Why the body won’t lose more than about 2 pounds of fat per week

#1

JessH-210 shared this in another Topic but thought it was really appropriate for this Catagory. It’s about why the body won’t lose more than about 2 pounds of FAT per week. As opposed to water, muscle, etc.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjW3uqvifXdAhUHbq0KHaggAmYQFjAAegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fketo%2Fcomments%2F2ijm07%2Fwhy_scales_can_lie%2F&usg=AOvVaw1XX7DDYcu9V4ZoXB1D0Q_T

(Jeanette Villanueva) #2

Interesting, thanks for sharing

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #3

Here is a cleaner link:

Sadly, the original post on Low Carb Friends is gone,[spoiler] with LCF, though as LCF birthed the demon Kimmer and her ketogenic, low fat, low calorie starvation scam known as Kimkins, maybe LCF had it coming.[/spoiler]

Nice post by the original author. Thanks for sharing.

(Vladaar Malane) #4

I see where the article says “it’s physically impossible for all of that to be fat. What you’re really losing is water, glycogen, and muscle.”

I disagree not that your only losing fat, but that what your really losing is water glycogen and muscle. You may lose a small portion of that, but if your burning fat I’d contend that you lose mostly fat.

I didn’t lose all my muscle when I lost 50+ pounds, if that theory of your really losing water, glycogen and muscle was true I’d be weakling.

Anyway, it’s a good read though. Thanks for posting.

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #5

How long did it take for you to lost 50+ lbs?

I lost 40 in 4 months, which works to about 18 weeks, which works to a max 36 lbs of fat lost (assuming peak of 2/week) and 4 lbs of water, assuming no LBM loss. I suspect it was more water than 4 lbs, so I find this cromulent.

Of course, that’s ignoring that it notes 1% of bodyweight as the max fat burn per week. At the start, that’d work to 2.6, and at the conclusion of that 4 months, 2.2. So, the 40 is actually in range to be all fat according to the article. Never mind the 63.5 that I’m at now, in the 10th month.

(Vladaar Malane) #6

@LeCheffre

I don’t know that I could give a accurate time. I didn’t start out as Keto, I started as Wheat Belly fanatic, went from 255 to 208 pounds just not eating wheat combined with intermittent fasting. That was maybe 4 - 6 months.

Then started Keto and I now I weight 185 pounds. That period of time has been like 1 year now.

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #7

Let’s be very aggressive, and consider Wheat Belly LCHF (it is, from my recollection… it’s never framed in that way, but it is) and call it 4 months to go 255->208. 47 lbs in 18 weeks. If we give you the maximum 1%, you’d be down to 40 in fat, leaving 7 for water with no muscle wasting. That seems completely plausible to me. Even if it’s just 2, that’s 36 fat, 11 water/glycogen stores, which jibes with my understanding of how it all works.

(Vladaar Malane) #8

Yeah, I definitely am not saying no muscle is lost, but a small percentage. That seems about right.

(Keto Kid 4 Life) #9

This is a great explanation for the weight loss stalls. The body cannot withstand more that a 2 lbs weight deficit for months on end. I’ve been averaging from 1/2 lb to 1 lb per week.