Why is (carefully planned) rapid weight loss bad?
candistyx
Posts: 547 Member
So if I have used cronometer to make sure I am getting enough nutrients in and I have a clear plan for the maintenance phase (including practice runs to make sure I actually can manage it) is it so wrong to drop weight by say, not eating for 2 days?... because oh my god the weight flies off and it's sooo much more manageable to eat nothing than eat a little bit and then stop. Is it really such a bad thing? What's the worst that can happen?
38
Replies
-
Many important and valuable and good things take an effort. You have to learn how to eat a little bit and then stop, because that's what you have to do every day for the rest of your life, if you want to be healthy.
You can lose up to 100-100 grams of fat per day. If you see a bigger drop on the scale, it's water weight. When you haven't eaten for two days, there is no food in your stomach and intestines.
The worst that can happen, is eating disorder and death. But the most imminent and usual danger is rebound eating and subsequent weight gain and decades of yoyo dieting.73 -
The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.13 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Many important and valuable and good things take an effort. You have to learn how to eat a little bit and then stop, because that's what you have to do every day for the rest of your life, if you want to be healthy.
But I could just do OMAD for the rest of my life and eat a lot and go to bed before I get hungry again?
If that was true I wouldn't expect to remain lighter (beyond 100g lighter) after eating again but I always am.You can lose 100-100 grams of fat per day. If you see a bigger drop on the scale, it's water weight. When you haven't eaten for two days, there is no food in your stomach and intestines.
I already had decades of yo-yo dieting and weight gain trying to stick to reasonable calorie deficit long term (1800-1400kcal) so I can't really say that this is any worse if that's the worst case scenario. It feels far more manageable, especially since there's the motivational effect of seeing a loss most days instead of a couple of times a month if I'm lucky.The worst that can happen, is eatig disorder and death. But the most imminent and usual danger is rebound eating and subsequent weight gain and decades of yoyo dieting.20 -
Maybe IF would suit you.
A quick loss because you might not eat for a few days is mostly going to be water and will return when you start eating normally again.7 -
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
17 -
Yes, you can eat one meal (or two or three meals) per day). That can be perfectly healthy. Context is everything.kommodevaran wrote: »Many important and valuable and good things take an effort. You have to learn how to eat a little bit and then stop, because that's what you have to do every day for the rest of your life, if you want to be healthy.
But I could just do OMAD for the rest of my life and eat a lot and go to bed before I get hungry again?
If that was true I wouldn't expect to remain lighter (beyond 100g lighter) after eating again but I always am.You can lose 100-100 grams of fat per day. If you see a bigger drop on the scale, it's water weight. When you haven't eaten for two days, there is no food in your stomach and intestines.
I already had decades of yo-yo dieting and weight gain trying to stick to reasonable calorie deficit long term (1800-1400kcal) so I can't really say that this is any worse if that's the worst case scenario. It feels far more manageable, especially since there's the motivational effect of seeing a loss most days instead of a couple of times a month if I'm lucky.The worst that can happen, is eatig disorder and death. But the most imminent and usual danger is rebound eating and subsequent weight gain and decades of yoyo dieting.
You have to watch your weight trend over time in order to draw any conclusions. (Just logic should be enough, though.)
You will see a loss on the scale, over time, if you're diligent and patient. It has nothing to do with luck.
If you already have experience with yoyo dieting, I suggest aiming to get out of that pattern, not aim to reinforce it further.40 -
kommodevaran wrote: »If you already have experience with yoyo dieting, I suggest aiming to get out of that pattern, not aim to reinforce it further.
^^ well said
20 -
kommodevaran wrote: »
If you already have experience with yoyo dieting, I suggest aiming to get out of that pattern, not aim to reinforce it further.
Well obviously I am not aiming to make it worse, but what I was doing before wasn't making it better. At the moment when I break a fast it's around 5pm, I eat my meal, I feel good, full, satisfied, put kids to bed, hang out with husband for a few hours then go to sleep still full. It's amazing. When I was trying to just stick to a calorie limit I felt like I wanted to snack all day long, but this way I can say, I am not eating today/till 5pm/after 6pm depending on the day and I feel fine with that. Surely yo-yo dieting happens when it *doesn't* feel manageable, when you feel deprived all the time and hungry and eventually say "screw this I am eating what I want!"20 -
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
fasting 2 days and then eating 1600 the rest is no different to just eating 1142 cals per day, which by the looks of your pic is way too little.
why not try and learn sustainable eating habits?25 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
fasting 2 days and then eating 1600 the rest is no different to just eating 1142 cals per day, which by the looks of your pic is way too little.
why not try and learn sustainable eating habits?
I am even fatter than that pic now sadly.
And what is "sustainable eating habits"? What makes this unsustainable?
17 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
fasting 2 days and then eating 1600 the rest is no different to just eating 1142 cals per day, which by the looks of your pic is way too little.
why not try and learn sustainable eating habits?
I am even fatter than that pic now sadly.
And what is "sustainable eating habits"? What makes this unsustainable?
I think most of us would think that not eating for 2 days was highly unsustainable.
Like I said in my earlier reply, I.F might suit you better, thats two days eating at 500-600 cals and then the other days eating more normally/maintenance cals (at least that's what I know of it! don't practice it myself, would get to hangry LOL)12 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I should imagine that it's around 1lb. 1lb in 2 days is loads! That's 3.5lbs a week!The amount of fat you will lose in two days of not eating is small--less than 2 lbs. You will mostly lose water weight, which you are bound to lose when starting a diet anyway.
It's not like I am fasting every single day, still have to figure out how to stick to 1600kcal on the other days.It's not the worst thing ever to start out with an aggressive approach. Keeping it up too long or doing it unwisely will mean losing too much muscle and, for people who do not have good eating management skills, doesn't help build long term habits that are necessary for maintenance.
fasting 2 days and then eating 1600 the rest is no different to just eating 1142 cals per day, which by the looks of your pic is way too little.
why not try and learn sustainable eating habits?
I am even fatter than that pic now sadly.
And what is "sustainable eating habits"? What makes this unsustainable?
its not enough calories.... you'll crash and burn and binge within 10 days.... and that's probably being generous with the amount of willpower you have!
sustainable eating habits are healthy balanced meals (and appropriate treats!) with the right number of calories and macros to keep you full yet let you lose weight at a healthy rate.23 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »
I think most of us would think that not eating for 2 days was highly unsustainable.
Like I said in my earlier reply, I.F might suit you better, thats two days eating at 500-600 cals and then the other days eating more normally/maintenance cals (at least that's what I know of it! don't practice it myself, would get to hangry LOL)
500kcal is harder than nothing though.19 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »
I think most of us would think that not eating for 2 days was highly unsustainable.
Like I said in my earlier reply, I.F might suit you better, thats two days eating at 500-600 cals and then the other days eating more normally/maintenance cals (at least that's what I know of it! don't practice it myself, would get to hangry LOL)
500kcal is harder than nothing though.
so fast 2 days, if that works for you, just eat the right amount of calories on the others.14 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »
I think most of us would think that not eating for 2 days was highly unsustainable.
Like I said in my earlier reply, I.F might suit you better, thats two days eating at 500-600 cals and then the other days eating more normally/maintenance cals (at least that's what I know of it! don't practice it myself, would get to hangry LOL)
500kcal is harder than nothing though.
You have got to be kidding?
16 -
What is the right amount? Surely the bigger the overall deficit the better? If not why not? It's not like I am lacking in calories, there's tonnes in my fat stores.TavistockToad wrote: »
so fast 2 days, if that works for you, just eat the right amount of calories on the others.
20 -
What is the right amount? Surely the bigger the overall deficit the better? If not why not? It's not like I am lacking in calories, there's tonnes in my fat stores.TavistockToad wrote: »
so fast 2 days, if that works for you, just eat the right amount of calories on the others.
for all the reasons that have already been posted... you cant get adequate nutrition on too few calories, your body burns muscle if you eat too few calories (your heart is a muscle), you're likely to binge if you eat too few calories...
the right amount depends on what your maintenance cals are?14 -
Having to stick to a calorie limit does not mean that you have to do it in a certain way.kommodevaran wrote: »
If you already have experience with yoyo dieting, I suggest aiming to get out of that pattern, not aim to reinforce it further.
Well obviously I am not aiming to make it worse, but what I was doing before wasn't making it better. At the moment when I break a fast it's around 5pm, I eat my meal, I feel good, full, satisfied, put kids to bed, hang out with husband for a few hours then go to sleep still full. It's amazing. When I was trying to just stick to a calorie limit I felt like I wanted to snack all day long, but this way I can say, I am not eating today/till 5pm/after 6pm depending on the day and I feel fine with that. Surely yo-yo dieting happens when it *doesn't* feel manageable, when you feel deprived all the time and hungry and eventually say "screw this I am eating what I want!"
You're describing OMAD here - which is fine; what we're disputing is fasting for two days as a weightloss method - which is a terrible idea.
MFP gives you the right amount on setup. Years of yoyoing will have taught you that bigger deficit is not better. If you can't remember - because you're all excited now - what does it feel like when you eat too little for too long?
What is the right amount? Surely the bigger the overall deficit the better? If not why not? It's not like I am lacking in calories, there's tonnes in my fat stores.TavistockToad wrote: »
so fast 2 days, if that works for you, just eat the right amount of calories on the others.11 -
I'm not opposed to this for obese people, personally, but I'll admit I'm one of the few. Only you know what is or is not sustainable for you, and if you know what you're doing and have enough weight to do it, it should be okay. For someone who doesn't know what they're doing it's NOT okay. For someone with disordered eating patterns it's NOT okay. Not taking a good maintenance break every few weeks is NOT okay. Also, if you start to spiral afterward it would be smart to write it off as a failed experiment. If it starts feeling unsustainable it would be smart to not be stubborn.
There are issues I can think of: increased chance of gallstones, increased chance of burnout and rebound, deficiencies, electrolyte imbalances, hormonal imbalances, less efficient weight loss (you lose less per calorie restricted), and not enough time to experiment with maintenance strategies. If you understand the risks, implement diet breaks correctly and often enough, are very careful about your nutrients, protein, and electrolytes, it could be something you can experiment with. Not the best choice, but an option.
Do I personally think this is the best choice for you? No. With your posting history, I feel learning better norms may be beneficial for you. If over-restricting didn't work in the past there is no reason it would work now. Some people only learn by making mistakes, others keep making mistakes and never learn. I hope you're the former and would look elsewhere if this experiment fails.21 -
I can get adequate nutrition at this level of calories, although it does involve sacrifices in food choices...TavistockToad wrote: »you cant get adequate nutrition on too few calories
Why would my body "burn" muscle when it has plenty of fat it could burn?your body burns muscle if you eat too few calories (your heart is a muscle)
Hasn't happened so far, maybe when I have less body fat then it will be more likely but right now I honestly feel less hungry not eating than on days where I've allowed myself to eat early in the day (won't make that mistake again!) I am much more likely to overeat by the slow attrition of "a little here, a little there, surely this little bit is not going to make much difference" than in one massive blow out. Of course a 1600kcal meal could be considered a binge in itself - but I'd say not because it's controlled and planned before hand (just weighed out all my fruit and veg for tonight when I break this current fast).you're likely to binge if you eat too few calories...
Is there any evidence that a large deficit, with appropriate levels of vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids and essential fats is harmful for people with high BMIs (mine is now 39.1 - basically 40)? I hear it all the time but I've never seen the evidence.the right amount depends on what your maintenance cals are?19
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 900 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions