why do larger people lose weight faster?
- Thread starter gzomartin
- Start date
KaraCooks
New member
They lose weight faster because they have more to lose. It's a simple logical fact.
If a person who weighs 300 lbs loses 1% of their bodyweight in a week, that's 3lbs
If a person who weighs 120 lbs loses 1% of their bodyweight in a week, that's 1.2 lbs.
Simple math.
It's also simple math with regard to calories. If the maintenance calories for someone who is 300 lbs are around 4200, they can cut 1000 calories a day and lose 2 lbs a week easily.
If the maintenance calories for someone who is 120 lbs are 1680, they're not going to be able to cut 1000 calories per day - they simply can't live on 680 calories. They'll only be able to cut maybe 400 calories per day. So it'll take them 2.5 days to reach the same 1000 calorie deficit that the 300 lb person does in 1 day.
Simple mathematical logic, really.
If a person who weighs 300 lbs loses 1% of their bodyweight in a week, that's 3lbs
If a person who weighs 120 lbs loses 1% of their bodyweight in a week, that's 1.2 lbs.
Simple math.
It's also simple math with regard to calories. If the maintenance calories for someone who is 300 lbs are around 4200, they can cut 1000 calories a day and lose 2 lbs a week easily.
If the maintenance calories for someone who is 120 lbs are 1680, they're not going to be able to cut 1000 calories per day - they simply can't live on 680 calories. They'll only be able to cut maybe 400 calories per day. So it'll take them 2.5 days to reach the same 1000 calorie deficit that the 300 lb person does in 1 day.
Simple mathematical logic, really.
Harold14370
New member
This is strictly a personal observation, and I don't know if there is a scientific basis, but for me it seemed easier to get by on less calories when I was fatter. At the start of my diet, say between 275 and 225, I was eating around 1600 or 1700 calories, and didn't feel very hungry. Now, I am around 2000 or 2100 calories, and seem to be as hungry or more so. This is despite the fact that this is just barely below maintenance.
My theory is that when you have a lot of fat to spare, your body does not try to hold onto it quite so hard. As you slim down, the body gets stingier, slows down the metabolism, and starts sending more hunger pangs to your brain.
My theory is that when you have a lot of fat to spare, your body does not try to hold onto it quite so hard. As you slim down, the body gets stingier, slows down the metabolism, and starts sending more hunger pangs to your brain.
cbsfitness
New member
Nice job Harold. You have normalized your metabolism. Once you hit the goal weight keep doing what you are doing and check out the National Weight Control Registry run by the University of CO ()
Harold14370
New member
Thanks. I filled out the form and submitted it.
ChefChiTown
New member
Because fat people take bigger poops.
HAHAHAHA, what? No, but Kara is right. It's just simple math.
Harold14370
New member
I think BigD is asking why the rate of weight loss would be presumed to be proportional to one's weight. The answer (I assume) is that one's metabolism increases proportionally. But that's not exactly true, since fat weight burns less calories than muscle.
In my case, the rate of weight loss was actually more than what one would expect from a simple proportion, because I was able to run a bigger calorie deficit (both absolutely and proportionally), for whatever reason - physiological, psychological or whatever.
KaraCooks
New member
It's not. I still don't understand the question.
Mathematically speaking, rate of loss is ALWAYS proportional to ones weight. It's just that not everyone loses (or gains) in the same proportion. But given 2 people who are both losing 1% (or 2% or .5% or whatever) - the amount of weight lost will always be more for the heavier person. It's just mathematical fact.
The body doesn't "know" to stop at any rate of loss. Pick any person at random and they will lose based on a whole slew of factors: How much they eat, how much the exercise, what their body composition is (percentage of fat to lean muscle), what they eat (sodium, etc. can effect the scale), side effects of exercise (retaining fluid in muscles), etc. Some people who are much heavier can actually safely achieve a higher rate of loss - 2% or even more - especially during their first several weeks.
But factually and mathematically, if you're looking at straight ability to lose pounds, if you have more to lose, you're going to lose more quickly than someone who has less to lose.
Harold14370
New member
Well, of course, if a heavy person and a light person both lose 1%, the heavy person has lost more. That does not answer the question of why, or whether, it is just as easy for a heavy person to lose 1% as for a light person to lose 1%.
Big D
New member
Basic comprehension helps greatly in understanding what it means.
At the same time, it was meant as a joke. For all the stats people toss out saying the body will max out at about 1% of its weight in fat loss per week, how does the body know where 1% is. I'm sure mine is horrible at math.
KaraCooks
New member
Please point out where any of us have said that the body "maxes out" at 1% of fat loss per week.
Or as someone recently said: Basic comprehension helps greatly in understanding ...
The 1% figure is a general guideline of what is a HEALTHY AND SAFE rate of loss. No one here has ever said that the body "maxes out" at 1%. What we have said is that 1% is what you should aim for via a combination of calorie/diet control and exercise. If you are losing faster than that, it's likely that you're losing more lean muscle and creating a larger metabolic slow down ... which is not a good thing, if you want a healthy weight loss.
So .. again, basic comprehension is a good thing. I agree.
The physiology/biology is different on a multitude of levels. For instance, obese individuals are hormonally dispositioned to "let go of" fat more easily when compared to their leaner counterparts.
That's primarily to do with the loss of tissue. Anytime you lose weight, your BMR is going to drop. There's an adaptive component too, which effects some more than others which is dependent on genetics, body fat levels, etc.
cadio wacian
New member
I agree with Kara , larger people have lot to burn that's why they loose rapidly.
Think about it logically. Look at how many calories are required for a larger person to simply maintain their weight - and ask yourself where this number comes from.
Calories are quantities of energy, and hence the 'maintenance calories' are the amount of energy required to just get by at that same weight. Now, everything our body does requires energy - pumping blood around the body, creating enough heat to keep the body's temperature up, powering the brain, filtering blood in the kidneys, liver function, digesting food...the list goes on.
Now think how much bigger the scale is if one person is twice the weight of the other - look how much more body mass there is to keep at a constant temperature, how many more cells there are in the whole body which need a supply of blood. Look how much more energy it would take in order to simply lift up an arm - and you can see that for weight loss, the average larger individual has the advantage because everything they do requires more energy than could be said of the average smaller person (we will, for now, ignore muscle mass as a factor).
To simplify weight loss...Fat is a store of energy, in essence a food, which can be measured in terms of calories much in the same way as the food in the refrigerator. 1 pound of fat contains approximately 3500 calories of energy, and hence if you don't feed your body enough food, it will use the food (fat) which it has stored for itself in order to power the body for the day. If this happens over a prolonged period, the body's fat store will reduce and the body will become lighter. Think of your body fat as an extra little refrigerator inside you.
Now take Kara's earlier point - if you want to lose 1lb of fat, you have to sacrifice 3500 calories of food (or exercise more!) so that the body will use its own supply. If you like, cut out 500 per day and in a week you will have lost a pound. A person who wants to lose 2lb per week sacrifices 1000 calories per day and so on. But is it really possible to cut out 1000 calories per day if your body is only using 1600 to live on? Not likely.
However - and this is controversial - for a person who requires 4000 per day, a 1000 loss is not that much of a hit. Put it this way - if you eat a lot of junk food and have a terrible diet totalling 4000 calories per day, including 4 cans of Coke, following this mathematical approach to weight loss means that simply switching those 4 Cokes to diet Coke will lose at a rate of over 1lb a week initially. You could even keep the rest of the diet the same!
The much smaller person just has a lot less to cut out of their daily intake whilst still getting the required nutrients.
[disclaimer: I do not represent Coca-Cola nor do I recommend this approach to weight-loss!]
Calories are quantities of energy, and hence the 'maintenance calories' are the amount of energy required to just get by at that same weight. Now, everything our body does requires energy - pumping blood around the body, creating enough heat to keep the body's temperature up, powering the brain, filtering blood in the kidneys, liver function, digesting food...the list goes on.
Now think how much bigger the scale is if one person is twice the weight of the other - look how much more body mass there is to keep at a constant temperature, how many more cells there are in the whole body which need a supply of blood. Look how much more energy it would take in order to simply lift up an arm - and you can see that for weight loss, the average larger individual has the advantage because everything they do requires more energy than could be said of the average smaller person (we will, for now, ignore muscle mass as a factor).
To simplify weight loss...Fat is a store of energy, in essence a food, which can be measured in terms of calories much in the same way as the food in the refrigerator. 1 pound of fat contains approximately 3500 calories of energy, and hence if you don't feed your body enough food, it will use the food (fat) which it has stored for itself in order to power the body for the day. If this happens over a prolonged period, the body's fat store will reduce and the body will become lighter. Think of your body fat as an extra little refrigerator inside you.
Now take Kara's earlier point - if you want to lose 1lb of fat, you have to sacrifice 3500 calories of food (or exercise more!) so that the body will use its own supply. If you like, cut out 500 per day and in a week you will have lost a pound. A person who wants to lose 2lb per week sacrifices 1000 calories per day and so on. But is it really possible to cut out 1000 calories per day if your body is only using 1600 to live on? Not likely.
However - and this is controversial - for a person who requires 4000 per day, a 1000 loss is not that much of a hit. Put it this way - if you eat a lot of junk food and have a terrible diet totalling 4000 calories per day, including 4 cans of Coke, following this mathematical approach to weight loss means that simply switching those 4 Cokes to diet Coke will lose at a rate of over 1lb a week initially. You could even keep the rest of the diet the same!
The much smaller person just has a lot less to cut out of their daily intake whilst still getting the required nutrients.
[disclaimer: I do not represent Coca-Cola nor do I recommend this approach to weight-loss!]
Big D
New member
Looking at it a different way, I remember how someone was explaining relativeness to me before.
Imagine you are holding up a 5lb weight, and someone adds a 5lb weight to it. You can definitely feel the difference.
-now-
Imagine you are holding up a 100lb weight, and someone adds a 5lb weight to it. You feel the difference much less.
calories and fat seem the same in concept. Here's how I understand it. fat is our energy bank. Now, in really extremely simplistic terms, if a pound of fat is worth 3500 calories.... get a body comp test and find out your lean mass. Let's take me for example. 315@43% body fat. so that's 135lbs fat (*cry*) and 180lbs lean mass. I have an energy bank of ~472,500cal (dayum!) as fat.
now.. imagine i dieted my ass off (literally) and preserved all my lean mass and got down to say... 195. That would be about ... 5.8% body fat or all in all, 10 lbs of fat, so an energy bank of ~35,000 as fat.
now, given the body wants to really really REALLY keep a certain essential percentage of fat.. which person do you think will have a body that can drop 5 lbs of fat and not miss it? the one with only 10 lbs extra, or the one with 135 extra?
or take it from the calorie angle and picture it as dollars. if you want a loan of 17,500 (5lbs of calories).. who do you think is more likely to give you that loan, the one with only 35,000 to their name or the one with 472,500?
or am i totally whacked?
Imagine you are holding up a 5lb weight, and someone adds a 5lb weight to it. You can definitely feel the difference.
-now-
Imagine you are holding up a 100lb weight, and someone adds a 5lb weight to it. You feel the difference much less.
calories and fat seem the same in concept. Here's how I understand it. fat is our energy bank. Now, in really extremely simplistic terms, if a pound of fat is worth 3500 calories.... get a body comp test and find out your lean mass. Let's take me for example. 315@43% body fat. so that's 135lbs fat (*cry*) and 180lbs lean mass. I have an energy bank of ~472,500cal (dayum!) as fat.
now.. imagine i dieted my ass off (literally) and preserved all my lean mass and got down to say... 195. That would be about ... 5.8% body fat or all in all, 10 lbs of fat, so an energy bank of ~35,000 as fat.
now, given the body wants to really really REALLY keep a certain essential percentage of fat.. which person do you think will have a body that can drop 5 lbs of fat and not miss it? the one with only 10 lbs extra, or the one with 135 extra?
or take it from the calorie angle and picture it as dollars. if you want a loan of 17,500 (5lbs of calories).. who do you think is more likely to give you that loan, the one with only 35,000 to their name or the one with 472,500?
or am i totally whacked?