea, no doughnuts with coffee when I am out of the office. Other than that my "base" food intake is and always has been quite healthy.

I have now added erging (1-1.5 hours, 3-4 times per week) and a moderate weights program to the sensible eating...and dog walking that I always did.

I have lost 32 lbs in 8 weeks. 4 lbs per week.

Now, to cut back even to 2 lbs per week, I would need to lessen the excercise or eat 7,000+ more calories per week than I am doing. But since I don't feel hungry this doesn't seem to make sense to me.
But perhaps I should up the calories of "sensible" foods.

Hence my question.

Regards,
Brent
icomefrombirmingham
2k Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 2:48 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario

Postby icomefrombirmingham » July 30th, 2007, 11:08 am

Liquid wrote:Simple...

Losing beyond 2 lbs. a week starts to slow your metabolism down (making it harder to lose weight) and you may not have enough strength to exercise as before. It is also best to adjust weight slowly, rapid gains and losses are not healthy.


Thanks Liquid,

I know....I have heard that one should lose weight slowly....I am looking for the scientific reason.

If I am excercising much more than I was, my metabolism must have increased? And, if I cut out the junk food my calorie intake has decreased (fairly significantly!).

But I'm not on a "diet". I'm eating as much "good" food as I can handle. I don't feel hungry.

If I increase the intake I would have to force myself to eat it.

Again, I'm conscious of the general advice not to lose weight too rapidly. And I know that the weight can rebound (see above post!!).

Perhaps my rate of loss will slow soon? Or perhaps I should be forcing myself to eat more while I am doing the amount of cardio that I am currently doing?

Regards,
Brent
icomefrombirmingham
2k Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 2:48 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario

Postby Liquid » July 30th, 2007, 11:48 am

Brent,

I think the figure of 2 lbs. is an approximation of the maximum. It is difficult to find hard science behind this number however the logic is as follows. Statistically if you lose more than 2 lbs. per week you are highly likely to be burning muscle as well as fat. There are cases however of people burning off 3 lbs. of fat in a week. The only real way to tell is to do weekly body composition tests. If you burn muscle then you slow your metabolism down and it makes losing weight harder (besides the fact that you grow weaker).
Liquid
500m Poster
 
Posts: 61
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 4:39 pm

Postby icomefrombirmingham » July 30th, 2007, 2:25 pm

Liquid wrote:Brent,

I think the figure of 2 lbs. is an approximation of the maximum. It is difficult to find hard science behind this number however the logic is as follows. Statistically if you lose more than 2 lbs. per week you are highly likely to be burning muscle as well as fat. There are cases however of people burning off 3 lbs. of fat in a week. The only real way to tell is to do weekly body composition tests. If you burn muscle then you slow your metabolism down and it makes losing weight harder (besides the fact that you grow weaker).


Hi Liquid,
Thanks for that. I didn't realise that at >2-3lbs (approx) loss per week I would/could be burning muscle?
I read here, on the C2 site somewhere, that they recommend one hour per day of rowing...and I think it said 6-7 days per week for weight loss. I can't imagine anyone rowing 6-7 hours per week wouldn't lose > 2 lbs??
I think I am going to eat more whole grains and fruits to limit my loss to 3lbs or a little less per week. I don't want to decrease the excercise.
Thanks,
Brent
icomefrombirmingham
2k Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 2:48 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario

Postby PaulH » July 30th, 2007, 3:39 pm

It's entirely possible to row 7 hours a week and put weight on. I know from experience that I have to go above about 8 hours a week before my body is 'forced' to lose weight; below that I can lose weight (theoretically, that is, as my willpower is negligible!), but I can also stay level without pigging out.

The reason is that some people, I think, are just more sensitive to their calorie requirements - more work means more hunger, and while that can be channeled to healthy foods it can still pretty insistently demand some form of calorie!
PaulH
6k Poster
 
Posts: 967
Joined: March 15th, 2006, 10:03 pm
Location: Hants, UK

Postby icomefrombirmingham » July 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

PaulH wrote:It's entirely possible to row 7 hours a week and put weight on. I know from experience that I have to go above about 8 hours a week before my body is 'forced' to lose weight; below that I can lose weight (theoretically, that is, as my willpower is negligible!), but I can also stay level without pigging out.

The reason is that some people, I think, are just more sensitive to their calorie requirements - more work means more hunger, and while that can be channeled to healthy foods it can still pretty insistently demand some form of calorie!


Well, for me, so far so good. I am erging about 4 hours per week, walking about 25km a week and restricting my intake to healthy food (which is a far cry from where my intake was two months ago).

If I erged 8 hours a week I'd lose 10lbs a week!!

I hope is that, even losing at this rate, if I keep on erging once I am down to my target weight....which isn't so much a number as feeling and looking lean....that I will keep the weight off.
regards,
Brent
icomefrombirmingham
2k Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 2:48 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario

Next

Return to Weight Loss & Weight Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests