Losing 4-5 pounds /week?
Replies
-
You must be pretty active during the day, not necessarily exercise. Gallstones can happen with quick weight loss regardless if you eat enough fat or not. Nutritional deficiencies can happen regardless of how you currently feel. Issues compound with time, so feeling good now does not mean you aren't harming yourself. Large muscle loss is pretty much guaranteed, which can affect your bone health, your heart and even the way you end up looking once you are at goal weight. Electrolyte imbalances can potentially land you in the hospital.
Your hormones don't care about how you currently feel and will eventually catch up to you in the most unpleasant ways. Even mental health has been shown to suffer with prolonged fast loss. There is a reason people who are put on very low calorie diets for health reasons are closely monitored by doctors. You are essentially administrating your own very low calorie diet since you aren't accounting for your exercise and activity level in your intake (your net calories are too low). All of this and you are wondering why people think you don't care about your health?
It's fine, you've had your fun. The body can handle starvation for a while. It would be smart to transition to a healthier approach before you start having issues.
A side note: have you been to a doctor lately? Rapid weight loss can be a symptom of a health problem you may not be aware of, from thyroid to to malabsorption to parasites to other conditions. You may want to have a check up for peace of mind, or at least stop dieting for a couple of weeks to see how your weight behaves.0 -
NewGemini130 wrote: »Hmm. I AM interested in my health which is why I have endeavored to get down from being obese to a normal weight. I thought I was following a basic, recommended regimen. Yes I've been pleased it's coming off faster than I thought. I only want to know if there was any actual issue but I am not really hearing much. I have not had any side effects mentioned above. I have read up on gallstones because a friend had these, and what I've learned is to have a decent amount of fat to prevent (mine is 15-25% usually). I know this is the initial faster wave and it will slow as I get to the overweight zone, vs obese. I expect that. Not sure why people are saying I don't care about my health? I am not "acting" like I want to rack up pounds. I am not "bragging" about my obesity. Wow. It's embarrassing actually. But yes I do want to be a healthy weight. I will continue to monitor protein and the macros, and eating my exercise calories, and I appreciate those suggestions. Do those of you who see a more than 2-pound loss some weeks turn around and eat more to counteract it? I'm genuinely asking that. Is that what is recommended?
Also honestly I don't think I had much muscle to lose, lol. I was very flabby and completely sedentary. My walking has built more muscle than I had before, undoubtably. I probably should add in weights so thanks for that, but not sure how to do so. I'll look into that. I do have dumbbells- maybe I'll pick em up! I'm new to all of this so was trying to start basic I guess. I now walk my daughter to school and I walk back and that's the big exercise change. Its 45-50 min round trip.
I am new to mfp and thought this was a support forum. Not shaming genuine question- askers. Big thank yous to those of you who have shared info or links, without the side of judgement. Just trying to learn and figure out how to make some small adaptations to keep making progress. I think I have a few tips to follow up on, so thanks. Next time I will skip this area for questions & go back to my Dr for a check in before the scheduled one in December- now I know!
MFP is a fantastic support forum, but when you question the advice of people in the know you can expect negative feed back. Keep doing what you're doing, keep your net calories no less than 1200 and if you do start to feel any ill effects of losing too quickly, you will know it. You will not have much energy and it goes downhill from there. No one has pointed out to you that when you are eating at a calorie deficit you are unlikely to be building muscle. You can maintain what you have (yes, even though you were heavy you have muscle) by eating appropriate amounts of protein and adding some weight training. Knowledge is key to your success, cruise the forums and learn from them. There's tons of info out there and many very qualified people giving advice.4 -
OP- keep doing what you're doing as long as you are netting a total of 1200 calories per day and feel good. But don't get discouraged when it starts to be 2 lbs a week, then 1, then .5. It WILL happen. I'm about your same height, starting weight, a few years older. Now at 149 and happy when I lose 1 pound a month ( yes, month) with 14 to go.
But that's the thing exactly. The OP is NOT netting on 1200. She eats 1200 total. To have a 2300 deficit each day she nets around -1500 (negative 1500, yes). Do you see what the problem is?
5 -
The body is a marvellous thing and you can put it through all kinds of bad treatment and it will compensate in order to protect itself
So massive deficits lead to inessentials shutdown e.g. Cell repair in skin, hairs, hormonal regulation, energy, mood, muscle loss (heart is a muscle), kidney and liver impairment, osteoporosis etc
Gallstones in 71% of rapid weight loss cases due to bariatric surgery
But as long as you can't see it yet, why worry? Eh?7 -
I don't think there is really much science behind the 2 lbs /week guideline. So if you can do that consistently and you're sure you're not under counting or anything then enjoy it!3
-
OP, you might feel fine for now, you may feel fine for several weeks. You will feel fine, until you don't. Look around the forums at how many people are exhausted all the time, hair falling out, can't concentrate, brittle nails. Do some reading. They felt fine, until they didn't. Once they realized it was the steep calorie deficit, and rapid weight loss, and increased their calories, they feel more energy. The rest of it can take months to return to normal.3
-
Personally, I think if you are not feeling starved or deprived, and it's working for you, go for it. If you find yourself binging occasionally, take it as a bad sign... that you are feeling deprived (sometimes the excitement of weight loss can distract you in the short term). When you go get to the point where you realize what you're doing isn't sustainable, set a realistic goal for yourself and hold yourself to it. And don't get freaked out when you see the scale not going down as quickly.4
-
I don't think there is really much science behind the 2 lbs /week guideline. So if you can do that consistently and you're sure you're not under counting or anything then enjoy it!
Thanks. This is part of what I was asking- what is the science behind this recommendation. Basic math to me tells me the same prediction doesn't apply for people with 10-20 to lose vs 70.2 -
Yep. I too once thought "its not happening to me so it probably won't"nutmegoreo wrote: »OP, you might feel fine for now, you may feel fine for several weeks. You will feel fine, until you don't. Look around the forums at how many people are exhausted all the time, hair falling out, can't concentrate, brittle nails. Do some reading. They felt fine, until they didn't. Once they realized it was the steep calorie deficit, and rapid weight loss, and increased their calories, they feel more energy. The rest of it can take months to return to normal.
Guess what? It did. I ended up in hospital. It can actually take years to reverse some symptoms of under eating, and some symptoms such as crumbly teeth are forever.2 -
Just remember that all the numbers given by MFP are estimates based on averages. So if you are losing faster than expected, either you are eating less than you thought, or you are burning more calories than you thought.
After 7 weeks, I'd think the rapid rate would be slowing - if not I personally would be adjusting my goal and eating a little more to slow it down. I wouldn't worry it if I was losing a little more than 2lb per week, but more than double what I was expecting? I'd be slowing down.4 -
I don't think there is really much science behind the 2 lbs /week guideline. So if you can do that consistently and you're sure you're not under counting or anything then enjoy it!
You're wrong, there are plenty of peer reviewed individual studies a
]
Thanks. This is part of what I was asking- what is the science behind this recommendation. Basic math to me tells me the same prediction doesn't apply for people with 10-20 to lose vs 70. [/quote]
Google scholar is a good place to start looking for the studies you want to see
On top of which there are CDC, WHO and NICE guidelines re safe and healthy weight loss
Yes medics take decisions all the time that rapid weight loss contraindications are far outweighed by risk of remaining obese
4 -
NewGemini130 wrote: »I don't think there is really much science behind the 2 lbs /week guideline. So if you can do that consistently and you're sure you're not under counting or anything then enjoy it!
Thanks. This is part of what I was asking- what is the science behind this recommendation. Basic math to me tells me the same prediction doesn't apply for people with 10-20 to lose vs 70.
The OP is clearly ignoring all not so pleasant to read advice and comments and is looking for a particular answer. So leave it to natural selection, guys.5 -
An example of the outcome of too rapid weight loss: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10468502/diabetes-obesity#latest1
-
NewGemini130 wrote: »I don't think there is really much science behind the 2 lbs /week guideline. So if you can do that consistently and you're sure you're not under counting or anything then enjoy it!
Thanks. This is part of what I was asking- what is the science behind this recommendation. Basic math to me tells me the same prediction doesn't apply for people with 10-20 to lose vs 70.
Not thinking there is much science isn't the same as being unaware of the science. And cherry picking the one poster who backs up your theory isn't really sensible either.
So, some basic science. The body can only utilise so much stored fat in a day to compensate for what it is lacking through your food consumption. Once it has maxed out it will go after your lean mass. It will also slow down/stop non-essential bodily functions and divert that energy to the essentials. Which is where brittle hair, organ damage etc comes in.
It is clear nothing anyone says here really makes a jot of difference though. Unless it is of course sublime confirmation bias.8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »You must be pretty active during the day, not necessarily exercise. Gallstones can happen with quick weight loss regardless if you eat enough fat or not. Nutritional deficiencies can happen regardless of how you currently feel. Issues compound with time, so feeling good now does not mean you aren't harming yourself. Large muscle loss is pretty much guaranteed, which can affect your bone health, your heart and even the way you end up looking once you are at goal weight. Electrolyte imbalances can potentially land you in the hospital.
Your hormones don't care about how you currently feel and will eventually catch up to you in the most unpleasant ways. Even mental health has been shown to suffer with prolonged fast loss. There is a reason people who are put on very low calorie diets for health reasons are closely monitored by doctors. You are essentially administrating your own very low calorie diet since you aren't accounting for your exercise and activity level in your intake (your net calories are too low). All of this and you are wondering why people think you don't care about your health?
It's fine, you've had your fun. The body can handle starvation for a while. It would be smart to transition to a healthier approach before you start having issues.
A side note: have you been to a doctor lately? Rapid weight loss can be a symptom of a health problem you may not be aware of, from thyroid to to malabsorption to parasites to other conditions. You may want to have a check up for peace of mind, or at least stop dieting for a couple of weeks to see how your weight behaves.
I'm not active, I have a full time 45hr/wk desk job. I have a standing desk but sit most of the day
. Honestly I do the 45-50 brisk walking and I've done lap swim four times over the last month and a half (less than once/week) for also like 45-50 min. That is it. I have walked every day though.
And yes I have a dr appt set for full lab work for 12/1/16, which will be ~3 months from my start. I will be interested to see if I have any nutritional or other deficiencies. I eat tons of fresh veggies and fruits each day and get a rainbow of foods and vitamins/minerals. We'll see!2 -
I have seen, and I agree with, recommendations here that suggest we should lose more slowly than 2lb per week as we get closer to normal BMI. Personally I aim for no more than .5lb a week. But I had always thought that the 2lb/wk limit could be increased at the higher end. I read at least one paper where the suggestion was that the health risks of obesity outweigh the risks of faster weight loss for most. (Sorry no link, it was a long time ago). I wasn't familiar with the gallstones stat that Sued0nim posted though. I'd like to hear more about that. As it happens, a friend who was obese and lost weight somewhat quickly, did have problems with gallstones, so although it shouldn't matter (yet it does), my personal experiences jive with this.0
-
So, some basic science. The body can only utilise so much stored fat in a day to compensate for what it is lacking through your food consumption. Once it has maxed out it will go after your lean mass. It will also slow down/stop non-essential bodily functions and divert that energy to the essentials. Which is where brittle hair, organ damage etc comes in.
Sources?
1 -
NewGemini130 wrote: »So- on mfp everywhere- comments and app settings, and pretty much all diet advice online- everyone says lose no more than 2pounds/week. Well I have been eating 1100-1200 cal per day, brisk walking 45 minutes per day, and swimming laps once a week, and I have been consistently losing 4 to 5 pounds per week for the last seven weeks. 1200 was what mfp said for losing 2/week. I eat vegan, lots of raw veg and fruit, and have cut out bread, sugar, pasta etc for weight loss mode. I am still obese, which I'm thinking is the reason for my faster pace. I started at 230 and I'm now about 195. I'm 5'7" Woman, age 45.
I'm not really interested in purposefully slowing this down because it seems like I have a system in place and it's pretty much working. So why does everyone say it has to be 2 pounds per week to be healthy?
Oh, I think it will benefit you to slow this down, unless you are okay with losing a whole bunch of muscle mass along with too much poundage per week. 2 pounds a week is healthy for people who have 75 pounds or more to lose, which at 5 ft 7 would put you into the underweight category (you'd weight 125). You want to lose slowly because it helps to preserve what muscle mass you have (you will lose some muscle mass, but the slower you lose weight the better you are able to preserve more muscle mass).
What are your stats? What is your goal weight?0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »NewGemini130 wrote: »I don't think there is really much science behind the 2 lbs /week guideline. So if you can do that consistently and you're sure you're not under counting or anything then enjoy it!
Thanks. This is part of what I was asking- what is the science behind this recommendation. Basic math to me tells me the same prediction doesn't apply for people with 10-20 to lose vs 70.
Not thinking there is much science isn't the same as being unaware of the science. And cherry picking the one poster who backs up your theory isn't really sensible either.
So, some basic science. The body can only utilise so much stored fat in a day to compensate for what it is lacking through your food consumption. Once it has maxed out it will go after your lean mass. It will also slow down/stop non-essential bodily functions and divert that energy to the essentials. Which is where brittle hair, organ damage etc comes in.
It is clear nothing anyone says here really makes a jot of difference though. Unless it is of course sublime confirmation bias.
There's also the behavioural changes that are oh so important to make, repeat and turn into ingrained habits if there is to be any chance of long term maintenance not to mention changes to RMR
Treatment guidelines https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2004/?report=printable
See section G which covers rate of weight loss 10% bodyweight over 6 months
See section H re VLCD and LCD
1 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »You might be fine but make sure you are getting at least 46 grams of protein a day (the amount required for adult sedentary woman), but even more would be ideal to help prevent muscle loss when in a calorie deficit. I try to gee at least 100 grams a day.
Have you recalculated your calories based on your new weight yet? Sometimes the calorie recommendation changes once you weigh less.
It's great you're seeing such rapid and successful results! We just want to make sure you aren't damaging your health in the process.
No, it is not. It's dangerous.4 -
tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »An example of the outcome of too rapid weight loss: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10468502/diabetes-obesity#latest
OP, read this girl's experience. This is a new thread too.
1 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »
It's great you're seeing such rapid and successful results! We just want to make sure you aren't damaging your health in the process.
Is.....this a joke? Encouraging unhealthy, dangerous practices is not great.
I've noticed quite a few of your "encouraging" comments on posts like this....4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »NewGemini130 wrote: »I don't think there is really much science behind the 2 lbs /week guideline. So if you can do that consistently and you're sure you're not under counting or anything then enjoy it!
Thanks. This is part of what I was asking- what is the science behind this recommendation. Basic math to me tells me the same prediction doesn't apply for people with 10-20 to lose vs 70.
Not thinking there is much science isn't the same as being unaware of the science. And cherry picking the one poster who backs up your theory isn't really sensible either.
So, some basic science. The body can only utilise so much stored fat in a day to compensate for what it is lacking through your food consumption. Once it has maxed out it will go after your lean mass. It will also slow down/stop non-essential bodily functions and divert that energy to the essentials. Which is where brittle hair, organ damage etc comes in.
It is clear nothing anyone says here really makes a jot of difference though. Unless it is of course sublime confirmation bias.
There's also the behavioural changes that are oh so important to make, repeat and turn into ingrained habits if there is to be any chance of long term maintenance not to mention changes to RMR
Treatment guidelines https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2004/?report=printable
See section G which covers rate of weight loss 10% bodyweight over 6 months
See section H re VLCD and LCD
Thanks for the link. I did see the guideline recommending 10% over 6 months. It may workout to much less than 2lbs a week. If someone were 300lbs for instance, that would work out to only 1.15lbs a week. Surprisingly low.
0 -
tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »An example of the outcome of too rapid weight loss: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10468502/diabetes-obesity#latest
OP, read this girl's experience. This is a new thread too.
Well, I think that thread about covers it.1 -
tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »An example of the outcome of too rapid weight loss: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10468502/diabetes-obesity#latest
This covers it all.. no science, no math, no "because we said so", no explanations needed.0 -
So, some basic science. The body can only utilise so much stored fat in a day to compensate for what it is lacking through your food consumption. Once it has maxed out it will go after your lean mass. It will also slow down/stop non-essential bodily functions and divert that energy to the essentials. Which is where brittle hair, organ damage etc comes in.
Sources?
You didn't ask me, and I don't have a link per se, but I did read a study where the researchers mentioned a case of someone who was still obese upon death due to starvation. I don't know the circumstances, but there is obviously some point at which your lean mass suffers.
0 -
NewGemini130 wrote: »I actually have seen a lot of the 2/week on boards but no real evidence why. I can see the dangers if you are crashing or starving yourself but this isn't the situation. The other info all over is the 1200 minimum which I'm sticking to. Not trying to incite anger, people -just trying to learn.
It seems a bit dramatic to tell me I am damaging my heart with 1200/day and 45 min walking. Geez. My doctor hasn't said that. This was exact what she told me to do.NewGemini130 wrote: »I actually have seen a lot of the 2/week on boards but no real evidence why. I can see the dangers if you are crashing or starving yourself but this isn't the situation. The other info all over is the 1200 minimum which I'm sticking to. Not trying to incite anger, people -just trying to learn.
It seems a bit dramatic to tell me I am damaging my heart with 1200/day and 45 min walking. Geez. My doctor hasn't said that. This was exact what she told me to do.
Yeah they went pretty extreme on you. Just keep in mind these people don't know. So at the end of the day the harsh words don't matter. I think your weight loss will slow in time but if you are concerned about losing too fast you should eat a little more. I do agree that rapid weight loss can pose some potential problems. Talk to your doctor to further insight. Good luck 1 -
OP- keep doing what you're doing as long as you are netting a total of 1200 calories per day and feel good. But don't get discouraged when it starts to be 2 lbs a week, then 1, then .5. It WILL happen. I'm about your same height, starting weight, a few years older. Now at 149 and happy when I lose 1 pound a month ( yes, month) with 14 to go.gebeziseva wrote: »But that's the thing exactly. The OP is NOT netting on 1200. She eats 1200 total. To have a 2300 deficit each day she nets around -1500 (negative 1500, yes). Do you see what the problem is?
You beat me to it, thanks 4 -
leejoyce31 wrote: »NewGemini130 wrote: »I actually have seen a lot of the 2/week on boards but no real evidence why. I can see the dangers if you are crashing or starving yourself but this isn't the situation. The other info all over is the 1200 minimum which I'm sticking to. Not trying to incite anger, people -just trying to learn.
It seems a bit dramatic to tell me I am damaging my heart with 1200/day and 45 min walking. Geez. My doctor hasn't said that. This was exact what she told me to do.NewGemini130 wrote: »I actually have seen a lot of the 2/week on boards but no real evidence why. I can see the dangers if you are crashing or starving yourself but this isn't the situation. The other info all over is the 1200 minimum which I'm sticking to. Not trying to incite anger, people -just trying to learn.
It seems a bit dramatic to tell me I am damaging my heart with 1200/day and 45 min walking. Geez. My doctor hasn't said that. This was exact what she told me to do.
Yeah they went pretty extreme on you. Just keep in mind these people don't know. So at the end of the day the harsh words don't matter. I think your weight loss will slow in time but if you are concerned about losing too fast you should eat a little more. I do agree that rapid weight loss can pose some potential problems. Talk to your doctor to further insight. Good luck
No one's words have been harsh in this thread. They're trying to help stop a person from doing lasting damage to their health.7 -
NewGemini130 wrote: »I don't think there is really much science behind the 2 lbs /week guideline. So if you can do that consistently and you're sure you're not under counting or anything then enjoy it!
Thanks. This is part of what I was asking- what is the science behind this recommendation. Basic math to me tells me the same prediction doesn't apply for people with 10-20 to lose vs 70.
Losing 1% of your weight per week is generally considered to be a safe rate of loss, so for you at 195 pounds that's just under two pounds per week.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions