Is losing weight slowly really worth it
Options
Replies
-
TY0
-
trigden1991 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.
Please can you provide any evidence for the above. I would say the opposite;
-Many people find it easier to comply to a 4-6 week diet than a 4-6 month diet
- Lean mass can be preserved during a faster more agressive cut
- Many people would be healthier if they were carrying 10-20lbs less fat
I disagree because for the same result, the 4-6 week diet would need to create a 4 times higher deficit than the 4-6 month diet, involving way more restriction on eating or way higher amounts of exercise.
And getting the weight off is just part one, keeping it off is the second part, and that can't be done quickly by definition since it's something permanent. And which way is the better to form good long term habits, a 4 week crash diet with unreasonably high exercise or half a year of eating just slightly below what your maintenance is going to be plus regular exercise?
4 -
stevencloser wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.
Please can you provide any evidence for the above. I would say the opposite;
-Many people find it easier to comply to a 4-6 week diet than a 4-6 month diet
- Lean mass can be preserved during a faster more agressive cut
- Many people would be healthier if they were carrying 10-20lbs less fat
I disagree because for the same result, the 4-6 week diet would need to create a 4 times higher deficit than the 4-6 month diet, involving way more restriction on eating or way higher amounts of exercise.
And getting the weight off is just part one, keeping it off is the second part, and that can't be done quickly by definition since it's something permanent. And which way is the better to form good long term habits, a 4 week crash diet with unreasonably high exercise or half a year of eating just slightly below what your maintenance is going to be plus regular exercise?
My six week cut actually involves about half of the activity that I am used to. Here's the thing about the structure we are talking about: by encouraging the use of whole food protein sources, it gives people a better grasp on portion control. We're not talking about Velocity or some silly shake based nonsense (though you could use shakes for all of it, if you like being hungry all of the time).
Trust me, after you spend a few weeks at 600-800 kcal of protein and fish oil caps, going back up to maintenance actually feels like way too damned much food. Anyone who binges after this has problems that no diet will fix. They don't need a diet; they need a therapist.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.
Please can you provide any evidence for the above. I would say the opposite;
-Many people find it easier to comply to a 4-6 week diet than a 4-6 month diet
- Lean mass can be preserved during a faster more agressive cut
- Many people would be healthier if they were carrying 10-20lbs less fat
I disagree because for the same result, the 4-6 week diet would need to create a 4 times higher deficit than the 4-6 month diet, involving way more restriction on eating or way higher amounts of exercise.
And getting the weight off is just part one, keeping it off is the second part, and that can't be done quickly by definition since it's something permanent. And which way is the better to form good long term habits, a 4 week crash diet with unreasonably high exercise or half a year of eating just slightly below what your maintenance is going to be plus regular exercise?
Each to his own I guess. It depends entirely on the individual. Personally I have the long-term bit dialed in so am not worried about 4-6 weeks at a higher deficit.
Referring back to my original point though; a morbidly obese person would do better to do 4-6 weeks at a large deficit before using a more conservative deficit.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.
Please can you provide any evidence for the above. I would say the opposite;
-Many people find it easier to comply to a 4-6 week diet than a 4-6 month diet
- Lean mass can be preserved during a faster more agressive cut
- Many people would be healthier if they were carrying 10-20lbs less fat
I disagree because for the same result, the 4-6 week diet would need to create a 4 times higher deficit than the 4-6 month diet, involving way more restriction on eating or way higher amounts of exercise.
And getting the weight off is just part one, keeping it off is the second part, and that can't be done quickly by definition since it's something permanent. And which way is the better to form good long term habits, a 4 week crash diet with unreasonably high exercise or half a year of eating just slightly below what your maintenance is going to be plus regular exercise?
My six week cut actually involves about half of the activity that I am used to. Here's the thing about the structure we are talking about: by encouraging the use of whole food protein sources, it gives people a better grasp on portion control. We're not talking about Velocity or some silly shake based nonsense (though you could use shakes for all of it, if you like being hungry all of the time).
Trust me, after you spend a few weeks at 600-800 kcal of protein and fish oil caps, going back up to maintenance actually feels like way too damned much food. Anyone who binges after this has problems that no diet will fix. They don't need a diet; they need a therapist.
I'm willing to bet that almost no obese person is willing to eat 600-800 calories per day of that stuff for the time it takes to get to a normal weight when their normal intake was 5 times that before. But have someone eat a 500 deficit or even 1000 deficit and make them understand that it's going to take time and the scale isn't suddenly going to plummet multiple pounds per day (one of the main reasons people give up reasonable diets is because they expect results way too fast) and you have someone who already learned portion control of normal amounts during the weight loss. Someone eating a hand full of chicken breast and a pantry full of supplements isn't going to learn what normal food intake is.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.
Please can you provide any evidence for the above. I would say the opposite;
-Many people find it easier to comply to a 4-6 week diet than a 4-6 month diet
- Lean mass can be preserved during a faster more agressive cut
- Many people would be healthier if they were carrying 10-20lbs less fat
I disagree because for the same result, the 4-6 week diet would need to create a 4 times higher deficit than the 4-6 month diet, involving way more restriction on eating or way higher amounts of exercise.
And getting the weight off is just part one, keeping it off is the second part, and that can't be done quickly by definition since it's something permanent. And which way is the better to form good long term habits, a 4 week crash diet with unreasonably high exercise or half a year of eating just slightly below what your maintenance is going to be plus regular exercise?
My six week cut actually involves about half of the activity that I am used to. Here's the thing about the structure we are talking about: by encouraging the use of whole food protein sources, it gives people a better grasp on portion control. We're not talking about Velocity or some silly shake based nonsense (though you could use shakes for all of it, if you like being hungry all of the time).
Trust me, after you spend a few weeks at 600-800 kcal of protein and fish oil caps, going back up to maintenance actually feels like way too damned much food. Anyone who binges after this has problems that no diet will fix. They don't need a diet; they need a therapist.
I'm willing to bet that almost no obese person is willing to eat 600-800 calories per day of that stuff for the time it takes to get to a normal weight when their normal intake was 5 times that before. But have someone eat a 500 deficit or even 1000 deficit and make them understand that it's going to take time and the scale isn't suddenly going to plummet multiple pounds per day (one of the main reasons people give up reasonable diets is because they expect results way too fast) and you have someone who already learned portion control of normal amounts during the weight loss. Someone eating a hand full of chicken breast and a pantry full of supplements isn't going to learn what normal food intake is.
You already pointed out my issue with the "slow and steady" approach. When people don't see results quickly, they tend yo get discouraged. How many threads here are titled some silly *kitten* like "fell off the wagon, but THIS time, I'm in"? They are inevitably filled with either BS excuses, or having gotten discouraged by slow as hell results.
For the first: if they are falling away from a 500-1000 kcal deficit for any reason, there's probably not much helping them in the long run, because that's not even remotely challenging. Like I said, for them, less diet, more psychologist.
For the second, there's the approach I am mentioning. No, not everyone can hack it (nor does everyone want to). But yes, it does work admirably for those who do.0 -
There are lots of benefits to losing slowly.
Less loose skin and more retention of lean muscle.
Gives you a chance to develop good eating habits and makes it more likely to keep the weight off.
A smaller calorie deficit makes adherence easier and more likely to remain consistent.
I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.
Please can you provide any evidence for the above. I would say the opposite;
-Many people find it easier to comply to a 4-6 week diet than a 4-6 month diet
- Lean mass can be preserved during a faster more agressive cut
- Many people would be healthier if they were carrying 10-20lbs less fat
I disagree because for the same result, the 4-6 week diet would need to create a 4 times higher deficit than the 4-6 month diet, involving way more restriction on eating or way higher amounts of exercise.
And getting the weight off is just part one, keeping it off is the second part, and that can't be done quickly by definition since it's something permanent. And which way is the better to form good long term habits, a 4 week crash diet with unreasonably high exercise or half a year of eating just slightly below what your maintenance is going to be plus regular exercise?
My six week cut actually involves about half of the activity that I am used to. Here's the thing about the structure we are talking about: by encouraging the use of whole food protein sources, it gives people a better grasp on portion control. We're not talking about Velocity or some silly shake based nonsense (though you could use shakes for all of it, if you like being hungry all of the time).
Trust me, after you spend a few weeks at 600-800 kcal of protein and fish oil caps, going back up to maintenance actually feels like way too damned much food. Anyone who binges after this has problems that no diet will fix. They don't need a diet; they need a therapist.
I'm willing to bet that almost no obese person is willing to eat 600-800 calories per day of that stuff for the time it takes to get to a normal weight when their normal intake was 5 times that before. But have someone eat a 500 deficit or even 1000 deficit and make them understand that it's going to take time and the scale isn't suddenly going to plummet multiple pounds per day (one of the main reasons people give up reasonable diets is because they expect results way too fast) and you have someone who already learned portion control of normal amounts during the weight loss. Someone eating a hand full of chicken breast and a pantry full of supplements isn't going to learn what normal food intake is.
You already pointed out my issue with the "slow and steady" approach. When people don't see results quickly, they tend yo get discouraged. How many threads here are titled some silly *kitten* like "fell off the wagon, but THIS time, I'm in"? They are inevitably filled with either BS excuses, or having gotten discouraged by slow as hell results.
For the first: if they are falling away from a 500-1000 kcal deficit for any reason, there's probably not much helping them in the long run, because that's not even remotely challenging. Like I said, for them, less diet, more psychologist.
For the second, there's the approach I am mentioning. No, not everyone can hack it (nor does everyone want to). But yes, it does work admirably for those who do.
And then they lost weight eating basically nothing and aren't any smarter about how to keep it off than they were before. Habits take time to form. I could force myself to go out and run a marathon each day until I collapse and burn out, that doesn't teach me normal regular exercise and I'll never do it again unless I force myself to it again. Exercising 3 times a week for an hour on the other hand is something sustainable and you end up just keeping at it without thinking too much about it. 3 years and counting, same with food.5 -
trigden1991 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.
Please can you provide any evidence for the above. I would say the opposite;
-Many people find it easier to comply to a 4-6 week diet than a 4-6 month diet
- Lean mass can be preserved during a faster more agressive cut
- Many people would be healthier if they were carrying 10-20lbs less fat
Guys, be fair. The type of diet you're talking about isn't for everyone because compliance to it is tough.
I agree with everything you said, but it's not for people who are looking to drop lots of weight like the poster you're questioning did.
I did it trying to drop five vanity pounds, you guys do it to cut after a bulk. It's a situational thing that's not used in the context of someone approaching weight loss needing to lose 90 pounds. That's not something that's done in 6 months, btw, especially if you're a female, or older.
Context here is helpful.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Slower is good for compliance, lean mass preservation and overall health generally speaking.
Please can you provide any evidence for the above. I would say the opposite;
-Many people find it easier to comply to a 4-6 week diet than a 4-6 month diet
- Lean mass can be preserved during a faster more agressive cut
- Many people would be healthier if they were carrying 10-20lbs less fat
Guys, be fair. The type of diet you're talking about isn't for everyone because compliance to it is tough.
I agree with everything you said, but it's not for people who are looking to drop lots of weight like the poster you're questioning did.
I did it trying to drop five vanity pounds, you guys do it to cut after a bulk. It's a situational thing that's not used in the context of someone approaching weight loss needing to lose 90 pounds. That's not something that's done in 6 months, btw, especially if you're a female, or older.
Context here is helpful.
Oh, definitely, which is why I keep pointing out that not everyone can manage it. To be fair though, I did use something very similar (though I wasn't aware of this specific protocol at the time) to get from 195 to 150 in about three months.
I will be the first to admit, I operate best under extremes. When I try to coast, or be moderate, things inevitably go to *kitten*, because I get bored and stop caring. Again, not for everyone, but it works for those who can handle it.
Don't tweak, don't "adjust to taste". Just "shut your mouth and follow the protocol", and it works as advertised. That's my only real point.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I guess when I think of compliance I'm thinking of the numerous daily threads and experience of seeing friends restrict too hard in order to lose quickly. They then can't keep it up and as above, rebound and then some as they compensate for over-restriction. And whilst you can reasonably safely restrict hard for 4-6 weeks, most people have a lot more weight to lose than going balls to wall for that short a time will achieve.
Those here who appear to be most successful are those who have a sensible deficit (and this of course varies depending on TDEE) and just get on with living and changing habits over the long term.
Of course this is anecdotal and I don't profess to know if this is total fact. Just my own personal and personally observed opinion.
As to the muscle loss but isn't it correct that the body can only metabolise so much stored fat in a day? And the muscle sparing diets require quite specific training methods and diet? not for the faint of heart or, I would have thought, for those with a lot to lose? I could be wrong though. Always learning.
They do require resistance training, yes, and a VERY specific macro breakdown (about 90% protein, and just enough fats to get in the essentials). There are actually different protocols for people are different bodyfat levels (1 for sub-15, 2 for 16-30, 3 for 31 and above). Each is structured a bit differently to keep hormones from tanking and provide the LBM sparing effect. Trust me, if they work to peel bodybuilders from 10% to 8% in two weeks, they work just fine for taking...ehhh...the average American back to human shaped just fine. There's also built in cheat meals for the uber-fatties so they don't lose their minds entirely in the process.
Is it hard? For most, though I'm actually finding my C2 run hilariously easy. Does it get results for those who can hack it, and the properly follow the procedures for going back to maintenance and taking short term diet breaks? Most definitely.
It's a matter of preference though. I prefer extreme short term pain, to long drawn out annoyance. The faster my fat is gone, the faster I can get back to real lifting, instead of this three day per week *kitten*.
90% protein? What do you do for the other 10%? No carb only 10% fat?
That's pretty much how it works. Like I said, it's not meant to be long term sustainable. It's a short term fat ripping/muscle sparing process, after which you move to a more balanced maintenance for a couple of weeks and reevaluate.
There is allowance for both carbs and fat per meal, but I personally don't use them. They just impede rapid progress.
Right. I'm not in that catagory so it doesn't apply to me. You are talking about bodybuilders preparing for contests.
No he is talking about a Protein Sparing Modified Fast which has been proven to be very effective for people at every stage of the weight loss "journey" from morbidly obese people to contest ready bodybuilders.
While it "works" for morbidly obese people, do you seriously think it's a good idea for them to use them long term?
I'm not talking about the health implications here. I think RFL and PSMFs are just fine.
The process of losing weight is a time for someone who's had problems with food and bad eating habits to form good eating habits. To amass a collection of healthy recipes, try new foods, learn about nutrition, and form the habit of regular exercise.
While Lyle gives some guidelines on how to branch out into maintenance after RFL by adding new foods, I don't think the limited nature of the protocol allows for that to happen for most people over the time necessary for habit formation.
I can see where it could be useful for a small subset who really need to get their weight down quickly for medical reasons, but eh... the importance of habit formation is an important element in successful weight maintenance.
Crash dieting doesn't really allow for that to happen.
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I guess when I think of compliance I'm thinking of the numerous daily threads and experience of seeing friends restrict too hard in order to lose quickly. They then can't keep it up and as above, rebound and then some as they compensate for over-restriction. And whilst you can reasonably safely restrict hard for 4-6 weeks, most people have a lot more weight to lose than going balls to wall for that short a time will achieve.
Those here who appear to be most successful are those who have a sensible deficit (and this of course varies depending on TDEE) and just get on with living and changing habits over the long term.
Of course this is anecdotal and I don't profess to know if this is total fact. Just my own personal and personally observed opinion.
As to the muscle loss but isn't it correct that the body can only metabolise so much stored fat in a day? And the muscle sparing diets require quite specific training methods and diet? not for the faint of heart or, I would have thought, for those with a lot to lose? I could be wrong though. Always learning.
They do require resistance training, yes, and a VERY specific macro breakdown (about 90% protein, and just enough fats to get in the essentials). There are actually different protocols for people are different bodyfat levels (1 for sub-15, 2 for 16-30, 3 for 31 and above). Each is structured a bit differently to keep hormones from tanking and provide the LBM sparing effect. Trust me, if they work to peel bodybuilders from 10% to 8% in two weeks, they work just fine for taking...ehhh...the average American back to human shaped just fine. There's also built in cheat meals for the uber-fatties so they don't lose their minds entirely in the process.
Is it hard? For most, though I'm actually finding my C2 run hilariously easy. Does it get results for those who can hack it, and the properly follow the procedures for going back to maintenance and taking short term diet breaks? Most definitely.
It's a matter of preference though. I prefer extreme short term pain, to long drawn out annoyance. The faster my fat is gone, the faster I can get back to real lifting, instead of this three day per week *kitten*.
90% protein? What do you do for the other 10%? No carb only 10% fat?
That's pretty much how it works. Like I said, it's not meant to be long term sustainable. It's a short term fat ripping/muscle sparing process, after which you move to a more balanced maintenance for a couple of weeks and reevaluate.
There is allowance for both carbs and fat per meal, but I personally don't use them. They just impede rapid progress.
Right. I'm not in that catagory so it doesn't apply to me. You are talking about bodybuilders preparing for contests.
No he is talking about a Protein Sparing Modified Fast which has been proven to be very effective for people at every stage of the weight loss "journey" from morbidly obese people to contest ready bodybuilders.
While it "works" for morbidly obese people, do you seriously think it's a good idea for them to use them long term?
I'm not talking about the health implications here. I think RFL and PSMFs are just fine.
The process of losing weight is a time for someone who's had problems with food and bad eating habits to form good eating habits. To amass a collection of healthy recipes, try new foods, learn about nutrition, and form the habit of regular exercise.
While Lyle gives some guidelines on how to branch out into maintenance after RFL by adding new foods, I don't think the limited nature of the protocol allows for that to happen for most people over the time necessary for habit formation.
I can see where it could be useful for a small subset who really need to get their weight down quickly for medical reasons, but eh... the importance of habit formation is an important element in successful weight maintenance.
Crash dieting doesn't really allow for that to happen.
Honestly, the only habits that need forming are keeping accurate track of intake, and keeping track of weight/bodyfat. Everything else has to be adjusted for on the fly, because things change. Hell, it could be something as simple as moving to a new town where none of the foods they had gotten used to are available. What to do then? Right, apply basic math skills, and adapt.1 -
I've been eating (mostly) Paleo since February, and have lost an average of slightly less than a pound per week (.879 lbs).
I am hardly ever hungry, except right before normal meal times.
My skin is nice and tight, with no sign of sag.
To me, this is the biggest reason to go slowly, so I don't have to deal with loose skin. I know three different people who crashed off 80 to 100+ pounds in a year or less, then had to have horrific surgery to remove the excess skin.
One girl now has fake nipples and a fake navel, and scars everywhere...why?
I ain't gonna deal with THAT...1 -
vikinglander wrote: »I've been eating (mostly) Paleo since February, and have lost an average of slightly less than a pound per week (.879 lbs).
I am hardly ever hungry, except right before normal meal times.
My skin is nice and tight, with no sign of sag.
To me, this is the biggest reason to go slowly, so I don't have to deal with loose skin. I know three different people who crashed off 80 to 100+ pounds in a year or less, then had to have horrific surgery to remove the excess skin.
One girl now has fake nipples and a fake navel, and scars everywhere...why?
I ain't gonna deal with THAT...
You'll deal with it if your genetics say you will. All going slower does for the skin is let it adapt while you lose, instead of doing it's thing after. Regardless of speed of loss, your skin is going to do whatever it will do, given the same timeframe.4 -
Cahgetsfit wrote: »slow and steady all the way. I tried the fast thing and gained back just as fast.
Slow can be really aggravating because it's like GAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH NOTHING IS HAPPENING!!!! UUURRGHHHHHHHH!!! Especially when you lift and the stupid scales don't move.
But when it's gone it gone. PHEW!
And you teach yourself to be more sustainable due to not being hungry/depleted/crazy.
Like a poster above said re shredding - I've done that too and it's not sustainable and it sucks big hairy ones. I"m still traumatized from the experience lol
Dont give up - it will happen and have greater chance of staying off.
ugh! this!
the. scale. won't. move. my news feed just races by me with milestones of pounds shed.
but the inches drop away and that's what i'm going for. and it will probably take me 2 years to get to where i want to be, but even after a few months i can do things i never thought i could do and that i would definitely not be able to do on a vlcd.1 -
First, I'm going to say that this is partly perspective. To my perspective, 1 lb. / week is fast. I wish I could do that. I've lost about 46 lbs. in almost 3 years, most of which has been in the past 8 months. It isn't that I didn't want to lose faster, but that I just plain couldn't get the expected results when I ate and exercised for 1 lb. / week or 0.5 lb. / week for most of that time until changing macros.
Second, the question of whether it is worth it is up to you. I know on MFP you are going to probably get a lot of cheerleader responses saying it is definitely worth the effort. But I'm going to be very honest (as always) and realistic when I say that I don't know if it has actually been worth the effort. A lot of things have changed for me and continue to change for me. I've seen some major health benefits not just from weight loss, but from changing macros. But I've had more challenges than most. That is why I'm jealous of those who lose 40 or 50 lbs. in a year or more. And I've spent a lot of days unsatisfied with what I'm eating, plus even more days unsatisfied with how much I'm eating. It's almost every day, actually. There are other positives, such as outdoor time. Overall, I'm not sure if I'm really happier.1 -
vikinglander wrote: »I've been eating (mostly) Paleo since February, and have lost an average of slightly less than a pound per week (.879 lbs).
I am hardly ever hungry, except right before normal meal times.
My skin is nice and tight, with no sign of sag.
To me, this is the biggest reason to go slowly, so I don't have to deal with loose skin. I know three different people who crashed off 80 to 100+ pounds in a year or less, then had to have horrific surgery to remove the excess skin.
One girl now has fake nipples and a fake navel, and scars everywhere...why?
I ain't gonna deal with THAT...
I lost around 50lbs at a quicker pace and I have absolutely no issues with saggy skin or even stretch marks.0 -
I just wanted to add my experience from losing it fast. I started the year weighing in at 283 pounds. I have lost 102 pounds since January 3rd.
The good to losing fast
I have been more motivated this time. I enjoy tthe fact I am now wearing clothes I haven't seen in almost ten years. I can easily walk up stairs and keep up with my kids.
The bad for me
Obsessing over every calorie I take in. I am now smaller so I have to be more viligant in counting. I have anxiety when it comes to weighing in now. What if I don't lose weight. It freaks me out to the point of panic attacks. My stomach hurts a lot now. At first they thought it was my gall bladder they removed and my stomach hurts just as bad if not more.1 -
louann_jude wrote: »I just wanted to add my experience from losing it fast. I started the year weighing in at 283 pounds. I have lost 102 pounds since January 3rd.
The good to losing fast
I have been more motivated this time. I enjoy tthe fact I am now wearing clothes I haven't seen in almost ten years. I can easily walk up stairs and keep up with my kids.
The bad for me
Obsessing over every calorie I take in. I am now smaller so I have to be more viligant in counting. I have anxiety when it comes to weighing in now. What if I don't lose weight. It freaks me out to the point of panic attacks. My stomach hurts a lot now. At first they thought it was my gall bladder they removed and my stomach hurts just as bad if not more.
I could be wrong, but what you are describing in your negatives probably would have happened to you, regardless of pace of loss. I am much the same with the obsessive tracking, but I am able to easily deal with the reality that there will be weigh-ins that suck. Some people just don't do well with them, and you can see it all over these boards, regardless of diet, speed of loss, gender, or anything else.3 -
I had to make my peace with losing slowly. Husband had gastric bypass, lost 95 lbs in a year and has kept it off for a year now. In the same year, I lost 30 lbs. I am on daily prednisone for life due to an organ transplant, so I have an extra factor to deal with in weight loss. I cherish all losses no matter how small. Just staying the same from week to week can sometimes be a victory. As long as the overall trend is going in the right direction, I'm at peace. I did see an uptick over the most recent couple of weeks so I had to course-correct and I expect these types of situations to occur in the future as well.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 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
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions