Losing 4-5 pounds /week?

Options
13567

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    rapple83 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!

    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


  • tiptoethruthetulips
    tiptoethruthetulips Posts: 3,364 Member
    Options
    An example of the outcome of too rapid weight loss: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10468502/diabetes-obesity#latest
  • NewGemini130
    NewGemini130 Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    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!
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    Options
    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.
  • maxit
    maxit Posts: 880 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options

    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?

  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    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?
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    NewGemini130 wrote: »
    rapple83 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

  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    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.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    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.

  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    Options
    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....
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    Options
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    NewGemini130 wrote: »
    rapple83 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.

  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    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.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    Options
    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.
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    Options
    maxit wrote: »
    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.

  • leejoyce31
    leejoyce31 Posts: 794 Member
    Options
    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 :)
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,982 Member
    Options
    nowine4me wrote: »
    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 :smile:
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,982 Member
    Options
    NewGemini130 wrote: »
    rapple83 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.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories