losing more than 2lbs/wk, any successful stories?
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm 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.
I understand your point, thank you .
0 -
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?
I did lose 2.5 -3 lbs at first...once I was closer to 200 lbs my rate of loss slowed to 2 lbs per week and slowly decreased after that. I was typically losing an average of 1% bodyweight per week once I was out of the 200's. At first my fast loss was due to water weight loss, but I'm not sure how long that lasted or how much ended up coming from muscle. I didn't start trying to get rough estimates of my BF% until I was out of the 200's.
I'm curious though, why did you get bored? Were you being really redtrictive with your food choices?0 -
You describe yourself as getting bored, tired, or saw no results with a 1 lb per week weight loss target.
It's not the target you had a problem with, it's the math. The math of CICO is founded upon 3500 calories = 1 lb fat. If and only if you accurately record everything you eat, and accuracy is a digital kitchen scale, and you select accurate listings from the food database, and you accurately account for your activity level and exercise, the math very accurately tells you what your weight change will be. With that, there is the proviso that weight loss is not linear and your body can for many reasons hold on to excess water for an extended time. Once you get squared away with meeting your 500 calorie daily deficit and keep doing that consistently for a month, you will very likely see a 4 lb weight loss. Is that boring? Perhaps so. You've gained weight without being squared away with a 500 calorie daily deficit. Was that exciting? Thrilling?
As for me, the average daily weight loss I have experienced is today about 0.39 lb. That works out to an average weekly weight loss of 2.73 lb. This has actually slowed a bit in the past month. For 8 weeks I was losing 3 lb per week. Is that boring? Kitten with double hockey sticks, yes. I want to lose 20 lb per week, but that's not the way the math will ever work. I'm capable of being patient with the math and sticking with the program. That's actually a talent many people have not developed.3 -
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.
but that assumes that I do not do any form of exercise ? right ? what if I eat 2000 calories and burn 700 calories during exercising ?(walking for 4 hours can burn this amount of calories.)0 -
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.
but that assumes that I do not do any form of exercise ? right ? what if I eat 2000 calories and burn 700 calories during exercising ?(walking for 4 hours can burn this amount of calories.)0 -
7 or so years ago i lost 100 lbs in about 6 months. It was unhealthy and i do not recommend doing it, losing weight shouldn't be a race it should be a life style. This second time i got to lose 100 lbs and am going to be taking about a year to do so. With that being said i will say what i did the first time in a nutshell.
I weighed 300 lbs my entire high school years and the day i graduated i was finally fed up with it. This wasn't the ok i guess i will lose weight; i was seeing blood and got my mind locked in a haze. Every day i would only eat boneless skinless chicken breast with rice and a salad. Would only drink coffee in the morning and the rest would be water. I would run atleast 5-6 miles a day and often did 9+ miles. I would lift weights for 1.5 hours and ended up doing 150 - 200 pushups a workout as well as 1000 - 2000 crunches. At night me and my friends were party animals and ended up partying anywhere from 5-7 nights a week. No extra food was eaten after the chicken rice and salad.
I was in such a haze that when the 6 months was over i woke up one morning buff as crap with a 6 pack. It literally felt like i did not put much effort in at all due to my body being numb from partying.
I still can't believe i put my body through all that stress and extreme workouts. Losing 4-5 pounds a week is crazy now thinking in hindsight. Take your time.1 -
shadow2soul 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?
I did lose 2.5 -3 lbs at first...once I was closer to 200 lbs my rate of loss slowed to 2 lbs per week and slowly decreased after that. I was typically losing an average of 1% bodyweight per week once I was out of the 200's. At first my fast loss was due to water weight loss, but I'm not sure how long that lasted or how much ended up coming from muscle. I didn't start trying to get rough estimates of my BF% until I was out of the 200's.
I'm curious though, why did you get bored? Were you being really redtrictive with your food choices?
thank you for your input. So do you think it is fine if I set a target of 3lbs/wk ,and when I reach 200lbs , set a new target which is 2lbs/wk ?
mm yes,I was bit restrictive, I had some difficulties in calorie counting. So in order to be accurate, my meals usually consisted of boiled eggs. Occasionally I used to eat burgers from McDonald because they indicate how much each burger contains calories.
but the main reason why I got bored, was because I only lost 4 lbs in 2 months. MFP indicated that I should eat 1500 calories to lose 2lbs/wk. I did so , but did not got results. I attributed that to not doing any form of exercise.
Now with the new job that requires 4 hr/day walking, I decided to give losing weight a shot again, and maybe this 4hrs/day walking can be considered as a form of exercise.0 -
Thank you all for providing me with these information and experiences. I've never seen any site or forum where there is such fast and helpful interaction. Wish me luck
any more information or experiences are welcomed. 0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »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.
By that calculation, I could run a 3000 calorie per day deficit and still be burning all fat, provided I was getting enough micronutrients, protein and strength exercise to maintain muscle mass. That would total 6 pounds per week. Not that I think I could to that without feeling overly hungry all the time.
Personally, I set my daily calorie goal by calculating my rmr as if I were already at my goal weight, applied the adjustment for the next activity level below what I think my actual level is, then subtracted 500 calories. This should allow me to still be losing at least a pound per week when I reach my goal, at which point I'll need to up my daily calories.
Generally speaking, if one has 20 pounds or less to lose, more than 2 pounds per week is probably too much, but if you've got 50 or 100 pounds or more to lose, dropping at a faster rate can be done safely. The key is to eat foods that are both nutrient dense and filling, and to engage in strength building exercise. Naturally, 1200 to 1500 calories is still pretty much the bottom of safe calorie intake, and most people who are 100 pounds overweight can't handle 1500 calories of exercise per day. In other words, it all comes down to individual conditions. Setting down hard and fast rules like "no more than 2 pounds weight loss per week" is just not realistic.
0 -
but that assumes that I do not do any form of exercise ? right ? what if I eat 2000 calories and burn 700 calories during exercising ?(walking for 4 hours can burn this amount of calories.)
First of all, 4 hours of walking is a LOT of walking. Even at a normal pace, you'd probably be burning closer to 2000 calories if you managed to walk for 4 hours straight. I base this on fitbit data in my own experience. Now, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who will jump in to say those calorie amounts are overinflated and don't reflect reality, but I've been basing my own progress on Fitbit and MFP's numbers - and the data seems pretty sound *in general*.
If you stick to the CICO model, that 700 calories burned during walking would probably put you at a calorie deficit. The big problem with CICO is that your "earned through exercise" calories are treated as a solid number that gets added to whatever number is your "daily target".
So if MFP tells you that you can chomp down 1750 calories WITHOUT exercise the minute you wake up, and then you do 2 hours of walking like I do, suddenly you can now eat nearly 3,000 calories and still be in a deficit.
This is the part where the numbers don't always add up, and is why you get some people who say "this works perfectly" in one thread, followed by people who say "I never eat more than 25% into my exercise calories" in another thread.
You can't even say that the truth is "somewhere in between" because there's such a huge margin of error.
All that said, CICO is a great start, and if you treat it like a baseline, you'll likely succeed if you follow it with accurate diary entries. Just know that your mileage will vary (sometimes very wildly) based on your level of activity.
As a human being who loves taking in all sources of information, there's just too much information both for and against any particular kind of weight loss to be "believable as fact". That's why I will always say "just lose it any way you can and worry about maintaining it as a completely separate goal".
1 -
Oh i forgot to mention i was talking vitamins, supplements and protein powder during that time. So at least i didn't end up malnourished or put my body in any danger. I had a friend do the same thing as i did (100 lbs in 6 months) and he did not take vitamins or anything. He ended up with a blood clot, lost his hair and was very malnourished. So everyone take your vitamins and make sure you keep up with your nutrients!1
-
one of the reasons I am asking about losing weight fast is this thread :
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10379804/7-months-in-181-pounds-lost-and-61-pounds-lost/p1
this member lost 180 lbs in 7 months ? Thats about 6.5 lbs/wk !! That's the reason why I just felt that the 2lbs/wk is a myth or inaccurate. When I saw the thread ,I wanted to know if there are any other success stories similar to his. or Maybe he has great genetics !
( And all what I want is 3 lbs/wk not damn 6.5lbs/wk lol)
0 -
but that assumes that I do not do any form of exercise ? right ? what if I eat 2000 calories and burn 700 calories during exercising ?(walking for 4 hours can burn this amount of calories.)
First of all, 4 hours of walking is a LOT of walking. Even at a normal pace, you'd probably be burning closer to 2000 calories if you managed to walk for 4 hours straight. I base this on fitbit data in my own experience. Now, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who will jump in to say those calorie amounts are overinflated and don't reflect reality, but I've been basing my own progress on Fitbit and MFP's numbers - and the data seems pretty sound *in general*.
If you stick to the CICO model, that 700 calories burned during walking would probably put you at a calorie deficit. The big problem with CICO is that your "earned through exercise" calories are treated as a solid number that gets added to whatever number is your "daily target".
So if MFP tells you that you can chomp down 1750 calories WITHOUT exercise the minute you wake up, and then you do 2 hours of walking like I do, suddenly you can now eat nearly 3,000 calories and still be in a deficit.
This is the part where the numbers don't always add up, and is why you get some people who say "this works perfectly" in one thread, followed by people who say "I never eat more than 25% into my exercise calories" in another thread.
You can't even say that the truth is "somewhere in between" because there's such a huge margin of error.
All that said, CICO is a great start, and if you treat it like a baseline, you'll likely succeed if you follow it with accurate diary entries. Just know that your mileage will vary (sometimes very wildly) based on your level of activity.
As a human being who loves taking in all sources of information, there's just too much information both for and against any particular kind of weight loss to be "believable as fact". That's why I will always say "just lose it any way you can and worry about maintaining it as a completely separate goal".
yeah I know it is a lot, but that's part of my job, so I have to do it.
Your posts are highly informative. Thank you0 -
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?
I'm confused. If you were aiming at 2 lb/week, how come you only lost 4 lbs in 2 months -- did you lose more and regain?
The general rule of thumb is 1% of weight per week. When I started I had about 100 to lose (I've lost 95 and been maintaining for a while), and at first lost 2-3 per week. As I got lower that wasn't reasonable, however, and I think I lost more muscle mass than necessary (despite eating plenty of protein and doing strength training) because I kept with an aggressive deficit (more like 1.5+ lb per week) when near my healthy weight zone.
To aim for 3 lb/week you need a deficit of 1500 lb/week. At your age and size and with lots of low intensity exercise you might be able to do it, but that's not really the answer to "getting bored"--I think you need to figure that out.0 -
Losing weight fast =Sabine_Stroehm 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.
Definitely NOT worth it. The only case where 3lbs per week is okay if the person has over 100lbs to lose.
Fast weight loss ALWAYS backfires. OP, if you're feeling 'tired' losing at a rate of 1-2lbs per week, you'll be even more tired losing more.
1 -
First you have to make sure you are figuring out how many calories you are consuming a day. Unless you weigh your food on a food scale and choose accurate entries you won't lose what you expect. That is why you didn't lose the 2 lbs. a week because you were not calculating your calories in accurately. I worked retail and stood and walked 8 hours a day...I didn't see any dramatic change in my weight. I was able to maintain but not lose weight until I started accurately counting my calories. Sure you can aim for 3 lbs (which I wouldn't recommend) but if you aren't sure how many calories you are eating you won't reach that goal and you'll be disappointed and give up once again. Everyone wants the quick fix but whenever I ate too little for extra weight loss I felt terrible. My workouts suffered, I was irritable, I got headaches....then I would overeat because my body started to rebel. If you had been happy with your 4 pounds in a month or 2, think about where you would be right now if you had stuck with it! Every little bit helps! I say really start accurately counting all your food calories and aim for 2 lbs. Also understand that weight fluctuates constantly, high sodium can mask a loss but it's still there. I have lost a pound just after using the restroom.0
-
snowflake930 wrote: »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?
No, I did not lose my hair, or anything else. The only thing I lost was excess weight. As I stated I was seeing my doctor every 3 months, and I totally recommend that everyone should have their health care professional involved in the process. I stuck with my plan, stayed in my calorie goal (1200), logged everything I ate and drank, and did not have any "cheat days".
The statistics say that no matter how the people lose weight, over 80% gain it back within 5 years, some gain even more than they lost. I do not buy into the "slow and steady" wins the race concept, because there are no guarantees that the weight stays off, no matter how you do it.
0 -
one of the reasons I am asking about losing weight fast is this thread :
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10379804/7-months-in-181-pounds-lost-and-61-pounds-lost/p1
this member lost 180 lbs in 7 months ? Thats about 6.5 lbs/wk !! That's the reason why I just felt that the 2lbs/wk is a myth or inaccurate. When I saw the thread ,I wanted to know if there are any other success stories similar to his. or Maybe he has great genetics !
( And all what I want is 3 lbs/wk not damn 6.5lbs/wk lol)
Just because someone has done it, doesn't make it right. That's downright dangerous. If that person jumped of a cliff, would you do that, too? By the way, that person may run into health problems later on.
No, the 2lbs per week is not a myth sorry. In the past, I've tried to lose weight fast as well.. And BAM, the weight came back on. Why? What I was doing was no-where near sustainable for life. All I got out of it was a bunch of health problems which I am still dealing with years after.0 -
No, bam the weight came back on for you because you, and 80% of the people that lose weight, go back to old habits of eating. Eating more calories than you are burning makes you gain weight, not how quickly you lost before.2
-
I have been doing this for a month and have lost 15 pounds, but I think alot of that was water weight. I have been really strict about weighing my food, and I don't take cheat days like a lot of people do. everyone is different I have talked to people on here that were just as strict and it took them a lot longer to lose. I think it just depends on your body.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions