We've got to stop looking at slow weight loss as failure.
OMG... I just started a thread freaking out that I'm losing weight loss too FAST (was worried about yo yoing and loss of appetite)... I haven't eaten enough calories yesterday and was too stressed to eat enough today so I panicked. I call my weight loss process "Slow Show" after one of my favorite songs. I seriously do get worried about losing weight too fast and maintenance. I've had plenty of stagnant days (even weeks!) after the initial faster weight loss once I detoxified of carbs, but I find them comforting. I like that stability as long as I'm still within my very modest goals because they make me feel like my body is adapting well and I'm not forcing anything.
Then again, my grand plan is to keep losing a maximum of 20 pounds by my 30th birthday. Three years from now.
Last edited by Blackberry Fields; 05-12-2010 at 10:25 AM.
I think we're taught to be fearful during weight loss. Weight loss that isn't done with a great amount of fear over doing it "wrong" somehow, just isn't normal. It's as if there are all these magical (but unwritten rules) and with one false move, *poof* it will all disappear and the weight will just as magically *poof* land back on our bodies.
This experience has been my first no-fear weight loss. In the past, I was always afraid of doing something wrong. Always concerned that what I was eating was wrong, how I was or wasn't exercising was wrong, when I was eating was wrong..... and speaking with other people only made the fears worse - because they'd bring up fears I hadn't even considered.
There are still so many diet myths being perpetuated "You can't succeed unless you (insert statement of choice)."
Either the statement is pure magical thinking - or it's so vague that it's essentially meaningless (or the logic is circular - because if you lose weight it proves the myth).
It's sad, and crazy that a person can feel terrified over the pace of their weight loss. Is it too slow? Is it too fast? How will I know if it's too fast or too slow? What is the perfectly acceptable rate of weight loss? What will happen if I lose it too fast or too slow?
And pace of weight loss is only the tip of the "iceberg" of weight loss fears.
There's very little weight loss advice that is universal. It really does seem to be a very individual path. But there's no magic involved in finding the path that's best for you. It's trial and error, and you judge by results and consequences. If you're crash dieting (perhaps losing very quickly as a result) I don't think it's the speed of weight loss that send you off the crash diet. It's likely to be something more obvious. You're cutting your food intake so much that you're physically and mentally miserable. Living on lettuce (which I did in high school) isn't a very enjoyable way to live. It has nothing to do with the speed of weight loss that results.
I have to watch carbs or I'm starving all the time, but if I go too low in carbs (like Atkins induction level), I get a permanent and excrutiating headache (and no, it doesn't go away after two or even three weeks - it's not carb withdrawal. I suspect it's low blood sugar).
I lose most quickly (although that's much less quickly than in days when I was younger and more active) on a very low carb diet, but I'm miserable on such a diet. It's not the speed of the weight loss that sends me off such a diet - it's the misery - specifically, the blinding, pounding, unrelenting headache. It's no surprise that someone might avoid actions that made them feel like their head could explode at any minute.
This current weight loss attempt has been the most successful I've ever had. It's also been the slowest, but that does not mean the slowness is responsible for the success. In fact, I rather doubt it. I think one of the biggest differences is fear, or rather the lack of it. I can't even tell you why I'm not afraid. Maybe I'm just burnt out on fear. Maybe I matured (as a person who is proud of never having grown up, I shudder at the thought). Perhaps I just got so sick of fearing things because I was told I was supposed to, that I'm rebelling (that thought appeals to me more - just a delayed or deferred adolescence perhaps)...
I think the speed of weight loss is entirely irrelevant (thankfully, because it's not always under our direct control). I think what always works (eventually) is making healthier changes and accepting their consequences. If you want more dramatic consequences (in whichever areas - weight loss, strength, stamina....) you have to be willing to put in more effort to make more or more dramatic changes. If you're not willing to put in more effort - that's ok too - you just won't see as dramatic an effect (and that is ok too. If you're only comfortable or able to make small changes, then make small changes - and accept small rewards).
The biggest problem with the state of current weight loss (at least as it's commonly done) is wanting huge pay-offs for very little effort. That is just never going to happen, no matter what Cosmo, Redbook, or Woman's World magazine has to say about it.
Small changes, small rewards. Big changes, big rewards. And both are legitimate ways to lose weight (if you're not up to big changes, you don't have to wait until you are. That's another weight loss myth that's prevalent - that you have to overhaul your life to lose any weight at all).
[I]She and her team studied data on 262 middle-aged women who took part in an obesity treatment trial. All the women were encouraged to cut calories and do more exercise.
They split the women into three groups, fast, moderate and slow, according to how much weight they lost in the first month. They also studied how much weight the women had dropped at six and 18 months.
So, they took the women who were most successful in the first month with non-specific instructions "cut calories and do more exercise", classified them as the fast group and then determined the fast group was better at maintenance? Big suprise, they were better at the entire process. Whether it was because they had more to lose, better at developing their own plan, had more time to exercise? Who knows, but based on what I've read so far, not convinced it had anything at all to do with the rate of loss.
Maybe more to it then this, but like Meg, I'd like to know the details before I reach the same conclusion.
So, they took the women who were most successful in the first month with non-specific instructions "cut calories and do more exercise", classified them as the fast group and then determined the fast group was better at maintenance? Big suprise, they were better at the entire process. Whether it was because they had more to lose, better at developing their own plan, had more time to exercise? Who knows, but based on what I've read so far, not convinced it had anything at all to do with the rate of loss.
Maybe more to it then this, but like Meg, I'd like to know the details before I reach the same conclusion.
what she said It seems to me like there are some potentially major flaws in this research design. No matter how fast or slow you lose it, whether you maintain it is up to YOU! You are not doomed by your weight loss rate but not helped by it either. imho.
Nackers reported that women in the fast group were five times more likely to achieve a 10 percent loss of their body weight at 18 months than those in the slow group. Women in the moderate group were nearly three times more likely to reach that milestone than the slow group."
Well, duh. Did I read that right? The women who lost the weight fastest were more likely to get the weight off faster? (10% at 18 months) Or am I not being fair and 18 months is long enough at a slow rate to lose 10%? For someone 250 pounds, 10% is 25 pounds. At 1/2 pound a week (not considered slow - at the low end of medium?), they would lose it in 50 weeks, well within 18 months. But if they lose 1/4 pound a week (smack in the middle of slow), it would take 100 weeks, well beyond 18 months.
Wow, I missed this thread originally and am really glad I found it!
I have nothing to add other than I am very thankful for the thoughtful comments.
My weight loss has been all over the place. Super fast, painfully slow, and yes, even some periods of gain tossed in just to mix it up. I agree it isn't how long it took you to get there, but what you've learned from the experience.
If you are able to lose weight quickly, you have figured out what your metabolism needs to function well, and if you see scale creep you can employ the tools you have to banish it before it becomes excessive.
As someone who has never been able to lose weight quickly, the only benefit I think I may have is that my skin has plenty of time to adjust to any weight change, since it is sooo slow.
For me, I don't think it's the speed that matters, I think it's how you're choosing to lose weight.
Most of my friends in real life would go on a "diet" and eat in ways they did not enjoy, to lose weight. They would immediately go down to 1200 calories even though they ate 2500 calories daily before, which is fine for some people, but for many, it is too little to feel satisfied. They would restrict all their favorite foods and eat foods they perceived as healthy in a very bland way. They were so miserable that they were only trying to lose weight so they could be done with the diet already.
And that's the failure right there. If you're not enjoying what you're eating, you won't want to keep doing it. Find a healthy way of eating you truly enjoy, and then eat like you're maintaining, but with less calories, and when you actually get to maintenance, it'll just be a smooth transition into the rest of your life.
My friends didn't fail because they lost too fast or slow, they failed because they were doing something that they didn't enjoy, something that wasn't sustainable for them, so it was only inevitable that they'd fail. You have to love it to live it!
So many good points made here. I was a very slow loser, but the rate of loss is not what has helped me maintain so far. It's what I learned along the way, finding a satisfying WOE that I can sustain, and accepting the fact that I'll never be able to eat like so-called "normal people". For me it's like having a chronic illness. If I don't continue to do the things I know help keep the symptoms (in this case gaining weight) under control, I will have to face the consequences, and, unless something miraculous occurs, this isn't going to change. I've learned to accept that I will always have to be vigilant, and am doing the same things I did when losing the weight, except I stay within what I have found to be my maintenance calorie range & have a 5 lb. maintenance weight range. My plan is that if I hit the top of that range, I go immediately to weight loss mode until I am back to at least the middle of that range.
If you can make sustainable changes, go for it. Otherwise the scale is going to jump back up. (A 125# person can't eat like a 150# person and expect to stay at 125#.) Most people find gradual change easier to keep in the long run than sudden large changes.
Most of the time, though, to create large calorie deficits needed to lose quickly, people are doing things they can't or don't plan on sustaining. It's the gyms that are full on Jan 1st that are back to normal by Valentine's day. It's hard to start many things at once and keep going long term with them.
I'm sure there are exceptions out there. If you've ever read Hacker's Diet the author has a "let's get this over with" personal stance although the diet itself doesn't have to be that way. It does work for some to lose quickly.
Personally, as I got lighter it was harder to move the scale number. As PP mentioned, if the scale isn't going UP, it's a victory.
It seems to me like there are some potentially major flaws in this research design. No matter how fast or slow you lose it, whether you maintain it is up to YOU! You are not doomed by your weight loss rate but not helped by it either. imho.
