This 1lb..1 1/2 lb. per week thing...

[PaulH]

Brent,

I think it's important to remember that people are different, so losing 4lbs per week could be ideal for you (or a pound every 4 weeks!) I wish you every success in your continuing efforts!

Cheers, Paul

[icomefrombirmingham]

Brent,

I think it's important to remember that people are different, so losing 4lbs per week could be ideal for you (or a pound every 4 weeks!) I wish you every success in your continuing efforts!

Cheers, Paul

Thanks for the encouragement Paul. I'm not in any rush to lose the weight this time. Nor, do I have a target weight. The goal is to eat properly and excercise sufficiently...and the weight will end up wherever it needs to be....this month, next month or next year!

[Liquid]

"...and I think it said 6-7 days per week for weight loss. I can't imagine anyone rowing 6-7 hours per week wouldn't lose > 2 lbs??"

Lol, wish this were true. I row 7 days a week for about an hour and stopped losing weight since the end of June even though I'm 40 lbs. over healthy. Go figure.

[icomefrombirmingham]

"...and I think it said 6-7 days per week for weight loss. I can't imagine anyone rowing 6-7 hours per week wouldn't lose > 2 lbs??"

Lol, wish this were true. I row 7 days a week for about an hour and stopped losing weight since the end of June even though I'm 40 lbs. over healthy. Go figure.

Yeah, I read your "stuck" thread...I was surprised. My guru at the "Y" recommends that I alternate my CV workouts between two or three machines. The elliptical is supposed to be good...and the stair-walker thingy (not a zimmer frame the other one) would probably be beneficial to rowing?
The theory is that your body gets very efficient at the motions needed for say rowing, and once you have reached this point you lose weight more slowly.

The problem is I just plain enjoy the rowing machine and walking without my dogs or on any piece of apparatus just strikes me as boring....and stationery biking is a pain in the groin.

Still, I'd better try the elliptical one of these days.

Good luck,
Brent

[Nosmo]

"..... even though I'm 40 lbs. over healthy...

Keep rowing and taking care of yourself and you'll be healthy even if you never loose another pound. Weight and health are not equivalent. There was an article in the New York Times (tuesday's science times) several weeks ago, which made the point that seemingly thin people can be very unhealthy due to fat around the internal organs, and fat people can be healthy if they lack that fat (they used Summo wrestlers as an example of fat and healthy).

It is more important to be fit then thin.

[PaulH]

I'm not sure sumo is a good example - from Wikipedia:

The negative effects of the sumo lifestyle become dangerously apparent later in life. Sumo wrestlers have a life expectancy of between 60 and 65, more than 10 years shorter than the average Japanese male. They often develop diabetes and high blood pressure, and are prone to heart attacks. The excessive intake of alcohol leads to liver problems and the stress on their joints causes arthritis.

[icomefrombirmingham]

OK...earlier in the week I decided that I would increase the food intake to slow down my weight loss. I ate slightly more on Monday, a non-erging day. I still walked my dogs for 3k.
I think I had one bowl of pretty bland meusli...not the commercial sugared stuff...and perhaps a couple of pieces of fruit extra. Bugger me....I had gained gained 1.5 lbs by Tueday morning!
If that's how my body reacts to an act of kindness it can bloody well starve!!!
Regards,
Brent

[tbartman]

I went from 260 to 185 pounds, losing about 2.8 lbs per week for the first 65 lbs lost, then more slowly for the last 10. Now I have been level for a few months at 185 - having reached a point where I feel I should be, and backing off SLIGHTLY on the rigidity of the diet and the amount of exercise to keep myself stable.

In my opinion, I one reason to restrict weight loss to 2 lb/wk or so is that in order to lose much more, you may be likely to adopt behaviors that are not sustainable for the long term, and to be effective for the rest of your life, any diet/fitness change you make has to be something you can do for the rest of your life.

Could you row two hours a day, restict yourself to 1000 calories per day and lose 6 lbs per week? Sure. Is this a behavior that you are going to keep once you reach your ideal weight? No. So why do it and mess with your body's metabolism, endocrinology, psychology, etc.? I think it is better to adopt a change that you can do forever, and you'll see that with the lifestyle change, eventually you'll get to where you want to be, and you'll stay there because you won't have done anything too drastic.

When I started rowing again, I actually read an article in a running magazine that put it well. When people have a finish line, what do they do? They do whatever it takes to make it to the finish line, and then they collapse and stop running. YEAH! I reached my goal! Now I can stop doing what I've been doing for the last 30 minutes (one hour, 4 hours, 4 months, year) that it took to get me to my goal. BAD BAD BAD!! A 100m sprinter never runs another 400m after his race is done, does he?

Make a permanent lifestyle change. Do not set goals (I want to lose x pounds by Christmas), because you'll see that finish line, and once you cross it, you'll have a strong urge to stop what it took to get you there. If it took you 10 years to get fat and out of shape, let it take you a year to get back in shape (even at 2 lb/wk, you can lose 100 lb in a year - I almost did).

Slow, steady, sustainable will do the trick, IMHO.

[Liquid]

"I went from 260 to 185 pounds, losing about 2.8 lbs per week for the first 65 lbs lost, then more slowly for the last 10. Now I have been level for a few months at 185 - having reached a point where I feel I should be, and backing off SLIGHTLY on the rigidity of the diet and the amount of exercise to keep myself stable."

Fascinating, you rarely hear about the success stories. How did you change your diet and was it difficult to stick with? I'm trying to lose about the same. The first 23 lbs. flew off in 11 weeks, now NOTHING will come off despite the same routine and even more exercise.

[tbartman]

Liquid,

It may have been easier for me because I was starting from such a bad place ...

I just turned 40 last week, and last October (9 months before doomsday), I realized that I hadn't exercised in forever (not a drop of sweat in a decade?), and that although I was reasonable with my eating during the day/meals, every night when the kids went to sleep, I'd pig out on the couch for 1-2 hours in front of the TV. Probably stuffed in 1000-1500 calories a night like that (seriously). One particular photo that had been taken of my mortified me and finally made me snap.

I had an erg from the decade previous, so I dusted it off and said that every night when the kids went to sleep, it would be directly to the basement to row - do not go into the family room, do not pass the fridge or the pantry, do not pass go, do not collect $200!

The combo of the exercise, along with using that time to distract myself from the unhealthy eating, is what did the trick. You know how a smoker starts sucking lollipops to keep his hands occupied? Same concept. I'm also using the alcholic concept - I'm not recovered, I'm recovering, and will not be able to sit in the family room again watching TV. The few times I've tried it, bags of Doritos magnetically floated into my lap and then into my stomach!! I avoid that room the way an ex-drunk avoids his old watering hole.

Since this has started, I notice myself becoming more consious other times - looking at calories when the kids and I have to stop by Burger King for a quick meal and deciding if the 400 calories in the fries is worth 30 minutes on the erg (it isn't), so I'll grab the salad instead.

Now that I'm stable, I do allow myself one day on the weekend to slurge a little, and I've heard this is a good thing because it prevents your metabolism from entering total starvation mode and shutting down. Plus, the other 6 days I can behave much better if I know a rewarding trip to Cold Stone Creamery is coming up on Saturday (although I'll get the small cone now, not the extra large).

Best of luck. I am convinced that you've done the most important thing - exercise. Now that I've tried everything in the book, I realize that all the other "diets" fail because they don't look at the exercise part of the equation. I firmly believe that someone who is 20 lbs overweight but rows 30 minutes four times a week is really much healthier than the person who has starved themselves to skinniness but never exercises at all.

[icomefrombirmingham]

Well, you can add me to the club.

On May 26, 2007 I went to see my new doctor. He did the annual physical, took my blood pressure and ordered the bloodwork.
He told me that my BP was high and I should think about going on medication.
Since I was already taking Crestor for cholesterol and Arthrotec (an anti-inflamatory) for arthritis in my spine I was not keen to start popping another long term pill.
Besides which it was pretty clear to me that as a formerly fairly athletic type (the older I get the better I was) I had let myself go pretty severely and that diet alone was never going to be enough to get my body under control and keep it there.
So, I made an agreement with him.....and a promise to myself.....I would excercise and lose some weight, come back in two months, and see if my BP was still high.
Next day I went to the YMCA and joined up. Day after that I went back to the Y for my intro session, met my "trainer", was shown a suggested program of weights and requested that instead of the treadmill and bike she was suggesting for cardio could she show me how to use the rowing machine instead? (The new Doc had suggested it as a better way to burn calories).

I am pleased top report that in the intervening 8 or 9 weeks I have:
a) lost 30 lbs (285 to 255).
b) worked up my distance on the erg to HMs...about one a week.
c) My BP is now fine at 128/72...no need for the pills.
d) My cholesterol is excellent at 3.06mmol/l (which I THINK is 118 in american money...though this seems like a low number to me)....and been told to come off the Cretor.
e) my back is feeling much better and I had to come off the Arthotec for 7 days to take the colo-rectal screening test and have done so with no problem....Doc says to come off the Arthrotec.
f) logged 328,776 metres on the Y's ergs and am thinking about getting my own.
g) joined one of the local rowing clubs and start in the "tank" tomorrow night...before getting on the water for the first time in my life next week...and "racing" (striclty rec. league....for now) five races shortly thereafter.

So all in all. I am pretty happy. But just like Liquid I am noticing a real slow down in weight loss with no real change in my "program". So I am trying both the change of excercise idea and the two half hours are better than one hour idea suggested here.

Good luck everyone.
Cheers,
Brent

[netmage]

Well thanks for the effort to explain...but the first six of these articles were more or less anecdotal. I am looking for something rational to answer the question. I need to know WHY people tend to gain weight back if they lose more then two pounds per week. i.e. if there is a scientific explanation.
Regards,
Brent

Nothing scientific, but my impressions..

3500 cals = 1lb, so a daily calorie reduction of 500 cals should equate to a lb of weight loss in a week.

Most people should be able to reduce daily intake or increase caloric expendature by 500 cals fairly easily, thus its advocated as a sustainable approach for healthy weightloss.

I imagine the argument would be advocating higher delta's could be described as boardering on binge starvation, and is certainly not sustainable over the long run for lifetime maintainence.

When my lightbulb went off, I was ~385, and I was hitting the gym elliptical (conviently located on the 2nd floor of my apt bldg) for 90 mins a day and on average posted a 1lb day loss, with intake around 1500-2000 and actual restriction was 2000, so to some extent the numbers never add up, just get you near the ballpark.

-Tim

[icomefrombirmingham]

Well thanks for the effort to explain...but the first six of these articles were more or less anecdotal. I am looking for something rational to answer the question. I need to know WHY people tend to gain weight back if they lose more then two pounds per week. i.e. if there is a scientific explanation.
Regards,
Brent

Nothing scientific, but my impressions..

3500 cals = 1lb, so a daily calorie reduction of 500 cals should equate to a lb of weight loss in a week.

Most people should be able to reduce daily intake or increase caloric expendature by 500 cals fairly easily, thus its advocated as a sustainable approach for healthy weightloss.

I imagine the argument would be advocating higher delta's could be described as boardering on binge starvation, and is certainly not sustainable over the long run for lifetime maintainence.

When my lightbulb went off, I was ~385, and I was hitting the gym elliptical (conviently located on the 2nd floor of my apt bldg) for 90 mins a day and on average posted a 1lb day loss, with intake around 1500-2000 and actual restriction was 2000, so to some extent the numbers never add up, just get you near the ballpark.

-Tim

Thanks Tim,
I understand that losing 4lbs per week is not sustainable....as Lord Keynes once said, in the long run, if we lost 4 lbs per week we'd all be dead, or words to that effect.
What I wanted was a scientific reason WHY, after losing weight at a rate of >1.5 to 2 lbs per week and reaching a "target" weight, WHY is it more difficult to maintain that weight than if were lost more slowly?
It seems to me that this is largely psychological, not physiological.
So I want to know if there is a physiological theory that explains WHY.
I'm not arguing the statistical correctness of the observation that weight gain usually follows rapid weight loss. The studies are clear on that.
Regards,
Brent

[Afterburner]

I feel the need to chime in on this one.
First off, never try to lose more than 3 lbs/week. Trust me. I'd really recommend no more than 2lbs/week tops.
There are several reasons for this.

1. You will feel massively deprived, it sucks. As a result once you've lost what you wanted you'll tend to binge. Binging = bad.

2. Your metabolism will start to shut down.
Last year I was stupid. It was my first ever year rowing LW and I had to lose weight. I didn't leave enough time so ended up having to drop weight pretty fast (3ish lbs/week min). I ended up in a position where despite doing 2 a day workouts (we're talking rowing at least about 15k during each) plus occasionally going for a run or the like on my own I had to restrict my calorie intake to about 1700-2000 calories. When you figure that I should have been burning close to 4000 calories a day, well, it's kinda crazy. When I got to the last few days of the season and had to try to maintain that weight I couldn't take the calorie count up at all because my metabolism had shut down due to starvation. Not cool.
Note that this will also tend to cause your body to retain more fat than muscle. When your body goes into starvation mode it starts to store fat in case of famine. It doesn't store that weight in muscle. In fact it will tend to take your muscle and convert it into fat because the more fat and less muscle you have the lower your calorie requirements for the day.

3. When you lose weight fast you don't lose what you want to.
Lets face it, when you lose weight you want to lose fat. Not muscle, not water, fat. When you lose fast you tend to lose water first. This'll tend to make you dehydrated, which will make you thirsty, which will tend to make a lot of people eat. With that water you will tend to lose nutrients. Your body needs those. Also if you lose fast you are a lot more likely to end up losing stuff like calcium which can lead to problems such as osteoporosis, etc.

As for this stuff being psychological vs physiological, well, keep in mind that it's never as easy to tweak and adjust your psyche as you think it will/should be. Especially when it involves trying to go against your body's instincts.

[cranreuch]

> What I wanted was a scientific reason WHY, after losing weight at a rate
> of 1.5 to 2 lbs per week and reaching a "target" weight, WHY is it more
> difficult to maintain that weight than if were lost more slowly?

Because even though you've reached the target, by then you'll have a lower muscle:fat ratio than you would have had if you'd lost the weight more slowly. That means you need fewer calories to maintain your new weight, but you'll still have a tendency to want to eat what you were used to before (with the original higher muscle:fat ratio).

This is because when you lose weight, you lose both fat and muscle. (This is the bane of the competitive bodybuilder who, near to a competition, wants to lose only fat in order to gain greater muscle definition.) Exactly how much fat versus muscle is at least partly dependent on how fast you lose it. The faster you lose, the more muscle.

Why? Because the human body is an idiot. It stores up fat for times of famine but then the very day you induce a famine by dieting, your body says, "Oh oh! A famine! I think I'll preserve these fat stores and instead metabolize his biceps for energy. That means we preserve energy *and* lower his energy needs. Aren't we clever."

So, you have to trick it by losing slowly, so it doesn't notice.

Also, the 2lb/week limit is related to nutritional requirements. The average person (whatever that is) burns about 2,000 calories per day. However, it's difficult to get the right level of nutrients (food is more than calories) with normal food unless you eat at least 1,000 calories per day. The difference - 1,000 calories per day - amounts to 7,000 calories per week. Since there is about 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, the average person should be aiming to lose no more than *about* 2lbs per week.

But it's all *very* approximate. I went on Atkins and lost 14lbs in the first week (most of that being glycogen and water though).

c

P.S. And there's another, psychological reason. Maintaining the target weight is mostly in the mind. Losing 100lbs over 12 weeks may feel great at the time, but it is unlikely to have built the diet and exercise habits required to keep the weight off. Losing 100lbs over two years four years (steadily, at a rate of 0.5 a week) allows time to build those habits.