How long to lose 40#?

Andreaskinney
Andreaskinney Posts: 1 Member
edited February 2023 in Health and Weight Loss
Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

Replies

  • Sinisterbarbie1
    Sinisterbarbie1 Posts: 711 Member
    Congratulations on your loss so far! From that experience you probably have observed that weight loss is not entirely linear and predictable and that you might experience peaks and valleys along the way to getting to your desired weight. Some people also get stuck in a plateau for a while - perhaps because they have lost a significant amount of weight and need to recalibrate calories and exercise in order to continue losing. Sometimes if you are not accurately weighing everything you eat on a kitchen scale and recording everything your calorie intake inadvertently slips upward towards maintenance calories for your new weight because you are forgetting to weigh and record everything including drinks, milk and sugar in coffee or tea, cooking oils and butter, toppings and dressings for salads etc. Since you say you “currently consume about 1200 calories daily” and are 169 lbs at 5’1” I would guess that you are estimating your calories to be lower than what you are actually consuming. If you are eating back calories from exercise you may also be overestimating your muscle app and what you burn via walking. Neither of those activities is a particularly high calorie burn.

    As for timing of loss — I am 5’8” and lost my last 40” over the course of about a year eating at an MFP calculated calorie rate set to lose at 1 lb a week. I recorded everything I ate and weighed everything on a scale. I ate mostly unprocessed foods. My exercise was not much different than yours.
    Hope that helps!
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    If it’s coming off but not fast enough you’ll need to lower your calories and/or increase your activity. You have a good amount of fat so you can run a good sized deficit.

    If it was coming off fairly well and just stops that’s sometimes just water retention and will usually whoosh out in a week or 2 or 3. If it doesn't then you need to drop cals.
  • hoodlisa1979
    hoodlisa1979 Posts: 38 Member
    Andreaskinney wrote: »
    Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

    You have done amazingly well to lose 51lb I'm doing the same 1200 and I'm the same age so I'm taking this as inspiration, if you don't weigh food I deffo recommend it as I thought I could eye it and was massively overestimating, I wouldn't recommend dropping anymore calories as 1200 is low enough (personal experience of long term calorie restriction repercussions) but maybe add some different exercises and shake up the routine, let me know how you're doing
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    Andreaskinney wrote: »
    Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

    You have done amazingly well to lose 51lb I'm doing the same 1200 and I'm the same age so I'm taking this as inspiration, if you don't weigh food I deffo recommend it as I thought I could eye it and was massively overestimating, I wouldn't recommend dropping anymore calories as 1200 is low enough (personal experience of long term calorie restriction repercussions) but maybe add some different exercises and shake up the routine, let me know how you're doing
    She is taking in more than 1,200 so there is room to drop
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    Andreaskinney wrote: »
    Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

    You have done amazingly well to lose 51lb I'm doing the same 1200 and I'm the same age so I'm taking this as inspiration, if you don't weigh food I deffo recommend it as I thought I could eye it and was massively overestimating, I wouldn't recommend dropping anymore calories as 1200 is low enough (personal experience of long term calorie restriction repercussions) but maybe add some different exercises and shake up the routine, let me know how you're doing
    She is taking in more than 1,200 so there is room to drop

    And you Tom have made me realise why I don't want to be on here, thank you, although I will use this app and I will update those that commented on my cholesterol goals, how do u know she is? Look at what you're saying, you don't know if hormonal or thyroid issues are causing a slow but yeah she has fat so she can run a deficit, thats how I read your comment anyway
    I'm sorry you were offended however I don't think its any secret that her stats will allow for a decent deficit. 99% of people that aren't losing are not in a calorie deficit.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    Andreaskinney wrote: »
    Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

    You have done amazingly well to lose 51lb I'm doing the same 1200 and I'm the same age so I'm taking this as inspiration, if you don't weigh food I deffo recommend it as I thought I could eye it and was massively overestimating, I wouldn't recommend dropping anymore calories as 1200 is low enough (personal experience of long term calorie restriction repercussions) but maybe add some different exercises and shake up the routine, let me know how you're doing
    She is taking in more than 1,200 so there is room to drop

    And you Tom have made me realise why I don't want to be on here, thank you, although I will use this app and I will update those that commented on my cholesterol goals, how do u know she is? Look at what you're saying, you don't know if hormonal or thyroid issues are causing a slow but yeah she has fat so she can run a deficit, thats how I read your comment anyway
    I'm sorry you were offended however I don't think its any secret that her stats will allow for a decent deficit. 99% of people that aren't losing are not in a calorie deficit.

    Its not offended, you are telling someone its ok to drop more calories without even a response on how she knows what calorie intake, although I highly doubt dropping 51 is green, don't try to spin it on me being offended, you are the risk here, thats where eating disorders begin, that random bloke of the Internet thats prolific so you think they know a thing or too, don't make this about me, its deffo u 1200 is the minimum because anything else is far too low
    The point you're missing is that she is most likely underestimating her weekly calorie consumption.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    edited February 2023
    Andreaskinney wrote: »
    Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

    You might also want to give this thread a read, and a bit of a think:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1

    It may or may not apply, but it's something to consider.

    I don't think any of us can give you a timeline, and we don't have enough info to give you a well-informed opinion. (I'm talking about questions others have asked or implied: How do you track your food (guesstimate, cups/spoons, food scale); are you eating back exercise calories and if so how do you estimate them; do you use cheat/refeed meals or days and if so how often; what's your life/job/etc. like outside of the 6000 steps and the exercise; do you find yourself feeling fatigued, cold, or anything like that more than you used to; when you say weight is coming off slowly, how slowly specifically in the last couple of months or so; and probably some others I'm not thinking of.)

    I'd say you should want to be losing more slowly as you get closer to goal, so the "how slowly is it now" question may be important. You might be able to lose a pound-ish a week for a while yet (though slower is fine if more sustainable), but IMO it'd be better to go to half a pound a week for the final 15-20. I only lost around 50-some total, which took just under a year . . . but the last 10 or so, I chose to take several months.

    An accurate 1200 might or might not be too low, that's pretty individual. How fast you lost when losing at a satisfying rate, and at what calorie level that happened, would give you a hint whether calculator estimates (like MFP's or a fitness tracker) are close to accurate for you, or if instead you're non-average in some way. (I will say that 1200+exercise calories was way too low for me when I was in the mid-150s, but I was losing fast - too fast - when that was true.)

    Best wishes!
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,788 Member
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    Andreaskinney wrote: »
    Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

    You have done amazingly well to lose 51lb I'm doing the same 1200 and I'm the same age so I'm taking this as inspiration, if you don't weigh food I deffo recommend it as I thought I could eye it and was massively overestimating, I wouldn't recommend dropping anymore calories as 1200 is low enough (personal experience of long term calorie restriction repercussions) but maybe add some different exercises and shake up the routine, let me know how you're doing
    She is taking in more than 1,200 so there is room to drop

    And you Tom have made me realise why I don't want to be on here, thank you, although I will use this app and I will update those that commented on my cholesterol goals, how do u know she is? Look at what you're saying, you don't know if hormonal or thyroid issues are causing a slow but yeah she has fat so she can run a deficit, thats how I read your comment anyway
    I'm sorry you were offended however I don't think its any secret that her stats will allow for a decent deficit. 99% of people that aren't losing are not in a calorie deficit.

    Its not offended, you are telling someone its ok to drop more calories without even a response on how she knows what calorie intake, although I highly doubt dropping 51 is green, don't try to spin it on me being offended, you are the risk here, thats where eating disorders begin, that random bloke of the Internet thats prolific so you think they know a thing or too, don't make this about me, its deffo u 1200 is the minimum because anything else is far too low

    I actually happen to agree with Tom on this one, mostly. If her weight loss has actually slowed, she's most likely going to have to move a bit more or eat a bit less. And I'm saying this as a fellow short person (5 ft), so I get the struggle she's experiencing. Us short people just can't eat as much. And many of us have to go lower than your average person to lose. And no, I don't have an eating disorder.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    Andreaskinney wrote: »
    Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

    You have done amazingly well to lose 51lb I'm doing the same 1200 and I'm the same age so I'm taking this as inspiration, if you don't weigh food I deffo recommend it as I thought I could eye it and was massively overestimating, I wouldn't recommend dropping anymore calories as 1200 is low enough (personal experience of long term calorie restriction repercussions) but maybe add some different exercises and shake up the routine, let me know how you're doing
    She is taking in more than 1,200 so there is room to drop

    And you Tom have made me realise why I don't want to be on here, thank you, although I will use this app and I will update those that commented on my cholesterol goals, how do u know she is? Look at what you're saying, you don't know if hormonal or thyroid issues are causing a slow but yeah she has fat so she can run a deficit, thats how I read your comment anyway
    I'm sorry you were offended however I don't think its any secret that her stats will allow for a decent deficit. 99% of people that aren't losing are not in a calorie deficit.

    Its not offended, you are telling someone its ok to drop more calories without even a response on how she knows what calorie intake, although I highly doubt dropping 51 is green, don't try to spin it on me being offended, you are the risk here, thats where eating disorders begin, that random bloke of the Internet thats prolific so you think they know a thing or too, don't make this about me, its deffo u 1200 is the minimum because anything else is far too low

    I actually happen to agree with Tom on this one, mostly. If her weight loss has actually slowed, she's most likely going to have to move a bit more or eat a bit less. And I'm saying this as a fellow short person (5 ft), so I get the struggle she's experiencing. Us short people just can't eat as much. And many of us have to go lower than your average person to lose. And no, I don't have an eating disorder.
    taller people can’t relate to the issues small people have. For some reason 1,200 calories seem to be a magical amount where going below that and you’ll self destruct. It’s not uncommon for a 5’ tall woman to have to go below that and ones with higher BF amounts May NEED to go low if they don’t want to be dieting for a very, very long time.

    I’m a pretty decent sized guy and when I ended up at 200 lbs and a maintenance of 2,300 cals, I went with 1,300 to get back to 180. 1,300 quality calories with correct macros is doable fairly easy. The key is to lower over a couple weeks and not just immediately drop 1,000 a day. Extra bodyfat supplies enough energy if you do it right.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    hoodlisa1979 wrote: »
    Andreaskinney wrote: »
    Ok I'm 5' 1" 169# I've lost 51 lb since June but now it seems like the wieght is barely coming off. Just curious how long it will be till I reach 130#? I'm 43 years old and currently consume about 1200 calories daily and use pretty muscle app for workouts and about 6000 steps daily. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks

    You have done amazingly well to lose 51lb I'm doing the same 1200 and I'm the same age so I'm taking this as inspiration, if you don't weigh food I deffo recommend it as I thought I could eye it and was massively overestimating, I wouldn't recommend dropping anymore calories as 1200 is low enough (personal experience of long term calorie restriction repercussions) but maybe add some different exercises and shake up the routine, let me know how you're doing
    She is taking in more than 1,200 so there is room to drop

    And you Tom have made me realise why I don't want to be on here, thank you, although I will use this app and I will update those that commented on my cholesterol goals, how do u know she is? Look at what you're saying, you don't know if hormonal or thyroid issues are causing a slow but yeah she has fat so she can run a deficit, thats how I read your comment anyway
    I'm sorry you were offended however I don't think its any secret that her stats will allow for a decent deficit. 99% of people that aren't losing are not in a calorie deficit.

    Its not offended, you are telling someone its ok to drop more calories without even a response on how she knows what calorie intake, although I highly doubt dropping 51 is green, don't try to spin it on me being offended, you are the risk here, thats where eating disorders begin, that random bloke of the Internet thats prolific so you think they know a thing or too, don't make this about me, its deffo u 1200 is the minimum because anything else is far too low

    I actually happen to agree with Tom on this one, mostly. If her weight loss has actually slowed, she's most likely going to have to move a bit more or eat a bit less. And I'm saying this as a fellow short person (5 ft), so I get the struggle she's experiencing. Us short people just can't eat as much. And many of us have to go lower than your average person to lose. And no, I don't have an eating disorder.
    taller people can’t relate to the issues small people have. For some reason 1,200 calories seem to be a magical amount where going below that and you’ll self destruct. It’s not uncommon for a 5’ tall woman to have to go below that and ones with higher BF amounts May NEED to go low if they don’t want to be dieting for a very, very long time.

    I’m a pretty decent sized guy and when I ended up at 200 lbs and a maintenance of 2,300 cals, I went with 1,300 to get back to 180. 1,300 quality calories with correct macros is doable fairly easy. The key is to lower over a couple weeks and not just immediately drop 1,000 a day. Extra bodyfat supplies enough energy if you do it right.

    That's also about where I maintain at 5'5", 130 pounds right now, female, age 67. I do recognize that that's unusual. Individual variation is pretty huge, in practice. Hence lots of questions for the OP.
    For me, at this size, 1300 calories (2 pounds a week) would be punitive. I don't have enough body fat to support that fast a loss healthfully, IMO. Researchers have estimated we can metabolize 30-ish calories of stored body fat per day per fat pound on our body. For me, a 1000 calorie daily deficit would be skating right along the border of that. I don't want that risk of losing more than minimum muscle alongside fat loss. Muscle is already hard enough to keep - let alone gain - for a senior woman, without pushing those boundaries. But that's just my situation.

    I did eat that little, sometimes, for a while, when I was heavier. Doing so did not help my exercise performance or energy level even then, to understate the case. I agree that decent macros can be achieved, and I wasn't especially hungry. But whether it's fine or too low is very situational.

    I don't think people will universally self-destruct below 1200, and some petite people will need to go below that in order to lose at a sensibly moderate rate.

    I do see it as a bit of a caution flag, because we do see people (usually women) here eating 1200 when IMO it's not the greatest idea, would be expected to result in loss greater than 1% of current weight per week, is more than 25% of TDEE, is combined with new and situationally intense exercise, and that sort of thing. Fast loss (above those rules of thumb) tends to increase risk of health consequences (situational) or unsustainability (situational).

    Yes, slow loss takes a long time. But slow loss a person can stick with, stay healthy and energetic, can take less calendar time than a deep cut that results in breaks, overfeeds, or even giving up altogether.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    edited February 2023


    I use the 33 cals per LB of fat when doing a quick leaning out period. That equation Shows that more fat, the bigger the possible safe deficit. When I was 20% at 200 that is 40 lbs of fat so max deficit was about 1,300, so 1,000 was a good amount below the max. I start raising calories once the equation gets upside down.

    The 1% equation works, to a point. You have a 130 lb woman that wants to get to say, 120, that would have her at too big a deficit under normal circumstances. IMO every situation is different and people have varying dieting knowledge and caloric needs so there won’t ever be a one size fits all type of program
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    I came to MFP in search of a way that would allow me to achieve more permanent weight loss. Quick loss is not my goal. I couldn't care less about speed. I care about PERMANENCE.

    You want to be obnoxious about this? The OP has already achieved 10% loss. And is already benefiting from positive health returns. The longer she maintains the 10% loss the better off she is. If she spends the next 6 years slowly losing every year and never getting to goal she will still be ahead of losing to goal in the next 6 months and then regaining everything over the next 6 years.

    The rule of thumb is NOT 1%. It is UP to 1%. With better tolerance at around 0.5% than at 1%

    Maybe willpower and strength and discipline are enough for you to lose with and maintain. Power through and damn the torpedoes!

    REAL WORLD SUCCESS RATES argue that this doesn't work for most of us. Hormones are beautiful. You don't get to control them. They control you. Ask the parents of your nearest teenagers if you don't remember.

    Work with your body. Trick your body. Finesse and feather with some degree of work and discipline thrown in.

    More the power to you if you are THE person who can will his body into submission. Though I don't understand why you would need "quick leaning out period"s if that the case.

    In any case: time constrained losses ain't my game. And I think the odds of winning are low for the ones who play it.
    to reiterate:

    IMO every situation is different and people have varying dieting knowledge and caloric needs so there won’t ever be a one size fits all type of program

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    I came to MFP in search of a way that would allow me to achieve more permanent weight loss. Quick loss is not my goal. I couldn't care less about speed. I care about PERMANENCE.

    You want to be obnoxious about this? The OP has already achieved 10% loss. And is already benefiting from positive health returns. The longer she maintains the 10% loss the better off she is. If she spends the next 6 years slowly losing every year and never getting to goal she will still be ahead of losing to goal in the next 6 months and then regaining everything over the next 6 years.

    The rule of thumb is NOT 1%. It is UP to 1%. With better tolerance at around 0.5% than at 1%

    Maybe willpower and strength and discipline are enough for you to lose with and maintain. Power through and damn the torpedoes!

    REAL WORLD SUCCESS RATES argue that this doesn't work for most of us. Hormones are beautiful. You don't get to control them. They control you. Ask the parents of your nearest teenagers if you don't remember.

    Work with your body. Trick your body. Finesse and feather with some degree of work and discipline thrown in.

    More the power to you if you are THE person who can will his body into submission. Though I don't understand why you would need "quick leaning out period"s if that the case.

    In any case: time constrained losses ain't my game. And I think the odds of winning are low for the ones who play it.

    I agree with this. To the bolded specifically, I referenced 1% in my PP, and I think Tom may've followed up on it from that. In the PP, I was viewing 1% as a line-crossing that could raise a case in my mind from the yellow flag level of 1200 calories (which some may require, but others choose when it's not a great plan) to a red flag level (where I start to think the loss rate is only sensible for someone who's severely obese and under close medical supervision). I'd usually recommend the 0.5-1% too, with a bias toward the lower end, unless severely obese and being monitored. That's conservative, wrt the latter group, perhaps.

    I absolutely share your (PAV's) thoughts about permanence. I think a taper of loss rate into maintenance calories can be a really good idea, for a variety of reasons, vs. pedal to the metal all the way.

    I'm wondering whether Tom is coming more from a bulk & cut kind of frame of reference, where the tradeoffs may differ. I don't know.

    For sure I, and I think you, are coming from the perspective of people who've lost from a longstanding very overweight or obese level, whose primary focus is then staying at the healthy weight permanently, kind of against the odds. I'm not sure about OP, but my best guess is that her frame of reference has more that focus, too.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    Ann there are many many people that tout the 1% target and that is fine depending on how much fat is being carried. For someone like myself that always lives at 170-180 as a sweet spot, getting to 200 due to knee issues compromising activity and liking wine too much to drown my sorrows, 200 felt like sheite.

    In my case, getting the weight off quickly was a priority however with the proper diet and change in training it’s no big deal. I think most people that have fat to lose are a bit more in the dark on things and for those I will agree to take it slower but should understand the basics on Fatloss.

    Someone obese may be better off quickly losing as that is less detrimental than continue carrying the weight. Doctors will advise this in some cases.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Ann there are many many people that tout the 1% target and that is fine depending on how much fat is being carried. For someone like myself that always lives at 170-180 as a sweet spot, getting to 200 due to knee issues compromising activity and liking wine too much to drown my sorrows, 200 felt like sheite.

    In my case, getting the weight off quickly was a priority however with the proper diet and change in training it’s no big deal. I think most people that have fat to lose are a bit more in the dark on things and for those I will agree to take it slower but should understand the basics on Fatloss.

    Someone obese may be better off quickly losing as that is less detrimental than continue carrying the weight. Doctors will advise this in some cases.

    Very different frame of reference, then. I can understand that.

    Sounds like your default habits were the 170-180, the gain an exception. In a practical sense, you were smarter than I was. I was overweight to class 1 obese for most of my adult life, better part of 30 years, including the last 10+ years of that as a masters athlete but up and down around the border of overweight and class 1 obese (175-185 pounds or so at 5'5"). Slower loss, especially when heading into maintenance (120s-130ish weight goal) was a big help not only in preserving muscle, and keeping up athletic performance, but also in grooving in the new habits different from what I'd been doing for a long time. My default habits kept me fat, loss/maintenance was the exception until just these last few years.

    Apologies for the digression, OP.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Ann there are many many people that tout the 1% target and that is fine depending on how much fat is being carried. For someone like myself that always lives at 170-180 as a sweet spot, getting to 200 due to knee issues compromising activity and liking wine too much to drown my sorrows, 200 felt like sheite.

    In my case, getting the weight off quickly was a priority however with the proper diet and change in training it’s no big deal. I think most people that have fat to lose are a bit more in the dark on things and for those I will agree to take it slower but should understand the basics on Fatloss.

    Someone obese may be better off quickly losing as that is less detrimental than continue carrying the weight. Doctors will advise this in some cases.

    Very different frame of reference, then. I can understand that.

    Sounds like your default habits were the 170-180, the gain an exception. In a practical sense, you were smarter than I was. I was overweight to class 1 obese for most of my adult life, better part of 30 years, including the last 10+ years of that as a masters athlete but up and down around the border of overweight and class 1 obese (175-185 pounds or so at 5'5"). Slower loss, especially when heading into maintenance (120s-130ish weight goal) was a big help not only in preserving muscle, and keeping up athletic performance, but also in grooving in the new habits different from what I'd been doing for a long time. My default habits kept me fat, loss/maintenance was the exception until just these last few years.

    Apologies for the digression, OP.
    Digressions can be educational

  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    springlering62 wrote: »
    I’d just like to tiptoe in to point out……when you are losing a considerable amount of weight, the weight comes off faster in the beginning.

    As you lose more and come closer to goal, the rate of loss slows down.

    All the burning excitement you felt with the first fifty lost is laser focused on the next, and slowing loss will feel excruciatingly slow and frustrating.

    Just hang in there, appreciate what you’ve already lost (great job BTW!) and know that in six months or a year, you’ll look back and say “well that wasn’t as awful as I thought”.

    Time passes, and with continued mindfulness, so does weight.
    that is why you need to lower calories as you lose weight.

  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,248 Member
    springlering62 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    springlering62 wrote: »
    I’d just like to tiptoe in to point out……when you are losing a considerable amount of weight, the weight comes off faster in the beginning.

    As you lose more and come closer to goal, the rate of loss slows down.

    All the burning excitement you felt with the first fifty lost is laser focused on the next, and slowing loss will feel excruciatingly slow and frustrating.

    Just hang in there, appreciate what you’ve already lost (great job BTW!) and know that in six months or a year, you’ll look back and say “well that wasn’t as awful as I thought”.

    Time passes, and with continued mindfulness, so does weight.
    that is why you need to lower calories as you lose weight.

    Your rate of loss will still be lower, though. When you’re losing a large amount of weight, as I did and OP is trying to do, you can’t keep up that rate of loss.

    The first fifty pounds were a snap. I was losing 10 a month for the first five or six months and then it slowed, slowed, and slowed some more.

    Loses will slow down. Mathematically, there’s only so much you can cut, not to mention the potential harm if you try to keep banging the pounds off.

    It’s disingenuous to keep stating “cut calories” as the perfect solution, and it’s also a bit insulting implying that someone is failing because they can’t or won’t commit to exponentially larger cuts.

    Yes, you do need to eat less as you lose weight and have less to lose. You don’t need as many calories to fuel the smaller body. But even that’s not always 100% true. I actually ate more the smaller I got. At one point I was up to about 3500 a day.

    That could almost be construed as the dark mirror image of your plan. I exercised more and more to be able to eat that, to the point I pretty much had a problem.

    I’m at a pretty happy median now of less exercise and averaging about 26-2800/day.

    Excess in either direction is a dumbass move.
    I said to lower calories. No need to keep up the same rate of loss however at some point your original calorie amount may become your new maintenance and without lowering a bit you won’t lose any more unless you’re activity has increased, whether through NEAT or otherwise.


  • springlering62
    springlering62 Posts: 8,679 Member
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    springlering62 wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    springlering62 wrote: »
    I’d just like to tiptoe in to point out……when you are losing a considerable amount of weight, the weight comes off faster in the beginning.

    As you lose more and come closer to goal, the rate of loss slows down.

    All the burning excitement you felt with the first fifty lost is laser focused on the next, and slowing loss will feel excruciatingly slow and frustrating.

    Just hang in there, appreciate what you’ve already lost (great job BTW!) and know that in six months or a year, you’ll look back and say “well that wasn’t as awful as I thought”.

    Time passes, and with continued mindfulness, so does weight.
    that is why you need to lower calories as you lose weight.

    Your rate of loss will still be lower, though. When you’re losing a large amount of weight, as I did and OP is trying to do, you can’t keep up that rate of loss.

    The first fifty pounds were a snap. I was losing 10 a month for the first five or six months and then it slowed, slowed, and slowed some more.

    Loses will slow down. Mathematically, there’s only so much you can cut, not to mention the potential harm if you try to keep banging the pounds off.

    It’s disingenuous to keep stating “cut calories” as the perfect solution, and it’s also a bit insulting implying that someone is failing because they can’t or won’t commit to exponentially larger cuts.

    Yes, you do need to eat less as you lose weight and have less to lose. You don’t need as many calories to fuel the smaller body. But even that’s not always 100% true. I actually ate more the smaller I got. At one point I was up to about 3500 a day.

    That could almost be construed as the dark mirror image of your plan. I exercised more and more to be able to eat that, to the point I pretty much had a problem.

    I’m at a pretty happy median now of less exercise and averaging about 26-2800/day.

    Excess in either direction is a dumbass move.
    I said to lower calories. No need to keep up the same rate of loss however at some point your original calorie amount may become your new maintenance and without lowering a bit you won’t lose any more unless you’re activity has increased, whether through NEAT or otherwise.


    Thanks for clarifying.
  • NC_Gardener
    NC_Gardener Posts: 20 Member
    As long as you aren't eating over maintenance *for your goal weight*, you'll still lose. It might be slow to very slow, but you'll lose it.
  • Onamissionforfit
    Onamissionforfit Posts: 90 Member
    You can't put a time frame on the process. Keep at it and you'll get there. Changes are happening even when you don't see it

Categories