What do you consider to be slow?
 

I'm curious what people consider to be a "slow loser" At first I kept thinking about those few people that lost like 60lbs in 4/5 months.. I wonder just how many people actaully do that? I was always comparing my loss to theirs thinking that I must have been doing something wrong because I wasn't loosing that fast. I'm speaking for females.. I know that things are diffrent for guys.. lucky them. But at what point do you consider to be a slower loser? I am sure everyone has their own opinion. I personally think I am a slow one. 15lbs in just a little over 6 weeks now. But then I realize that there are some people who are at a much slower rate than I am. Is it basically anything less thatn 2lbs a week? Or maybe 5 a month? Just curious?

I think "normal" is the following:

Males: 1% per week from the difference between current weight to the 15% target of body fat.

Women: 1% per week from the difference between current weight to the 22% target of body fat.

Slow would be less that 0.5%

The above percentage of fat, are the ones your body expects. Once you reach them, it takes more than dieting to bypass them.

Common misconception for slow is calulating the 1% based on target weight. Or, basing the 1% on current weight, rather than the difference.

Wa'il

Your weight loss is about double what mine is, (with no cheating)! So, I wouldn't call yours slow at all - I guess it is just a matter of perspective.

Atriana's right... it is all a matter of perspective. Weight loss shouldnt be a race... comparing what one person has lost with what another has can just be demoralizing... everyone's metabolism is so different. Factor in which plan they are following makes a difference too. Someone on Atkins will lose faster than someone following the Somers Plan, or Schwarzbein simply because it's a more carb restrictive program.

Feeling good about yourself and how you're doing is the key.

My two cents,
Nat

For me, any weight lost is a miracle after living fat for so long.

I steadily gained weight for 22 years! Why, if it takes another year to reach my goal, that's fine with me. You do it when and as you're ready to accept it on terms dictated by your body and by freeing your mind - not your ego.

Karen

Candi
I think you are losing at about the right rate. It is certainly not slow! Remember that for each pound you lose you have to have a deficit of 3500 calories. If you have lost 16lbs in 6 weeks, this is about 2.5lbs a week, which is a calorie deficit of nearly 9000 calories, over 1000 cals per day. This is a lot. I hope that you are doing this by eating 500 less calories and burning 500 more calories by exercise per day. If it is all through fewer calories, you could be starving your metabolism and burning protein (your muscles, which are the things that burn the most calories all the time).

Let's look at the other example you gave: 60lbs lost in let's say 4 months. This is approx 4lbs lost per week, which is a calorie deficit of 14000 cals per week, or 2000 cals per day. This is huge. Either this person is eating nothing but celery, or they are training for a marathon, or both!!

Much of the fantastic weight loss experienced initially in lots of diets people go on is water loss and has nothing to do with body fat.

Keep going, I reckon you are doing really well!


Tamarian
Your 1% rule looks on the low side to me. Your rule suggests that an 85kg man needing to become 75kg at 15% body fat will/should lose 0.1kg per week. That's about a quarter of a pound. Not a lot: a weekly cal deficit of 850, or about 100 cals per day. Everyone should be able to lose weight more than this, especially if they do it by exercise rather than reducing cal intake.

I'd say 5% is more the mark.

I think you're off as well, alec. If I were to lose 5% a week I'd be losing 4 lbs a week (ok, so i am losing an average of 4lbs per week now, however I doubt that will continue until I reach goal - and No I dont eat just celery, and I do workout quite strenuously ;) )

I had been told 5% (of body fat) for the first month and 2% per month after was normal.

Nat

Welcome aboard Alecmcq!

Thanks for pointing this out, I was actually thinking 10% per month. Of course, this is just guess work on my part. :)

Nat,

The % is from current weight. i.e. after tou lose 4 lbs, the percentage will change based on your new current weight.

Wa'il

mmmmm then I guess I better slow down ay? I must be doing something wrong :rolleyes:

N

Nah, enjoy it while you can. :)

Some of us who yo-yo dieted get slower rates. But if your body is cooperating, and you're eating right, I won't slow down even if I drop 10 lbs a day!

Wa'il

Okay Okay I need to throw a little humour in this.. I consider a turtle slow.>ROFL>>>sorry peoples I needed this.. :roll:

Just like Whose Line...
 

The calories don't matter...if you are eating low-carb, you have a metabolic advantage. Dr. Atkin's New Diet Revolution.

"Now on the Atkin's diet, Harry was losing 3.9 pounds a week, which means that according to conventional calorie theory, he would have to be taking in 1950 fewer calories a day than he burned in energy. We already know that at 2129 calories a day, he was taking in 250 calories a day too many. Thus Harry's break-even point is 1879 calories a day. To lose 3.9 calories pounds a week, he should be taking in 1879 calories minus 1950 calories, or -71 calories a day--clearly an impossibility since you can't eat less than nothing.

You've seen Harry's menu. In fact, that menu calculates out to 1928 calories a day. Harry is eating 49 calories a day over the break-even point and therefore, according to calorie theory, he should be gaining 0.1 pound a week, and after 13 weeks on the Atkins diet he should have gained 1.3 pounds, not lost 50.

All the calories Harry eats over and above -71 is metabolic advantage. That means he has a metabolic advantage of 1999 calories a day. Impossible? Not according to the research that's been done on low-carbohydrate dieting, and not according to the facts of Harry Kronburg's case.

The metabolic advantage is there. It can't be disguised, evaded, put down to water weight, or wished away....

Back when I wrote my first book, I described a patient of mine who lost 5 pounds a week for 17 weeks, 85 pounds in all, while consuming enough meat that his documented food intake was 3000 calories per day (2 1/2 pounds of red meat, plus a cheese omelet).

By not eating carbohydrate, this patient, like Harry Kronberg, had stimulated the release of FMS to sustain the breakdown of his fat stores. This lipolysis (fat dissolving) became his major metabolic event. He, too, had created a metabolic advantage......

From studying the medical literature, which, as you've seen, is in surprising agreement on this point, and from studying my own patients, I can safely say that the bonus benefit of switching from high-to ultra-low-carbohydrate diets of the same caloric content varies from one-half to three pounds per week. This may not seem like a lot, but done for a year that calculates out to from 25 to 156 pounds of extra body fat lost.

Henceforth, the AMA will never be able to say metabolic advantage doesn't exist. The strongest statement they can make in the future is "Well, yes, there is a proven advantage, but why would you want it?"

To have an edge, a bonus, the vigorish, the odds on your side. Would you want that? You could bet the ranch on it.

May the Edge be with you." pp. 77-79 paperback edition


I can't indent so I used returns with spaces. And yes, I have experienced this metabolic advantage myself. Don't be hungry any more, eat meat!

Elihnig

I agree with you Nat. People on certain medications or have a higher degree of metabolic resistance are going to lose it more slowly. It's frustrating when I look at other people's weightloss as a yard stick to what I should be loosing. I'm happier just finding what works best for my weight loss and doing it...day by day...inch by inch....pound by pound! :D

Slow is a drag, but it's reality!
 

The closer you get to your goal weight....the slower it comes off. I suppose the old pounds become cemented over the years. I had once been at 220, which was my first big plateu. I spent weeks trying to beat it. I finally hit 118 after weeks of harsh excercise. For personal reasons, I then went off the diet for about 3 months and gained up to 245lbs. I was out of control. I recall mainly gaining weight from eating sweets again. But 245 hit me like a rock and I snapped back on the diet. I am going to be patient when I hit 220 this time and hold to my guns.

Slow is frustrating
 

It's helpful to hear other people think they're going slowly. I just completed my 2 week induction & lost 6 pounds. I felt really discouraged yesterday. Ran farther that usual, but was in tears most ofthe way. So many people seem to lose so much on induction, it was difficult for me yesterday to feel successful.

I'm going for a major physical this morning. It will be interesting to see my bloodwork results, etc. But I'm not looking forwardto the treadmill.

My doctor is, however, supportive of the Atkins diet. He's had other patients who have done well on it.