Losing Too Fast?

tkfourtwo1

Ok, I'm not complaining about losing weight, just wondering if it is coming off too fast. I've been using MFP for 130 days and have lost 59 pounds (I only weigh myself on Wednesday). I've been strickly following my daily calorie goal and walking about 3 miles a day 4 to 5 days a week. I'm only 5'9" and started at 300 pounds, so I has a lot to take off. Over the past several weeks, weight has been coming off at about 3.5 pounds a week. I see so much online about how you should never lose more than two pounds a week, but I'm not feeling deprived, just much healthier.

I saw my doctor about two months ago and she was thrilled with how fast the weight was coming off, and all my bloodwork looked great. Should I be concerned and slow down some, or just let it come off as it does. I have another 40 to 50 pounds to go. Thanks!

FrankiesSaysRelax

Well, you're diary isn't open, so it's hard to make any guesses based on your food. If you have a lot to lose, I don't think it's uncommon to lose more than 2lb per week for a bit. My guess is that you might be eating too few calories?

Mokey41

It depends if it's coming off fast just because you have a lot to lose or because you are eating so little that it's coming off fast. As you get closer to goal your loss will slow down usually. Just a note that an adult male should be eating a minimum of 1800 calories.

daftthoughts

Do you feel good? Are you happy with this lifestyle? Is it something you can keep up for the rest of your life (eventually adjusting your intake to maintenance, but that shouldn't be dramatically much)?

Losing weight fast means you're probably at an enormous calorie deficit, and when you work your way up to maintenance you may gain weight back again because your body has become very efficient at surviving off fewer calories. That's the only thing you should be worried about IF you feel great and aren't depriving yourself physically and mentally. Your bloodwork came back okay so there's little reason for alarm.

joshdann

that rate of loss is perfectly fine. The more you have to lose, the faster you can safely drop it. As long as you're getting your macros you are losing at a healthy rate. the magical 2lb/week loss limit is one of the many things MFP does wrong.

melindafritz1976

u don't s ay how many calories you eat
and your exercise so

Mischievous_Rascal

If your doc says you're test results are okay, and you feel good, then you're doing fine. As you lose more, it will slow down. I readjust my intake based on this calculator, because as you get closer to your goal, you'll want to start eating closer to what your new maintenance level will be.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

Great job, btw!!!

TDiaz214

The more weight you have to lose, the faster the weight will come off.

Eventually you'll reach a point where you'll start to drop the amount of lbs you're losing.

If your doc is saying everythings good, then continue ? Congrats by the way !

devil_in_a_blue_dress

When you have a substantial amount of weight to lose, it often seems to come off quicker at first. I lost about 40 pounds, the first 15-20 pounds fell off in a month.. It took me another year to drop the rest. So long as you are hitting your calorie and macro goal and feel satisfied, you are fine. If you start to get hungrier, don't be afraid to eat more, as you will still lose, just at a slower rate.

NonnyMary

Enjoy the ride!

One day it will slow down to normal... and then you will coast along at a regular pace of 1-2 pounds a week.

For now - enjoy the roller coaster going quickly

Chezcheek

I find that when I have more to lose, the faster it comes off...your weight loss will slow down as you come nearer your goal weight and if your doc is not worried by it...you should not be either...As a rule of thumb, find out how many calories you would have to eat to maintain your goal weight and use this as a caloric guide as you near your goal to make certain that you do not put your weight back on once your goal is reached.

PaulHalicki

I'm losing at about the same rate. In my case, I'm riding the bicycle quite a bit and not replacing the calories, so I know what's going on, and I kind of expect that to slow down as the weather gets worse this winter.

I did South Beach Diet several years ago and lost 70 pounds in 6 months; mostly about 2-3 lb. per week. I did "overshoot" my goal weight a little, tried to gain a little back, gained a bit too much, then stabilized there. Then over several years I didn't actively manage my weight and it pretty much all came back over about 5 years. So I guess that's the only caveat- make sure you don't see rapid weight loss as "easy" or something you can turn on and off at the drop of a hat. When you hit your goal, maintain, maintain, maintain.

themumbler86

From the experience of family members I think it's quite common for men to find they lose weight a little faster than the 2lbs a week, especially if they have a fair amount to lose. My Dad lost weight very quickly, and was told it was likely at least partly because he is muscular as well as fat, and therefore has a higher metabolic rate. (Don't shoot me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm sure it was something along those lines.)

tkfourtwo1

Rght now, MFP has me at 1520 calories per day. I stated at 1840 a day and have recalculated everytime MFP bugs me about it. I usally like a bigger dinner, so I go with a 300 calorie breakfast, 100 calorie lunch and the balance for dinner and an evening snack. I'm walking 60 min at 3mph 4 - 5 times a week.

heybales

While that is true the more to lose the more you can safely try to lose weekly - even big folks can do it wrong and negatively impact themselves down the road. You'd hate to lose muscle mass right now, as it's so hard to add back later. And now at the start is the time you could actually gain muscle mass while losing fat and weight, if done right.

Is the rate of loss, 3.5 lbs or weekly deficit of 12250, match what your deficit appears to be with your figures?

That would imply a deficit of 1750 daily, if it was only fat.

So say for instance your MFP daily maintenance (Goals tab) plus your exercise is on average 3750.
But you ate on average 2000 calories daily.

Then the math works out, and it's hopefully only fat weight.

But if it is an extreme either direction, then you have impacted yourself already.

For instance,
One extreme - Maintenance and exercise is 3500, and you eat 2500 total on average. Only 1000 cal deficit, or 2 lbs weekly.
Either your maintenance is 750 more daily, which would be a lot, or you really weren't honest with activity level.
Or you are burning a whole lot more than you think somehow in exercise, which isn't likely by that much.
Or you are losing more than fat weight, because muscle when burned for energy only supplies 600 calories per pound, and could make up part of that.

Other extreme - Maintenance and exercise is 4000, and you eat 1500 total on average, 2500 cal deficit, or 5 lbs weekly.
Either your maintenance and/or your exercise isn't really that high, and you really don't have that much deficit.
Or you've done a bunch of things wrong and already slowed your metabolism down from loss of muscle mass or in general.

Just things to be aware of, the weight on the scale is not the total story of what the weight is exactly that is lost.

BTW, to reach those levels as like Josh mentions, the stuff to do right is strength train, hard, compound lifts to show your body you need as much of your muscle as possible.
Enough protein to repair that muscle so it's not used as energy (0.82 grams per lb of body weight, or if you know your LBM, 1 g per lb of LBM).
Enough carbs to not run low on your workouts, lifting doesn't need as much all the time, but good refeed is great.

vim_n_vigor

Rght now, MFP has me at 1520 calories per day. I stated at 1840 a day and have recalculated everytime MFP bugs me about it. I usally like a bigger dinner, so I go with a 300 calorie breakfast, 100 calorie lunch and the balance for dinner and an evening snack. I'm walking 60 min at 3mph 4 - 5 times a week.

A 5'9'' male should be eating much more than 1520 a day. I'd check your settings and don't shoot for 2 pounds a week and say you are sedentary. I am a 5'4'' female and eat more than that to lose.

tonynguyen75

Too fast. You want to lose no more than 1% of your bodyweight per week. You're at over 1.5% per week. You should probably slow it down. This isn't just water weight either, it's been 18 weeks already...

Axioml

I am 5'9. Started @ 297 lbs back on June 06. Which is about 119 days about 17 weeks. I have currently lost 26 lbs.
My calorie daily goal is 1840. My goal is 200 lbs hopefully sometime in June. Just something to compare.







Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Nutrition Facts For Foods

Unknown

This content has been removed.

AlongCame_Molly

The question isn't if you're losing too fast.
The question is: why aren't you at your post, TK?

tkfourtwo1

The question isn't if you're losing too fast.
The question is: why aren't you at your post, TK?

You win the tread...

joshdann

Too fast. You want to lose no more than 1% of your bodyweight per week. You're at over 1.5% per week. You should probably slow it down. This isn't just water weight either, it's been 18 weeks already...

You're right about the water weight, but wrong about the rest. Where did you get that idea?

heybales

It is interesting that 1% is right in the middle of what a study found.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

But even the 1.5% loss group didn't have real bad negative, just not as much improvements as possible.

PaulHalicki

Too fast. You want to lose no more than 1% of your bodyweight per week. You're at over 1.5% per week. You should probably slow it down. This isn't just water weight either, it's been 18 weeks already...

Can you cite a source for that recommendation, or are you just shooting from the hip?

tonynguyen75

Too fast. You want to lose no more than 1% of your bodyweight per week. You're at over 1.5% per week. You should probably slow it down. This isn't just water weight either, it's been 18 weeks already...

Can you cite a source for that recommendation, or are you just shooting from the hip?

Eric Helms cites 0.5% to 1% for his athletes, I believe Jason Blaha also preaches around 1% as well. 1-2 lbs of per week roughly estimates to 1% body weight for most people, does it not? I'm not fear mongering about starvation mode, or health concerns. Although the way I worded it may be cause of some uprising. I will be more clear though....

For optimal athletic performance and LBM retention, you should be in the 1% body weight per week range.

Is that better? Or should I be citing that too?

PaulHalicki

Luckily for me I don't give a darn about athletic performance.

joshdann

Too fast. You want to lose no more than 1% of your bodyweight per week. You're at over 1.5% per week. You should probably slow it down. This isn't just water weight either, it's been 18 weeks already...

Can you cite a source for that recommendation, or are you just shooting from the hip?

Eric Helms cites 0.5% to 1% for his athletes, I believe Jason Blaha also preaches around 1% as well. 1-2 lbs of per week roughly estimates to 1% body weight for most people, does it not? I'm not fear mongering about starvation mode, or health concerns. Although the way I worded it may be cause of some uprising. I will be more clear though....

For optimal athletic performance and LBM retention, you should be in the 1% body weight per week range.

Is that better? Or should I be citing that too?

that's for athletes... it does not apply to obese or even overweight people. There is not a particular percentage of total weight that will accurately fit as a rule. For those with 5 lbs to lose, it's far different than it is for those with 500 to lose. It varies consistently all the way down that scale.

examples using the scientific method of 31kcal per lb of fat mass as maximum fat-only deficit:

650 lb man, LBM of 150 lbs. By your 1% logic he could only lose a maximum of 6.5 lbs per week. By actual science he could safely lose 30 lbs per week, assuming he could generate enough of a deficit through exercise without killing himself. 10-15 lbs is a lot more realistic and proven out by WLS and other extreme weight loss studies. so, double your recommendation, give or take.

165 lb man, LBM of 150 lbs. he's only at 9%BF. assuming he wants to be 5%, he only needs to lose 7 lbs of fat. By your logic, he could lose 1.65 lbs per week. By actual science, he could only safely lose just under 1 lb per week. so, just over half of your recommendation.

my point is that the 1% per week number does not cover the extremes. While it is probably a fine ballpark for the majority of people to use for estimates, it is by no means a perfect number. Since MFP is mostly filled with people at the extremes... it's not really the best figure for use here. 31 kcal per day per lb of fat mass is a much more accurate way of figuring your maximum fat-only deficit.

tonynguyen75

Luckily for me I don't give a darn about athletic performance.

I would assume you might care about LBM retention though? If not, then I stand corrected. and you can go about criticizing my posts to your hearts content. No hate.

that's for athletes... it does not apply to obese or even overweight people. There is not a particular percentage of total weight that will accurately fit as a rule. For those with 5 lbs to lose, it's far different than it is for those with 500 to lose. It varies consistently all the way down that scale.

examples using the scientific method of 31kcal per lb of fat mass as maximum fat-only deficit:

650 lb man, LBM of 150 lbs. By your 1% logic he could only lose a maximum of 6.5 lbs per week. By actual science he could safely lose 30 lbs per week, assuming he could generate enough of a deficit through exercise without killing himself. 10-15 lbs is a lot more realistic and proven out by WLS and other extreme weight loss studies. so, double your recommendation, give or take.

165 lb man, LBM of 150 lbs. he's only at 9%BF. assuming he wants to be 5%, he only needs to lose 7 lbs of fat. By your logic, he could lose 1.65 lbs per week. By actual science, he could only safely lose just under 1 lb per week. so, just over half of your recommendation.

my point is that the 1% per week number does not cover the extremes. While it is probably a fine ballpark for the majority of people to use for estimates, it is by no means a perfect number. Since MFP is mostly filled with people at the extremes... it's not really the best figure for use here. 31 kcal per day per lb of fat mass is a much more accurate way of figuring your maximum fat-only deficit.

Truth be told, this is the first time I heard of the 31 kcal/lb of body weight and just looking at your quick math, it makes perfect sense. And your point that 0.5%-1% body weight per week won't work on the extreme ends, is completely valid. However, to say outright that what I've stated was completely wrong, I don't quite agree with. Does it encompass everyone? Of course not, perhaps 31kcal per pound of BW does.

I think we can both agree that the best method is bodily feedback. The OP doesn't feel ill, but I also felt fine when I was losing ~1lb of muscle mass per ~1.2 lbs of fat mass. How you're feeling isn't exactly a perfect indication of optimal results (in my argument retention of LBM). But he very well could be retaining all his LBM. And I'll stand as corrected if that's the case. However, assuming he's still losing ~3lbs per week at a much lower body weight now (he WAS 300, but is now... what? 250? Using your 31kcal/lb of BW, he should be looking at a 7,750 kcal deficit a week? That's about 2.2lbs of fat, so wouldn't you say that it's a bit fast? ***Assuming he's still losing at 3lbs a week***. I, personally, would recommend of a passive approach. Yes maybe he could lose >1% of BW per week and be fine in terms of a LBM retention perspective. But if that isn't the case, wouldn't it be better to ire on the side of caution than to go balls to the wall?

Just in case someone get's butt hurt about this post, I have no ill intentions here. I would actually like to learn what others have knowledge of or experienced themselves.

heybales

I think it should be clear too, there was no study that found 31 g / lb of fat.

"deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels"

They used existing study that was not actually setup for what they were wanting to test, and theorized about what the numbers must mean.

No study that I've seen has actually been done on the premise.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

While it is at least using a bunch of very specific data, it's not a study specific to what is claimed.

Same thing here, used the same study (MN starving of men of course) and determined BMR lowering and what it must have meant.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9734736

Just wanted to level set that individual results may not match a theoretical examination of study data gathered for other reasons.

Decent place to start, though it would seem the safe side would be better to start with.

PaulHalicki

I would assume you might care about LBM retention though? If not, then I stand corrected.

I'm not criticizing your posts; just saying different strokes for different folks. You seem to take it as a personal affront that someone has a different approach than you do.

and you can go about criticizing my posts to your hearts content. No hate.

Passive aggressive much?

tonynguyen75

I'm not criticizing your posts; just saying different strokes for different folks. You seem to take it as a personal affront that someone has a different approach than you do.

Passive aggressive much?

Let's start over.

I really don't take it personal. You have a valid point that everyone's goals are different. Athletic performance vs a journey to a healthier weight, for sure.

Was really not being passive aggressive with my comment on criticizing my posts. I honestly mean, we can continue debating. I'm not going to take it personally like a select few tend to on these forums.