Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Rapid vs slow weight loss - opinions?
Options
Replies
-
TL;DR: For people who are already a health weight, 1 lb/week is probably the ideal rate of weight loss. For overweight, 2 lbs/week. Morbidly obese, consult your doctor.
I've tried pretty much everything related to weight loss, from ice baths to water fasts to cyclical ketogenic diets, etc. At this point I can drop pretty much any amount of weight at any rate, and have had a ton of DEXA scans to evaluate results. The short version of what I found:
1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean.
Anything over 2 lbs/week resulted in the loss of lean body mass, regardless of exercise regimen and protein intake. When I did 8 pounds in 2 weeks, I lost 4 pounds of LBM (even after ensuring glycogen repletion, so most/all of that was muscle) and 4 pounds of fat, which was incredibly disappointing. I was ~14% body fat to start with that time, so I imagine if you are still 20%+ body fat you could maintain a higher rate of weight loss, but extremely rapid weight loss is still probably a bad idea (you also have to contend with the issue of liberation of fat-soluble toxins, which can cause health issues at >2 lbs/week weight loss).2 -
wackyfunster wrote: »TL;DR: For people who are already a health weight, 1 lb/week is probably the ideal rate of weight loss. For overweight, 2 lbs/week. Morbidly obese, consult your doctor.
I've tried pretty much everything related to weight loss, from ice baths to water fasts to cyclical ketogenic diets, etc. At this point I can drop pretty much any amount of weight at any rate, and have had a ton of DEXA scans to evaluate results. The short version of what I found:
1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean.
Anything over 2 lbs/week resulted in the loss of lean body mass, regardless of exercise regimen and protein intake. When I did 8 pounds in 2 weeks, I lost 4 pounds of LBM (even after ensuring glycogen repletion, so most/all of that was muscle) and 4 pounds of fat, which was incredibly disappointing. I was ~14% body fat to start with that time, so I imagine if you are still 20%+ body fat you could maintain a higher rate of weight loss, but extremely rapid weight loss is still probably a bad idea (you also have to contend with the issue of liberation of fat-soluble toxins, which can cause health issues at >2 lbs/week weight loss).
You nailed it. Because we live in a convenience society, we want everything fast and we want it now, without mentioning the fact that faster is not always better. Although some people are able to tolerate very large deficits of 40% or more, your body will most likely fight you to keep from what it perceives is you starving to death, assuming that you are not morbidly obese. This increases the risk of bingeing and muscle loss over the long term, as well as a sharper decline in metabolic rate and BMR. The choice is yours to make. However, as with anything, proceed with caution. And for the love of all that is sacred, don't even think of attempting a juice cleanse or detox or any other psuedoscientific garbage in the hope of making it a quick fix. Large amounts of body fat do not come on in a single week, and they will not be lost in a single week either. It takes a lifetime of learning to fix bad exercise and diet habits, not some gimmicky program or fad diet.3 -
@wackyfunster
'1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean'
The op is a 5'3 52yo woman weighing 137lbs looking to lose 10-12lbs.
1lbs a week would probably work for the first 5-8 lbs then it would gradually diminish as she would be eating at 1200 cals.
Context is important.
Cheers, h.7 -
different things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it is3
-
It took me nearly 2 years to lose the 30lbs i needed to lose. So you can guess which camp I'm in.
Ofcourse it would have been nice to lose it quicker and have it over and done with, but i just don't have the willpower. I pretty much stayed at maintenance over the winters, and got slack with logging here and there, but i got there in the end.
Now it may have been a whole nother story if i had 50-100 + lbs to lose, i think i would have been a lot more determined and disciplined if i had that "journey" ahead of me.4 -
different things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it isdifferent things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it is
Yep, and I was not saying that at all. My point is that it would be irresponsible to tell them to go for it without describing some of the potential real nasty side effects that might occur. There are smart ways to diet in an extreme matter and really dumb ways-- unfortunately, most people choose the really dumb ways and end up being so food deprived and hungry that the neighbor's dog begins to look appetizing.0 -
LucasWilland wrote: »different things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it isdifferent things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it is
Yep, and I was not saying that at all. My point is that it would be irresponsible to tell them to go for it without describing some of the potential real nasty side effects that might occur. There are smart ways to diet in an extreme matter and really dumb ways-- unfortunately, most people choose the really dumb ways and end up being so food deprived and hungry that the neighbor's dog begins to look appetizing.
That is where the discipline comes in. I don't care who you are, or which methods you use, if you ever diet down to bodybuilding contest fat levels, you're gonna be absurdly hungry by the end. The human brain does NOT like the body being at 4-6% bodyfat, and puts up one hell of a fight as you try to get there.
Interestingly, I found my first rapid cut to be very enlightening, for this very reason. I very quickly realized that up to then, I had absolutely no idea what real hunger felt like. After spending most of my life as obese, my hunger signaling was all kinds of screwed up, to the point where boredom would actually result in a feeling of "true" hunger. After a few weeks of RFL though, stuff laying next to the dumpster behind 7-11 starts to look pretty damned delicious.
It was at that point that I realized just how screwed up the decades of poor eating had made my brain. Apparently it flipped a switch though, as my hunger/satiety cues have been a lot more on point since then.3 -
i agree lol deprived and hungry that the neighbor's dog begins to look appetizing now thats funny0
-
My problem has always been not being able to cope with being hungry.
I found out I can't last a day on 1,200 calories - there's just no way I can eat that little, I'd become ravenously hungry and have binges, which totally defeats the purpose!
I can only go as low as 1,500 for a few days at a time.
But I discovered I can sustain about 1,650-1,800 calories almost indefinitely. So I went with slow and steady, and I'm down 45 lbs from my starting weight, and actually as of today my weight is in 130s for the first time in a couple of decades.
So fast is good if you are confident you can sustain it, but I always think it's behind so many people giving up as they are not able to sustain it for the time period required.9 -
Count my vote for slow.1
-
My weight loss was always fairly cyclic, I stayed at 300lbs, I started out at 5'10" and now I'm 5'9" and 175 currently, but have 10lbs of winter weight to lose. I lost 2lbs per week until I hit 175 then it became irregular I would lose half pound one week and 1 or sometimes 2 lbs the next. All I did for working out was walking, the lady few months I started running I guess. Anyway I have kept it off for about 2 years now. That was fast weight loss. I don't regret it at all. Imo the problem with smaller deficits is that it is very easy to log inaccurately and end up unsuccessful in losing weight.3
-
middlehaitch wrote: »@wackyfunster
'1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean'
The op is a 5'3 52yo woman weighing 137lbs looking to lose 10-12lbs.
1lbs a week would probably work for the first 5-8 lbs then it would gradually diminish as she would be eating at 1200 cals.
Context is important.
Cheers, h.
There's really no reason she couldn't do a pound a week down to 125. At that age/height she might need to go below 1200 calories, and that is ok. There is no magical calorie number that applies to everyone regardless of height/weight/age. There is a ton of medical data showing that weight loss is safe down to much lower levels of body fat than you would think. The important thing is adequate intake of electrolytes, and that is just as true at 2000 calories as it is at 1200 (or 0 for that matter).
TBH, arbitrary calorie limits are what mess up a lot of people on here. If you are formerly obese, your BMR may be permanently reduced by up to 40%. It is quite possible that there are people out there who will spend the rest of their lives MAINTAINING at 1200 calories. Should they just stay overweight and unhealthy forever because someone somewhere decided that some arbitrary number of calories was the minimum for everyone regardless of height, weight, age, and medical history?
If your health is fragile enough that a caloric deficit for a short period of time is concerning, then you need to be doing all weight loss under medical supervision anyway.
3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Too late to edit my post, but I was also going to say that this seems very much geared towards the bodybuilder who is doing bulk/cut cycles, not really geared towards someone with a lot of weight to lose. My bodybuilding friends typically cut fast...but they're not in large deficits for prolonged periods of time either...usually like 6 weeks or so...maybe 8...it's over pretty quickly and then they're back to a surplus.
I'd be curious if the no muscle loss thing held true if it was someone with 100+ Lbs to lose and they had maintained an aggressive deficit for an extended period of time.
Mike Matthews specifies that if someone needs to lose a lot of weight, losing more than 2 pounds per week is okay.
I've always heard about 1% of BW.0 -
I'm not even sure how I got this - I subscribed to a bunch of folks to learn more about weight loss, but this may add some interesting insight. Totally not sure of how much value this is or their rep.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1178192862228085&id=393985583982154&_rdr0 -
wackyfunster wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »@wackyfunster
'1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean'
The op is a 5'3 52yo woman weighing 137lbs looking to lose 10-12lbs.
1lbs a week would probably work for the first 5-8 lbs then it would gradually diminish as she would be eating at 1200 cals.
Context is important.
Cheers, h.
There's really no reason she couldn't do a pound a week down to 125. At that age/height she might need to go below 1200 calories, and that is ok. There is no magical calorie number that applies to everyone regardless of height/weight/age. There is a ton of medical data showing that weight loss is safe down to much lower levels of body fat than you would think. The important thing is adequate intake of electrolytes, and that is just as true at 2000 calories as it is at 1200 (or 0 for that matter).
TBH, arbitrary calorie limits are what mess up a lot of people on here. If you are formerly obese, your BMR may be permanently reduced by up to 40%. It is quite possible that there are people out there who will spend the rest of their lives MAINTAINING at 1200 calories. Should they just stay overweight and unhealthy forever because someone somewhere decided that some arbitrary number of calories was the minimum for everyone regardless of height, weight, age, and medical history?
If your health is fragile enough that a caloric deficit for a short period of time is concerning, then you need to be doing all weight loss under medical supervision anyway.
Let's see, 52, 5'3", 137 . . . TDEE 1566, 500 a day deficit, so eating 1066 and below (since it will need to drop to around 1000 she approaches 125), and doing that consistently for 3 months to lose 12 pounds at a pound a week, while doing Strong Curves.
Sure, no problem, don't see where that could go wrong at all. (Eye Roll)
@middlehaitch and I are a lot closer to her age/size - older/smaller women, rather than younger/bigger guys. It's just possible that we may have some insight into the challenges of maintaining solid nutrition at that level, maintaining existing muscle in a deficit as a female at that age, etc. However, she's a grown-up, and can decide for herself.
Yes, 1200 isn't magic. But just because some people maintain at 1200 is no reason for people who don't to choose an aggressive deficit, and experiment with whether they, too, can lower their BMR by some substantial percent. Having a TDEE around 1500 isn't all that wonderful. Finding a way to drive it down an extra 100 or more - that would really kinda stink.7 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »Hi. What are your thoughts? https://www.muscleforlife.com/rapid-weight-loss/
This is about cutting strategies, which has no relevance in my world.
I need to lose 100 lbs and would like to do it in 1yr instead of 2yrs, neither timeframe is short. Even if my metabolism has slowed, I don't notice it - I have more energy.0 -
When I was between ages 58 and 60 I lost 60 pounds. It was slow loss but at the end of that loss I had no sagginess at all.
I maintained the loss for 5 years. I ate around 1200 to lose it with only walking as excersize. Now I maintain around 1600 and some days I go over that.
As an older woman I strongly advise not over doing the calorie deficit, its too easy to lose those muscles and to get too low on energy so that being active and doing things that are fun becomes a chore.
Best wishes and to your health OP!0 -
The science is pretty right here. What it doesn't address is sustainability for people who have to lose a lot of weight. It's one thing to lose say 25-50lbs. It's another to lose 50lbs or more and the psychological effect it may have on the person eating so much less than they are used to over a certain period of time.
BL is a good example. In 6 months, many of these contestants lose over 100lbs many times, but then look at how many regain a significant amount of weight. Like the diet industry, only about 10% sustain the weight loss.
Also this article seems to be for "cutting" for a show and not for the general population who are just trying to lose to be in the normal range. Granted any time you lose mass, your body will require less calories to sustain and maintain that current weight, and I can see how losing it fast can help with mentality right off the bat, but even most bodybuilding competitors only diet for 16 weeks on average for a comp. The average dieter to lose a significant amount of weight will be on a diet much longer than that and aggressive deficits over a long period of time doesn't seem to work well in my experience. Not only for weight loss, but for the psyche of the person doing it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
OP here. Thank you for the insights. The context for my question - if you couldn't guess - was my impatience. Was 137 in mid January and as of last week was 136.6. The ups and downs for those several weeks were depressing me. Not heavy - just heavy for me and too close to 140 - that was playing games with my head. My thinking was to max at 1000-1100 just to see ANY real downward movement, and fight the urge to give up. But as most of you noted, if the article was for bodybuilders - umm - that aint me. I'm in @middlehaitch and @AnnPT77 camps and agree it's best to take things slow. I'll admit - I'm still tempted - but I have no idea where I'd go calorie-wise after I lose. Seems like I have to read up on muscle loss, too.
Having said all that - today my weight was 133.0. Last Monday, I was 136.6. Perplexing - at least to me!!
Thanks again.4 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »OP here. Thank you for the insights. The context for my question - if you couldn't guess - was my impatience. Was 137 in mid January and as of last week was 136.6. The ups and downs for those several weeks were depressing me. Not heavy - just heavy for me and too close to 140 - that was playing games with my head. My thinking was to max at 1000-1100 just to see ANY real downward movement, and fight the urge to give up. But as most of you noted, if the article was for bodybuilders - umm - that aint me. I'm in @middlehaitch and @AnnPT77 camps and agree it's best to take things slow. I'll admit - I'm still tempted - but I have no idea where I'd go calorie-wise after I lose. Seems like I have to read up on muscle loss, too.
Having said all that - today my weight was 133.0. Last Monday, I was 136.6. Perplexing - at least to me!!
Thanks again.
Good plan. I'm glad you saw such an encouraging loss!
As far as reading up on muscle loss, that'll be informative. Also, there's more to the effect of calorie restriction on maintenance calorie needs than just muscle mass. This is one of the more informative things I've read on the subject:
Reduced metabolism/TDEE beyond expected from weight loss
Are you weighing just once a week? If so, and if you can do it without undue emotional stress, it might be worth weighing daily for a while (ideally first thing in the AM), and keeping track. For me, doing so gave me great insight into what causes my weight fluctuations (sodium, exercise or other healing, high-fiber foods, much more), and took a great deal of the stress and anxiety out of the process.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions