Printable View
If they really are the hardest to lose, does that mean that the first pounds are the easiest to lose? Or are they as hard to lose as the middle pounds?
It seems to me that all the pounds should be as easy or hard to lose, since most people pick an arbitrary amount of weight to lose, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Why?
IANAdietician nor am I a fitness expert, but it makes sense to me that the last pounds would be harder to lose. Say, for example, that you weigh 250 pounds and want to lose 50. The last pound you lose (going from 201 to 200) is a larger percentage of your present body weight than the first pound was. And when you figure that most of the weight you want to lose is fat, it becomes even more glaring: using the same example, what you're really trying to do is drop your body fat from 80 pounds to 30, and the last pounds are a much greater portion of the whole.
I couldn't find an expert answer with a quick google, but I know I've read many times that there is a correlation between weight and calorie needs. So if you start out at 200 pounds, which requires (I'm guessing here) 1800 calories per day to maintain, you'll need to cut that calorie level in order to lose weight. However, as you lose weight, your lower weight needs fewer calories to maintain it so your loss slows down.
But the short answer is: Mother Nature is a bitch!
And for some of us, it's just getting started that's the real challenge. :eek:
Also (IANAExpert) when you begin to exercise, your body is unfit and has to work hard to (say) walk 5 miles. Once you are fit and yur body works more efficiently, that same 5 mile walk will not burn as much fat.
If you lose "the last pounds," won't you no longer exist?
More serious, but still WAG-ish, answer: I've heard that your body has a "set point" weight that it tries to maintain. Perhaps losing the "last pounds" would take you below what your body thinks it ought to weigh?
This is accurate in terms of the decrease in caloric requirements as weight decreases, except in cases such as highly fit athletes who can afford to eat a lot more than average due to muscle mass and activity level. Most of us won't be exercising to that extent, however, so we can follow general BMR caloric intake guidelines. BMR calculations are based on sex, height, weight, and age, so how many calories are recommended depend on those factors, plus your general activity level.Quote:
Originally posted by MyOwnWorstEnemy
For example, a sedentary 35 year old male who's 5'6" would maintain at ~2280 calories/day, add 3 inches and he's at ~2340 calories/day. To be as low as 1800 calories per day to maintain at 200 pounds, you'd need to be a sedentary 35 year old female under 4' in height. See here for a handy calculator (the site also offers the basic BMR formula for metric measurements, but unfortunately no calculator). To determine caloric intake based on activity level, click through to Daily Calorie Needs once BMR is established.
I'd wager a lot of people also find the last few pounds more difficult to drop because as they approach their goal, they get a little more loose in their adherence to their diets... "I can afford this slice of pie, I'm already down 30 pounds" sort of mentality.
I'm getting 1912.2 calories using those numbers with the link you've provided.Quote:
Originally posted by Words on the Interweb
Right, 1912 is the BMR - did you click through to the Daily Calorie Needs portion as I mentioned, and multiply by 1.2 for the sedentary lifestyle?Quote:
Originally posted by pulykamell
ETA: this page, linked to from the BMR calculator
Oh, I thought you were just posting BMR.
Nah, that's why I specified to "maintain" (esp as my original post was in response to MyOwnWorstEnemy's guess of 1800 calories/day to maintain at 200 pounds). BMR just gives the calories burned when lying in bed all day, which isn't realistic for most people. If you based caloric intake on BMR, you'd actually be at a bit of a deficit.