Weight loss too fast?

saires_au wrote: »

Thanks for your response. I think I’ll put it up to 2000 for a couple of weeks and then review it again.

I’ve been trying to get enough protein and keep lifting to avoid muscle loss

Sure seems like you should lose at 2000, and (we hope) feel better. Sustainable > fast!

Mainly, though, I came in to say this: I'd use some care about evaluating in 2 weeks. If you're premenopausal especially, hormone-related water weight fluctuations could make your weight loss rate look faster or slower over 2 weeks, and it's usually better data if you stick to a new routine for 4-6 (one full menstrual cycle plus a little).

(Obviously, anyone who is feeling like they're eating too little, losing too fast, and seeing negative symptoms like weakness or fatigue shouldn't wait 4-6 weeks to make changes like upping calories, but waiting makes sense if you're not seemingly in a danger zone.)

You (OP) probably have enough data from your 7 weeks to have some insight into your cyclic weight fluctuations, but those may've been somewhat masked by your rapid loss rate, and start-up water weight weirdness. If you stick to 2000 for 2 weeks, and think your weight loss may be slower than you'd prefer, and are not sure about the cyclic factors, I'd consider evaluating a bit longer.

I just like to see everyone stay strong and healthy while losing!

I

LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »

I took liberties and used https://tdeecalculator.net and, based on your stats (female, 36, 5'6" at 194lbs) your numbers look like this:

Basal Metabolic Rate 1,587 calories per day
Sedentary 1,904 calories per day
Light Exercise 2,182 calories per day
Moderate Exercise 2,459 calories per day
Heavy Exercise 2,737 calories per day
Athlete 3,015 calories per day

Please keep in mind that TDEE is a bit different from how MFP does things (it uses NEAT + Exercise)....not trying to add any confusion here.

Also, @AnnPT77 makes a SUPER VALID, OVERLOOKED point - don't forget to re-evaluate your numbers after every five or 10 pounds lost.

So, for example, if you are still using your original numbers (based on your initial weight, primarily) then you would not be using accurate numbers. You lost some 25lbs.....that is gonna change things.

Not really my point**, but sure, with a caveat: If your results in a particular time period (i.e., at a particular weight range), are materially above or below what the calculators would've estimated for that weight range, then I think it's more reasonable to believe the results rather than the calculator. People vary, but the calculators give the same estimates to anyone with the same gross-level demographics.

The calculator you linked estimates (for sedentary) 2,024 calories daily TDEE at her starting weight, and, as you say, 1,902 now. Her past experience & Apple watch suggest**** that she'd be at least at the high end of moderate exercise, possible well into heavy exercise at her starting weight, easily in heavy exercise at current weight, so - because her results have varied along the way with dropping weight between those two - it would be reasonable for her to use the "heavy exercise" estimate, IMO.

If she uses the "heavy exercise" estimate with her current weight, 2000 will leave her losing around 1.5 pounds a week, which would be very reasonable at her current weight. This is all assuming she wants to use TDEE rather than NEAT + exercise, though. It isn't clear to me which she's using now.


** My point was that 2 weeks is usually too short a time to evaluate results of a new calorie/exercise regimen, especially in premenopausal women, because those 2 weeks can be materially distorted by water weight fluctuations at any reasonable average weight loss rate. Of course, one re-evaluates with weight loss, too.

****OP's Apple watch (also an estimate, I understand) is telling her that her TDEE is 2800. Her results (at 1400 for 2 weeks and 1800 for 5 weeks, with 3 pounds average weekly weight loss) suggest an estimate of around 3185. Either of those are high enough that she'd lose weight at a reasonable rate at 2000 calories. If reality is closer to the 3185, she might even continue to lose a little too fast.

FWIW, that calculator (like most others) estimates my TDEE below what I observe in real life (I'm in year 3 of maintenance). It's closer than some, though: Only about 10-15% low. I don't agree with their macro estimates, either, but that's a personal choice issue.

saires_au wrote: »

Thank you for your insight. Fluctuations have been masked by the weight loss however I know from previous daily weighing I can fluctuate by up to 2kg prior to TOM so will keep that in mind if it weight appears to stall or go up, however if I keep losing too fast over 2 weeks I’ll up it further.

I’ll reevaluate calories down the track as my weight drops if my rate of loss slows too much

Wish I didn’t waste my time with the dietitian, all she said was keep doing what I’ve been doing then spoke about starvation mode and wasn’t concerned about the rate of loss .

That's worrisome. Registered dieticians are usually pretty great since they have actual education (some nutritionists do but that largely depends on the person and/or the location), but yeah definitely run from anyone who starts on starvation mode. Even professionals can occasionally be woo fans.