Is losing weight slowly really worth it

Blondieeee26

Hey everyone! I know a lot of people say slower weight loss is better because then it is permanent and not just water. I agree which is why I set my weight loss to only 1lb a week and I am good with it. I just wanted to hear your opinions ?

Blondieeee26

Also looking for motivation from people who have lost slowly and kept it off.

SCoil123

I am losing slowly and finding it to be working well. The adjustments as I go are more subtle and easier for me to adapt to making it sustainable. Every few pounds lost I switch up my work out intensity or schedule and readjust my calorie goals. Ive found this much more realistic in looking for a long term lifestyle change than if I had jumped in starting with a huge deficit feeling hungry all the time. I would have given up if Id done that but today Im still going strong

sammyliftsandeats

Slower weight loss is key because you are less likely to develop problems such as hair and muscle loss, fatigue, etc that sometimes can come from more rapid weight loss.

When you lose weight, you lose fat, water, and muscle. You don't want to lose muscle as it is hard to get back and can lower your Basal Metabolic Rate.

merbear787

I think it's easier to manage without me falling off the path! If I restrict too much I don't get to enjoy the foods I love and it's not sustainable. Slow and steady wins and I just have to remember to keep going when I feel impatient

cwolfman13

It doesn't really have anything to do with it being more permanent or water or anything like that...it has more to do with the fact that steep calorie deficiencies can be a detriment to your health in general...your body needs energy (calories) to function...you just existing requires a lot of calories. Also, the steeper the deficit, the more difficult it is to get proper nutrients...this combined with low energy intake often results in things like hair getting brittle and/or falling out, nails getting brittle, loss of menstrual cycle, etc...essentially your body will slow or stop "non-essential" processes to compensate for the fact that you are severely underfeeding. This is why VLCDs (required for fast weight loss) are generally supervised by health care professionals.

This also depends on how much you actually have to lose...people who are obese/morbidly obese have vast fat stores to compensate for steeper energy deficiency and will not have the same issues as someone who is leaner.

I lost 40 Lbs at a rate of about 1 Lb per week...a bit faster initially because you do drop water and waste weight initially. I have kept it off for over 3.5 years but that doesn't really have anything to do with my rate of loss...I determined to change the way I was living my life and that is what has resulted in keeping the weight off. I went from doing the things that kept me lazy and fat to doing the things the lean, healthy, and fit people do.

ETA: pretty much everyone I've ever known who tried to lose weight fast had difficulty with adherence...as a result, they actually lost slower than if they had just set a more reasonable calorie deficit that they could actually sustain over the long haul. Think tortoise and the hare.

kommodevaran

I think weight loss rate should reflect the urgency of your situation. If you have a lot to lose, you can and should lose faster. 1% of your body weight per week is a good rule of thumb as long as there is too much of you.

socioseguro

@Blondieeee26
Losing weight slowly is helpful with excess skin. My body was able to absorb the extra skin without unsightly bulges.
I started with 0.5 pound per week and the last 10 pounds decreasing rate was 1 pound per month in average (0.25 lbs per week). There were weeks without any weight decrease and then a whoosh.

Gallowmere1984

When cutting, I want to rip through it as fast as possible. The sooner I get fat off and can increase calories again, the sooner I can get back to acceptable training volumes and frequencies.

That said, the protocols that I use are not meant to be sustainable, and wouldn't be a good idea for someone looking to make a "lifestyle change" out of it. It's a short term fat blast before going back into a passable surplus. As for the water weight thing: even my surplus is a CKD, so that doesn't apply as much to how I do things.

janekana

Yes, because I've seen so many people who use fad diets (detox juices only for a week, water only, etc.) and they have lost 15kgs in a single week. However, they also bounce back just as fast, and sometimes they go further than their starting weight. I also want to achieve this in a way that will not make me miserable for myself and the people around me.

I have found that weighing myself only once a week or once per two weeks kept me motivated a lot, because even though it's a slow loss of probably 1 lbs/week, I see that I've lost 2 kgs since the last time I've weighted myself because 2 weeks would have passed. Last time around, I used to weigh myself every day and it dampened my spirits because I didn't see a loss, or I would see a small gain instead. I knew that they were fluctuations, but it still got me down so I changed it up, I'm much happier now!

courtneyfabulous

I prefer slow because it maximizes fat loss, minimizes muscle loss, and I get to eat more calories- eating more calories means I have more energy, and don't feel like crap. I have energy to exercise and barely even feel like I'm on a diet yet am still losing weight.

For me slow is better all around except that I have to be patient which is tough sometimes, to see others losing much faster... but they usually also are the ones complaining about how hard dieting is, having cravings, and end up bingeing often or giving up altogether.

Slow and steady wins the race.
Not that it's a race anyways.

roamingtiger

It's taken me a little over a year to lose 52 pounds. I'd say it's worth it. It hasn't felt like that long to me, and I don't focus on the duration of how long it's taking anymore.

VintageFeline

Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.

I also believe it "trains" you better for maintenance. I've had health issues this year that have meant my losses are slower but due to the habits I developed last year they haven't stopped and when I have taken weeks off without logging I find I am more naturally eating around maintenance. So I think there are habit forming benefits to taking it more slowly too.

fitoverfortymom

I'm really fat, so I am starting with 2lbs per week until I get to 200 (30lbs to go), then I'm switching it up to 1lb per week for the next 50-ish, although I will probably have to adjust it to .5 per week at some point. I'm just going to see how my body feels and is responding when I get that far.

Right now I am focused on training myself to manage to my calories and integrating exercise into my daily routine (really just walking, but starting some baby-steps weight training).

Psychgrrl

Lost about 100 in total. Been in maintenance two years. Worth. It.

Hornsby

I think it depends. Higher TDEEs can tend to lose a bit faster in my opinion. If someone can eat 2500 calories and still create a large enough deficit to lose more I don't think it's nearly as detrimental as the person eating ultra low numbers which makes it basically impossible to get enough macros/vitamins and minerals.

zharptichka

There was a really interesting article in the NYTimes following up with the biggest loser contestants. Many of them had gained weight back and all of them had greatly reduced metabolisms for example one contestant's body burns 800 calories fewer a day than a person at the same weight who had never been fat. One of the speculations was that losing so much weight so quickly was the problem and that there's less of a metabolic impact if you lose at a slower rate (1% of body weight a week). Regardless I would think going at a slower rate would make it easier to figure out how much you can eat and how much you need to exercise to maintain since most people with a lot to lose start at 2ish lbs a week then as they lose switch to 1lb then to .5 lbs etc.

If you have a lot to lose it also helps with skin because your skin has more time to tighten up as your losing.

If you only have a very small weight to lose I'm not sure how much difference fast versus slow would make beyond being more likely to put it right back on.

SueInAz

Losing slower is more about making this a lifestyle change than trying to drop X amount of pounds as fast as possible so you can go back to the way you used to eat (and eventually return to your original weight). Theoretically, you could figure out how many calories it would take you to maintain your goal weight and then just start eating that many calories per day, plus exercise calories, until you reached it and then continue on. It could take awhile that way but you'd certainly learn how to eat to successfully maintain your desired weight.

kshama2001

I've been losing weight slowly and steadily. I'm only hungry right before meals, don't feel deprived, don't even feel like I'm dieting.

DebSozo

kshama2001 wrote: »

I've been losing weight slowly and steadily. I'm only hungry right before meals, don't feel deprived, don't even feel like I'm dieting.

That is terrific.

Cbestinme

kommodevaran wrote: »

I think weight loss rate should reflect the urgency of your situation. If you have a lot to lose, you can and should lose faster. 1% of your body weight per week is a good rule of thumb as long as there is too much of you.

Excellent advice!