losing more than 2lbs/wk, any successful stories?

Options
sfr1991
sfr1991 Posts: 23 Member
edited May 2016 in Getting Started
Hey
I tried previously to lose weight using the calorie count and the 1-2lbs/wk rule, and it did not work for me !
I just got bored, tired, did not see any results, and stopped and returned to my eating habits. I even now weight more now than what I started with ! :(

Anyhow, I was wondering, has anyone lost weight really fast ? let's say 3-4 lbs/wk. ? How accurate is the 1-2 lbs/wk rule ?

Next week I am starting a new job, and it involves walking a lot, about 4 -5 hrs/day. So I guess this will help me losing weight faster ! and thats why I am thinking to go for the 3 lbs/wk as a target. What do you think ?

I am 26 year old male, weight is 255 lbs ,Height 5'10.. my traget is 155 lbs.. so I wanna lose 100 lbs.
«134

Replies

  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    How much weight do you have to lose?
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    karl317 wrote: »
    By any means necessary. Lose it fast. Lose it slow. But just lose it.

    When MFP complains that you're eating too few calories, ignore it. Whatever guidelines that say you can only lose X amount of pounds safely per week are likely BS. That said, whatever guidelines that say losing it quickly are probably equally BS (like this one: http://sciencenordic.com/researchers-rapid-weight-loss-best).

    So just do it any way you like.

    You will find no shortage of people on here that will tell you I'm WRONG WRONG WRONG, as that is the internet of things. But everyone's different, with different tolerances, cravings, physical anomalies and what not.

    Exercise, calorie restrictions or both. With beer or without. With carbs or without. Just lose it. Fast or slow, doesn't matter. Worry about maintaining when you get there.

    There are real downsides to losing it fast. Other than impatience are there downsides to losing it slowly?
  • karl317
    karl317 Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    There are real downsides to losing it fast. Other than impatience are there downsides to losing it slowly?

    If there are, I haven't found *any*, aside from feeling hungry sometimes.

    And you know what, it's perfectly ok to feel hungry sometimes.

    But sorry - Science both agrees and disagrees with you completely, which makes it impossible for any reasonable person to believe either side as "correct".
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    karl317 wrote: »
    There are real downsides to losing it fast. Other than impatience are there downsides to losing it slowly?

    If there are, I haven't found *any*, aside from feeling hungry sometimes.

    And you know what, it's perfectly ok to feel hungry sometimes.

    But sorry - Science both agrees and disagrees with you completely, which makes it impossible for any reasonable person to believe either side as "correct".

    As I stated before, muscle loss. There's also fatigue, hair loss, brittle nails, dry skin, hormone imbalances that can mess with women's menstrual cycles, organ malfunctions/shutdown...the list goes on. That is why MFP recommends 1200 calories for women and 1500 calories for men, as under these amounts it is difficult to get adequate nutrition to fuel the body.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    3- 4 lbs a week would require a 1500-2000 calorie deficit per day. Unless you are extremely obese there isn't going to be a way to do that in a healthy way.

    Also keep in mind your body can only use so many calories a day from fat stores. If I remember correctly it's like 30 calories per pound of fat. Once your deficit exceeds that your body will turn to it's lean body mass to get the remainder of the fuel it needs. This will result in a lower weight but BF% not changing or increasing.
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    Options
    I lost 40 pounds in 8 weeks. 100 pounds by 6-1/2 months, 140 pounds by 1 year, and got to goal @ -160 pounds at 20 months. I have been maintaining around 130-133 for over 2-1/2 years now.
    I have been on MFP for over 4 years now, and I have had quarterly check ups with my doctor during the first 2 years and yearly since then. I highly recommend consulting with a health care specialist who specializes in this field.
    I think you may want to take a professionals advice before listening to all the nay sayers on a public forum. General guidelines are just that, general. Everyone is different.
    Best of luck to you!
  • karl317
    karl317 Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    malibu927 wrote: »

    As I stated before, muscle loss. There's also fatigue, hair loss, brittle nails, dry skin, hormone imbalances that can mess with women's menstrual cycles, organ malfunctions/shutdown...the list goes on. That is why MFP recommends 1200 calories for women and 1500 calories for men, as under these amounts it is difficult to get adequate nutrition to fuel the body.

    Again, science both agrees and disagrees with you - so there is simply no right answer. MFP might recommend something, which might be based on sound science. But for every article that proves something, there are many that also DISPROVE that very thing.

    Which is why I will always say lose it any way you want, just lose it and worry about maintaining once you've reached a point you're happy with.

    It's about what works for you - and ONLY you.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    How much weight do you have to lose?

    This is the question. What might make sense for someone with a huge amount of weight to lose will not make sense for someone with less to lose.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    karl317 wrote: »
    There are real downsides to losing it fast. Other than impatience are there downsides to losing it slowly?

    If there are, I haven't found *any*, aside from feeling hungry sometimes.

    And you know what, it's perfectly ok to feel hungry sometimes.

    But sorry - Science both agrees and disagrees with you completely, which makes it impossible for any reasonable person to believe either side as "correct".

    If you are losing more than 1% of your body weight per week, you are most definitely losing muscle mass in the process, more so than if you were losing more slowly...that's a negative in my book.

    Also, rapid weight loss would require substantial a substantial calorie deficit and VLCDs ...just go search the threads here of people losing their periods, losing hair, brittle nails, etc that come with VLCDs and malnutrition.

    You sound like a pro-ana.
  • sfr1991
    sfr1991 Posts: 23 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    I am sorry I did not add my weight on the 1st post

    26 year old male. My weight is 255 lbs ,Height 5'10... my traget is 155 lbs.. so I wanna lose 100 lbs.
  • sfr1991
    sfr1991 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    How much weight do you have to lose?

    100 lbs

  • sfr1991
    sfr1991 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    karl317 wrote: »
    By any means necessary. Lose it fast. Lose it slow. But just lose it.

    When MFP complains that you're eating too few calories, ignore it. Whatever guidelines that say you can only lose X amount of pounds safely per week are likely BS. That said, whatever guidelines that say losing it quickly are probably equally BS (like this one: http://sciencenordic.com/researchers-rapid-weight-loss-best).

    So just do it any way you like.

    You will find no shortage of people on here that will tell you I'm WRONG WRONG WRONG, as that is the internet of things. But everyone's different, with different tolerances, cravings, physical anomalies and what not.

    Exercise, calorie restrictions or both. With beer or without. With carbs or without. Just lose it. Fast or slow, doesn't matter. Worry about maintaining when you get there.

    Cool study. Thats what happened to me, after 2 months , I got bored , lost only 4 pounds , and was unmotivated .

    Do you know any experience of people losing 3lbs/wk and are still did not destroy their metabolism or their muscles?

  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    sfr1991 wrote: »
    I am sorry I did not add my weight on the 1st post

    My weight is 255 lbs , my traget is 155 lbs.. so I wanna lose 100 lbs.

    Max I would recommend aiming for would be 2.5 lbs per week then (1% bodyweight).Though you would probably find 1.5-2 lbs easier to stick to. And decrease the rate of loss as you lose weight. Don't forget some form of strength training and getting enough protein. Combined this should help to make most of your weight loss come from fat.
    Maybe focus on a fitness related goal while your losing to shift your focus away from the scale.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    ...double post...
  • sfr1991
    sfr1991 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    I lost 40 pounds in 8 weeks. 100 pounds by 6-1/2 months, 140 pounds by 1 year, and got to goal @ -160 pounds at 20 months. I have been maintaining around 130-133 for over 2-1/2 years now.
    I have been on MFP for over 4 years now, and I have had quarterly check ups with my doctor during the first 2 years and yearly since then. I highly recommend consulting with a health care specialist who specializes in this field.
    I think you may want to take a professionals advice before listening to all the nay sayers on a public forum. General guidelines are just that, general. Everyone is different.
    Best of luck to you!

    Wohooo . 40 lbs in 8 weeks ? that would be a dream lol. so you lost 140 lbs in 1 year? thats about 2.7lbs/wk on average. Did you lose your hair or got your metabolism destroyed?
  • karl317
    karl317 Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »

    If you are losing more than 1% of your body weight per week, you are most definitely losing muscle mass in the process, more so than if you were losing more slowly...that's a negative in my book.

    Also, rapid weight loss would require substantial a substantial calorie deficit and VLCDs ...just go search the threads here of people losing their periods, losing hair, brittle nails, etc that come with VLCDs and malnutrition.

    You sound like a pro-ana.

    See, it's statements like "IF YOU ARE LOSING MORE THAN 1% OF YOUR BODY WEIGHT PER WEEK, YOU ARE MOST DEFINITELY LOSING MUSCLE MASS" (emphasis mine) that people are going to zero in on here. It's statements like these that people consider credible - even when there's no *infallible* science behind it.

    Sorry, too many people have lost a ton of weight quickly (and with acceptable muscle mass losses) *and kept it off* to be statistically insignificant - much to the chagrin of many.

    The truth is - no amount of thread-reading can ever definitively say with any degree of certainty whether it's better to lose weight quickly versus slowly. Try as you might to stand behind your statements, there are too many other equally credible statements that work against any "proof" you will find.

    As for "pro-ana", I don't know if I deserve that label. I don't know enough about what "pro-ana" means - which is kind of funny when the wikipedia article itself states "Pro-ana organizations differ widely in their stances". So I guess that must mean we're all pro-ana, as long as we can all find a pro-ana organization we can identify with.

    Disagree with me all you want, that's what the internet is for. But the answer to the OP's question? Yeah. There are METRIC F***TONS of success stories with losing weight quickly and keeping it off. But there are also plenty of failure stories too. The same can be said of *ANY* method of weight loss/lifestyle changes.

    Ask any smoker who started smoking again. Relapses happen, and they aren't ANY less likely if you quit smoking cold turkey versus tapering off.

    The only reason people have a harder time with food is the bare fact that we need it to *survive*, as opposed to most other forms of addiction where you don't.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    sfr1991 wrote: »
    I am sorry I did not add my weight on the 1st post

    My weight is 255 lbs , my traget is 155 lbs.. so I wanna lose 100 lbs.

    You can safely set your goal to 2 pounds a week......for awhile

    Pound per week goals
    75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range
    Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range
    Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range
    Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range
    Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range

    Here's a practical example of why 3 pounds a week isn't a good idea.

    Let's say a 26 year old 5'10" man weighs 255 pounds. Let's say he's sedentary. His maintenance calories are about 2,839.

    A 3 pound a week loss = a daily 1,500 calorie deficit. That's 2,839 - 1500 = 1,339 calories. That leaves 1,339 calories to meet all nutritional guidelines. I don't have a background in nutrition, I wouldn't trust myself to make "perfect" nutritional choices day in and day out. Plus making "perfect" choices day after day is going to get really old. I want a piece of chocolate now and again. Let's face it 100 pounds is going to take awhile.

    Why torture yourself? As you become smaller your maintenance calories decrease. This is why you need to keep lowering weekly goals.