Inital weight loss: assume it is all water?

lauriebroberts

Hi

I have been eating pretty badly recently so on Sunday I modified my diet and am starting to exercise.

One of the things I changed was from toast for breakfast to porridge, and cut out snacking of bread rolls etc. And I put myself on a calorie count that aims to lose 0.25kg a week. So quite a modest calorie deficit.

I've weighed myself for 4 days and each day lost between 0.5kg and a 1kg (almost 3kg in total). Having a calorie target that the site calculates as losing 0.25kg a week isn't going to lead to such drastic changes. I know weight can fluctuate a bit each day (I weighed myself first thing in the morning) but is this more likely a loss of water retention because I am eating less bread?

Sett2023

Not so much for bread in sé, in my opinion, but for different foods. When eating something different from my usual things, I always vary a lot (sometimes up, some times down). But it's always temporary, after some days everything realign.

PS: also, a change of foods usually changes a little bowels's movement and bladder's movements, so... but, again, temporary.

Lietchi

Fewer carbs and less salt can definitely cause a drop in water weight, potentially combined with less food waste in your digestive tract if you've lowered food intake.

I would keep doing what you're doing and re-evaluate after another week or so. At that stage you should be past the initial water weight drop and be having regular weight fluctuations/a slower rate of loss.

Retroguy2000

It may not be all water. However I'd recommend not including it in your rate of loss calculations. So e.g. if you've lost X pounds from week 2 to week 5 say, use that to estimate your actual calorie deficit, not including week 1 which would skew that significantly.

AnnPT77

I would expect that some of it has been fat loss, but probably much of it has been water weight. If you continue on this routine for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles if you have those), then estimate your average weekly loss, that'll give you a better reading.

Retro has a good point: If the first week or two look dramatically different from what follows, drop the week(s) from your data analysis, and go on to accumulate a week or two more, then average. Even so, don't expect an even amount of scale change weekly. It'll be ups and downs.

If you're in a deficit, the overall trend over multi-week times will be down. Fat loss will mostly show up in a multi-week trend.

I support your idea of shooting for slow loss, especially at first. That said, slow loss can potentially take even longer to show up in the trend. It's common to have day to day weight fluctuations up and down of a kilo or maybe even more. A quarter kilo of fat loss per week will play peek-a-boo on the scale with that. That can go on for a surprisingly long time, sometimes.

I lose weight in imperial units, so this isn't exact, but when losing at a rate similar to your intent, there was a period of 4-6 weeks when even my weight trending app** thought I was maintaining or sometimes even gaining, when I was pretty sure I was in a small deficit. Sure enough, eventually there was a quick scale drop, and the trend was as I expected.

** Libra for Android, but there's also Happy Scale for Apple/iOS, Trendweight with a free Fitbit account (don't need a device), Weightgrapher, others. Most are free.

Here's the counter-thought, though: A calorie estimate from MFP or another so-called calculator, or even from a fitness tracker is just an estimate, basically an average of similar people. You're a unique individual. When it comes to calorie needs, most people are close to those averages. But a few can be surprisingly far off, high or low.

Until you get those multiple weeks of experience data on a consistent regimen, you won't know how average you are or aren't.

It is possible to have much higher calorie needs than estimated, though quite rare. If you seem to be losing very fast as you continue, and begin to feel weak or fatigued for otherwise unexplained reasons, eat more . . . because that's a warning sign. Otherwise, stick with the multi-week experiment on your same routine, so you can get solid data for a personalized estimate.

While you're working away patiently at that, this would be a good read if you haven't already read it, because it isn't just bread (and similar) that affects body weight fluctuations:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10683010/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-fluctuations/p1

Especially read the article linked in the first post. It can help keep weight changes in the right context.

Best wishes!

lauriebroberts

Thanks for all the advice

I'm a 47 year old man. I'm slimly built and when I was at my peak fitness (doing regular 70km bike rides) 5-8 years ago I was 63.5kg. I don't have a huge amount to lose to get back to that (5-6kgs) so I am thinking that doing that over 6 months should be doable. Although my main aim is to get fitter. As I start cycling more I'll put on muscle and so I expect to hit a plateau in weight for a month or so during that time (possibly even increase for a while) as fat decreases and muscle increases.

I do aim to keep to a 0.25kg a week deficit and, on days I exercise, I intend to compensate and eat more to take account of the burnt calories so I don't get muscle wastage.

For now I am using MFP calorie calculator but after 5-6 weeks I shall do as you all suggest and look over the last 3 weeks of data and use that to calculate whether the calorie intake is right

AnnPT77

lauriebroberts wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice

I'm a 47 year old man. I'm slimly built and when I was at my peak fitness (doing regular 70km bike rides) 5-8 years ago I was 63.5kg. I don't have a huge amount to lose to get back to that (5-6kgs) so I am thinking that doing that over 6 months should be doable. Although my main aim is to get fitter. As I start cycling more I'll put on muscle and so I expect to hit a plateau in weight for a month or so during that time (possibly even increase for a while) as fat decreases and muscle increases.

Ehhh . . . dunno. Muscle mass gain is not very fast at all. A thing of many weeks to months to see on the scale, typically.

Under ideal circumstances, 2 pounds a month of muscle mass gain would be a really good outcome for a man. Ideal circumstances include relative youth, favorable genetics, a good progressive strength training program aggressively and faithfully performed, and a calorie surplus (among other things).

It's not necessarily that a person can't gain muscle mass under sub-ideal circumstances, but it would be expected to be even slower.

Cycling can add muscle, if it's a muscular challenge, sure . . . but quite slowly.

If weight stalls for a month when training, at a calorie level that previously was a deficit, high odds that it's a water retention effect of some kind.

Your overall plan sounds good, though. I'm skeptical of the muscle mass gain aspect, that's all.

I do aim to keep to a 0.25kg a week deficit and, on days I exercise, I intend to compensate and eat more to take account of the burnt calories so I don't get muscle wastage.

For now I am using MFP calorie calculator but after 5-6 weeks I shall do as you all suggest and look over the last 3 weeks of data and use that to calculate whether the calorie intake is right

That's a good plan.

PAV8888

regardless of whether muscle mass, water weight associated with muscle tissue repair, or extra glycogen stores because of the exercise, an increase in weight associated with the onset of new exercise is neither rare nor unexpected. So expectations seem to be realistic to me!

Unless just before your initial weigh-in you had gone out for Chinese/Indian/sushi/other all you can eat buffet with lots of food and sodium, and unless you've cut down carbs in the low carb realm, all of these being conditions where you would see large water weight swings not directly/exclusively associated with caloric balance, indications are that you may be exerting a larger deficit than you selected, if you're seeing such immediate shedding off the bat while only aiming for a small deficit.

As a guy, you should be able to gauge your progress in as little as a couple of weeks if applying a large deficit. A bit longer if applying a smaller one. Of course, the first few days are more likely to be a-typical

lauriebroberts

Thanks

I am not particularly bothered about gaining muscle mass. If I don't that's fine. It's just that when I used to do the very long cycle rides in the past up the hills of Kent I developed muscle in my legs and I was just thinking that may mean I flatline for a bit so I wasn't going to worry if the scales didn't shift while that happened.

My aim is to 'feel' healthy and fit and lose a bit of fat rather than look muscly on my legs etc. I can 'see' I am carrying fat around my belly and I think as long as I have a calorie deficit that will reduce.

I do appreciate the encouragement on this site.

Thanks

lauriebroberts

PAV8888 wrote: »

regardless of whether muscle mass, water weight associated with muscle tissue repair, or extra glycogen stores because of the exercise, an increase in weight associated with the onset of new exercise is neither rare nor unexpected. So expectations seem to be realistic to me!

Unless just before your initial weigh-in you had gone out for Chinese/Indian/sushi/other all you can eat buffet with lots of food and sodium, and unless you've cut down carbs in the low carb realm, all of these being conditions where you would see large water weight swings not directly/exclusively associated with caloric balance, indications are that you may be exerting a larger deficit than you selected, if you're seeing such immediate shedding off the bat while only aiming for a small deficit.

As a guy, you should be able to gauge your progress in as little as a couple of weeks if applying a large deficit. A bit longer if applying a smaller one. Of course, the first few days are more likely to be a-typical

Actually, I had been eating McDonalds that day...which was partly what made me conclude I needed a shift in lifestyle...So I probably was carrying a lot of food and sodium. And I have cut down carbs since that day considerably. So I think it is water weight that has mainly gone so far. But that's fine.

Losing 5-6kgs a month over 6 months seems achievable provided I am disciplined and get into good habits

AnnPT77

lauriebroberts wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

regardless of whether muscle mass, water weight associated with muscle tissue repair, or extra glycogen stores because of the exercise, an increase in weight associated with the onset of new exercise is neither rare nor unexpected. So expectations seem to be realistic to me!

Unless just before your initial weigh-in you had gone out for Chinese/Indian/sushi/other all you can eat buffet with lots of food and sodium, and unless you've cut down carbs in the low carb realm, all of these being conditions where you would see large water weight swings not directly/exclusively associated with caloric balance, indications are that you may be exerting a larger deficit than you selected, if you're seeing such immediate shedding off the bat while only aiming for a small deficit.

As a guy, you should be able to gauge your progress in as little as a couple of weeks if applying a large deficit. A bit longer if applying a smaller one. Of course, the first few days are more likely to be a-typical

Actually, I had been eating McDonalds that day...which was partly what made me conclude I needed a shift in lifestyle...So I probably was carrying a lot of food and sodium. And I have cut down carbs since that day considerably. So I think it is water weight that has mainly gone so far. But that's fine.

Losing 5-6kgs a month over 6 months seems achievable provided I am disciplined and get into good habits

I'm confused: Are you trying to lose 5-6 kg total, as your first post said? Or 5-6 kg per month every month for 6 months, as this post seems to say? I hope it's the former.

lauriebroberts

Sorry. A typo. 5-6kgs over 6 months

MsCzar

I know there is absolutely zero scientific proof, but I have long believed in "new fat" that is not as tightly ensconced as "old fat." Recently, I had 24 hour access to free unlimited high calorie indulgence for a whole month... and indulge I did! When my largest trousers began to feel very tight, it was obviously beyond time to reign in. Within 7 days of strictly limiting my calories and restarting daily exercise, I lost almost 6kgs (13lb)!
I have no clue as to how much of that was water weight, but I imagine that it certainly was not all fat. As soon as I settle into "old fat" territory (my weight before overeating on a daily basis), the rate of loss reflects a a more realistic pace. So if you've gone from eating poorly to carefully controlling your calorie/food quality intake, a larger rate of loss than is predicted is very common.

yirara

MsCzar wrote: »

I know there is absolutely zero scientific proof, but I have long believed in "new fat" that is not as tightly ensconced as "old fat." Recently, I had 24 hour access to free unlimited high calorie indulgence for a whole month... and indulge I did! When my largest trousers began to feel very tight, it was obviously beyond time to reign in. Within 7 days of strictly limiting my calories and restarting daily exercise, I lost almost 6kgs (13lb)!
I have no clue as to how much of that was water weight, but I imagine that it certainly was not all fat. As soon as I settle into "old fat" territory (my weight before overeating on a daily basis), the rate of loss reflects a a more realistic pace. So if you've gone from eating poorly to carefully controlling your calorie/food quality intake, a larger rate of loss than is predicted is very common.

That's really not how it works, as much as we wish it did. Most of this will have been waterweight and poop in your intestines. The human body is just not able to lose so much bodyfat in such a short period of time. If it did then you might have been able to heat your home with this 😅 (dang, now I really want to find out how much energy is needed to raise the temperature in a home) And just for the numbers, losing 13lbs of bodyfat in 7 days would require you to have a calorie deficit of 6500 calories per day. Like: not eating anything and running a few marathons a day for 7 days territory.

MsCzar

yirara wrote: »

That's really not how it works, as much as we wish it did.

Oh believe me, I know. But the scale is the scale and that's been my experience. The OP was asking about initial weight loss rates - which can be dramatic, but not reflective of the classic formula for CICO. Eight days in, I'm down 6.4kgs/14.2 lb. That was likely mostly water and waste. I now expect any additional weight loss to follow the norms.