Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Rapid vs slow weight loss - opinions?
Replies
-
My weight loss was always fairly cyclic, I stayed at 300lbs, I started out at 5'10" and now I'm 5'9" and 175 currently, but have 10lbs of winter weight to lose. I lost 2lbs per week until I hit 175 then it became irregular I would lose half pound one week and 1 or sometimes 2 lbs the next. All I did for working out was walking, the lady few months I started running I guess. Anyway I have kept it off for about 2 years now. That was fast weight loss. I don't regret it at all. Imo the problem with smaller deficits is that it is very easy to log inaccurately and end up unsuccessful in losing weight.3
-
middlehaitch wrote: »@wackyfunster
'1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean'
The op is a 5'3 52yo woman weighing 137lbs looking to lose 10-12lbs.
1lbs a week would probably work for the first 5-8 lbs then it would gradually diminish as she would be eating at 1200 cals.
Context is important.
Cheers, h.
There's really no reason she couldn't do a pound a week down to 125. At that age/height she might need to go below 1200 calories, and that is ok. There is no magical calorie number that applies to everyone regardless of height/weight/age. There is a ton of medical data showing that weight loss is safe down to much lower levels of body fat than you would think. The important thing is adequate intake of electrolytes, and that is just as true at 2000 calories as it is at 1200 (or 0 for that matter).
TBH, arbitrary calorie limits are what mess up a lot of people on here. If you are formerly obese, your BMR may be permanently reduced by up to 40%. It is quite possible that there are people out there who will spend the rest of their lives MAINTAINING at 1200 calories. Should they just stay overweight and unhealthy forever because someone somewhere decided that some arbitrary number of calories was the minimum for everyone regardless of height, weight, age, and medical history?
If your health is fragile enough that a caloric deficit for a short period of time is concerning, then you need to be doing all weight loss under medical supervision anyway.
3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Too late to edit my post, but I was also going to say that this seems very much geared towards the bodybuilder who is doing bulk/cut cycles, not really geared towards someone with a lot of weight to lose. My bodybuilding friends typically cut fast...but they're not in large deficits for prolonged periods of time either...usually like 6 weeks or so...maybe 8...it's over pretty quickly and then they're back to a surplus.
I'd be curious if the no muscle loss thing held true if it was someone with 100+ Lbs to lose and they had maintained an aggressive deficit for an extended period of time.
Mike Matthews specifies that if someone needs to lose a lot of weight, losing more than 2 pounds per week is okay.
I've always heard about 1% of BW.0 -
I'm not even sure how I got this - I subscribed to a bunch of folks to learn more about weight loss, but this may add some interesting insight. Totally not sure of how much value this is or their rep.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1178192862228085&id=393985583982154&_rdr0 -
wackyfunster wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »@wackyfunster
'1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean'
The op is a 5'3 52yo woman weighing 137lbs looking to lose 10-12lbs.
1lbs a week would probably work for the first 5-8 lbs then it would gradually diminish as she would be eating at 1200 cals.
Context is important.
Cheers, h.
There's really no reason she couldn't do a pound a week down to 125. At that age/height she might need to go below 1200 calories, and that is ok. There is no magical calorie number that applies to everyone regardless of height/weight/age. There is a ton of medical data showing that weight loss is safe down to much lower levels of body fat than you would think. The important thing is adequate intake of electrolytes, and that is just as true at 2000 calories as it is at 1200 (or 0 for that matter).
TBH, arbitrary calorie limits are what mess up a lot of people on here. If you are formerly obese, your BMR may be permanently reduced by up to 40%. It is quite possible that there are people out there who will spend the rest of their lives MAINTAINING at 1200 calories. Should they just stay overweight and unhealthy forever because someone somewhere decided that some arbitrary number of calories was the minimum for everyone regardless of height, weight, age, and medical history?
If your health is fragile enough that a caloric deficit for a short period of time is concerning, then you need to be doing all weight loss under medical supervision anyway.
Let's see, 52, 5'3", 137 . . . TDEE 1566, 500 a day deficit, so eating 1066 and below (since it will need to drop to around 1000 she approaches 125), and doing that consistently for 3 months to lose 12 pounds at a pound a week, while doing Strong Curves.
Sure, no problem, don't see where that could go wrong at all. (Eye Roll)
@middlehaitch and I are a lot closer to her age/size - older/smaller women, rather than younger/bigger guys. It's just possible that we may have some insight into the challenges of maintaining solid nutrition at that level, maintaining existing muscle in a deficit as a female at that age, etc. However, she's a grown-up, and can decide for herself.
Yes, 1200 isn't magic. But just because some people maintain at 1200 is no reason for people who don't to choose an aggressive deficit, and experiment with whether they, too, can lower their BMR by some substantial percent. Having a TDEE around 1500 isn't all that wonderful. Finding a way to drive it down an extra 100 or more - that would really kinda stink.7 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »Hi. What are your thoughts? https://www.muscleforlife.com/rapid-weight-loss/
This is about cutting strategies, which has no relevance in my world.
I need to lose 100 lbs and would like to do it in 1yr instead of 2yrs, neither timeframe is short. Even if my metabolism has slowed, I don't notice it - I have more energy.0 -
When I was between ages 58 and 60 I lost 60 pounds. It was slow loss but at the end of that loss I had no sagginess at all.
I maintained the loss for 5 years. I ate around 1200 to lose it with only walking as excersize. Now I maintain around 1600 and some days I go over that.
As an older woman I strongly advise not over doing the calorie deficit, its too easy to lose those muscles and to get too low on energy so that being active and doing things that are fun becomes a chore.
Best wishes and to your health OP!0 -
The science is pretty right here. What it doesn't address is sustainability for people who have to lose a lot of weight. It's one thing to lose say 25-50lbs. It's another to lose 50lbs or more and the psychological effect it may have on the person eating so much less than they are used to over a certain period of time.
BL is a good example. In 6 months, many of these contestants lose over 100lbs many times, but then look at how many regain a significant amount of weight. Like the diet industry, only about 10% sustain the weight loss.
Also this article seems to be for "cutting" for a show and not for the general population who are just trying to lose to be in the normal range. Granted any time you lose mass, your body will require less calories to sustain and maintain that current weight, and I can see how losing it fast can help with mentality right off the bat, but even most bodybuilding competitors only diet for 16 weeks on average for a comp. The average dieter to lose a significant amount of weight will be on a diet much longer than that and aggressive deficits over a long period of time doesn't seem to work well in my experience. Not only for weight loss, but for the psyche of the person doing it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
OP here. Thank you for the insights. The context for my question - if you couldn't guess - was my impatience. Was 137 in mid January and as of last week was 136.6. The ups and downs for those several weeks were depressing me. Not heavy - just heavy for me and too close to 140 - that was playing games with my head. My thinking was to max at 1000-1100 just to see ANY real downward movement, and fight the urge to give up. But as most of you noted, if the article was for bodybuilders - umm - that aint me. I'm in @middlehaitch and @AnnPT77 camps and agree it's best to take things slow. I'll admit - I'm still tempted - but I have no idea where I'd go calorie-wise after I lose. Seems like I have to read up on muscle loss, too.
Having said all that - today my weight was 133.0. Last Monday, I was 136.6. Perplexing - at least to me!!
Thanks again.4 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »OP here. Thank you for the insights. The context for my question - if you couldn't guess - was my impatience. Was 137 in mid January and as of last week was 136.6. The ups and downs for those several weeks were depressing me. Not heavy - just heavy for me and too close to 140 - that was playing games with my head. My thinking was to max at 1000-1100 just to see ANY real downward movement, and fight the urge to give up. But as most of you noted, if the article was for bodybuilders - umm - that aint me. I'm in @middlehaitch and @AnnPT77 camps and agree it's best to take things slow. I'll admit - I'm still tempted - but I have no idea where I'd go calorie-wise after I lose. Seems like I have to read up on muscle loss, too.
Having said all that - today my weight was 133.0. Last Monday, I was 136.6. Perplexing - at least to me!!
Thanks again.
Good plan. I'm glad you saw such an encouraging loss!
As far as reading up on muscle loss, that'll be informative. Also, there's more to the effect of calorie restriction on maintenance calorie needs than just muscle mass. This is one of the more informative things I've read on the subject:
Reduced metabolism/TDEE beyond expected from weight loss
Are you weighing just once a week? If so, and if you can do it without undue emotional stress, it might be worth weighing daily for a while (ideally first thing in the AM), and keeping track. For me, doing so gave me great insight into what causes my weight fluctuations (sodium, exercise or other healing, high-fiber foods, much more), and took a great deal of the stress and anxiety out of the process.2 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I've never been a fan of slow weight loss. I say lose it as fast as is safe. Seeing progress provides motivation.
I like to jump-start my weight loss with a short-term extreme diet like a PSMF or do IF. I then proceed to something more moderate. Although my weight is higher than I like, I'm not fat and the pounds don't fall off the way they do with someone heavier.
The New York Times did an article a couple of years ago reporting that losing weight quickly is not unhealthy and that people may stick with the diet longer because they are seeing results.
Both rapid and quick losers have to monitor their eating afterwards.
0 -
wackyfunster wrote: »TBH, arbitrary calorie limits are what mess up a lot of people on here. If you are formerly obese, your BMR may be permanently reduced by up to 40%. It is quite possible that there are people out there who will spend the rest of their lives MAINTAINING at 1200 calories. Should they just stay overweight and unhealthy forever because someone somewhere decided that some arbitrary number of calories was the minimum for everyone regardless of height, weight, age, and medical history?
You will upset the people who advise eating spoonfuls of peanut butter regardless of whether one is hungry just to get up to their daily calorie limit. There's a contingent here that is vehement about the number on the app being a minimum that must be reached no matter what, even if you're not hungry, regardless of whether you are lacking in energy, and that it doesn't matter if you've gotten your vitamins and minerals. They will get angry and obstinate at the idea that anyone might not spend all their time focused on how to eat the most food possible.
The same people have also questioned why it is that someone in the normal BMI range isn't happy at the top of that range and would want to drop weight down to the lower end when "already healthy" as if they are the ultimate authorities on what everyone's weight should be and body should look like. They will argue against you and demand that what you're doing is unsustainable and that you're damaging your health. They will do this even if you doctor is on board with your weight loss. I just ignore them now.1 -
In my experience slow and steady won the race. I had a lot weight to lose and lifetime of unhealthy habits to unlearn. For me that took time to figure things out.
Also I was not willing to be overly hungry and I was not willing to overexercise.
It worked will for me because I'm in my 4th year of maintenance without any weight gain outside of my range and without any struggles maintaining my weight.
I averaged about 1 pound per week and I did not experience too much loose skin.
I see a lot of people go hard with the weight loss and lose quickly, but many find it difficult to keep up what they did to lose so they slowly gain overtime. I did not want to be apart of that camp, but to each their own.7 -
Yeah I'm all for the go slow approach and its meant success at keeping it off long term for me.0
-
Slow and steady worked for me. My stats:
5'2 female over 40.
Started 153. Currently maintaining at around 118-120.
Took me about a year to lose down to 125, and then slowly lost another 5-7 while transitioning to maintenance over the next 6 months or so.
I ate 1600-1800 while losing, and my TDEE in maintenance is 2200, I've been maintaining for a couple years now.
I have a pretty high TDEE for a petite middle aged female with a desk job. I credit some of that with the fact that I took a conservative approach to weight loss, with a moderate deficit while I worked to increase my activity level through both a high NEAT and purposeful exercise.
For me, the idea of losing rapidly to hit a goal, so that you can say "ok now that I'm here, what do I do", is likely to contribute to yo yoing and struggles transitioning to maintenance. I get for some folks the rapid weight loss is something that is part of the bigger picture (people on bulk/cut cycles, people for whom there is a medical risk due to their current weight, etc). But for an average female who is just looking to be at a healthy weight, and have an active lifestyle while still enjoying the lifestyle (which for me includes yummy food); I think the slow approach with a modest deficit is the best way to ensure long term success.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »wackyfunster wrote: »TBH, arbitrary calorie limits are what mess up a lot of people on here. If you are formerly obese, your BMR may be permanently reduced by up to 40%. It is quite possible that there are people out there who will spend the rest of their lives MAINTAINING at 1200 calories. Should they just stay overweight and unhealthy forever because someone somewhere decided that some arbitrary number of calories was the minimum for everyone regardless of height, weight, age, and medical history?
You will upset the people who advise eating spoonfuls of peanut butter regardless of whether one is hungry just to get up to their daily calorie limit. There's a contingent here that is vehement about the number on the app being a minimum that must be reached no matter what, even if you're not hungry, regardless of whether you are lacking in energy, and that it doesn't matter if you've gotten your vitamins and minerals. They will get angry and obstinate at the idea that anyone might not spend all their time focused on how to eat the most food possible.
The same people have also questioned why it is that someone in the normal BMI range isn't happy at the top of that range and would want to drop weight down to the lower end when "already healthy" as if they are the ultimate authorities on what everyone's weight should be and body should look like. They will argue against you and demand that what you're doing is unsustainable and that you're damaging your health. They will do this even if you doctor is on board with your weight loss. I just ignore them now.
When I see this, it is not a matter of telling them that they shouldn't lose more (unless it of course puts them in the underweight category),but usually they are people that are losing or have lost and are unhappy with their body composition. I give them my opinion on what they should do and what I have done to get where I am, if they don't like that advice, they don't have to listen. The advice on MFP is free, take it or leave it.
I will say I have been here a while and I continually see the same exact people come back who either lost more or didn't take advice and they are unhappy with the results. Not all of them obviously, but I see it....a lot.. Again, people can do what they want but if they are asking "I am almost underweight but I am very unhappy because I still have lots of fat on my body" and going around in circles, well I am going to give them the best advice I know that will help them.
3 -
I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss2
-
tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss
Not necessarily.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss
Not necessarily.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
Help me out here as I find these things over my head:(....
Initial weight loss meaning 10% of weight. What about the rest? Especially if you are really overweight?0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss
Not necessarily.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
Help me out here as I find these things over my head:(....
Initial weight loss meaning 10% of weight. What about the rest? Especially if you are really overweight?
Honestly, there aren't too many people that can even claim to have shed 5%, so I'm not shocked that there isn't much available data for anything beyond that, especially in anything even remotely resembling free living conditions.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss
Not necessarily.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
Help me out here as I find these things over my head:(....
Initial weight loss meaning 10% of weight. What about the rest? Especially if you are really overweight?
Honestly, there aren't too many people that can even claim to have shed 5%, so I'm not shocked that there isn't much available data for anything beyond that, especially in anything even remotely resembling free living conditions.
Yeah I guess they would have to follow someone that say like me needs to lose 100 overall (60ish now) for some time which would be expensive I'm sure. Most studies are what 30 days?1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss
Not necessarily.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
Help me out here as I find these things over my head:(....
Initial weight loss meaning 10% of weight. What about the rest? Especially if you are really overweight?
Honestly, there aren't too many people that can even claim to have shed 5%, so I'm not shocked that there isn't much available data for anything beyond that, especially in anything even remotely resembling free living conditions.
Yeah I guess they would have to follow someone that say like me needs to lose 100 overall (60ish now) for some time which would be expensive I'm sure. Most studies are what 30 days?
If even that long. I tend to see typical ranges of 14-30. That's honestly part of why I am submitting my stuff to the National Weight Control Registry. I've been down by 75 lbs. (or more) from my starting weight for four years now, and down about 18 from my two-year maintenance weight for about two of that. I feel like if more people who actually succeed in getting and holding their *kitten* together share specific information, it will help things along.
One of the biggest cracks against the registry from the HAES movement is it's small number of people involved. Of course, they extrapolate this to mean that almost all weight loss ends in failure, but the fact is, unless you actually petition to be involved in the registry, they don't know that you exist.1 -
I think the question is wrong if the goal is to identify long term success in weight management.
The focus on this should be on the habits that promote weight management. Conduct your analysis identifying the differences between rapid and slow loss and review which are more successful in long term studies such as the National Weight Control Registry. I suspect slow loss will win as this requires a strategy of identifying bad habits and replacing these with good habits. Rapid loss strategies are designed for those with strong goal achievement abilities - the average person simply does not have the skillset to succeed with this in the long term.1 -
CeeBeeSlim wrote: »Having said all that - today my weight was 133.0. Last Monday, I was 136.6. Perplexing - at least to me!!
Thanks again.
we have almost identical numbers, in every respect. tbh i'm not interested enough in the science of weight loss to make a whole study of it, so i don't have much to add about the article that started this off.
but i thought i'd chime in that your fluctuation range is also pmuch the same as mine. i have the luxury of a digital scale in the locker/shower room where i work, so lately i've been making a game of getting familiar with that range and the sometimes-fun things that can influence it. i ride in in the morning, weigh myself in full bike gear with backpack: always 150-some. strip down to skivvies and pee - 132. shower, re-dress, go about the business of my regular day and weigh again in the afternoon while i'm changing to do my ride home.
i'm pretty consistently 136-ish these days on that final weigh-in before my bike clothes are on. i started this job in january, and i can't remember what my weight was exactly to begin with. but 140 is always my trigger point to get serious, so i'm pretty sure it was fluctuating around that, back then. the overall trend is definitely downwards. the part i find most entertaining is my with-backpack weight is always the same in the evening as it was in the morning. it's just that my lunch is inside me by then
i guess one place where we're different is i'm just starting my fourth year of weightlifting. last year i made more progress with that than i ever have in the past and i did not want to lose any of that ground in order to shed a few pounds, so my deficit has definitely been very stingy if i've been on one at all. i'm on my way towards 52 and i've been lifting a while, so i don't kid myself that i'm trading much fat for much muscle here. but i've been getting a little bit stronger all the time while getting a little bit lighter all the time at the same time, so there's that. and i can't tell for sure, but i feel like if they held a fat drive tomorrow in my neighbourhood, the absolute most i'd be able to donate to the cause would be five or ten pounds. so i'm not in much of a hurry, i guess.
tl;dr: 'slow' camp here too.1 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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