Alright, lets talk about skin.
MarMcGrath
Posts: 58 Member
So, I've been logging here and attending the gym for about 3 months with great success - My coach at the gym is a huge inspiration, thus far she's lost somewhere around 175lbs.
She is beautiful and strong and one thing that she talks about from her weight loss journey is skin.
Last year she had surgery to remove around 4lbs of skin.
Is excess skin an issue for everyone? If not, what does it depend on? Are there things you can do to avoid it?
I have been overweight for all of my teenage/adult life and I'm just wondering if, once I do lose the weight, this surgery is something I will have to consider as well. . .
Help? Any stories from experience? Anyone with a profound amount of knowledge in this area?
She is beautiful and strong and one thing that she talks about from her weight loss journey is skin.
Last year she had surgery to remove around 4lbs of skin.
Is excess skin an issue for everyone? If not, what does it depend on? Are there things you can do to avoid it?
I have been overweight for all of my teenage/adult life and I'm just wondering if, once I do lose the weight, this surgery is something I will have to consider as well. . .
Help? Any stories from experience? Anyone with a profound amount of knowledge in this area?
0
Replies
-
I've lost over 100 pounds total. I have a little bit of loose skin at the bottom part of my stomach. It doesn't negatively impact me, my health, or my ability to compete in bodybuiding competitions.
You may or may not end up with some loose skin. If it causes chaffing and leads to infections it is important to consider having it removed. If it doesn't cause problems there's no need for surgery, unless you are severely mentally distraught over it.0 -
I've lost 55 lbs ... and was hoping to avoid the loose skin thing. But nope. I'm soft and wrinkly in a weird kind of way. For example, where the skin on my arms was taut before, it now is wrinkly and kind of squishy.
However ... I have heard that it takes 2 years to tighten things up naturally, if it is going to happen, so I've got to be patient for the next 18 months or so and it might be OK after that.
I've also heard that exercising, especially weightlifting, helps. So I've been doing a lot more of that over the last couple months. And I have to say that things have tightened up a bit in the last month or so.
I shouldn't need surgery, but I would like to look trim ... so I'll keep exercising and weightlifting ... and be patient.0 -
I'll probably end up with loose skin. I can already see wrinkles forming as I "deflate", and I'll end up losing about 50% of my starting body weight by the time I'm done. That's a lot to ask my skin to shrink. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I arrive at it - even if I need surgery to get rid of it, it's better than obesity.0
-
I've lost 80 pounds and I'm pretty sure that if I jumped off a building and spread my arms I could glide. I've got wings. I'm also 42 and genetically predisposed to those damn arms.
I'm going to maintain for a year before considering surgery.0 -
lost 100 over the course of a year. during the time i drank lots of water, did strength training nearly the entire time, (not heavy lifting which many people here profess will help...) maintained over the next 2 years. Decided to have a tummy tuck in July. my gp and obvs, the plastic surgeon agreed nothing aside from surgery would fix my issues. For me personally, it was rough. super long recovery time (still recovering actually) even though i am back to normal activities. its painful and didn't fix all my issues. however, i am happy i did it and the scar is a non-issue to me, its a lot easier to hide then the saggy belly. to my plastic surgeons credit she said to be kinder to myself when i started picking at my thighs. lol. i have a b/a on my proffie. you will know what the right decision is for yourself, trust.0
-
At my lowest weight, there's a tiny bit in one or two areas. Not that anyone would notice unless they were looking really closely, or feel, unless they pulled at my skin.
It depends on genetics, age, sun exposure, smoking status. Mostly genetics and age, I think.
What can you do, not a lot, if there's damage, it happened when you gained, and will be revealed as you lose.
You could try to eat a balanced diet with lots of anti-oxidants (colourful fruit & veg mainly) to support collagen health. Vit C (ingested) has some support behind it for collagen support, if you want to spend on that. Vitamin D3, too. (Lots of vitamins, lol - just eat a variety of proteins, veggies, fruits, and essential fats.), that might help your skin in a general and very minimal (but positive) sort of way.
If it's really mild laxity, and you have money to burn, you could get laser skin tightening. It apparently doesn't yield dramatic results (even on mild laxity) and is temporary, and it works best on youngish people with decent collagen. (Most of the youngish people I know don't have several thousand to spend on this every few months, so I don't know who this is really for.) There's also some new version of a derma roller that I've seen people talk about here, again, modest and temporary results for a lot of work and some money.
If a tummy tuck makes sense a year after you get to your goal (that's about as much tightening as will happen), go for it, maybe save up now and decide later. You can go on a vacation if you change your mind or don't need it.0 -
It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
0 -
I don't know ... my husband has lost the same amount of weight as I have, but he did it really gradually over about 18 months where as I did it in about 8 months.
He doesn't seem to have the wrinkling and squishy-ness I have, and I wonder if it is a combination of the fact that he is physically active 8 hours a day + the fact that he lost it more slowly than I did so his skin just kind of tightened as he went along.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
It confuses me that your doctor said that, because the whole problem is that the skin is overstretched, and that happens on the way up. And as you continue lose, your skin needs to continue retracting until you hit goal weight (and after) - and that process is much slower than weight loss.0 -
I don't have major issues with loose skin but I most certainly have it.
I'm 5 ft 2 and my starting weight was 157lb. I'm now 120 lbs. I didn't have that much to lose so I really didn't expect to have ANY loose skin - how wrong was I! My stomach is flat now (well.. Nearly!) but very rippled. When I am doing planking exercises, all that skin hangs down so much that it makes me feel a little embarassed. I am slowly but surely learning to accept how my body looks now at the same time as following a progressive lifting routine at the gym. I have saggy bits, wobbly bits, droopy bits - but I'm healthy now and for me, that's what's important.
0 -
Genetics
Age
Amount to lose
Length of time overweight
Length of time you give for skin to retract (minimum 2 years)
Plain dumb luck
I'm generally fine after 2 pregnancies and 55lbs0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.0 -
@PinkPixiexoxPinkPixiexox wrote: »I don't have major issues with loose skin but I most certainly have it.
I'm 5 ft 2 and my starting weight was 157lb. I'm now 120 lbs. I didn't have that much to lose so I really didn't expect to have ANY loose skin - how wrong was I! My stomach is flat now (well.. Nearly!) but very rippled. When I am doing planking exercises, all that skin hangs down so much that it makes me feel a little embarassed. I am slowly but surely learning to accept how my body looks now at the same time as following a progressive lifting routine at the gym. I have saggy bits, wobbly bits, droopy bits - but I'm healthy now and for me, that's what's important.
I lost a similar amount of weight and you are describing exactly how I looked and felt when I got to my final goal weight. Looked fine standing up but stomach was baggy when in push up position (including what we could delicately call the "push ups for two" position!).
But a year later things had improved vastly and I'm more than twice your age which means skin recovers slower. How you look when you first hit maintenance isn't the final result.0 -
Avoids considering push up position without gym pants on0
-
Overweight most of my life and having had 6 children, I thought if I ever lost the weight I would have my Nana's floppy arms and my mom's saggy belly. Guess what? I was right. lol I thank every moment I am a size 14 and maintaining, than a size 22/24 which I wore forever. However, the mirror is a cruel thing. I rebound for excersize .. which I have loved from day one and has been one of the keys to my success after finding this site almost 2 years ago. I just wish, after wanting to look like this for 40 years that I didn't have a melted tummy and inner thighs.. and I won't even go into my boobs. I'm not someone who can afford a tummy tuck.. I just love this site and the people and all the encouragement, so thought I'd share my thoughts. 0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.
^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.
Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.
^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.
Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.
We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.0 -
@PinkPixiexoxPinkPixiexox wrote: »I don't have major issues with loose skin but I most certainly have it.
I'm 5 ft 2 and my starting weight was 157lb. I'm now 120 lbs. I didn't have that much to lose so I really didn't expect to have ANY loose skin - how wrong was I! My stomach is flat now (well.. Nearly!) but very rippled. When I am doing planking exercises, all that skin hangs down so much that it makes me feel a little embarassed. I am slowly but surely learning to accept how my body looks now at the same time as following a progressive lifting routine at the gym. I have saggy bits, wobbly bits, droopy bits - but I'm healthy now and for me, that's what's important.
I lost a similar amount of weight and you are describing exactly how I looked and felt when I got to my final goal weight. Looked fine standing up but stomach was baggy when in push up position (including what we could delicately call the "push ups for two" position!).
But a year later things had improved vastly and I'm more than twice your age which means skin recovers slower. How you look when you first hit maintenance isn't the final result.
Thank you so much for this - really really good to know! 0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.
^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.
Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.
We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.
Weighted by less, but still weighted nonetheless, which is usually why people who stop short of losing the weight they need to lose their skin doesn't snap back enough for their lower weight. And skin loses elasticity over time, more cumulative effects seen in 10 years than in 2, sure, but the aging process is not neglible.
Nothing wrong with taking 2-5 or more years to lose the weight, but I don't see how this functions to stave off loose skin and help it bounce back better, as is often claimed/asserted.0 -
I'm 88lbs from my highest weight, but just like weight loss isn't linear, weight gain isn't either.
I was probably between 170-180 in high school. Went up to 212 after high school. Back down to 180 after a year. 2 years later I was up to 260! The following near-decade was a mashup of losing and gaining. 230, 199, 220, 212, 199, 220, etc etc. Point being, I was overweight for a long time. I was down to 211 last May, and the past 6 months have seen the most dramatic change, I am now 172 and dropping. So being overweight for years, coupled with losing the last almost 40lbs in 6 months while not weight training means I am squishy. I was squishy before, but now i'm squishy AND wrinkly, and the amount of squish I have makes it difficult to get accurate measurements, or pants (or bras!) that fit properly. All of this while drinking nothing but water (with tea and coffee occasionally), a physical job, and pretty much no sun exposure.
I've got it eeeeverywhere Loose skin-a-palooza! Boobs, stomach, thighs, actually seeing it in my arms now, though they'd been fine until recently, even my butt is starting to look kinda floppy. I'm only just starting weight training now to see if I can shift some squish around, but honestly, it's the lesser of two evils. My husband thought I was hot at 230 and he thinks i'm hot at 172. No one but him is actually going to SEE the places I have this stuff, so it's something i'm going to work on, but i'm more interested in how body recomp is going to work to shrink my child bearing hips than I am about how many wrinkles will be left over. 0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.
^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.
Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.
We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.
Weighted by less, but still weighted nonetheless, which is usually why people who stop short of losing the weight they need to lose their skin doesn't snap back enough for their lower weight. And skin loses elasticity over time, more cumulative effects seen in 10 years than in 2, sure, but the aging process is not neglible.
Nothing wrong with taking 2-5 or more years to lose the weight, but I don't see how this functions to stave off loose skin and help it bounce back better, as is often claimed/asserted.
Have a little more time so I'll expand.
During rapid weight loss individuals will lose more of the underling lean body mass, so some of the supporting structure will go. We then end up with skin, fat (lose skin is really always attached to significant layer of fat not yet lost) and less infrastructure. Weight loss that occurs more slowly reduces the risk of LBM loss and the underlying muscle sheaths will maintain structure better. If one loses 20 extra pounds of LBM during rapid weight loss, they are going to be quite difficult to regain.
By the way, muscle responds significantly to hydration and glucose levels these also affect how we feel about the condition of our skin.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
During rapid weight loss individuals will lose more of the underling lean body mass, so some of the supporting structure will go. We then end up with skin, fat (lose skin is really always attached to significant layer of fat not yet lost) and less infrastructure. Weight loss that occurs more slowly reduces the risk of LBM loss and the underlying muscle sheaths will maintain structure better.
That can be minimized by following a good strength training program, and by keeping protein high.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.
^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.
Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.
We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.
Weighted by less, but still weighted nonetheless, which is usually why people who stop short of losing the weight they need to lose their skin doesn't snap back enough for their lower weight. And skin loses elasticity over time, more cumulative effects seen in 10 years than in 2, sure, but the aging process is not neglible.
Nothing wrong with taking 2-5 or more years to lose the weight, but I don't see how this functions to stave off loose skin and help it bounce back better, as is often claimed/asserted.
Have a little more time so I'll expand.
During rapid weight loss individuals will lose more of the underling lean body mass, so some of the supporting structure will go. We then end up with skin, fat (lose skin is really always attached to significant layer of fat not yet lost) and less infrastructure. Weight loss that occurs more slowly reduces the risk of LBM loss and the underlying muscle sheaths will maintain structure better. If one loses 20 extra pounds of LBM during rapid weight loss, they are going to be quite difficult to regain.
By the way, muscle responds significantly to hydration and glucose levels these also affect how we feel about the condition of our skin.
Just so we're clear I've been assuming we are talking about people with a significant amount of weight to lose, like 75 or more. Since it's they who most often encounter the problem and/or have to face the prospect of loose skin from dropping that extra weight.
And I've been assuming slower or faster weightloss is in the 0.25-2.00 lbs a week rates.
So when I say I fail to see the advantages that losing weight at a slower rate has for preventing loose skin, I am recalling all the times that someone with 100+ lbs to lose and worried about loose skin has been told that a slower rate is better than a faster one, quite often in the same breath of saying being younger is better to escape loose skin and that being overweight for a shorter span of time rather than a lengthy span is better to escape loose skin.
I just don't see how all these people's skin are any better off by choosing a slower rate. Taking many years to drop what could be safely dropped in half that time all for the sake of preventing loose skin just doesn't square up for me.
I think I get what you're saying about lbm, but I'm reading this point like it doesn't really apply to what I'm talking about. Like it applies to crash dieters or people who are not very overweight and choose aggressive rates of loss.
Or if we are talking about the same thing, that you're adding a variable here that doesn't necessarily apply and could be applicable to obese people who choose slower rates just as well if they're more sedentary than obese people who choose faster rates. I hope my thought process here makes sense.
All this has been interesting to think about and consider. though. 0 -
I lost 80 pounds and I have quite a bit on my belly (think Shar pei), some bat wings, and on my butt. And sadly on my chin. The midsection is where I usually keep my fat though (belly and hips) so there's a bit left as well, but honestly the more I lose, the worse it looks.
Can't imagine spending a ton for surgery though.0 -
Fast, significant weight loss has a deflating effect. This is a common complaint for post Bariatric patients. My belly reminded me of what it looked like right after my deliveries, like a hot air balloon halfway through inflation. Mine has tightened enough to satisfy me, and it doesn't flop around too much.0
-
Cherimoose wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
During rapid weight loss individuals will lose more of the underling lean body mass, so some of the supporting structure will go. We then end up with skin, fat (lose skin is really always attached to significant layer of fat not yet lost) and less infrastructure. Weight loss that occurs more slowly reduces the risk of LBM loss and the underlying muscle sheaths will maintain structure better.
That can be minimized by following a good strength training program, and by keeping protein high.
Only to some extent - during rapid weight loss there is more risk of lbm loss and strength training and high protein have limited lbm protective roles.0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.
Hydration and weight lifting help.
I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.
My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.
I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.
Bolded isn't true, I don't think…
This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.
It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.
Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.
^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.
Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.
We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.
Weighted by less, but still weighted nonetheless, which is usually why people who stop short of losing the weight they need to lose their skin doesn't snap back enough for their lower weight. And skin loses elasticity over time, more cumulative effects seen in 10 years than in 2, sure, but the aging process is not neglible.
Nothing wrong with taking 2-5 or more years to lose the weight, but I don't see how this functions to stave off loose skin and help it bounce back better, as is often claimed/asserted.
Have a little more time so I'll expand.
During rapid weight loss individuals will lose more of the underling lean body mass, so some of the supporting structure will go. We then end up with skin, fat (lose skin is really always attached to significant layer of fat not yet lost) and less infrastructure. Weight loss that occurs more slowly reduces the risk of LBM loss and the underlying muscle sheaths will maintain structure better. If one loses 20 extra pounds of LBM during rapid weight loss, they are going to be quite difficult to regain.
By the way, muscle responds significantly to hydration and glucose levels these also affect how we feel about the condition of our skin.
Just so we're clear I've been assuming we are talking about people with a significant amount of weight to lose, like 75 or more. Since it's they who most often encounter the problem and/or have to face the prospect of loose skin from dropping that extra weight.
And I've been assuming slower or faster weightloss is in the 0.25-2.00 lbs a week rates.
So when I say I fail to see the advantages that losing weight at a slower rate has for preventing loose skin, I am recalling all the times that someone with 100+ lbs to lose and worried about loose skin has been told that a slower rate is better than a faster one, quite often in the same breath of saying being younger is better to escape loose skin and that being overweight for a shorter span of time rather than a lengthy span is better to escape loose skin.
I just don't see how all these people's skin are any better off by choosing a slower rate. Taking many years to drop what could be safely dropped in half that time all for the sake of preventing loose skin just doesn't square up for me.
I think I get what you're saying about lbm, but I'm reading this point like it doesn't really apply to what I'm talking about. Like it applies to crash dieters or people who are not very overweight and choose aggressive rates of loss.
Or if we are talking about the same thing, that you're adding a variable here that doesn't necessarily apply and could be applicable to obese people who choose slower rates just as well if they're more sedentary than obese people who choose faster rates. I hope my thought process here makes sense.
All this has been interesting to think about and consider. though.
Certainly for people that have a lot to lose there is likely to be loose skin - the amount may differ from the rate of loss. And your right - it is a trade-off - losing faster can mean getting to goal within a reasonable period (mentally) making it so much successful.
But I would challenge the idea that 'faster' is limited to that reasonable 2lbs or 1% bw. Let's face it, we see a lot of people on the forums trying to lose a lot of weight at greater rates. At those rates LBM loss becomes a bigger risk.
I'm not saying loose skin won't occur for someone losing 100+ lbs but look at the people posting in this thread - their reported weight loss varies from 37lbs (loose skin), 55lbs (little to none) to well above 100 lbs ... so one of the factors is rate of loss (along with exercise, genetics, diet ...). My own brother was seeing loose skin at 40lbs loss because of his decision to crash diet. The issue isn't just for those with large amounts to lose.
The decision to lose fast or slow is a very individual one, that needs to take into consideration a lot of factors such as the amount, motivation, co-morbidities, risks of weightless rate and end-point expectations.0 -
It's not the same for everyone. A lot of it depends on simple genetics, but factors like relative youth and losing more slowly have an impact. For some people, it goes away over time.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions