Alright, lets talk about skin.

I've lost over 100 pounds total. I have a little bit of loose skin at the bottom part of my stomach. It doesn't negatively impact me, my health, or my ability to compete in bodybuiding competitions.

You may or may not end up with some loose skin. If it causes chaffing and leads to infections it is important to consider having it removed. If it doesn't cause problems there's no need for surgery, unless you are severely mentally distraught over it.

I'll probably end up with loose skin. I can already see wrinkles forming as I "deflate", and I'll end up losing about 50% of my starting body weight by the time I'm done. That's a lot to ask my skin to shrink. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I arrive at it - even if I need surgery to get rid of it, it's better than obesity.

lost 100 over the course of a year. during the time i drank lots of water, did strength training nearly the entire time, (not heavy lifting which many people here profess will help...) maintained over the next 2 years. Decided to have a tummy tuck in July. my gp and obvs, the plastic surgeon agreed nothing aside from surgery would fix my issues. For me personally, it was rough. super long recovery time (still recovering actually) even though i am back to normal activities. its painful and didn't fix all my issues. however, i am happy i did it and the scar is a non-issue to me, its a lot easier to hide then the saggy belly. to my plastic surgeons credit she said to be kinder to myself when i started picking at my thighs. lol. i have a b/a on my proffie. you will know what the right decision is for yourself, trust.

It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.

Hydration and weight lifting help.

I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.

My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.

tomatoey wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.

Hydration and weight lifting help.

I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.

My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.

I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.

Bolded isn't true, I don't think…

This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.

It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.

Hydration and weight lifting help.

I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.

My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.

I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.

Bolded isn't true, I don't think…

This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.

It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.

It confuses me that your doctor said that, because the whole problem is that the skin is overstretched, and that happens on the way up. And as you continue lose, your skin needs to continue retracting until you hit goal weight (and after) - and that process is much slower than weight loss.

PinkPixiexox wrote: »

I don't have major issues with loose skin but I most certainly have it.
I'm 5 ft 2 and my starting weight was 157lb. I'm now 120 lbs. I didn't have that much to lose so I really didn't expect to have ANY loose skin - how wrong was I! My stomach is flat now (well.. Nearly!) but very rippled. When I am doing planking exercises, all that skin hangs down so much that it makes me feel a little embarassed. I am slowly but surely learning to accept how my body looks now at the same time as following a progressive lifting routine at the gym. I have saggy bits, wobbly bits, droopy bits - but I'm healthy now and for me, that's what's important.

@PinkPixiexox
I lost a similar amount of weight and you are describing exactly how I looked and felt when I got to my final goal weight. Looked fine standing up but stomach was baggy when in push up position (including what we could delicately call the "push ups for two" position!).
But a year later things had improved vastly and I'm more than twice your age which means skin recovers slower. How you look when you first hit maintenance isn't the final result.

Overweight most of my life and having had 6 children, I thought if I ever lost the weight I would have my Nana's floppy arms and my mom's saggy belly. Guess what? I was right. lol I thank every moment I am a size 14 and maintaining, than a size 22/24 which I wore forever. However, the mirror is a cruel thing. I rebound for excersize .. which I have loved from day one and has been one of the keys to my success after finding this site almost 2 years ago. I just wish, after wanting to look like this for 40 years that I didn't have a melted tummy and inner thighs.. and I won't even go into my boobs. I'm not someone who can afford a tummy tuck.. I just love this site and the people and all the encouragement, so thought I'd share my thoughts.

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.

Hydration and weight lifting help.

I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.

My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.

I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.

Bolded isn't true, I don't think…

This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.

It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.

Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.

^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.

Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.

We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.

Hydration and weight lifting help.

I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.

My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.

I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.

Bolded isn't true, I don't think…

This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.

It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.

Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.

^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.

Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.

We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.

Weighted by less, but still weighted nonetheless, which is usually why people who stop short of losing the weight they need to lose their skin doesn't snap back enough for their lower weight. And skin loses elasticity over time, more cumulative effects seen in 10 years than in 2, sure, but the aging process is not neglible.
Nothing wrong with taking 2-5 or more years to lose the weight, but I don't see how this functions to stave off loose skin and help it bounce back better, as is often claimed/asserted.

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.

Hydration and weight lifting help.

I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.

My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.

I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.

Bolded isn't true, I don't think…

This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.

It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.

Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.

^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.

Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.

We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.

Weighted by less, but still weighted nonetheless, which is usually why people who stop short of losing the weight they need to lose their skin doesn't snap back enough for their lower weight. And skin loses elasticity over time, more cumulative effects seen in 10 years than in 2, sure, but the aging process is not neglible.
Nothing wrong with taking 2-5 or more years to lose the weight, but I don't see how this functions to stave off loose skin and help it bounce back better, as is often claimed/asserted.

Have a little more time so I'll expand.

During rapid weight loss individuals will lose more of the underling lean body mass, so some of the supporting structure will go. We then end up with skin, fat (lose skin is really always attached to significant layer of fat not yet lost) and less infrastructure. Weight loss that occurs more slowly reduces the risk of LBM loss and the underlying muscle sheaths will maintain structure better. If one loses 20 extra pounds of LBM during rapid weight loss, they are going to be quite difficult to regain.

By the way, muscle responds significantly to hydration and glucose levels these also affect how we feel about the condition of our skin.

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.

Hydration and weight lifting help.

I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.

My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.

I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.

Bolded isn't true, I don't think…

This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.

It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.

Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.

^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.

Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.

We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.

Weighted by less, but still weighted nonetheless, which is usually why people who stop short of losing the weight they need to lose their skin doesn't snap back enough for their lower weight. And skin loses elasticity over time, more cumulative effects seen in 10 years than in 2, sure, but the aging process is not neglible.
Nothing wrong with taking 2-5 or more years to lose the weight, but I don't see how this functions to stave off loose skin and help it bounce back better, as is often claimed/asserted.

Have a little more time so I'll expand.

During rapid weight loss individuals will lose more of the underling lean body mass, so some of the supporting structure will go. We then end up with skin, fat (lose skin is really always attached to significant layer of fat not yet lost) and less infrastructure. Weight loss that occurs more slowly reduces the risk of LBM loss and the underlying muscle sheaths will maintain structure better. If one loses 20 extra pounds of LBM during rapid weight loss, they are going to be quite difficult to regain.

By the way, muscle responds significantly to hydration and glucose levels these also affect how we feel about the condition of our skin.

Just so we're clear I've been assuming we are talking about people with a significant amount of weight to lose, like 75 or more. Since it's they who most often encounter the problem and/or have to face the prospect of loose skin from dropping that extra weight.

And I've been assuming slower or faster weightloss is in the 0.25-2.00 lbs a week rates.

So when I say I fail to see the advantages that losing weight at a slower rate has for preventing loose skin, I am recalling all the times that someone with 100+ lbs to lose and worried about loose skin has been told that a slower rate is better than a faster one, quite often in the same breath of saying being younger is better to escape loose skin and that being overweight for a shorter span of time rather than a lengthy span is better to escape loose skin.

I just don't see how all these people's skin are any better off by choosing a slower rate. Taking many years to drop what could be safely dropped in half that time all for the sake of preventing loose skin just doesn't square up for me.

I think I get what you're saying about lbm, but I'm reading this point like it doesn't really apply to what I'm talking about. Like it applies to crash dieters or people who are not very overweight and choose aggressive rates of loss.

Or if we are talking about the same thing, that you're adding a variable here that doesn't necessarily apply and could be applicable to obese people who choose slower rates just as well if they're more sedentary than obese people who choose faster rates. I hope my thought process here makes sense.

All this has been interesting to think about and consider. though.

Fast, significant weight loss has a deflating effect. This is a common complaint for post Bariatric patients. My belly reminded me of what it looked like right after my deliveries, like a hot air balloon halfway through inflation. Mine has tightened enough to satisfy me, and it doesn't flop around too much.

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Lourdesong wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

It depends on how much you lose, how fast you lose it, your age and your skin.

Hydration and weight lifting help.

I've lost 90+ pounds. No wrinkles underneath and not much loose skin, except for my belly. I have some unusual issues and scaring from surgeries unrelated to weight loss.

My dermatologist says that laser treatments don't work at all--for anything major, plastic surgery is the only viable option.

I've heard laser can make things like 20-30% better for people with mild laxity and good collagen.

Bolded isn't true, I don't think…

This is per board-certified dermatologist at a major teaching hospital.

It certainly fits with my own experience as a middle-aged person who has lost significant weight, slowly, with no wrinkles/minimal sagging. N=1, of course.

Of course it does, think about it. Some recovery takes time, we consistently see surgeons ask patients to stay at maintenance for a while prior to surgery. If weight lose is slower, some of that recovery time is at least built in.

^^ yes, this is what I think is going on as well. Losing slowly seems mostly for psychological benefit due to skin recovery time being partly "built in" to the process. But I've given this a lot of thought and I really don't see how losing slower (which of necessity means you'll be more aged by the time you reach the finish line, and means your skin will spend a longer amount of time being weighted and stretched by pounds of fat) would be of greater physical benefit.

Maybe more calories to slow the process down means more nutrition which can be good for skin. Or something, I dunno.

We are generally talking about a year or two not ten, I think the aging part can be negligeable on that scale. As you lose, your skin will be weighed less than the month prior - so how is it stretching more? It's a living tissue, constantly remodeling, not a rubber band.

Weighted by less, but still weighted nonetheless, which is usually why people who stop short of losing the weight they need to lose their skin doesn't snap back enough for their lower weight. And skin loses elasticity over time, more cumulative effects seen in 10 years than in 2, sure, but the aging process is not neglible.
Nothing wrong with taking 2-5 or more years to lose the weight, but I don't see how this functions to stave off loose skin and help it bounce back better, as is often claimed/asserted.

Have a little more time so I'll expand.

During rapid weight loss individuals will lose more of the underling lean body mass, so some of the supporting structure will go. We then end up with skin, fat (lose skin is really always attached to significant layer of fat not yet lost) and less infrastructure. Weight loss that occurs more slowly reduces the risk of LBM loss and the underlying muscle sheaths will maintain structure better. If one loses 20 extra pounds of LBM during rapid weight loss, they are going to be quite difficult to regain.

By the way, muscle responds significantly to hydration and glucose levels these also affect how we feel about the condition of our skin.

Just so we're clear I've been assuming we are talking about people with a significant amount of weight to lose, like 75 or more. Since it's they who most often encounter the problem and/or have to face the prospect of loose skin from dropping that extra weight.

And I've been assuming slower or faster weightloss is in the 0.25-2.00 lbs a week rates.

So when I say I fail to see the advantages that losing weight at a slower rate has for preventing loose skin, I am recalling all the times that someone with 100+ lbs to lose and worried about loose skin has been told that a slower rate is better than a faster one, quite often in the same breath of saying being younger is better to escape loose skin and that being overweight for a shorter span of time rather than a lengthy span is better to escape loose skin.

I just don't see how all these people's skin are any better off by choosing a slower rate. Taking many years to drop what could be safely dropped in half that time all for the sake of preventing loose skin just doesn't square up for me.

I think I get what you're saying about lbm, but I'm reading this point like it doesn't really apply to what I'm talking about. Like it applies to crash dieters or people who are not very overweight and choose aggressive rates of loss.

Or if we are talking about the same thing, that you're adding a variable here that doesn't necessarily apply and could be applicable to obese people who choose slower rates just as well if they're more sedentary than obese people who choose faster rates. I hope my thought process here makes sense.

All this has been interesting to think about and consider. though.

Certainly for people that have a lot to lose there is likely to be loose skin - the amount may differ from the rate of loss. And your right - it is a trade-off - losing faster can mean getting to goal within a reasonable period (mentally) making it so much successful.

But I would challenge the idea that 'faster' is limited to that reasonable 2lbs or 1% bw. Let's face it, we see a lot of people on the forums trying to lose a lot of weight at greater rates. At those rates LBM loss becomes a bigger risk.

I'm not saying loose skin won't occur for someone losing 100+ lbs but look at the people posting in this thread - their reported weight loss varies from 37lbs (loose skin), 55lbs (little to none) to well above 100 lbs ... so one of the factors is rate of loss (along with exercise, genetics, diet ...). My own brother was seeing loose skin at 40lbs loss because of his decision to crash diet. The issue isn't just for those with large amounts to lose.

The decision to lose fast or slow is a very individual one, that needs to take into consideration a lot of factors such as the amount, motivation, co-morbidities, risks of weightless rate and end-point expectations.