Why is losing weight too fast a bad thing?
Replies
-
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.14 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.
Well.. I usually agree with most of what you add, but here is just a small hole in this logic. We have no idea what might have brought someone into their "ideal" weight. That's the problem with using population studies. We have no idea if those people who are "sicker" at their ideal weight may have been larger, but lost weight d/t say, cancer, M.S. dementia... ect. I do agree one can be larger and still be healthier.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Given the caveats that OP never specified at what weight...
Seems like for women there can be too high a TDEE, let alone deficit in proportion to body fat level. I'm unsure of how it scales, but even just using a lot of energy relative to leanness can cause amenorrhoea. Kind of hard to know if it scales because there probably aren't too many if any women out there in the obese weight category that are also getting TDEEs into a say above 7,000 calorie range.
Agreed, mostly i think its basic female physiology. The energy cost of having a baby are EXTREMELY high. If a female is burning great amounts of energy, their body can shut down the ability to reproduce. I think of it like this. If they are buring great amounts of energy and are fairly lean, the body sees that it might be in a time of great scarcity or danger. The human body is not smart, but it is wise. It might "think" the odds of a child being able to be Carried to term are low.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
What about this point:NorthCascades wrote: »If you're active enough, 1800 calories is dangerously low. If you eat 1800 and burn 1800 with exercise (maybe you hiked all day) that leaves zero for everything else.
That is zero net calories.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
What about this point:NorthCascades wrote: »If you're active enough, 1800 calories is dangerously low. If you eat 1800 and burn 1800 with exercise (maybe you hiked all day) that leaves zero for everything else.
That is zero net calories.
*sigh* Really?
On the far ends of body weight(s) things get skewed. Someone who is obese and is exercising to burn off 1800 additional calories has a whole lot of body fat to use as FUEL.
Someone who does not have a lot of body fat and is eating at 1800 calories and burning (say) 1000 more on Exercise MAY need to eat most of that additional 1000 calories.
How in the world is context getting so ignored in this thread?2 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
ps - I'm not disputing this for people like the patients on "My 600 Pound Life", where losing substantial amount of weight literally is a matter of life and death. But since the majority of posters here are not in that category, that was not the first response that came to mind.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
ps - I'm not disputing this for people like the patients on "My 600 Pound Life", where losing substantial amount of weight literally is a matter of life and death. But since the majority of posters here are not in that category, that was not the first response that came to mind.
did you even read Azdak's post(s)
I am referring ONLY to those people who clicked, "Disagree," and as you bolded yourself,Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
ps - I'm not disputing this for people like the patients on "My 600 Pound Life", where losing substantial amount of weight literally is a matter of life and death. But since the majority of posters here are not in that category, that was not the first response that came to mind.
I have to add this. In that.... uhhum.... horrid show, MOST of the patients receive wls. Do they then consciously restrict their calories to low levels? Nope. They are in essence mechanical restricted to a low calorie level. Though, many do lose substantial amounts of weight on a pre op diet. Which is a higher protein, lower energy dense diet. Are they consciously restricting then? I would love to see where the dietary style would take them without surgery.0 -
In my experience, the heavier I was, the faster that first 20 pounds came off. Then it goes to a steadier progression. Unfortunately there were a lot of times I gave up soon after that first 20 because it tapered. I'm a little smarter now.
I've also noticed if I am higher protein and fat than carbs, my body seems to lose weight more quickly. So when MFP said 50% carbs, I laughed.
Also, the pounds per week based on amount you have to lose is just a guideline. I started with 75 pounds to lose and still have 41 to go. Based on the guideline, I should be in 1.5lbs per week and getting ready to drop to 1. But 2 pounds per week is still less than 1% of my body weight, so I don't plan to change that for another 16 pounds.
Now that I'm used to eating less, I look at maintenance calories for my goal weight and think how am I going to eat that much. I still have to eat 200 unplanned calories to get to 1500 and 520 to eat back my exercise. I'm not hungry, I don't feel deprived, plenty of healthy stuff on that menu. That's my definition of sustainable right there.2 -
I just wanted to add that there is no reason to think OP was referring to a very active morbidly obese male, and that reference was only introduced as an extreme example earlier in the thread.
I (and I believe others) thought the cons of someone for whom 3 lbs per week would be "too fast", losing at that pace, even if they are very active, would have a better chance of answering her question. Unfortunately it looks like she hasn't been back online since posting her thread.3 -
I just wanted to add that there is no reason to think OP was referring to a very active morbidly obese male, and that reference was only introduced as an extreme example earlier in the thread.
I (and I believe others) thought the cons of someone for whom 3 lbs per week would be "too fast", losing at that pace, even if they are very active, would have a better chance of answering her question. Unfortunately it looks like she hasn't been back online since posting her thread.
I knew it @kimny72!
https://youtu.be/4F4qzPbcFiA 2 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.
Well.. I usually agree with most of what you add, but here is just a small hole in this logic. We have no idea what might have brought someone into their "ideal" weight. That's the problem with using population studies. We have no idea if those people who are "sicker" at their ideal weight may have been larger, but lost weight d/t say, cancer, M.S. dementia... ect. I do agree one can be larger and still be healthier.
So you have never known people that have never carried extra weight that suffered from diabetes, heart disease, and various other conditions that are often associated with people who carry too much extra weight? I certainly know several. I know a guy that was always the picture of health. Super active, never carried any noticeable weight, was super cautious about what he ate, and still nearly died from heart disease.0 -
I just wanted to add that there is no reason to think OP was referring to a very active morbidly obese male, and that reference was only introduced as an extreme example earlier in the thread.
I (and I believe others) thought the cons of someone for whom 3 lbs per week would be "too fast", losing at that pace, even if they are very active, would have a better chance of answering her question. Unfortunately it looks like she hasn't been back online since posting her thread.
So we should not care about the fictitious 440 pound male example? You are heartless!
6 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.
Well.. I usually agree with most of what you add, but here is just a small hole in this logic. We have no idea what might have brought someone into their "ideal" weight. That's the problem with using population studies. We have no idea if those people who are "sicker" at their ideal weight may have been larger, but lost weight d/t say, cancer, M.S. dementia... ect. I do agree one can be larger and still be healthier.
So you have never known people that have never carried extra weight that suffered from diabetes, heart disease, and various other conditions that are often associated with people who carry too much extra weight? I certainly know several. I know a guy that was always the picture of health. Super active, never carried any noticeable weight, was super cautious about what he ate, and still nearly died from heart disease.
That's what I am saying. Its hard to use population research/ demographics to tell health issues with people. Lol.. I am "nurse" like thing?🤔 So, yes, i have seen much. Including kids with cancer who never smoked.... I state that genetics and environment plays a part in everything. All I was saying is we have to be careful how we use these studies.
Edit.... some people just seen to be more resistant to weight gain. There is no telling how "bad" some of the lean peoples diets were. Also, little known fact about type 2 d.m. is that uncontroled blood sugar causes a wasting effect. People with high b.s. can and do lose lots of weight!0 -
Rapid weight loss can have a lot of negative side effects, even if you are I taking proper nutrients. This includes muscle loss, hair loss, loss of menstrual cycle, and kidney stones, among other potential side effects. Not to mention that maintaining large deficits if likely to lead to fatigue and an increased desire to binge as eventually your body is going to fight back.
Add gall stones0 -
My mom lost weight pretty fast, she weighed more than I did and got down to her goal weight before I did, it took me nearly 3 years to get all my weight off, she lost all hers in just about a year. She also has gained all her weight back and this was over 7 years ago. I have kept most of mine off, I've put on some weight but still down a lot more than I had to lose.
So I would say, the quicker you lose it, the quicker it will come back on.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
I didn't disagree with Azdak. But it's possible that people are looking at OP's picture, considering the possibility that she is asking about herself, and automatically disagreeing with anything that might seem to give her permission. I'm not saying that's a good reason, mind you just thinking out loud.
Of course. That's when reading is helpful.
..and then, sometimes I don't read either.
I just think Azdak has been one of the most helpful and knowledgeable posters on MFP for many years. I tend to White Knight those people.
I think this type of white knighting is bad form and reeks of message board elitism. Established members here should have their comments held to the same standards as newbies. Nobody's post should be above criticism. Nobody was personally insulting Azdak, which would justify white knighting their character. But they just disagreed with the content of the post.
The two posts may have been taken together, which is why both got disagrees. I think the comment in the second post:
is something that many would find disagreeable, and both posts were probably taken together as a whole. Whether that is a good or bad thing is not my point. You can certainly agree or disagree with that. But the posts should not be off limits because a specific user posted them. And it really didn't call for a 2 page derailing of the thread.If someone is large enough and active enough that they can eat a healthy amount of calories (and I would certainly put 1800 into the “healthy” category), and, with activity they are expending enough to lose 3 lbs per week, then, no that is not unhealthy, nor is it “too fast”.9 -
Losing weight too fast is bad, but losing 3 lbs / week isn’t automatically losing too fast. As has been pointed out above, the suggested maximum generally accepted within the medical profession is 1%, which means a 300 lb person can reasonably be aiming for 3 a week.
And, as also mentioned, there are some health conditions where the most important thing is to lose weight quickly since the weight is an immediate danger. However, someone with such a health condition needs to be under a doctor’s care.
My experience losing is that at first I easily lost about 3.5 lbs / wk when I was 270 lbs, and felt fine, I was eating something like 1700 calories daily as MFP suggested. Then about six months later my hair started thinning dramatically. I had long hair, and it’s been two years since I hit normal BMI and swapped to maintenance calories, and my hair is just now getting to be shoulder length. Also, for some reason it grew back curly, while it was wavy before.
So, if losing faster than the recommended rate sounds like a great idea to you, might want to think twice about it. Hair doesn’t fall out immediately, it just stops being replenished a few months later. You won’t know you made a mistake until it’s too late to fix it.9 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
I didn't disagree with Azdak. But it's possible that people are looking at OP's picture, considering the possibility that she is asking about herself, and automatically disagreeing with anything that might seem to give her permission. I'm not saying that's a good reason, mind you just thinking out loud.
Of course. That's when reading is helpful.
..and then, sometimes I don't read either.
I just think Azdak has been one of the most helpful and knowledgeable posters on MFP for many years. I tend to White Knight those people.
I think this type of white knighting is bad form and reeks of message board elitism. Established members here should have their comments held to the same standards as newbies. Nobody's post should be above criticism. Nobody was personally insulting Azdak, which would justify white knighting their character. But they just disagreed with the content of the post.
The two posts may have been taken together, which is why both got disagrees. I think the comment in the second post:
is something that many would find disagreeable, and both posts were probably taken together as a whole. Whether that is a good or bad thing is not my point. You can certainly agree or disagree with that. But the posts should not be off limits because a specific user posted them. And it really didn't call for a 2 page derailing of the thread.If someone is large enough and active enough that they can eat a healthy amount of calories (and I would certainly put 1800 into the “healthy” category), and, with activity they are expending enough to lose 3 lbs per week, then, no that is not unhealthy, nor is it “too fast”.
Grey Knight here... what he was saying is the "common" advice given out by many M.D.'S to grossly obese males. As one told me when I told him it was not the best idea..." I give out 1800 calorie diets like candy." Unfortunately, the "what" to eat is usually lacking. As far as elitism. I do believe there should be a ranking system here for comments.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
I didn't disagree with Azdak. But it's possible that people are looking at OP's picture, considering the possibility that she is asking about herself, and automatically disagreeing with anything that might seem to give her permission. I'm not saying that's a good reason, mind you just thinking out loud.
Of course. That's when reading is helpful.
..and then, sometimes I don't read either.
I just think Azdak has been one of the most helpful and knowledgeable posters on MFP for many years. I tend to White Knight those people.
I think this type of white knighting is bad form and reeks of message board elitism. Established members here should have their comments held to the same standards as newbies. Nobody's post should be above criticism. Nobody was personally insulting Azdak, which would justify white knighting their character. But they just disagreed with the content of the post.
The two posts may have been taken together, which is why both got disagrees. I think the comment in the second post:
is something that many would find disagreeable, and both posts were probably taken together as a whole. Whether that is a good or bad thing is not my point. You can certainly agree or disagree with that. But the posts should not be off limits because a specific user posted them. And it really didn't call for a 2 page derailing of the thread.If someone is large enough and active enough that they can eat a healthy amount of calories (and I would certainly put 1800 into the “healthy” category), and, with activity they are expending enough to lose 3 lbs per week, then, no that is not unhealthy, nor is it “too fast”.
I am perfectly fine with people disagreeing with my posts. I try to write so that my words stand for themselves and don’t need to evaluated within the context of either past comments or my background. That’s the way it should be. I am 1000% opposed to what you call “message board elitism” in any form.
In this case I am even more comfortable with disagrees because I have a high degree of confidence in what I am saying. I believe this is one topic where the CW gets thrown out somewhat reflexively. The “1-2lbs a week” takes on almost the character of religious dogma, when in fact the reality is much more nuanced. I think the tone of the comments becomes unnecessarily alarmist.
“You will regain the weight more quickly”
“You will ruin your metabolism”
“You will loose all your muscle”
“Your hair, fingernails, earlobes, etc will fall off”
“You will become malnourished”
“You will develop an eating disorder”
While these are all a basis for legitimate concern, they are not absolutes. And much is not supported by research.
So I did write a little more strongly fully anticipating the “disagrees” and trying to challenge some assumptions.
I fully stand behind the post cited above (mine, not anyone else’s) and am happy to delve into it further. There are other people who might feel that we shouldn’t be encouraging large deficits, that the potential negative effects are not worth it—and that’s the point they want to emphasize. That’s perfectly legitimate as well.
I’ll save my post on “‘net calories’ is a nonsensical concept” for another time. 5 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.
Well.. I usually agree with most of what you add, but here is just a small hole in this logic. We have no idea what might have brought someone into their "ideal" weight. That's the problem with using population studies. We have no idea if those people who are "sicker" at their ideal weight may have been larger, but lost weight d/t say, cancer, M.S. dementia... ect. I do agree one can be larger and still be healthier.
So you have never known people that have never carried extra weight that suffered from diabetes, heart disease, and various other conditions that are often associated with people who carry too much extra weight? I certainly know several. I know a guy that was always the picture of health. Super active, never carried any noticeable weight, was super cautious about what he ate, and still nearly died from heart disease.
That's what I am saying. Its hard to use population research/ demographics to tell health issues with people. Lol.. I am "nurse" like thing?🤔 So, yes, i have seen much. Including kids with cancer who never smoked.... I state that genetics and environment plays a part in everything. All I was saying is we have to be careful how we use these studies.
Edit.... some people just seen to be more resistant to weight gain. There is no telling how "bad" some of the lean peoples diets were. Also, little known fact about type 2 d.m. is that uncontroled blood sugar causes a wasting effect. People with high b.s. can and do lose lots of weight!
Then I am not sure where you find the problem with my logic. Maybe I should restate:
Statistically speaking if you are obese or heavier you need to make weight loss a high priority. It does not mean, however, that you need to go on crash diets and lose weight at breakneck speeds unless you have an immediate medical threat to your health. Unless a doctor tells you otherwise I think people should start by assuming they have time to lose weight and pick a speed that is sustainable. A lot of progress can be made in a single year.7 -
cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.
Stating the fact that people at "ideal" MAY not have always been there.0 -
@bemyyfriend0918 We seem to have lost you and your original post somewhere along the way. Are you asking about yourself? Tell us about yourself. The answer for you should be based on your particular situation. Is 3 pounds a week more than 1% of your current weight? How long have you been losing 3 pounds a week? Lots of people lose a large amount the first week or two, but then less after the initial adjustment. Is this your case?4
-
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »What Azdak said.
All you people disagreeing with him have been drinking the MFP Kool Aid.
Someone who is morbidly obese would do fine on 1800. It is way more important to get that weight off as soon as possible (for the obese/morbidly obese.)
That person has plenty of body fat to use as fuel. It's important to get good nutrition with that 1800, but it would be more than sufficient - regardless of activity level.
This is not a statement that is true across the board though. Being morbidly obese does not mean a person is in any imminent medical danger and that losing weight at an aggressive pace is always justified. People in their ideal weight range can have substantial medical problems and a morbidly obese person, while at a higher risk, can go on like that for years although at the very least they are causing problems for joints. Genetics play a large role.
"Getting the weight off as soon as possible" mentality kept me morbidly obese. I was not in perfect health but I was not in any immediate danger either.
This is why a doctor's visit is needed. Get checked and get a real report on your current health. Make informed decisions so that you can find an appropriate pace for yourself.
It is likely going to be safer to go at a slower sustainable pace and actually get the weight off then keep trying to go fast and failing. That does not mean a 440lb person must only lose a maximum of 2 pounds per week though. That is ridiculous. Something higher than 2 and less than 4 should be fine with the caveat that losing more aggressively should be paired with good nutrition habits.
Activity does matter though and 1800 calories could create too steep of a deficit even for a 440 pound person. Rate of loss and sustainability should decide calories not the other way around.
Stating the fact that people at "ideal" MAY not have always been there.
Ok. I am not sure how the overall message of my post needed that level of detail but thanks for pointing it out.0 -
TheFitHooker wrote: »My mom lost weight pretty fast, she weighed more than I did and got down to her goal weight before I did, it took me nearly 3 years to get all my weight off, she lost all hers in just about a year. She also has gained all her weight back and this was over 7 years ago. I have kept most of mine off, I've put on some weight but still down a lot more than I had to lose.
So I would say, the quicker you lose it, the quicker it will come back on.
Might be true of some people but it hardly a universal truth. People lose fast, slow, and everything in between and gain it back. People lose fast, slow, and everything in between and keep it off.3 -
I am 5 feet tall (150cm) and have lost 32 kg in 9 months going from 86.6kg to 54.4kg working with my PT.
I assume that's considered too much too fast - although I eat a tonne and exercise a tonne... Although I worked really, really hard - counted calories eaten and my training regimen included cardio and strength training.
Although I feel fitter and stronger than I have ever felt, based on threads like this I always feel like I have done something wrong and shameful... and should be waiting to die suddenly - hairless, tired, dizzy, sallow - pitifully gnawing on my toenailess toes with pale toothless gums... while clawing feebly at a nearby wall with nailess fingertips...8 -
koalathebear wrote: »I am 5 feet tall (150cm) and have lost 32 kg in 9 months going from 86.6kg to 54.4kg working with my PT.
I assume that's considered too much too fast - although I eat a tonne and exercise a tonne... Although I worked really, really hard - counted calories eaten and my training regimen included cardio and strength training.
Although I feel fitter and stronger than I have ever felt, based on threads like this I always feel like I have done something wrong and shameful... and should be waiting to die suddenly - hairless, tired, dizzy, sallow - pitifully gnawing on my toenailess toes with pale toothless gums... while clawing feebly at a nearby wall with nailess fingertips...
You were aggressive but I am not sure you were aggressive enough to be in danger of being malnourished. You may have at times been fighting with yourself on retaining muscle. You may have wanted to go fast but did you need to go that fast? Would taking slightly longer been that big of a deal?
I am not sure what this post is meant to accomplish though. You seem happy with the outcome so does this mean everyone should abandon recommended safe weight loss levels because you got away with it? Not everyone does get away with it. Some people go much faster and it does do damage. Some do suffer terrible side effects and/or disordered eating.8 -
corinasue1143 wrote: »bemyyfriend0918 We seem to have lost you and your original post somewhere along the way. Are you asking about yourself? Tell us about yourself. The answer for you should be based on your particular situation. Is 3 pounds a week more than 1% of your current weight? How long have you been losing 3 pounds a week? Lots of people lose a large amount the first week or two, but then less after the initial adjustment. Is this your case?
The OP posted their stats a few months ago if anyone is curious enough to check post history.2 -
CardinalComb wrote: »Don't listen to the neigh-sayers. Lose as much as you can as quickly as you can. Once you get to your ideal weight up your calories.
Now, I cannot explain all the science behind the whole what happens to you if you lose the weight as fast as you can But this I know 100% to be true, been there done that. If someone loses the weight as fast as they possibly can. As those above have done so well.
What exactly have they learned along the way? Things like portion control, knowing how many calories are in each type of food, weighing out their food on a food scale. Leaning how to be mindful of food choices all of the time.
Because if you do not learn that along the way. Guess what, then what happens is they turn around and gain it all back. What a shock! Learning how to approach food different has to happen as part of the process.2 -
TheFitHooker wrote: »My mom lost weight pretty fast, she weighed more than I did and got down to her goal weight before I did, it took me nearly 3 years to get all my weight off, she lost all hers in just about a year. She also has gained all her weight back and this was over 7 years ago. I have kept most of mine off, I've put on some weight but still down a lot more than I had to lose.
So I would say, the quicker you lose it, the quicker it will come back on.
Might be true of some people but it hardly a universal truth. People lose fast, slow, and everything in between and gain it back. People lose fast, slow, and everything in between and keep it off.
I happened to see this article yesterday. Found it interesting. Explaining the process of how weight can come back on. I really took to heart, the things we quit doing to get the weight off. And then it starts coming back. Like you said for some not all. https://www.popsugar.com/fitness/why-you-regain-weight-after-weight-loss0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions