Why is losing weight too fast a bad thing?
Options
Replies
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought losing weight quickly just wasn't good from an appearance point of view...
The quicker you lose it, the less time your body has to adapt and tighten back into shape which leaves you with saggy skin. That and the fact that the faster you lose it, the quicker you put it back on.
These two reasons are the main ones why I've always said I don't want to lose weight quickly. If I am wrong, it's still enough to keep me doing it slowly. The last thing I want is to spend years getting down to goal weight and be mortified by loose sagging skin so still hide in baggy clothes!
So from my point of view, there are no physical health implications if you're losing weight quickly and properly, but the mental repercussions are phenomenal!1 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
Yes ma'am. I agree with you. As long as protein is kept high enough. Through some of the reading I have done, many grossly obese individuals WILL lose rapid body weight with just a simple dietary switch and without intentionally restricting calories. The lean mass lost while keeping protein high enough is just the body's way of equalizing itself. If you weigh 400lbs and drop 50, you need less lean mass to move said body. People like to use the Minnesota Starvation Experiment as a model for what happens during weight loss. The BIG hole in this is, the participants were already LEAN! What is seen inside some research is a switch to a higher protein, whole foods diet is a spontaneous decrease on calories with little compensation. OK... hit that disagree button... i am just waiting for it...😜5 -
Thanks, @psychod787
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »Thanks, @psychod787
No problem. I have just spent the last 2 years researching this. Though I will add a caveat..... there are places where a body is not meant to go. Been there... living it. If I were to give the "hypothetical" person advice from my research and experience. Change your diet.... eat higher protein at the expense of carbohydrates. Hyper restrict added fats and carbohydrates. Get active... slowly work yourself up to 10000 steps a day and add a full body lifting routine 3 days a week. Not an advocate of restricting any macro nutrient honestly. We have to look at certain foods as hyper normal stimulus. It says much when a rat will endure extreme pain to get to an oreo, when regular rodent chow is freely available. Not saying oreos are "bad"... just an example.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Thanks, @psychod787
No problem. I have just spent the last 2 years researching this. Though I will add a caveat..... there are places where a body is not meant to go. Been there... living it. If I were to give the "hypothetical" person advice from my research and experience. Change your diet.... eat higher protein at the expense of carbohydrates. Hyper restrict added fats and carbohydrates. Get active... slowly work yourself up to 10000 steps a day and add a full body lifting routine 3 days a week. Not an advocate of restricting any macro nutrient honestly. We have to look at certain foods as hyper normal stimulus. It says much when a rat will endure extreme pain to get to an oreo, when regular rodent chow is freely available. Not saying oreos are "bad"... just an example.
But your experience is/was becoming too lean. That has a lot of negative consequences which you are now trying to fix.
Azdak's posts were clearly aimed at people with too much body fat. 1800 calories would have worked for you at the beginning of your weight loss when you had 200 pounds to lose.
At the lower end (say, closer to 25 BMI) - yeah, get those numbers dialed in so you are fueling any additional activity by eating adequate/enough food. Hopefully once someone is nearing a healthy body fat amount, they have addressed the numbers. I am ONLY referring to obese or morbidly obese people.
The OP doesn't give us much to go on, and therefore some threads (like this one) are speaking "In General" to anyone reading. It's all we can do, really, until and unless she gives us more info.
3 -
cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Thanks, @psychod787
No problem. I have just spent the last 2 years researching this. Though I will add a caveat..... there are places where a body is not meant to go. Been there... living it. If I were to give the "hypothetical" person advice from my research and experience. Change your diet.... eat higher protein at the expense of carbohydrates. Hyper restrict added fats and carbohydrates. Get active... slowly work yourself up to 10000 steps a day and add a full body lifting routine 3 days a week. Not an advocate of restricting any macro nutrient honestly. We have to look at certain foods as hyper normal stimulus. It says much when a rat will endure extreme pain to get to an oreo, when regular rodent chow is freely available. Not saying oreos are "bad"... just an example.
But your experience is/was becoming too lean. That has a lot of negative consequences which you are now trying to fix.
Azdak's posts were clearly aimed at people with too much body fat. 1800 calories would have worked for you at the beginning of your weight loss when you had 200 pounds to lose.
At the lower end (say, closer to 25 BMI) - yeah, get those numbers dialed in so you are fueling any additional activity by eating adequate/enough food. Hopefully once someone is nearing a healthy body fat amount, they have addressed the numbers. I am ONLY referring to obese or morbidly obese people.
The OP doesn't give us much to go on, and therefore some threads (like this one) are speaking "In General" to anyone reading. It's all we can do, really, until and unless she gives us more info.
Oh, yes ma'am I agree. If you need faster initial weight loss 1800 cals are ok. My point is, when a grossly obese individual is put on a diet as discussed, restricting to 1800 calories MAY not be necessary. The brain and body might restrict to LESS. Shown in blander diet studies. So my thought is... change your diet and lifestyle and let the chips fall where they may. If one day your body wants 1500 and the next ot wants 2100... it all comes out on the wash. I THINK the body has a strange way of reducing its weight when switching from a SAD diet to one more of a way our ancestors ate. Not touting "paleo", they have a lot wrong, but with less processed/energy dense foods on general.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Thanks, @psychod787
No problem. I have just spent the last 2 years researching this. Though I will add a caveat..... there are places where a body is not meant to go. Been there... living it. If I were to give the "hypothetical" person advice from my research and experience. Change your diet.... eat higher protein at the expense of carbohydrates. Hyper restrict added fats and carbohydrates. Get active... slowly work yourself up to 10000 steps a day and add a full body lifting routine 3 days a week. Not an advocate of restricting any macro nutrient honestly. We have to look at certain foods as hyper normal stimulus. It says much when a rat will endure extreme pain to get to an oreo, when regular rodent chow is freely available. Not saying oreos are "bad"... just an example.
But your experience is/was becoming too lean. That has a lot of negative consequences which you are now trying to fix.
Azdak's posts were clearly aimed at people with too much body fat. 1800 calories would have worked for you at the beginning of your weight loss when you had 200 pounds to lose.
At the lower end (say, closer to 25 BMI) - yeah, get those numbers dialed in so you are fueling any additional activity by eating adequate/enough food. Hopefully once someone is nearing a healthy body fat amount, they have addressed the numbers. I am ONLY referring to obese or morbidly obese people.
The OP doesn't give us much to go on, and therefore some threads (like this one) are speaking "In General" to anyone reading. It's all we can do, really, until and unless she gives us more info.
I would also like to make a statement about the BMI. While bmi CAN be a good indicator of health, in a grossly obese person i THINK it's worth less. If someone goes from 400 to 250lbs, the bmi says they are still obese, but related health markers will be vastly improved. Many may struggle to get to a "healthy" bmi. That COULD be a reason why they may say frack it! If I cant get to what a chart says is healthy, then why bother. One must look at where they have been to where they are IMHO...2 -
bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »Just like the title says, my question is, why is losing weight too fast a bad thing?
Obviously, I do not mean eating a dangerously low amount of calories - I know why that's unhealthy.
But let's say someone is really active. They're eating 1800 calories a day but still losing 3lbs a week. They're eating a decent amount of calories...getting necessary nutrients. Is it still not advisable to lose the 3lbs a week? Should they really look into eating more calories to slow the weight loss?
Some people just love regurgitating *kitten* they read online without experiencing it themselves.
4 -
BasedGawd412 wrote: »bemyyfriend0918 wrote: »Just like the title says, my question is, why is losing weight too fast a bad thing?
Obviously, I do not mean eating a dangerously low amount of calories - I know why that's unhealthy.
But let's say someone is really active. They're eating 1800 calories a day but still losing 3lbs a week. They're eating a decent amount of calories...getting necessary nutrients. Is it still not advisable to lose the 3lbs a week? Should they really look into eating more calories to slow the weight loss?
Some people just love regurgitating *kitten* they read online without experiencing it themselves.
I still say its a matter of context. If someone switches their diet and there body only wants 1800 cals a day and they lose 3 lbs a week. Ok, but if one is consciously restricting to 1800 cals a day and they are having complications. Then it's not ok. Context matters.. as far as people just having verbal "diarrhea" from stuff they just read? Well, some of us live what we say...2 -
Given the caveats that OP never specified at what weight...
Seems like for women there can be too high a TDEE, let alone deficit in proportion to body fat level. I'm unsure of how it scales, but even just using a lot of energy relative to leanness can cause amenorrhoea. Kind of hard to know if it scales because there probably aren't too many if any women out there in the obese weight category that are also getting TDEEs into a say above 7,000 calorie range.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.14 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.
Well.. I usually agree with most of what you add, but here is just a small hole in this logic. We have no idea what might have brought someone into their "ideal" weight. That's the problem with using population studies. We have no idea if those people who are "sicker" at their ideal weight may have been larger, but lost weight d/t say, cancer, M.S. dementia... ect. I do agree one can be larger and still be healthier.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Given the caveats that OP never specified at what weight...
Seems like for women there can be too high a TDEE, let alone deficit in proportion to body fat level. I'm unsure of how it scales, but even just using a lot of energy relative to leanness can cause amenorrhoea. Kind of hard to know if it scales because there probably aren't too many if any women out there in the obese weight category that are also getting TDEEs into a say above 7,000 calorie range.
Agreed, mostly i think its basic female physiology. The energy cost of having a baby are EXTREMELY high. If a female is burning great amounts of energy, their body can shut down the ability to reproduce. I think of it like this. If they are buring great amounts of energy and are fairly lean, the body sees that it might be in a time of great scarcity or danger. The human body is not smart, but it is wise. It might "think" the odds of a child being able to be Carried to term are low.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
What about this point:NorthCascades wrote: »If you're active enough, 1800 calories is dangerously low. If you eat 1800 and burn 1800 with exercise (maybe you hiked all day) that leaves zero for everything else.
That is zero net calories.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
What about this point:NorthCascades wrote: »If you're active enough, 1800 calories is dangerously low. If you eat 1800 and burn 1800 with exercise (maybe you hiked all day) that leaves zero for everything else.
That is zero net calories.
*sigh* Really?
On the far ends of body weight(s) things get skewed. Someone who is obese and is exercising to burn off 1800 additional calories has a whole lot of body fat to use as FUEL.
Someone who does not have a lot of body fat and is eating at 1800 calories and burning (say) 1000 more on Exercise MAY need to eat most of that additional 1000 calories.
How in the world is context getting so ignored in this thread?2 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
ps - I'm not disputing this for people like the patients on "My 600 Pound Life", where losing substantial amount of weight literally is a matter of life and death. But since the majority of posters here are not in that category, that was not the first response that came to mind.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
ps - I'm not disputing this for people like the patients on "My 600 Pound Life", where losing substantial amount of weight literally is a matter of life and death. But since the majority of posters here are not in that category, that was not the first response that came to mind.
did you even read Azdak's post(s)
I am referring ONLY to those people who clicked, "Disagree," and as you bolded yourself,Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
ps - I'm not disputing this for people like the patients on "My 600 Pound Life", where losing substantial amount of weight literally is a matter of life and death. But since the majority of posters here are not in that category, that was not the first response that came to mind.
I have to add this. In that.... uhhum.... horrid show, MOST of the patients receive wls. Do they then consciously restrict their calories to low levels? Nope. They are in essence mechanical restricted to a low calorie level. Though, many do lose substantial amounts of weight on a pre op diet. Which is a higher protein, lower energy dense diet. Are they consciously restricting then? I would love to see where the dietary style would take them without surgery.0 -
In my experience, the heavier I was, the faster that first 20 pounds came off. Then it goes to a steadier progression. Unfortunately there were a lot of times I gave up soon after that first 20 because it tapered. I'm a little smarter now.
I've also noticed if I am higher protein and fat than carbs, my body seems to lose weight more quickly. So when MFP said 50% carbs, I laughed.
Also, the pounds per week based on amount you have to lose is just a guideline. I started with 75 pounds to lose and still have 41 to go. Based on the guideline, I should be in 1.5lbs per week and getting ready to drop to 1. But 2 pounds per week is still less than 1% of my body weight, so I don't plan to change that for another 16 pounds.
Now that I'm used to eating less, I look at maintenance calories for my goal weight and think how am I going to eat that much. I still have to eat 200 unplanned calories to get to 1500 and 520 to eat back my exercise. I'm not hungry, I don't feel deprived, plenty of healthy stuff on that menu. That's my definition of sustainable right there.2 -
I just wanted to add that there is no reason to think OP was referring to a very active morbidly obese male, and that reference was only introduced as an extreme example earlier in the thread.
I (and I believe others) thought the cons of someone for whom 3 lbs per week would be "too fast", losing at that pace, even if they are very active, would have a better chance of answering her question. Unfortunately it looks like she hasn't been back online since posting her thread.3
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
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions