Losing 3lbs a week?

zharptichka

I was wondering if it would be reasonable to try to lose 3lbs a week for a little while. I'm very overweight (I need to lose 103 lbs to be at a normal weight for my height) but I'm other wise in good health. My calorie goal at the moment is 1690 and my plan was to not eat back calories I gained from walking everyday but to eat back as many as I feel like I need (without going over those 'earned back') on the days where I'm doing a more intense workout (i.e. strength training and zumba 3x a week). I know 1-2lbs is the safest way but I had read somewhere that for people seriously overweight a little bit more at the beginning was possible. I just think the extra motivation of seeing the weight come off a little faster might help at the beginning but I don't want to do anything unhealthy. I assume that as my body got used to this plan, as I lost more body mass the weightloss would slow naturally without my changing how much I was eating/ working out. Thoughts?

StaciMarie1974

With 100 pounds to lose, you could probably lose a higher # in the first 3-6 weeks but not sure you're be the most thrilled about doing so. A 1500 calorie deficit per day is big.

Branstin

I don't think you should rush your weight loss. I think you should put more focus on eating at a decent deficiency for a loss of 2 lbs. a week but don’t kick yourself if you lose 1 lb. a week. There are adverse effects to rushing your body to lose weight too fast. I know the feeling of wanting the weight off like yesterday but it would benefit you more to give your body the time it needs to adjust and do its job. It would also greatly benefit you to take this time and learn as much as possible about the scientific facts about weight loss so you won't gain the weight back. There isn't any point to rushing the weight off if it isn't going to stay off.

dopeysmelly

I was wondering if it would be reasonable to try to lose 3lbs a week for a little while. I'm very overweight (I need to lose 103 lbs to be at a normal weight for my height) but I'm other wise in good health. My calorie goal at the moment is 1690 and my plan was to not eat back calories I gained from walking everyday but to eat back as many as I feel like I need (without going over those 'earned back') on the days where I'm doing a more intense workout (i.e. strength training and zumba 3x a week). I know 1-2lbs is the safest way but I had read somewhere that for people seriously overweight a little bit more at the beginning was possible. I just think the extra motivation of seeing the weight come off a little faster might help at the beginning but I don't want to do anything unhealthy. I assume that as my body got used to this plan, as I lost more body mass the weightloss would slow naturally without my changing how much I was eating/ working out. Thoughts?

I didn't intend to lose 3 lbs/week to start with, but I did. I also had a lot to lose (BMI was 35)). Yes, it was very motivating to see the weight loss to start with (and beyond the initial water weight), and convinced me I could really do it and stick with it. It does slow down, but I also increased my calories when I felt that the weight loss was too quick after about 6-8 weeks. As long as I focused on getting the macro nutrients my body needed, along with vitamins and minerals, plenty of fiber and lots of water, I didn't experience anything negative.

It's not sustainable though, and at some point you may have to actively increase your intake to slow the rate of loss down, which I found mentally challenging.

nosebag1212

if you are going to crash diet then do it properly, google "lyle mcdonald's rapid fat loss diet", this is NOT a fad diet and it's NOT for everyone, it's hardcore but the fastest way to lose weight without losing muscle, ideal for very overweight people who want to kick start their weightloss and then move to a more moderate deficit.

Mcgrawhaha

i had 101 pounds to lose. i lost it all in just under 1 year. for the first month, i lost about 3 pounds a week, then, my weight loss slowed down and then averaged a 2 pound loss per week. the bigger we start out, the easier to lose, but just know that IT WILL slow down!

jasonmh630

I had 117 pounds to lose when I started. It was nothing for me to lose 3-4 pounds per week for about 3 weeks. Actually, the first week I lost about 8, which was excess water. Then it tapered off and now I'm losing between about 1.5-2 pounds per week.

4daluvof_candice

if you are going to crash diet then do it properly, google "lyle mcdonald's rapid fat loss diet", this is NOT a fad diet and it's NOT for everyone, it's hardcore but the fastest way to lose weight without losing muscle, ideal for very overweight people who want to kick start their weightloss and then move to a more moderate deficit.

:huh:

lisaabenjamin

yes it's possible with a psmf (protein sparing modified fast), google "lyle mcdonald's rapid fat loss diet", this is NOT a fad diet and it's NOT for everyone, it's hardcore but the fastest way to lose weight without losing muscle, ideal for very overweight people who want to kick start their weightloss and then move to a more moderate deficit.

I'd argue that if it has a name, it's a fad diet. And if it's "hardcore" it's probably not healthy or sustainable.

OP - don't rush this. With that much to lose, you may well find that you lose a lot to start with, but you don't want to lose weight too quickly. For one thing, if you drop a lot of weight too quickly your skin may not shrink at the same rate you lose the fat, so you may end up with loose skin, but the main reason is that any diet that causes you to lose weight too quickly is likely to be unsustainable. Contrary to what the person above is trying to tell you, you don't need to "diet" you need to make healthy lifestyle changes that you will be able to maintain for a long time - realistically 100+ lbs is going to take at least a year if you do it the healthy way - don't mean to discourage you, but you need to be prepared that this something for the long haul.

juggernaut1974

Were you previously gaining 3 pounds a week?

Weight doesn't add that quickly, nor should it (over the long term) subtract that quickly. If you really want to make a lifestyle change, opt for long-term, slow, steady weight loss.

That's not to say there might be a week here or there where you lose 3, 4 or maybe even 5 lbs, but I wouldn't make that a long-term goal, as it's not likely sustainable.

gotolam

Were you previously gaining 3 pounds a week?

Weight doesn't add that quickly, nor should it (over the long term) subtract that quickly. If you really want to make a lifestyle change, opt for long-term, slow, steady weight loss.

That's not to say there might be a week here or there where you lose 3, 4 or maybe even 5 lbs, but I wouldn't make that a long-term goal, as it's not likely sustainable.

How fast/slow you put on the weight is irrelevant. Are you saying that a person who has been overweight all their life needs to spend another lifetime losing that weight?

Why does it have to be sustained? Losing weight and maintaining weight are two different concepts. I'm so tired of people saying fast weight loss can't be sustained. A 3lb/week deficit doesn't have to be sustained indefinitely. Once a person starts closing in on their goal weight, they need to start switching to a maintenance plan.

I went from 183 to 153 in about three months. I then went from 153 to 147 over the course of two months. Now I bounce anywhere between 146-150. My goal is 144 (vanity weight loss) but I suspect it'll take me another two months to steadily get there. Being able to drop 10lbs/month is what gave me the kickstart I needed to get my *kitten* in gear and motivate me. It shouldn't automatically be dismissed as something negative.


There is nothing wrong with shooting for 3lbs a week so long as the OP's calorie deficit doesn't fall into a dangerous (nutrient-deficient) state.

kgeyser

I would not aim for 3 lbs per week. 1500 calories per day is a pretty large deficit, and you're going to be losing LBM along with fat. I would recommend going for a 2 lb per week loss goal and eating back a portion of your exercise calories. You'll probably end up losing more in the beginning due to water weight and increased activity anyway. I'm just a big fan of eating as much as you can when losing weight and not making it harder than it needs to be.

rbiss

I am in a pretty similar situation. I have maybe 120 to loose, but I will be happy as long as I am under 100. My goal weight is around 180 because even as a very athletic teenager, I was never light.

My calorie deficit is 1000 per week which works out to 2lbs. When I work out, I use an HRM and eat back most of those calories if I am hungry. I always have 1 bad day during the week that is insane, there are times I don't work out, but I try and stick with the targets as close as possible.

I am actually loosing closer to 3-4 lbs per week. I think some of this has to do with HIIT, I am more active on some days, and on weekends I do long hikes where it's very difficult to eat back calories. After 6 weeks, this is slowing down a bit now, but I would advise you give the 2lbs a week a try. If I was eating under my current calorie goal, I would be very undernourished, as it is hard now to make proper choices to hit my macros.

chrisssiex23x

I was wondering if it would be reasonable to try to lose 3lbs a week for a little while. I'm very overweight (I need to lose 103 lbs to be at a normal weight for my height) but I'm other wise in good health. My calorie goal at the moment is 1690 and my plan was to not eat back calories I gained from walking everyday but to eat back as many as I feel like I need (without going over those 'earned back') on the days where I'm doing a more intense workout (i.e. strength training and zumba 3x a week). I know 1-2lbs is the safest way but I had read somewhere that for people seriously overweight a little bit more at the beginning was possible. I just think the extra motivation of seeing the weight come off a little faster might help at the beginning but I don't want to do anything unhealthy. I assume that as my body got used to this plan, as I lost more body mass the weightloss would slow naturally without my changing how much I was eating/ working out. Thoughts?

I think because you have a high amount to lose you could lose 3lbs a week. There have been some weeks ive lost 5-6lbs. But i never eat back my exercise calories. I do alot of walking try to get 4-5 miles in.

I drink water through out the day and that helps keep my full aswell. If you eat right and portion you food you should be fine. I have been clean eating. Like living on salads chicken fish bake potato. Not gonna lie ive had treat days but i dont have them once a week. Some weeks i fine i walk more and others less. Just take each day as it comes.

You will find some people will say if not safe or you will gain it all back but ive lost 28lbs. over 2 months and still going. i have alot to lose aswell.

Just do what feels right to you. I always fine if i dont eat after 7pm it helps to lose weight aswell. as you body slows down later int he day but like i say everyone has there own theories

daybehavior

Were you previously gaining 3 pounds a week?

Weight doesn't add that quickly, nor should it (over the long term) subtract that quickly. If you really want to make a lifestyle change, opt for long-term, slow, steady weight loss.

That's not to say there might be a week here or there where you lose 3, 4 or maybe even 5 lbs, but I wouldn't make that a long-term goal, as it's not likely sustainable.

How fast/slow you put on the weight is irrelevant. Are you saying that a person who has been overweight all their life needs to spend another lifetime losing that weight?

Why does it have to be sustained? Losing weight and maintaining weight are two different concepts. I'm so tired of people saying fast weight loss can't be sustained. A 3lb/week deficit doesn't have to be sustained indefinitely. Once a person starts closing in on their goal weight, they need to start switching to a maintenance plan.

I went from 183 to 153 in about three months. I then went from 153 to 147 over the course of two months. Now I bounce anywhere between 146-150. My goal is 144 (vanity weight loss) but I suspect it'll take me another two months to steadily get there. Being able to drop 10lbs/month is what gave me the kickstart I needed to get my *kitten* in gear and motivate me. It shouldn't automatically be dismissed as something negative.


There is nothing wrong with shooting for 3lbs a week so long as the OP's calorie deficit doesn't fall into a dangerous (nutrient-deficient) state.

YES. I think this is an important point many people overlook. I've seen several people who lost weight rapidly and have been able to sustain it. Weight loss and maintenance are two different processes which involve different strategies. If you are large enough to safely lose 3lbs a week, then go for it. Why continue to have high blood pressure/sugar/cholesterol and prolong your obesity related health risks if you are capable of dropping the weight.

17ChargerGirl17

I also had over 100 lbs to lose.
I did not do any fad diets. I starting going the gym almost every day and eating about 1350-1450 calories a day, logging everything I put in my mouth on here.. This worked for me. I was not hungry or tired, weak etc.....
I have lost up to 5 lbs in a week, but it doesn't last. I averaged about 2 lbs a week and because of this I, along with others on here, have kept it off...
You can do it. Don't be discouraged and think about how much you will be down in 6 months at 1-2 lbs a week.

ValGogo

I have to say that when people come out of the starting gate saying they want to lose weight faster after having held onto it for so long, I think they are flirting with disaster. You have to take that thought and throw it away. It's all about how you see things and approach things. What difference does it make whether you lose 20 lbs in 4 month or 6 months? Just lose to lose. When you start putting time frames on stuff like losing weight, you have to look at the alternate thought that is lurking behind that, which is usually "I'm only doing this for _____ (a guy, a wedding, a vacation, pretty much a temporary situation.) View it as permanent and don't worry about losing three versus two lbs per week.

Don't look at it as something you have to run to. You're not running to catch a bus. You are trying to lose 100 lbs and keep it off. Stick with what works; do the right thing, let the weight come off as it naturally should, and let the rest fall into place.

Those "rushing to lose weight" stories usually end up with the person gaining it back. Take it easy and let it happen at it's own pace.

juggernaut1974

How fast/slow you put on the weight is irrelevant. Are you saying that a person who has been overweight all their life needs to spend another lifetime losing that weight?

No just trying to put weight loss in context. Of course it won't take you a lifetime to lose it, but sometimes it's helpful to get one's mind around how slowly weight accumulates to help embrace the idea of slow, steady weight loss.

Why does it have to be sustained? Losing weight and maintaining weight are two different concepts.

Agreed, but it's fairly obvious that "crash dieting" more often than not is followed by rapidly regaining the lost weight (and sometimes more).

I'm so tired of people saying fast weight loss can't be sustained.

I didn't say it COULDN'T be sustained...I said it LIKELY won't be sustained. But if it will make you happy, I'll say it's HARDER to sustain.

There is nothing wrong with shooting for 3lbs a week so long as the OP's calorie deficit doesn't fall into a dangerous (nutrient-deficient) state.

I can agree with that. But to me it's still a matter of short term success vs. long term success. I believe it's much easier for most people that truly want to make weight loss (and eventually maintenance) a long-term success to take things slower and steady.

dmenchac

yes it's possible with a psmf (protein sparing modified fast), google "lyle mcdonald's rapid fat loss diet", this is NOT a fad diet and it's NOT for everyone, it's hardcore but the fastest way to lose weight without losing muscle, ideal for very overweight people who want to kick start their weightloss and then move to a more moderate deficit.

I'd argue that if it has a name, it's a fad diet. And if it's "hardcore" it's probably not healthy or sustainable.

OP - don't rush this. With that much to lose, you may well find that you lose a lot to start with, but you don't want to lose weight too quickly. For one thing, if you drop a lot of weight too quickly your skin may not shrink at the same rate you lose the fat, so you may end up with loose skin, but the main reason is that any diet that causes you to lose weight too quickly is likely to be unsustainable. Contrary to what the person above is trying to tell you, you don't need to "diet" you need to make healthy lifestyle changes that you will be able to maintain for a long time - realistically 100+ lbs is going to take at least a year if you do it the healthy way - don't mean to discourage you, but you need to be prepared that this something for the long haul.

Its more of a well-structured, incredibly effective crash diet. It involves taking an EC stack which can be tough on some people. I wouldn't recommend it but it has been proven to work.

gotolam

How fast/slow you put on the weight is irrelevant. Are you saying that a person who has been overweight all their life needs to spend another lifetime losing that weight?

No just trying to put weight loss in context. Of course it won't take you a lifetime to lose it, but sometimes it's helpful to get one's mind around how slowly weight accumulates to help embrace the idea of slow, steady weight loss.

Why does it have to be sustained? Losing weight and maintaining weight are two different concepts.

Agreed, but it's fairly obvious that "crash dieting" more often than not is followed by rapidly regaining the lost weight (and sometimes more).

I'm so tired of people saying fast weight loss can't be sustained.

I didn't say it COULDN'T be sustained...I said it LIKELY won't be sustained. But if it will make you happy, I'll say it's HARDER to sustain.

There is nothing wrong with shooting for 3lbs a week so long as the OP's calorie deficit doesn't fall into a dangerous (nutrient-deficient) state.

I can agree with that. But to me it's still a matter of short term success vs. long term success. I believe it's much easier for most people that truly want to make weight loss (and eventually maintenance) a long-term success to take things slower and steady.

Your last point is why I find the "you must take it slow approach" problematic. It's a false dichotomy to pit short term success vs. long term success. There is no reason why you can't do both. In fact, I'd argue that it's more healthy. Immediate short term gains can boost motivation and at the very least, removes many barriers to overall success. Exercising when you're thirty/forty pounds lighter is much easier (and easier on your cardiovascular system). In fact, just being that much lighter (as compared to being obese) will increase cardiovascular health. You'll feel better, be more motivated, and will be far more likely to be more active.

Whether one loses fast/slow is entirely up to the individual. Neither way is incorrect and everyone has to find their own path. I just find it troubling that folks on these forums equate fast weight loss to unsustainability.

vismal

I lost 100 lbs in about a years time. If you do the math that's about 2 lbs a week. A year is a decent goal for a 100lb loss. No need to rush. People usually hit the ground full speed ahead, go for huge deficits, and then either binge or quit because they get burned out. A 100 lb weight loss is a marathon, not a sprint.

For those who mentioned Lyle's rapid fat loss, It's not a good idea for someone who is just starting dieting. It's actually a god awful idea. Lyle is one of the smartest guys in the fitness game and the entire first chapter of that book is about how hard the diet is and why many people fail it. Rapid fat loss has it's place but this is not it. It's more of a tool for a competitor with a deadline (bodybuilder, boxer, wrestler, etc). OP is a newbie with no real time frame so conventional deficit will have a much higher chance for long term success.

VoodooSyxx

it can be done, if you're dead set enough on doing it. I've lost 37 pounds now in 2 months (4.6lb. a week average). That's with setting myself up on a -2lb. a week deficit, not eating back a single exercise calorie, and drinking oceans of water.

kurviekutie

I started in Feb with a BMI of 45 and needing to lose 80 pounds just to get in the low end of obese. Initially, I lost a lot rapidly (roughly 10 pounds the first week or so-WATER WEIGHT!). I didn't starve myself. I ate whole foods as much as possible (NO dinners from a box of any kind), avoided my major addiction of syrup sweetened coffee drinks, went to the gym 3-4 days a week with about an hour of cardio (bike/elliptical) and 30 minutes of LIGHT weights, and drank LOTS of water. Then about 2 months in I plateaued a bit. I am fitting into my clothes better and the numbers are still dropping slowly but surely. I am now 10 pounds away from being back in the 100's.

Good luck!

kurviekutie

I started in Feb with a BMI of 45 and needing to lose 80 pounds just to get in the low end of obese. Initially, I lost a lot rapidly (roughly 10 pounds the first week or so-WATER WEIGHT!). I didn't starve myself. I ate whole foods as much as possible (NO dinners from a box of any kind), avoided my major addiction of syrup sweetened coffee drinks, went to the gym 3-4 days a week with about an hour of cardio (bike/elliptical) and 30 minutes of LIGHT weights, and drank LOTS of water. Then about 2 months in I plateaued a bit. I am fitting into my clothes better and the numbers are still dropping slowly but surely. I am now 10 pounds away from being back in the 100's.

Good luck!

kurviekutie

Stupid laptop! I keep doing copy posts :ohwell:

perseverance14

I lost (about) 3 lbs. per week until I got out of obese range, then I upped my calories and slowed it down. I have not had any adverse effects.

If you are eating at least 1200 calories a day, I would not worry about it, but I wouldn't keep doing it once you are out of obese range either, and if you can lose enough eating more, eat more.

martinel2099

Aim for long term weight loss, nothing wrong with 2lbs per week and like another poster mentioned that's about 100lb per year when you do the math. At that rate of weight loss you will not spend another "life time" being obese. If i only lost 1/4 of that in a year i personally would be excited (and I currently weigh 248). My goal personally is 1lb per week and if I hit two that's a great added benefit.

I would rather you lose the weight slowly if that meant developing better habits and learning how to better control yourself around food for the rest of your life.