Why is (carefully planned) rapid weight loss bad?
candistyx
Posts: 547 Member
So if I have used cronometer to make sure I am getting enough nutrients in and I have a clear plan for the maintenance phase (including practice runs to make sure I actually can manage it) is it so wrong to drop weight by say, not eating for 2 days?... because oh my god the weight flies off and it's sooo much more manageable to eat nothing than eat a little bit and then stop. Is it really such a bad thing? What's the worst that can happen?
38
Replies
-
Many important and valuable and good things take an effort. You have to learn how to eat a little bit and then stop, because that's what you have to do every day for the rest of your life, if you want to be healthy.
You can lose up to 100-100 grams of fat per day. If you see a bigger drop on the scale, it's water weight. When you haven't eaten for two days, there is no food in your stomach and intestines.
The worst that can happen, is eating disorder and death. But the most imminent and usual danger is rebound eating and subsequent weight gain and decades of yoyo dieting.73 -
The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.13 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Many important and valuable and good things take an effort. You have to learn how to eat a little bit and then stop, because that's what you have to do every day for the rest of your life, if you want to be healthy.
But I could just do OMAD for the rest of my life and eat a lot and go to bed before I get hungry again?
If that was true I wouldn't expect to remain lighter (beyond 100g lighter) after eating again but I always am.You can lose 100-100 grams of fat per day. If you see a bigger drop on the scale, it's water weight. When you haven't eaten for two days, there is no food in your stomach and intestines.
I already had decades of yo-yo dieting and weight gain trying to stick to reasonable calorie deficit long term (1800-1400kcal) so I can't really say that this is any worse if that's the worst case scenario. It feels far more manageable, especially since there's the motivational effect of seeing a loss most days instead of a couple of times a month if I'm lucky.The worst that can happen, is eatig disorder and death. But the most imminent and usual danger is rebound eating and subsequent weight gain and decades of yoyo dieting.20 -
Maybe IF would suit you.
A quick loss because you might not eat for a few days is mostly going to be water and will return when you start eating normally again.7 -
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
17 -
Yes, you can eat one meal (or two or three meals) per day). That can be perfectly healthy. Context is everything.kommodevaran wrote: »Many important and valuable and good things take an effort. You have to learn how to eat a little bit and then stop, because that's what you have to do every day for the rest of your life, if you want to be healthy.
But I could just do OMAD for the rest of my life and eat a lot and go to bed before I get hungry again?
If that was true I wouldn't expect to remain lighter (beyond 100g lighter) after eating again but I always am.You can lose 100-100 grams of fat per day. If you see a bigger drop on the scale, it's water weight. When you haven't eaten for two days, there is no food in your stomach and intestines.
I already had decades of yo-yo dieting and weight gain trying to stick to reasonable calorie deficit long term (1800-1400kcal) so I can't really say that this is any worse if that's the worst case scenario. It feels far more manageable, especially since there's the motivational effect of seeing a loss most days instead of a couple of times a month if I'm lucky.The worst that can happen, is eatig disorder and death. But the most imminent and usual danger is rebound eating and subsequent weight gain and decades of yoyo dieting.
You have to watch your weight trend over time in order to draw any conclusions. (Just logic should be enough, though.)
You will see a loss on the scale, over time, if you're diligent and patient. It has nothing to do with luck.
If you already have experience with yoyo dieting, I suggest aiming to get out of that pattern, not aim to reinforce it further.40 -
kommodevaran wrote: »If you already have experience with yoyo dieting, I suggest aiming to get out of that pattern, not aim to reinforce it further.
^^ well said
20 -
kommodevaran wrote: »
If you already have experience with yoyo dieting, I suggest aiming to get out of that pattern, not aim to reinforce it further.
Well obviously I am not aiming to make it worse, but what I was doing before wasn't making it better. At the moment when I break a fast it's around 5pm, I eat my meal, I feel good, full, satisfied, put kids to bed, hang out with husband for a few hours then go to sleep still full. It's amazing. When I was trying to just stick to a calorie limit I felt like I wanted to snack all day long, but this way I can say, I am not eating today/till 5pm/after 6pm depending on the day and I feel fine with that. Surely yo-yo dieting happens when it *doesn't* feel manageable, when you feel deprived all the time and hungry and eventually say "screw this I am eating what I want!"20 -
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
fasting 2 days and then eating 1600 the rest is no different to just eating 1142 cals per day, which by the looks of your pic is way too little.
why not try and learn sustainable eating habits?25 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
fasting 2 days and then eating 1600 the rest is no different to just eating 1142 cals per day, which by the looks of your pic is way too little.
why not try and learn sustainable eating habits?
I am even fatter than that pic now sadly.
And what is "sustainable eating habits"? What makes this unsustainable?
17 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
fasting 2 days and then eating 1600 the rest is no different to just eating 1142 cals per day, which by the looks of your pic is way too little.
why not try and learn sustainable eating habits?
I am even fatter than that pic now sadly.
And what is "sustainable eating habits"? What makes this unsustainable?
I think most of us would think that not eating for 2 days was highly unsustainable.
Like I said in my earlier reply, I.F might suit you better, thats two days eating at 500-600 cals and then the other days eating more normally/maintenance cals (at least that's what I know of it! don't practice it myself, would get to hangry LOL)12 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
fasting 2 days and then eating 1600 the rest is no different to just eating 1142 cals per day, which by the looks of your pic is way too little.
why not try and learn sustainable eating habits?
I am even fatter than that pic now sadly.
And what is "sustainable eating habits"? What makes this unsustainable?
its not enough calories.... you'll crash and burn and binge within 10 days.... and that's probably being generous with the amount of willpower you have!
sustainable eating habits are healthy balanced meals (and appropriate treats!) with the right number of calories and macros to keep you full yet let you lose weight at a healthy rate.23 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »
I think most of us would think that not eating for 2 days was highly unsustainable.
Like I said in my earlier reply, I.F might suit you better, thats two days eating at 500-600 cals and then the other days eating more normally/maintenance cals (at least that's what I know of it! don't practice it myself, would get to hangry LOL)
500kcal is harder than nothing though.19 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »
I think most of us would think that not eating for 2 days was highly unsustainable.
Like I said in my earlier reply, I.F might suit you better, thats two days eating at 500-600 cals and then the other days eating more normally/maintenance cals (at least that's what I know of it! don't practice it myself, would get to hangry LOL)
500kcal is harder than nothing though.
so fast 2 days, if that works for you, just eat the right amount of calories on the others.14 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »
I think most of us would think that not eating for 2 days was highly unsustainable.
Like I said in my earlier reply, I.F might suit you better, thats two days eating at 500-600 cals and then the other days eating more normally/maintenance cals (at least that's what I know of it! don't practice it myself, would get to hangry LOL)
500kcal is harder than nothing though.
You have got to be kidding?
16 -
What is the right amount? Surely the bigger the overall deficit the better? If not why not? It's not like I am lacking in calories, there's tonnes in my fat stores.TavistockToad wrote: »
so fast 2 days, if that works for you, just eat the right amount of calories on the others.
20 -
What is the right amount? Surely the bigger the overall deficit the better? If not why not? It's not like I am lacking in calories, there's tonnes in my fat stores.TavistockToad wrote: »
so fast 2 days, if that works for you, just eat the right amount of calories on the others.
for all the reasons that have already been posted... you cant get adequate nutrition on too few calories, your body burns muscle if you eat too few calories (your heart is a muscle), you're likely to binge if you eat too few calories...
the right amount depends on what your maintenance cals are?14 -
Having to stick to a calorie limit does not mean that you have to do it in a certain way.kommodevaran wrote: »
If you already have experience with yoyo dieting, I suggest aiming to get out of that pattern, not aim to reinforce it further.
Well obviously I am not aiming to make it worse, but what I was doing before wasn't making it better. At the moment when I break a fast it's around 5pm, I eat my meal, I feel good, full, satisfied, put kids to bed, hang out with husband for a few hours then go to sleep still full. It's amazing. When I was trying to just stick to a calorie limit I felt like I wanted to snack all day long, but this way I can say, I am not eating today/till 5pm/after 6pm depending on the day and I feel fine with that. Surely yo-yo dieting happens when it *doesn't* feel manageable, when you feel deprived all the time and hungry and eventually say "screw this I am eating what I want!"
You're describing OMAD here - which is fine; what we're disputing is fasting for two days as a weightloss method - which is a terrible idea.
MFP gives you the right amount on setup. Years of yoyoing will have taught you that bigger deficit is not better. If you can't remember - because you're all excited now - what does it feel like when you eat too little for too long?
What is the right amount? Surely the bigger the overall deficit the better? If not why not? It's not like I am lacking in calories, there's tonnes in my fat stores.TavistockToad wrote: »
so fast 2 days, if that works for you, just eat the right amount of calories on the others.11 -
I'm not opposed to this for obese people, personally, but I'll admit I'm one of the few. Only you know what is or is not sustainable for you, and if you know what you're doing and have enough weight to do it, it should be okay. For someone who doesn't know what they're doing it's NOT okay. For someone with disordered eating patterns it's NOT okay. Not taking a good maintenance break every few weeks is NOT okay. Also, if you start to spiral afterward it would be smart to write it off as a failed experiment. If it starts feeling unsustainable it would be smart to not be stubborn.
There are issues I can think of: increased chance of gallstones, increased chance of burnout and rebound, deficiencies, electrolyte imbalances, hormonal imbalances, less efficient weight loss (you lose less per calorie restricted), and not enough time to experiment with maintenance strategies. If you understand the risks, implement diet breaks correctly and often enough, are very careful about your nutrients, protein, and electrolytes, it could be something you can experiment with. Not the best choice, but an option.
Do I personally think this is the best choice for you? No. With your posting history, I feel learning better norms may be beneficial for you. If over-restricting didn't work in the past there is no reason it would work now. Some people only learn by making mistakes, others keep making mistakes and never learn. I hope you're the former and would look elsewhere if this experiment fails.21 -
I can get adequate nutrition at this level of calories, although it does involve sacrifices in food choices...TavistockToad wrote: »you cant get adequate nutrition on too few calories
Why would my body "burn" muscle when it has plenty of fat it could burn?your body burns muscle if you eat too few calories (your heart is a muscle)
Hasn't happened so far, maybe when I have less body fat then it will be more likely but right now I honestly feel less hungry not eating than on days where I've allowed myself to eat early in the day (won't make that mistake again!) I am much more likely to overeat by the slow attrition of "a little here, a little there, surely this little bit is not going to make much difference" than in one massive blow out. Of course a 1600kcal meal could be considered a binge in itself - but I'd say not because it's controlled and planned before hand (just weighed out all my fruit and veg for tonight when I break this current fast).you're likely to binge if you eat too few calories...
Is there any evidence that a large deficit, with appropriate levels of vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids and essential fats is harmful for people with high BMIs (mine is now 39.1 - basically 40)? I hear it all the time but I've never seen the evidence.the right amount depends on what your maintenance cals are?19 -
The only people who should be doing rapid fat loss protocols are those with significant amounts of knowledge and generally, that is limited to people who have been body building for years or who have formal educations. Often with OMAD, people fail to get adequate nutrients (especially protein). And in my experience, I think I have seen one person who was able to get the required protein during that protocol. So with OMAD, how much protein and fats are you getting? Are you getting .7 to 1g/lb of protein or .35 to .6g/lb of fat? What kind of calories are you getting with OMAD? And what are your goals?9
-
I thought mild protein restriction was associated with increases in longevity and generally adults don't need much protein unless they're trying to build muscle or ill/injured.The only people who should be doing rapid fat loss protocols are those with significant amounts of knowledge and generally, that is limited to people who have been body building for years or who have formal educations. Often with OMAD, people fail to get adequate nutrients (especially protein). And in my experience, I think I have seen one person who was able to get the required protein during that protocol. So with OMAD, how much protein and fats are you getting? Are you getting .7 to 1g/lb of protein or .35 to .6g/lb of fat? What kind of calories are you getting with OMAD? And what are your goals?
My goals are to drop through the BMI categories until I am a normal weight and then evaluate if I need to drop further to a BMI of 22 (where the lowest risk of mortality and morbidity lies on a population level but maybe not for me... not sure, will see how my waist-hip ratio looks once I'm a normal weight).
20 -
I thought mild protein restriction was associated with increases in longevity and generally adults don't need much protein unless they're trying to build muscle or ill/injured.The only people who should be doing rapid fat loss protocols are those with significant amounts of knowledge and generally, that is limited to people who have been body building for years or who have formal educations. Often with OMAD, people fail to get adequate nutrients (especially protein). And in my experience, I think I have seen one person who was able to get the required protein during that protocol. So with OMAD, how much protein and fats are you getting? Are you getting .7 to 1g/lb of protein or .35 to .6g/lb of fat? What kind of calories are you getting with OMAD? And what are your goals?
My goals are to drop through the BMI categories until I am a normal weight and then evaluate if I need to drop further to a BMI of 22 (where the lowest risk of mortality and morbidity lies on a population level but maybe not for me... not sure, will see how my waist-hip ratio looks once I'm a normal weight).
Protein is the most important macronutrient during weight loss. There is a plethora of evidence to support it; http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549. In fact, if you want to maintain metabolism and muscle (lower body fat % quicker), than resistance training and protein is ideal. Also, protein and resistance training improves body composition, makes strong muscles/bones and can reduce the chances of osteoporosis. Protein needs in elderly are even more important. Remember, stronger bodies are less prone to injury. Improved mortality is largely driven by genetics and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (keeping both body and mind active).21 -
Surely if a person is fat and not immobile they have more muscle than they need since they are carrying their weight around all day with it? It would be like a thin person carrying a bunch of weights all day long? Why would I want to maintain muscle I won't need when I am thinner and have less of me to carry about?
Protein is the most important macronutrient during weight loss. There is a plethora of evidence to support it; http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549. In fact, if you want to maintain metabolism and muscle (lower body fat % quicker), than resistance training and protein is ideal. Also, protein and resistance training improves body composition, makes strong muscles/bones and can reduce the chances of osteoporosis. Protein needs in elderly are even more important.
Improved mortality is largely driven by genetics and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (keeping both body and mind active).
Likewise, why would I want to maintain my metabolism at a higher rate? Surely higher metabolism means more oxidative damage to cells? Wouldn't the lowest comfortable metabolic rate be optimal?54 -
edit: nevermind. I apparently am lying and don't know what I'm talking about.... eat what you want, when you want, and deal with the consequences....30
-
misaloundra wrote: »You will develop a slower metabolism. In order to ''survive'' (you body freaks out by the little amount of energy it's receiving) you body will slow its metabolism. So in other words, you will burn less energy for the same activity. And when you will eat again, your body will stock energy (aka FAT) and you won't lose as efficiently.
It is extremely difficult to go back to a normal metabolism after that. Please, don't put your body through this.
No. This is what people call starvation mode and it isn't a real thing.17 -
Surely if a person is fat and not immobile they have more muscle than they need since they are carrying their weight around all day with it? It would be like a thin person carrying a bunch of weights all day long? Why would I want to maintain muscle I won't need when I am thinner and have less of me to carry about?
Protein is the most important macronutrient during weight loss. There is a plethora of evidence to support it; http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549. In fact, if you want to maintain metabolism and muscle (lower body fat % quicker), than resistance training and protein is ideal. Also, protein and resistance training improves body composition, makes strong muscles/bones and can reduce the chances of osteoporosis. Protein needs in elderly are even more important.
Improved mortality is largely driven by genetics and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (keeping both body and mind active).
Likewise, why would I want to maintain my metabolism at a higher rate? Surely higher metabolism means more oxidative damage to cells? Wouldn't the lowest comfortable metabolic rate be optimal?
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.19 -
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.
I'm not talking about getting to really low muscle levels though, just a normal amount for ones body type and size assuming a normal level of activity, carrying things/children, doing work around the home and garden, transporting oneself places etc. Your body isn't going to sacrifice muscle it uses until it absolutely has to.33 -
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.
I'm not talking about getting to really low muscle levels though, just a normal amount for ones body type and size assuming a normal level of activity, carrying things/children, doing work around the home and garden, transporting oneself places etc. Your body isn't going to sacrifice muscle it uses until it absolutely has to.
how much more muscle do you think you've got compared to someone who has never been obese?15 -
I don't know why OP posted as she doesn't seem to want to take on board anyones advice...
62
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 424 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