Does Rapid Weight Loss Pose Real Risks?

[Builderman]

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

 

[spanky2026]

Dropping pounds at that rapid pace - and that speed is quick - tends to bring on issues such as gallstones, hair shedding, muscle wasting, and so on.

 

[Builderman]

spanky2026 said:

Dropping pounds at that rapid pace - and that speed is quick - tends to bring on issues such as gallstones, hair shedding, muscle wasting, and so on.

I’ve got no hair left to lose, so that side effect doesn’t worry me. Gallstones, though… that’s something I’d rather avoid.

 

[Skidude]

and then there's this:

losing weight quickly significantly raises the odds of loose, sagging skin. If the pounds come off at a pace your skin can't keep up with or adjust to, the fat beneath vanishes, yet the stretched skin doesn't have enough time or elasticity to pull back evenly—so you end up with extra, drooping folds.

 

[woundcarping]

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

I landed on a personal target of 1% down per week when I was putting my own rules together. Once you get into the 1.25-1.5% range and hold it, the research shows a pretty obvious jump in problems. For me, 1% felt like a number I could actually build a plan around while still pushing hard. It's been 29 weeks now, and I'm still exactly on pace to wrap up in 16 more weeks, with almost no lean mass lost since January, and with any luck my gallbladder will come through completely unscathed.

 

[Builderman]

woundcarping said:

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

I landed on a personal target of 1% down per week when I was putting my own rules together. Once you get into the 1.25-1.5% range and hold it, the research shows a pretty obvious jump in problems. For me, 1% felt like a number I could actually build a plan around while still pushing hard. It's been 29 weeks now, and I'm still exactly on pace to wrap up in 16 more weeks, with almost no lean mass lost since January, and with any luck my gallbladder will come through completely unscathed.





View attachment 10080

This chart really works for me. Seeing the percentages side by side with the real numbers makes it much easier to grasp. I might need to borrow this for myself.

 

[eidos]

I once knew a chef who passed away from heart failure during a serious weight-loss regimen, and this was despite having medical oversight.

So yes, it does happen.

This is exactly why having medical supervision matters. At minimum, you need blood work, blood pressure monitoring, and an ECG.

How fast you lose weight should be measured as a percentage of where you started. Dropping 5 pounds when you begin at 400 is not equivalent to dropping 5 pounds when you begin at 150.

If you're not experiencing an irregular heartbeat, elevated blood pressure, or severe tiredness, you can take some comfort. But issues with the kidneys or liver won't show up without testing. The pancreas and gallbladder can also be impacted. A competent doctor can keep an eye on these things.

Trouble can occur when fat has accumulated in the body over many years, and during that time, the person has been around solvents that dissolve in fat. That list includes paints, cleaning agents, gasoline, insecticides, and pesticides, among others. These can get released into the system and trigger acute poisoning.

If you've gassed up your car occasionally or painted a room or two at home, that's not a concern. What we're discussing is repeated and ongoing exposure.

 

[sheilarae74]

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

There is a real danger. Losing weight at too quick a pace can lead to gallbladder complications that are fatal. That is what happened to my mother. She didn't die from cancer—she essentially died from starvation. From my perspective, a safe range is 1-2lbs weekly at most. I'm not a physician, but 5 lbs per week isn't advisable over the long haul.

 

[lastresort]

Yes — your basal metabolism can be left permanently "adapted." Research tracking people from an extreme weight-loss program (the Biggest Loser, quite literally) showed that their RMR stayed suppressed over the long term, even once they had put most of the lost weight back on.


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21538

 

[Builderman]

lastresort said:

Yes — your basal metabolism can be left permanently "adapted." Research tracking people from an extreme weight-loss program (the Biggest Loser, quite literally) showed that their RMR stayed suppressed over the long term, even once they had put most of the lost weight back on.


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21538

That was a fascinating read. From the equation and their claim that “Mean RMR after 6 years was ∼500 kcal/day lower than expected based on the measured body composition changes and the increased age of the subjects,” I can see they did account for the subjects being older. But is that really plausible? My guess is that a falling RMR goes hand in hand with getting older, and I'd also think that the older someone is, the bigger the hit to their RMR. I wonder whether it's even possible to build that into the equation, given that the ages spanned 21 to 40 when the first season aired.

 

[lastresort]

Regardless of whether it's incidental or correlational, a 500kcal drop is a significant reduction. If anything, that's one more explanation for why shedding pounds becomes more difficult as you get older.

 

[SVT810E]

lastresort said:

Yes — your basal metabolism can be left permanently "adapted." Research tracking people from an extreme weight-loss program (the Biggest Loser, quite literally) showed that their RMR stayed suppressed over the long term, even once they had put most of the lost weight back on.


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21538

As far as I know, no study has connected that outcome to rapid weight reduction. What has been observed is that after extreme weight loss, some individuals end up dealing with a metabolic rate that stays suppressed over the long term.

That said, I have doubts about how they went about establishing the expected RMR value. From what I gather, the approach was to take DEXA scan data and feed it into a particular formula.

Within our community, many members have noticed that DEXA scans tend to… have trouble accurately assessing adiposity once someone has undergone massive weight loss. I've spoken with numerous individuals whose scans put them at a level of leanness typical of bodybuilders, even though that clearly isn't the case. Beyond that, the very notion that a standard RMR prediction equation would still be valid after massive weight loss—even assuming the measurements were solid—strikes me as questionable. Such equations rest on premises about fat free mass containing a given quantity of skeletal muscle, a given quantity of organ tissue, a given quantity of skin, and so on… and those premises ought to break down severely in situations where we see lingering problems such as excess skin.

 

[Bluecost10]

sheilarae74 said:

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

There is a real danger. Losing weight at too quick a pace can lead to gallbladder complications that are fatal. That is what happened to my mother. She didn't die from cancer—she essentially died from starvation. From my perspective, a safe range is 1-2lbs weekly at most. I'm not a physician, but 5 lbs per week isn't advisable over the long haul.

For lasting results, I think dropping (0.5 to 1 kg) - (1 to 2 lbs) weekly is the sensible approach. When weight comes off at a very fast pace, the yo yo effect can set in.

 

[5byfive]

Muscle loss is the biggest issue here. The scale shows 5.6 lbs coming off each week, but that 5.6 lbs is not all fat. That matters. Research suggests the breakdown could be around 3.3 lbs of fat alongside 2.3 lbs of muscle. Not quite the win it first appears to be, right?

Aim for 1 or 2 lbs weekly, or slightly above that if your starting weight is higher (capped at 1% of body weight). Make sure you take in a minimum of .8g of protien for every pound you weigh, and add resistance training to your routine. Doing so means you hold onto the vast majority of your muscle. Skip these steps and keep dropping weight aggressively, and muscle could account for as much as 40% of your total loss.

 

[skaylife]

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

Your starting weight plays a big role here. At 4,5 weeks in on GLP-1's, things are typically quick right at the start. Up to this point, what you've dropped is just extra water. Once actual fat loss kicks in, the pace will ease off. So at this stage, I'd say there's no need to be concerned yet.

 

[Bluecost10]

skaylife said:

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

Your starting weight plays a big role here. At 4,5 weeks in on GLP-1's, things are typically quick right at the start. Up to this point, what you've dropped is just extra water. Once actual fat loss kicks in, the pace will ease off. So at this stage, I'd say there's no need to be concerned yet.

I'm with you on this. That said, during the first few weeks a lot of people drop a big amount of weight, and the reason is that it's largely water. The question is what comes next. Things slow down, and right there is where a lot of people slip up. They push to shed the maximum amount possible, so they begin starving themselves. Education on this point is genuinely needed.

 

[Builderman]

Bluecost10 said:

skaylife said:

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

Your starting weight plays a big role here. At 4,5 weeks in on GLP-1's, things are typically quick right at the start. Up to this point, what you've dropped is just extra water. Once actual fat loss kicks in, the pace will ease off. So at this stage, I'd say there's no need to be concerned yet.

I'm with you on this. That said, during the first few weeks a lot of people drop a big amount of weight, and the reason is that it's largely water. The question is what comes next. Things slow down, and right there is where a lot of people slip up. They push to shed the maximum amount possible, so they begin starving themselves. Education on this point is genuinely needed.

I aim for 180 grams of protein each day. I do resistance training 4 times a week, yet my daily intake is only about 1600 calories. Right now I'm looking for ways to raise my calories while keeping that protein amount unchanged. I just need to bring the loss down to roughly 1 pound a week by eating more.

When I began Reta I was at 287, so even though I'm carrying a lot of extra weight and have plenty to lose, I'm not the heaviest person around.

 

[woundcarping]

Builderman said:

Bluecost10 said:

skaylife said:

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

Your starting weight plays a big role here. At 4,5 weeks in on GLP-1's, things are typically quick right at the start. Up to this point, what you've dropped is just extra water. Once actual fat loss kicks in, the pace will ease off. So at this stage, I'd say there's no need to be concerned yet.

I'm with you on this. That said, during the first few weeks a lot of people drop a big amount of weight, and the reason is that it's largely water. The question is what comes next. Things slow down, and right there is where a lot of people slip up. They push to shed the maximum amount possible, so they begin starving themselves. Education on this point is genuinely needed.

I aim for 180 grams of protein each day. I do resistance training 4 times a week, yet my daily intake is only about 1600 calories. Right now I'm looking for ways to raise my calories while keeping that protein amount unchanged. I just need to bring the loss down to roughly 1 pound a week by eating more.

When I began Reta I was at 287, so even though I'm carrying a lot of extra weight and have plenty to lose, I'm not the heaviest person around.

My Tirz journey began at 282lb, and 4 weeks afterward I switched to Reta while sitting at 272lb.

Everyone has their own approach, but if I stayed at my original weight and dropped merely 1 pound each week, that wouldn't sit well with me... it's not a problem per se, just slower than what I'm aiming for, and my own data/experience so far backs that up. Beyond that, DEXA scans let me get a rough split between fat and lean mass lost, which gives me a better handle on my actual calorie deficit than simply assuming 3500cal per pound of fat. By those calculations, my daily deficit has been running about 1100 calories on average.

 

[Builderman]

woundcarping said:

Builderman said:

Bluecost10 said:

skaylife said:

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

Your starting weight plays a big role here. At 4,5 weeks in on GLP-1's, things are typically quick right at the start. Up to this point, what you've dropped is just extra water. Once actual fat loss kicks in, the pace will ease off. So at this stage, I'd say there's no need to be concerned yet.

I'm with you on this. That said, during the first few weeks a lot of people drop a big amount of weight, and the reason is that it's largely water. The question is what comes next. Things slow down, and right there is where a lot of people slip up. They push to shed the maximum amount possible, so they begin starving themselves. Education on this point is genuinely needed.

I aim for 180 grams of protein each day. I do resistance training 4 times a week, yet my daily intake is only about 1600 calories. Right now I'm looking for ways to raise my calories while keeping that protein amount unchanged. I just need to bring the loss down to roughly 1 pound a week by eating more.

When I began Reta I was at 287, so even though I'm carrying a lot of extra weight and have plenty to lose, I'm not the heaviest person around.

My Tirz journey began at 282lb, and 4 weeks afterward I switched to Reta while sitting at 272lb.

Everyone has their own approach, but if I stayed at my original weight and dropped merely 1 pound each week, that wouldn't sit well with me... it's not a problem per se, just slower than what I'm aiming for, and my own data/experience so far backs that up. Beyond that, DEXA scans let me get a rough split between fat and lean mass lost, which gives me a better handle on my actual calorie deficit than simply assuming 3500cal per pound of fat. By those calculations, my daily deficit has been running about 1100 calories on average.

View attachment 10082

How much does it cost you to get DEXA scans?

 

[Blueeyedme]

Builderman said:

Bluecost10 said:

skaylife said:

Builderman said:

Growing up, I kept hearing that dropping weight too quickly could be harmful.

I figure at some extreme, say 10 pounds weekly, that's likely rough on the body. But where's the line separating dangerously fast from fast yet safe? And does it truly cause long-term damage the way some say?

So far I've lost 26 pounds, averaging 5.6 pounds per week, and I feel better than I have in years.

Your starting weight plays a big role here. At 4,5 weeks in on GLP-1's, things are typically quick right at the start. Up to this point, what you've dropped is just extra water. Once actual fat loss kicks in, the pace will ease off. So at this stage, I'd say there's no need to be concerned yet.

I'm with you on this. That said, during the first few weeks a lot of people drop a big amount of weight, and the reason is that it's largely water. The question is what comes next. Things slow down, and right there is where a lot of people slip up. They push to shed the maximum amount possible, so they begin starving themselves. Education on this point is genuinely needed.

I aim for 180 grams of protein each day. I do resistance training 4 times a week, yet my daily intake is only about 1600 calories. Right now I'm looking for ways to raise my calories while keeping that protein amount unchanged. I just need to bring the loss down to roughly 1 pound a week by eating more.

When I began Reta I was at 287, so even though I'm carrying a lot of extra weight and have plenty to lose, I'm not the heaviest person around.

Wow!! What on earth is going into your body?