Losing weight slow vs fast(er)

SunnyDayzMomma
SunnyDayzMomma Posts: 114 Member
edited November 24 in Health and Weight Loss
I've been reading a few articles by this guy, about losing weight slowly vs fast. This article talks about setting a target weight. They suggest taking 6 months to lose 10% of your body weight. http://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-to-set-a-target-body-weight-for-better-chances-of-d-1678382801#replies

What he says, based on the quoted research, is that our bodies react to fast weight loss in such a way that makes keeping the weight off very difficult. They talk about metabolism, NEAT, etc. It's an interesting read, and it makes sense. But when I put my stats into the calculator they've created, it puts me at a calorie goal of 2500 a day. That's a whole 1000 more than what MFP suggested for my 90 pound weight loss goal. I just have a hard finding wrapping my head around taking 1.8 years to lose my weight, vs going faster like I am. I've lost approx 22 pounds in 2 months. If doing it quickly (my goal is 2 pounds a week) will just make me pack on the pounds again, then yeah, I'll slow down. But I just don't know if I believe it's bad to be working on a 1500 calorie a day goal right now. I don't want to purposely go slower unless it's truly better that way.

Thoughts? Advice? Words of wisdom from any yo-yo dieters or people who have kept the weight off for years now?

Replies

  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Ain't no body got time for that.

    That article sounds too slow.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    If your losing 2 pounds a week and his calculator gives you a calorie goal of over 1000 more than mfp would you not maintain or even gain on that?
  • buffalobill41
    buffalobill41 Posts: 72 Member
    I would say they're right that really in any habit changing gradual is more sustainable than dramatic and eating at a large deficit can lower your metabolism. But if you think what you're doing is working, stick with it.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,687 Member
    For me, I had to lose the weight relatively fast (1 kg/week) at first, or I would have lost interest. Seeing regularly results motivated me to stick with it.

    But after hitting my first goal, I've slowed to about 0.5 kg/week, and that's OK. Right now I've got a whole lot of stress in my life, and focusing on the weight loss is kind of taking a back seat ... I'm not quite so strict about everything I eat. Plus I'm gradually nearing my second goal anyway. And if I want to pick up the pace again, I can.
  • melonaulait
    melonaulait Posts: 769 Member
    I would like to lose faster personally, but I've taken off ~8kg in 75 days and I actually feel pretty happy because I let myself eat over my recommended calories a little bit. I think I'd feel very miserable if I religiously tried sticking to my 1,200cal just to lose faster...

    Basically what I'm saying is, it feels really nice to eat just below maintenance. :D
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    No matter how you lose the weight, no matter how fast or slow, over 80% gain back the weight they lost, often times gaining even more weight than they lost. Some studies show an even higher percent than 80.

    Losing slower does not guarantee keeping the weight off. Due diligence and changed habits are the key to keeping the weight off.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Slower is better for overall body composition (lose less muscle going slower) and I feel the habits you create will be easier to sustain as it's smaller adjustments. Fast can be motivating but I like to go slow, I'm losing 1lb per week steadily and my whole lifestyle and attitude to food has changed dramatically during that time.

    If I went aggressive and ate the minimum recommendation of 1200 calories I'd have given up a long time ago, as I have done in the past. It's just not a sustainable way of life for me long term.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    10% in 6 months would be too slow for me.
  • 120poundstogo
    120poundstogo Posts: 700 Member
    How about not at all and maintaining for me!
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    Depends on your starting point, I think, those with less to lose might find a slower rate more sustainable.

    Personally, I wouldn t have lasted until lunch on my first day if I had to eat anything less than 1700. Even that's a stretch. I went from 178 to 124 with no suffering whatsoever. I hate suffering. Can't remember how long it took me, it would have been less than a pound a week, but whatever, job done, no tears
This discussion has been closed.

Categories