Pros and cons to slow or fast weight loss

MKEgal

What works for me is eating 10x my healthy goal weight (based on BMI) in calories,
not eating back exercise calories (ignore net),
increasing my veggies, fiber, protein, and water intake,
almost daily cardio exercise,
and weightlifting several times a week.

I keep reading on her various opinions to losing weight fast or slow. Going low calorie vs 15% reduction! I'm down 40 pounds but on the fence as how to proceed, the first 40 fell off fast at 1200 calories per day! My last month of 1800 calories (with exercise) has showed no loss.

You started at 197 lb, so you needed nearly 2000 cal per day.
Being down 800 cal per day should give you a loss of a bit under 2 lb per week.
Now it looks like you're at about 155, so you need 1550 cal per day and are eating 1800 so of course you're not going to lose weight. (My doctor says do not eat back exercise calories.)
Eating 1200 now would give you a 300 cal deficit, which would be about 1/2 lb per week.
Since you only have about 25 lb to go, losing 0.5 - 1 lb per week is reasonable, but that will drop as you get closer to your goal.
Don't go below 1200 unless your doctor says it's OK, or you're very short.

Some problems that come with too-rapid weight loss (we're talking like what usually happens after bariatric surgery, or when someone goes on a VLCD) include gallstones, malnutrition, loose skin, and (statistically) being more likely to regain the weight, because you haven't learned healthy eating habits.

"Evidence shows that people who lose weight gradually and steadily (about 1-2 pounds per week) are more successful at keeping weight off."
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/index.html

honkytonks85

I disagree.
If you lose weight quickly, provided you continue to eat at maintenance you will not just 'gain all the weight back'. I assume the reason people gain back is because they've gone on a restrictive diet then went nuts eating everything in sight.

I actually find that an initial drop of weight is helpful for motivation to keep going. I also think eating 200 calories below TDEE is risky because counting calories isn't an exact science and there is bound to be times when you go out and you just don't know exactly how many calories there are in your food. You need to leave a buffer.

I think you're better off going at least 500 calories below TDEE for weight loss.

ruby_red_rose

I have primarily eaten between 1400 and 1800 calories and lost 59 lbs. I have also eaten as low as 1200 for a few weeks, and as high as 1900 for a few weeks while losing.

H0llyG0lightly

A year ago, I tried doing 1250 net. It worked for a little while, but then the scale didn't seem to budge. Probably because I was cheating, which means I didn't like the program. I'm really into planning ahead of time, so I didn't like having to adjust my intake every day based on whether I was working out or not. Especially when plans changed. I'd have my meals planned out for the day based on jog I was planning to take, then something would come up, I couldn't go for the jog, and I'd have to replan my dinner in the middle of making it. Very frustrating.

Now, I eat about 1550-1600 every day and work out sometimes. I don't eat back my exercise calories, so I'm probably averaging a net intake of 1350 or so. I've lost 10 lbs in three months and haven't cheated too much. It seems to be working.

Sarahsteve7kids

Some problems that come with too-rapid weight loss (we're talking like what usually happens after bariatric surgery, or when someone goes on a VLCD) include gallstones, malnutrition, loose skin, and (statistically) being more likely to regain the weight, because you haven't learned healthy eating habits.

QUOTE:
Loose skin is what has bothered me the most! Yuck!!!