Why is Slow Weight Loss Good?
Options
Replies
-
shannie018 wrote: »My question is why is slow weight loss considered good? Why should I not try to lose more than 2lbs a week?
For me, 1 kg/week (approx. 2 lbs/week) was really fast ... that's the speed at which I lost my first 15 kg.
Then I deliberately slowed the loss to about 0.6 kg/week (1.3 lbs/week) to give myself more freedom in what I could eat and to let my body catch up to the weight loss.
One of the things that happened to me after I'd lost the 15 kg is that my skin went mushy and squishy and wrinkly ... I felt like I was wearing a marshmallow suit. "They" say that it can take anywhere from a few months to a couple years for the skin to tighten up (if it is going to tighten up), so I figured I would slow the loss to give my skin a chance to keep up with the loss. And, happily, it has tightened ... it's much better than it was.
I also wanted to do more exercise and needed to eat more to fuel that. That's a bit of a balancing act.
0 -
Aside from keeping LBM, going slower tends to mean more calories which helps you not to feel as deprived which leads to more successful weight loss.0
-
shannie018 wrote: »Honestly, I have always been very lucky and have never really had to watch my weight. But these last couple of years, I really let myself go, so I am a bit new to this.
My question is why is slow weight loss considered good? Why should I not try to lose more than 2lbs a week?
A few reasons:- Less extreme loss rates, combined with proper nutrition and resistance exercise, are more apt to help you preserve existing muscle. When losing weight you'll lose a combination of both fat and lean mass. The goal should be to maximize fat loss and minimize lean loss.
- Lower loss rates are, in general, more sustainable as you are less likely to burn out and quit.
- Slower weight loss gives you time to learn and develop long term health and fitness habits (eating in moderation, being more active, etc.)
- Vanity--extreme deficits can cause hair loss, brittle nails, general exhaustion (and looking exhausted), etc.
FWIW, I don't think that 2 pounds per week is slow weight loss. I think that .25 pounds per week is slow weight loss. Half pound to a pound a week is fantastic fantabulous great as far as a loss rate goes IMO.
I love the third point! I personally used to be very unfit, I could barely walk a few miles to my university's campus without getting winded. Now I'm planning to run my first 5K this summer, I teach fitness classes at my university, and I'm joining my university's rugby team. If I didn't eat enough calories per week (ie, dropping low enough to lose 2+ lbs a week), I wouldn't be able to keep up with this activity. Losing slowly has allowed me to gain a love for physical activity without getting hangry.0 -
Just throwing this out there. ...
Re skin and losing slowly.
The skin is our largest organ, if we lose slowly and give this organ good nutrition, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a better performance from it with regards to elasticity and shrinking back.
Age and genetics would obviously be important factors, but wouldn't skin perform better with good nutrition just like out other organs, muscles, brain, hair, and nails do?
It could be less having a slow loss so our skin can catch up, but more a slow loss could provide better nutrition to the skin so it can perform better.
Sorry, absolutely no research in this.
I just think that a logical progression of the 'fast loss is detrimental for a lot of bodily functions' could be applied to the skin.
Cheers, h.0 -
-
A scary but not surprising read @jgnatca.
I've only seen portions of a couple of episodes and they were awful.
Cheers, h.0 -
@middlehaitch when I first undertook this significant weight loss, a couple people brought up the "Biggest Loser", thinking I could relate to those experiences. I firmly believe to be successful at this sort of enterprise requires a great deal of kindness and patience, especially to ourselves. Who can endure months of misery, resolving only to be "happy" once an arbitrary goal is reached?
Bootcamp may be appropriate to convince a troop to respond to orders quickly and without question, but who wants to live in bootcamp forever, with a sergeant yelling in our face?0 -
Great thread and some excellent responses here. I never even thought of the effect of weight loss on my skin before.0
-
shannie018 wrote: »Honestly, I have always been very lucky and have never really had to watch my weight. But these last couple of years, I really let myself go, so I am a bit new to this.
My question is why is slow weight loss considered good? Why should I not try to lose more than 2lbs a week?
Even 2 pounds a week is too fast for some people. The reason is because your body can only burn off a certain amount of fat in a day. The less fat you are carrying, the less you can burn off each day. When you lose a too fast a rate the fat you can burn off will be burned off, but the rest of the calorie deficit needs to be made up. Since your body cannot use fat to make it up, it uses lean tissue (muscles, organs). You don't want that. At least I assume your really goal it not simply weight loss, but fat loss. So losing slower is better.
Generally if a person is not 80 pounds overweight or more, 2 pounds a week is too much. If they have 20 or less pounds to lose, more than half a pound per week would be too much.0 -
I'm slowing way down to the point that I'm barely keeping track because losing fast has hurt my relationship with myself and my mental health. It's not the same for everyone. I lost 100lbs in just over a year, and to date have gained about half back. Losing fast suggests changing all your negative habits at once which for some can be too much and like me, they reach a point where they just can't continue with that extreme plan.
You can try it, why not. But you'd just learn first hand what everyone here says about losing too quickly.0 -
Loosing weight is also mathematics...
Too loose 1 pound you need a calorie deficit of 3500 calories...thats 500 calories a day from your TDEE (total calories you burn in a day).
So to loose 2 pounds a week, it's 7000 calories. So you need diet + exercise. And it's tough to sustain such calorie deficit overtime. So 2 pounds a week is a lot!
It also depends on where you start. For me, i was 200, 5'8 and 35% body fat. So my TDEE was 1900 calories...my calories are set up at 1400. So thats not a lot. Less than that and i'm always hungry and thinking about food. Not healthy, not sustainable.
It's also not sustainable at all when you think that your TDEE goes down as you loose weight. When i will be 150, my TDEE will be more around 1550 calories... But you can't eat under 1200 calories it's dangerous for your health. So how will I keep loosing ? Over time, slowly.
If you start heavier, you might loose more in the beggining, but it will slow down and it's normal.
The point is not to reach a number on the scale, it's to be healthy( physically and mentally). And to do that, you need to eat and anwer your body's need and respect its limit.
All the comments on muscle mass and general health risk of quick weight loss are also very accurate!
Good luck on your journey
0 -
http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/future-of-health/?ss=2&ecd=wnl_wlw_030216#obesity-treatment-toc/advances-in-obesity-treatment
It’s OK to Lose Weight Fast
"You’ve heard the mantra -- to keep weight off you need to lose slowly. Not so. Researchers tracked people for a year who dropped pounds slowly vs. those who took them off quickly. They found no difference in who kept the weight off and who didn’t. In fact, they say, some obese people just lose weight fast and no one knows why. Slowing it down could derail any chance of success."
^^above is an email, that I received from Web MD this morning. Which really is true for me.
And the research is out there. It is not new. The statistics say that, no matter how the weight is lost, or how quickly it is lost, over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back and some people gain even more weight than they lost back. Very few people keep the weight off for 5 years.
I lost over 160 pounds, 140 of it in a little less than 12 months. I have kept the weight off for 28 months now.
Some of us are snowflakes.
0 -
shannie018 wrote: »OK. Then I shouldn't hold myself to the show "Fit to Fat to Fit" and think that it would be realistic of me to lose 60 lbs in 4 months. I can cut myself some slack and change my settings to 1 pound a week.
Not everyone on those shows loses the weight they set out to lose in that time frame, and that is with the personal trainer! The episode last night, the girl only lost about 25 lbs over the course of 4 months when her goal was 50, I think. She still looked great at the end of the episode with only half her goal met. She said she was just gonna keep losing after the show ended, like a normal person would if they don't hit their unrealistic goal in time.0 -
Highlights:
...Hibbard’s own health declined dramatically. “My hair was falling out,” she says. “My period stopped. I was only sleeping three hours a night.” Hibbard says that to this day, her period is irregular, her hair still falls out, and her knees “sound like Saran Wrap” every time she goes up and down stairs. “My thyroid, which I never had problems with, is now crap,” she says.
...This contestant says she and most of her castmates came away with bad knees.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/future-of-health/?ss=2&ecd=wnl_wlw_030216#obesity-treatment-toc/advances-in-obesity-treatment
It’s OK to Lose Weight Fast
"You’ve heard the mantra -- to keep weight off you need to lose slowly. Not so. Researchers tracked people for a year who dropped pounds slowly vs. those who took them off quickly. They found no difference in who kept the weight off and who didn’t. In fact, they say, some obese people just lose weight fast and no one knows why. Slowing it down could derail any chance of success."
^^above is an email, that I received from Web MD this morning. Which really is true for me.
And the research is out there. It is not new. The statistics say that, no matter how the weight is lost, or how quickly it is lost, over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back and some people gain even more weight than they lost back. Very few people keep the weight off for 5 years.
I lost over 160 pounds, 140 of it in a little less than 12 months. I have kept the weight off for 28 months now.
Some of us are snowflakes.
Does WebMD actually cite a study for those claims? I clicked your link but it just had a little blurb (the one you posted above) and nothing more. Right below it was some awesome-sounding (not really) new medical treatment where people get balloons implanted in their stomachs so they feel more full and eat less.
The only study I saw where faster weight loss was more effective was a diet adherence study. Basically, those who lost faster lost more overall. Everyone regained the weight after a period of time passed, but because the people who lost quicker ended up losing more, they weren't as heavy when they regained as those who lost slower. I think though those folks were all on a short-term VLCD. Diet adherence is a big reason why low carb works like it does. Obviously if you can lose faster and still have good adherence, that's what's important.
I can't really lose fast whether I am adhering or not. But I know I have to stick with this a long time, probably more than a year from now before I will get to my goal weight. I've been successful at it this time around for only about 3 months. So I try to perceive everything in a "can I do this forever" light, not what will help me lose faster. I may cut calories and try to pick up the pace periodically, but I need to go back to something long term sustainable inbetween.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/future-of-health/?ss=2&ecd=wnl_wlw_030216#obesity-treatment-toc/advances-in-obesity-treatment
It’s OK to Lose Weight Fast
"You’ve heard the mantra -- to keep weight off you need to lose slowly. Not so. Researchers tracked people for a year who dropped pounds slowly vs. those who took them off quickly. They found no difference in who kept the weight off and who didn’t. In fact, they say, some obese people just lose weight fast and no one knows why. Slowing it down could derail any chance of success."
^^above is an email, that I received from Web MD this morning. Which really is true for me.
And the research is out there. It is not new. The statistics say that, no matter how the weight is lost, or how quickly it is lost, over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back and some people gain even more weight than they lost back. Very few people keep the weight off for 5 years.
I lost over 160 pounds, 140 of it in a little less than 12 months. I have kept the weight off for 28 months now.
Some of us are snowflakes.
Does WebMD actually cite a study for those claims? I clicked your link but it just had a little blurb (the one you posted above) and nothing more. Right below it was some awesome-sounding (not really) new medical treatment where people get balloons implanted in their stomachs so they feel more full and eat less.
The only study I saw where faster weight loss was more effective was a diet adherence study. Basically, those who lost faster lost more overall. Everyone regained the weight after a period of time passed, but because the people who lost quicker ended up losing more, they weren't as heavy when they regained as those who lost slower. I think though those folks were all on a short-term VLCD. Diet adherence is a big reason why low carb works like it does. Obviously if you can lose faster and still have good adherence, that's what's important.
I can't really lose fast whether I am adhering or not. But I know I have to stick with this a long time, probably more than a year from now before I will get to my goal weight. I've been successful at it this time around for only about 3 months. So I try to perceive everything in a "can I do this forever" light, not what will help me lose faster. I may cut calories and try to pick up the pace periodically, but I need to go back to something long term sustainable inbetween.
Are we just looking at a caption underneath a picture of an ice cube or is there an actual article related to that link?
Regardless, I think that a problem we run into with this discussion is that there is no one definition of fast or slow. I mentioned above that, to me, 2 pounds is fast and I should have specified that I believe that's true for most women who are not heavily obese. Even 1.5 pounds per week would be fast. Those are my rules of thumb for my personal weight loss plan and I give advice based on them. @snowflake930 lost 140 pounds in just under 12 months. If it took 12 months that would come to around 2.7 pounds per week. The fact that she needed to lose 160 pounds total indicates, to me, that she was heavily obese so I would consider a more aggressive rate to be appropriate for her. Additionally, the vast majority of people who lose weight, lose faster in the beginning and then it levels off so it is very likely that the 12 month average isn't representative of how much she lost on a regular basis.
On the flip side, though, I don't follow the oft-cited MFP forum suggestion to slow down to .5 pounds per week for the last 20 or so pounds. To me, that's too slow. Again, that's my own rule of thumb for my personal weight loss program.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/future-of-health/?ss=2&ecd=wnl_wlw_030216#obesity-treatment-toc/advances-in-obesity-treatment
It’s OK to Lose Weight Fast
"You’ve heard the mantra -- to keep weight off you need to lose slowly. Not so. Researchers tracked people for a year who dropped pounds slowly vs. those who took them off quickly. They found no difference in who kept the weight off and who didn’t. In fact, they say, some obese people just lose weight fast and no one knows why. Slowing it down could derail any chance of success."
^^above is an email, that I received from Web MD this morning. Which really is true for me.
And the research is out there. It is not new. The statistics say that, no matter how the weight is lost, or how quickly it is lost, over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back and some people gain even more weight than they lost back. Very few people keep the weight off for 5 years.
I lost over 160 pounds, 140 of it in a little less than 12 months. I have kept the weight off for 28 months now.
Some of us are snowflakes.
Does WebMD actually cite a study for those claims? I clicked your link but it just had a little blurb (the one you posted above) and nothing more. Right below it was some awesome-sounding (not really) new medical treatment where people get balloons implanted in their stomachs so they feel more full and eat less.
The only study I saw where faster weight loss was more effective was a diet adherence study. Basically, those who lost faster lost more overall. Everyone regained the weight after a period of time passed, but because the people who lost quicker ended up losing more, they weren't as heavy when they regained as those who lost slower. I think though those folks were all on a short-term VLCD. Diet adherence is a big reason why low carb works like it does. Obviously if you can lose faster and still have good adherence, that's what's important.
I can't really lose fast whether I am adhering or not. But I know I have to stick with this a long time, probably more than a year from now before I will get to my goal weight. I've been successful at it this time around for only about 3 months. So I try to perceive everything in a "can I do this forever" light, not what will help me lose faster. I may cut calories and try to pick up the pace periodically, but I need to go back to something long term sustainable inbetween.
Are we just looking at a caption underneath a picture of an ice cube or is there an actual article related to that link?
Regardless, I think that a problem we run into with this discussion is that there is no one definition of fast or slow. I mentioned above that, to me, 2 pounds is fast and I should have specified that I believe that's true for most women who are not heavily obese. Even 1.5 pounds per week would be fast. Those are my rules of thumb for my personal weight loss plan and I give advice based on them. @snowflake930 lost 140 pounds in just under 12 months. If it took 12 months that would come to around 2.7 pounds per week. The fact that she needed to lose 160 pounds total indicates, to me, that she was heavily obese so I would consider a more aggressive rate to be appropriate for her. Additionally, the vast majority of people who lose weight, lose faster in the beginning and then it levels off so it is very likely that the 12 month average isn't representative of how much she lost on a regular basis.
On the flip side, though, I don't follow the oft-cited MFP forum suggestion to slow down to .5 pounds per week for the last 20 or so pounds. To me, that's too slow. Again, that's my own rule of thumb for my personal weight loss program.
It is a slide show embedded in the article. but I have read a lot about losing weight and there are quite a few articles I have read that say the same thing, no matter how the weight was lost, what program the person was on, the statistics are pretty consistent that 80% of people who lose weight, gain it back and some of those people gain even more than they lost, within 5 years. Here on MFP there are numerous topics where the OP "is back again", which gives this at least some credence.
I have some personal experience with this as well. I was morbidly obese. I did lose quickly, 100 pounds by 7 months and 140 pounds by 12 months. The remaining 20+ pounds came off more slowly, but by 20 months I had lost over 160 pounds. I intend to do everything humanly possible to be in the minority that keeps it off over 5 years. At 28 months into maintenance, I am almost half way to the 5 year milestone.
I am curious however, as to the proof that it is better to lose "slow and steady", that guarantees keeping the weight off. Not trying to diss anyone or disagree, but my personal experience, so far, is contrary to this.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »blues4miles wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/future-of-health/?ss=2&ecd=wnl_wlw_030216#obesity-treatment-toc/advances-in-obesity-treatment
It’s OK to Lose Weight Fast
"You’ve heard the mantra -- to keep weight off you need to lose slowly. Not so. Researchers tracked people for a year who dropped pounds slowly vs. those who took them off quickly. They found no difference in who kept the weight off and who didn’t. In fact, they say, some obese people just lose weight fast and no one knows why. Slowing it down could derail any chance of success."
^^above is an email, that I received from Web MD this morning. Which really is true for me.
And the research is out there. It is not new. The statistics say that, no matter how the weight is lost, or how quickly it is lost, over 80% of the people that lose weight gain it back and some people gain even more weight than they lost back. Very few people keep the weight off for 5 years.
I lost over 160 pounds, 140 of it in a little less than 12 months. I have kept the weight off for 28 months now.
Some of us are snowflakes.
Does WebMD actually cite a study for those claims? I clicked your link but it just had a little blurb (the one you posted above) and nothing more. Right below it was some awesome-sounding (not really) new medical treatment where people get balloons implanted in their stomachs so they feel more full and eat less.
The only study I saw where faster weight loss was more effective was a diet adherence study. Basically, those who lost faster lost more overall. Everyone regained the weight after a period of time passed, but because the people who lost quicker ended up losing more, they weren't as heavy when they regained as those who lost slower. I think though those folks were all on a short-term VLCD. Diet adherence is a big reason why low carb works like it does. Obviously if you can lose faster and still have good adherence, that's what's important.
I can't really lose fast whether I am adhering or not. But I know I have to stick with this a long time, probably more than a year from now before I will get to my goal weight. I've been successful at it this time around for only about 3 months. So I try to perceive everything in a "can I do this forever" light, not what will help me lose faster. I may cut calories and try to pick up the pace periodically, but I need to go back to something long term sustainable inbetween.
Are we just looking at a caption underneath a picture of an ice cube or is there an actual article related to that link?
Regardless, I think that a problem we run into with this discussion is that there is no one definition of fast or slow. I mentioned above that, to me, 2 pounds is fast and I should have specified that I believe that's true for most women who are not heavily obese. Even 1.5 pounds per week would be fast. Those are my rules of thumb for my personal weight loss plan and I give advice based on them. @snowflake930 lost 140 pounds in just under 12 months. If it took 12 months that would come to around 2.7 pounds per week. The fact that she needed to lose 160 pounds total indicates, to me, that she was heavily obese so I would consider a more aggressive rate to be appropriate for her. Additionally, the vast majority of people who lose weight, lose faster in the beginning and then it levels off so it is very likely that the 12 month average isn't representative of how much she lost on a regular basis.
On the flip side, though, I don't follow the oft-cited MFP forum suggestion to slow down to .5 pounds per week for the last 20 or so pounds. To me, that's too slow. Again, that's my own rule of thumb for my personal weight loss program.
It is a slide show embedded in the article. but I have read a lot about losing weight and there are quite a few articles I have read that say the same thing, no matter how the weight was lost, what program the person was on, the statistics are pretty consistent that 80% of people who lose weight, gain it back and some of those people gain even more than they lost, within 5 years. Here on MFP there are numerous topics where the OP "is back again", which gives this at least some credence.
I have some personal experience with this as well. I was morbidly obese. I did lose quickly, 100 pounds by 7 months and 140 pounds by 12 months. The remaining 20+ pounds came off more slowly, but by 20 months I had lost over 160 pounds. I intend to do everything humanly possible to be in the minority that keeps it off over 5 years. At 28 months into maintenance, I am almost half way to the 5 year milestone.
I am curious however, as to the proof that it is better to lose "slow and steady", that guarantees keeping the weight off. Not trying to diss anyone or disagree, but my personal experience, so far, is contrary to this.
I haven't seen any proof that it helps keep it off. All statements to that effect have been anecdotal (that I've seen at least.)
Will there be people who can sustain high loss rates? Of course, almost nothing in life is impossible and there are exceptions to every rule. But can the majority of people do that? No. We see it every single day here on MFP--women who have 50 pounds to lose and want to do it as quickly as possible so they cut their calories way low, jack up their activity way high, and then feel like utter garbage within weeks. There's no looking to "will they keep it off?" because they don't get that far.0 -
@jemhh I think the oft cited slow down as you get close to goal is to encourage people not to drop below the 1200 cals a day.
For me ( the older, petite 1200cal to lose ideal
) I would have had to drop to 700 cals to continue losing the 1lbs a week I was losing when I started.
When ones maintenance calories are within 250 of the deficit calories slowing down is a natural occurrence.
I agree an individual approach is needed, but I do think the slow down is a good preparation for maintenance, in general.
Cheers, h.0 -
OP these link might be helpful...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/3817-eat-more-2-weigh-less
http://eatmore2weighless.com/
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions