Hello /fit/ currently losing weight, if the scale is to be trusted I'm at 38%bf and my progress is good so far, but I'm afraid of the aftermath and loose skin and the advice I've seen is not to lose weight too fast so the skin can heal as fast as you are losing weight.
So how fast is too fast ?
I've been cutting on 1500kcal daily and the weight loss progress is good so far, down about 8kg from 130 to 122 but it's too early to visibly judge skin, my TDEE seems to be around 3200kcal according to some calculator online, so base your opinion on whether or not it's too much on that.
Also, if I see that there's too much loose skin after losing weight, can I do a dreamer's bulk to fill it back up and lose weight again more slowly or is it a one time thing where the damage is done after getting fat in the first place and reparation attempts by the body only take place during the first weight loss?
Keep in mind that muscle loss isn't a factor as I'm lifting while cutting and getting enough protons and even if I lose muscle I already came to terms with it, loose skin is the most important question as of right now
>pic related, around 5 weeks ago before starting
>>36547704
Gotu kola works for stretch marks and tightening the skin
Pic now, as I said in OP down about 8kg
rate of loss has basically no effect on if you will get loose skin.
its like 99% how much you need to lose on % of initial weight.
1% genetics, age, how long you were fat.
>>36547723
What exactly do you do with it ? Drink its tea ? Buy pills ? Rub the leaf on your skin ? quick google only leads to momscience tier websites or info about the plant itself
>>36547739
Any ballpark guesstimates at which percentages it (probably) will or won't occur ?
>>36547834
how much do you weigh currently
>>36547967
wait nvm just saw it in the OP.
look if you're cutting down to 60-70 you'll 100% have loose skin, no doubt.
60kg is well beyond the reasonable limit of no loose skin.
>>36547704
Your nipples are small af for your size
>>36547967
Probably never going to go that low due to height, I was thinking of cutting until 90-100 and then depending on how I look cut some more or try recomp, if my calculations aren't wrong I'd be around 95kg at 20%
>>36547704
Steroid user detected
Get off the gear loser
>>36548013
And extremely sensitive, erect all the time, not sure what's wrong with them
>>36547704
Good progress, but isn't 1500 cals too much?
I though 1800 was the min. Good progress so far though!
>>36548065
nah, you won't be 20% at 95.
you have virtually no muscle on your frame, maybe if you had been lifting for 5-6 years you could get away with about ~90kg.
you'll need to cut right down to 60-70 to look non-fat.
i know you'll probably protest
> no no I have enough muscle I will look great at 100kg.
you won't, TRUST ME.
>>36548124
As of right now my fat free body mass is 76kg, dropping down to 60-70kg and losing that much muscle, however small it is seems borderline retarded, also I know people at 60kg at my height and they are borderline Auschwitz, which, with the visual reference in my head is even more retarded than the numbers alone.
>>36548178
unless your calculations are coming from DEXA they are probably wrong by a large margin.
your body is primarily fat w/ very little muscle
you're going to lose more muscle as you cut.
you definitely won't look good in the 90s.
you have some serious delusions if you think you have muscle t b h
not trying to hurt your feelings, but you legit look like you have 0 significant muscle.
hence why I think you'll at least be in the 70kg range.
>if the scale is to be trusted
fuck man, last one i bought gave me like 3 different readings in a short period of time.
it also said i was 90% muscle.
where the hell can i find a bodyfat scale that actually works?
>>36548309
they don't exist, the best you can hope for is a consistent scale that will at least allow you to semi track your progress.
the technology is mostly flawed and useless.
>>36547704
>I'm afraid of the aftermath and loose skin and the advice I've seen is not to lose weight too fast so the skin can heal as fast as you are losing weightI'm afraid of the aftermath and loose skin and the advice I've seen is not to lose weight too fast so the skin can heal as fast as you are losing weight
Dude here who dropped from 430 to - currently - 282. The thing is, you can see where you'll have loose skin - everywhere there's a fold. Luckily, your only major fold is your belly - you don't have the side-tits that most morbidly obese people develop. As for filling in your loose skin with muscle, it is certainly possible - BUT recall that muscle is more dense then fat. You'd really have to do steroids to get arms big enough to fill out your chicken-wings.
As others have mentioned, the speed of weight loss has no impact on how much your skin retracts. Skin will actually retract FASTER if you have less fat for it to hang onto. For example:
>Anon A loses 50 pounds in a 6 months
>No loose skin as the skin has been tightening for 6 months
>Anon B loses 50 pounds in 2 months
>The loose skin tightens up in 3 months
>So how fast is too fast?
Less than .8 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass is 'too fast'. That is the absolute minimum calories required to avoid losing more than minimal muscle mass - we're only worried about fat loss, y'dig?
Keep it up. Even with loose skin, you'll feel AND look better after you're finished - guaranteed.
>>36547704
Why does this guys chest look so fucking weird?
How asian/10 is he?
>>36548283
No place that does bodyfat DEXA near me, only bone density stuff, at this rate I'll get to 100 in about 2-3 months and then I'll see I guess but imo 60-70 along with the comparison I have of people my height at 60kg seems unreasonable. But even if I won't look that good at 100 I'll look better than now and that's all it boils down to, just doing it and seeing what happens
>>36548504
I'm of Caucasian/Turkish origin so I'd guess maybe 3/10 or 4/10
Drop 2kgs +/- a week, it'll minimize the stretch marks. Don't know anything about loose skin sori
>>36548089
How do you figure?
>>36548586
He's just memeing, don't mind him
>>36548604
I've been rused
>>36548516
right, well I'm warning you to prepare for the fact you'll need to drop to about ~70kg to not look fat
your BF % guess is probably 10% off, I'd put you close to 48% judging from your picture.
I'm just telling you this because I'm pretty sure you've got some serious misunderstandings/delusions about your weight loss and I don't want you to get to 100kg and realise you still look like shit and then kill yourself or go backwards.
you're probably wondering how I know this
because I've done literally the same thing you have, and I got to 100kg and went wow this still isn't good.
the only thing I had on you is a decade of sport & 5 years of lifting weights which meant I got down to about 90kg looking good.
>>36548675
It's good and well that you clarify everything but 100 isn't my magic cutoff point, it's just what I see as a reasonable stepstone to reach by summer, getting there doesn't prevent me from getting to 90, getting to 90 doesn't prevent me from getting to 80 or even 70, I don't think that I'm deluded just because I said other people who are my age, height and 60kg look like shit but that's anecdotal evidence and might be due to shit genetics on their part or not lifting at all. As I said, 100 is not where I stop, it is a more or less realistic weight to reach by this summer and deciding on what to do afterwards, whether it is cutting more weight or recomp doesn't even matter at this stage so I don't even know why we are arguing
