Can anyone explain the science to me?

forruths
forruths Posts: 197 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I started my weight loss in August, needing to lose over 100lbs (SW 272lb, 5'6"). I was only lightly active at that time. I expected my weight loss to be fast at first and then to settle at about 1-2lb a week. As time went on I added a couple of 90 minute walks into my week and ate back about a third of the calories I earned. I had a steady weight loss of 2-3lb a week at first. I joined a gym and do 2 sessions a week-30 min of cardio where I push myself and then resistance training and Aqua class. Still eating my calorie limit (1350) and about a third to a half of my exercise calories. My weight loss dropped to 0-2lb a week which I pretty much expected but the last three weeks, on the same regime, I have lost 3-4lb a week which seems a bit extreme. I've lost 51lbs so far. I'm not eating less and have only upped my exercise a bit. Can anyone explain this and is it ok or should I be eating more?

Replies

  • monrbrown730
    monrbrown730 Posts: 10 Member
    I think your body is just finally responding and your metabolism is picking up. I would not complain about losing the weight as long as you are feeling healthy.
  • BodyByBex
    BodyByBex Posts: 3,685 Member
    The science:

    Weight loss is NOT linear. Things will vary up, down and sideways. Don't use you weight as your only measurement, take photos, get a measuring tape, have your body fat percentage measured. More things change than just your weight.
  • dhimaan
    dhimaan Posts: 774 Member
    lilaclovebird wrote: »
    The science:

    Weight loss is NOT linear. Things will vary up, down and sideways. Don't use you weight as your only measurement, take photos, get a measuring tape, have your body fat percentage measured. More things change than just your weight.

    This. It is possible with resistance training your metabolism went up and are burning more calories. IF you feel like your weight loss is too rapid you can try increasing your calories by 100-200 calories for a week and see what happens otherwise keep the status quo.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Fast weight changes out of proportion to your calorie intake are typically water related - not muscle, not fat, not metabolism related.

    By the way walking calories are ridiculously easy to estimate, there's no point in only eating a proportion of them.
  • BodyByBex
    BodyByBex Posts: 3,685 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Fast weight changes out of proportion to your calorie intake are typically water related - not muscle, not fat, not metabolism related.

    By the way walking calories are ridiculously easy to estimate, there's no point in only eating a proportion of them.

    This.
  • oolou
    oolou Posts: 765 Member
    (nothing to add, just wanted to say well done on your weight loss so far!)
  • Yi5hedr3
    Yi5hedr3 Posts: 2,696 Member
    You need to figure out exactly WHAT you are losing.....Fat or Muscle? Losing fat is good, losing muscle is not.
  • cbelc2
    cbelc2 Posts: 762 Member
    Built muscles burn more fat. That's why strength training is so important. Great job!
  • KateTii
    KateTii Posts: 886 Member
    How accurate is your logging/calorie counting?

    I would suggest opening your diary - if there is a logging error (and you're eating more than you think you are), then there is an easy fix!
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    cbelc2 wrote: »
    Built muscles burn more fat. That's why strength training is so important. Great job!

    *calories.
    And barely any.

Categories