Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Rapid vs slow weight loss - opinions?
CeeBeeSlim
Posts: 1,347 Member
Hi. What are your thoughts? https://www.muscleforlife.com/rapid-weight-loss/
0
Replies
-
Debate section
Other studies show that a steep deficit results in adaptation just as long term deficits do.
Has a point, I suppose, in cases where the opportunity cost of time "wasted" cutting enters into play.
The already exercising athlete or physique competitor is not in it to change their world view, just their fat % which they're used to managing.
This is not the same as random people such as myself who end up here after years of CICO mismanagement.
There are many situations where the extra time is extremely beneficial as the person's worldview has to change, new relationships with food and activity forged, and things about eating and self discovered.
Many people on MFP have to be talked DOWN to "a low" deficit of 20-25%...they want to eat 1200 and burn 3000.
The same applies to BMI 21 people trying to shred. Admittedly, I would advocate 15-20% as opposed to 20-25% to this last group. But I certainly don't think a 50% cut is appropriate....yet in so many 1200 posts that is the starting point!14 -
I think it's relative. I also think you have to know what you're doing.
I have about 10 winter pounds I need to cut...I'll take about 25% off my TDEE which gives me about a 750 calorie deficit for about 1.5 Lbs per week...at that rate, I'm losing less than 1% of my body weight per week, so I'm all good...I'll also be eating around 2,300 calories as well so I'm able to get in ample nutrition. I think more than 1% of your body weight per week is overly aggressive and will result in loss of muscle. I also think really aggressive cuts when you have a low TDEE will result in inadequate nutrition given the very limited number of calories one would be able to consume.3 -
I've never been a fan of slow weight loss. I say lose it as fast as is safe. Seeing progress provides motivation. There are a number of people on here who talk about not seeing any progress. If you are aiming for quick loss, you will likely see some progress each week even if it isn't as much as you hoped. Even is all you see is a loss of about half a pound, it gives you the feeling of accomplishment and gives you an idea of which direction you are headed.8
-
I think it's all relative really. If someone has a 2,000 calorie TDEE, a 25% cut is 500 calories...I don't see that as overly aggressive or "fast". I have about 10 winter pounds I need to lose, and when I get my *kitten* together, I'll do it pretty quickly with about a 25% cut from TDEE which is about a 750 calorie deficit for 1.5 Lbs per week which is less than 1% of my total body weight, so I'm good there...that'll also put me around 2200-2300 calories per day, so easy to get ample nutrition. I will also be eating a lot of protein and relatively high carb...I've also been doing this for a long time so it's a little different for me now then it was 4.5 years ago when I didn't have a clue.
I think the problem arises when people have low TDEEs and they aggressively cut to the point that they're really not able to take in adequate nutrition...like eating 500 calories per day for rapid weight loss...you're going to lose muscle mass doing that.
It's pretty easy for an athlete to be relatively aggressive without being reckless due to having rather substantial TDEEs. My trainer recently cut to make weight for a power lifting competition...he cut about 10 Lbs in a month or so...it didn't look particularly pleasant in that he didn't eat much variety...Eggs and egg whites with oats for breakfast...loads of fish, vegetables, and potatoes or sweet potatoes for lunch and dinner and a couple of protein shakes throughout the day. He was still eating well above 2000 calories per day.3 -
@cwolfman13 Thank you. Is 1556 a low tdee? ( if I did my math right from Scooby - 52, 63 inches, 137 lbs). I'm still learning about all of this - especially as I also have about 10-12 pounds to lose (winter plus injury) from 137 to 125. I was about 138 in January. Got to about 135 a couple of weeks ago, started about 2.5 weeks ago Strong Curves and at 137. I get I may be retaining water from the new workout but it's hard to go from mid Jan to late March and the scAle seems to be not cooperating. The rapid weight loss article seemed like something I could try??0
-
This content has been removed.
-
The rapid weight loss outlined in the article is TDEE minus 20-25%. The article writer has a lot more calories to work with than you do. If your TDEE is 1556, 25% of that (the max rapid weight loss recommendation) would give you a deficit of 389 calories (about 3/4ths of a pound per week) which would put you slightly below the 1200 calorie minimum needed for women to get in all of their nutrients. Aiming for half a pound per week weight loss would still put you pretty close to that rapid weight loss recommendation since you'd be at TDEE minus 16%.3
-
Count me as a vote for Slow. I'm only willing to be hungry right before meals. I lost weight quickly to make weight when I was in the military and yoyo'd for decades afterwards.5
-
I vote for slow to hopefully mitigate skin sag issues....2
-
Too late to edit my post, but I was also going to say that this seems very much geared towards the bodybuilder who is doing bulk/cut cycles, not really geared towards someone with a lot of weight to lose. My bodybuilding friends typically cut fast...but they're not in large deficits for prolonged periods of time either...usually like 6 weeks or so...maybe 8...it's over pretty quickly and then they're back to a surplus.
I'd be curious if the no muscle loss thing held true if it was someone with 100+ Lbs to lose and they had maintained an aggressive deficit for an extended period of time.1 -
It seems this applies more to body builders trying to shed a few lbs then go back to bulking. Which is fine. But for someone trying to lose large amounts of weight it can still take months at a really big deficit, and that can be really difficult to maintain long term. Agree with some of the above that this seems a bit easier for men than women since thet usually have more room in their budget.3
-
Rapid weight loss certainly has it's place, and is my preferred method for cutting. As mentioned though, you can't be stupid about it, and you have to be VERY disciplined. That last part actually has two fangs: you can't let the massive deficit drive you into a binge AND you have to take prescribed diet breaks in order to prevent screwing yourself up.
Other than that, keep protein extremely high (relative to most people anyway), get in EFAs, don't go crazy trying to widen the deficit with cardio, supplement micros as needed, and be mindful of how your body responds. Cover those, and it works fine. Screw them up, and you'll quickly learn why most people don't recommend a rapid loss approach.7 -
For people who have a lot to lose, slow is way better. Better chance of keeping it off, and it gives your skin time to adjust. I only lose about 1-2lbs a month, 4 years to lose 80lbs - which is too slow for most people, but the upside is that I don't have any loose saggy bits - I'm 42.9
-
This content has been removed.
-
i have done slow and rapid weight loss, if you have say 10 to 20 pounds of weight to take off slow is not so bad , but lets say you have 50 to 100 or even more weight to drop if you go the slow way it can be done but you have to have a lot of discipline you got to stay real focused, its a lot harder than people think 6 to 12 months at a time or even longer if you have a lot of weight to drop is not easy to do, with that being said i find that rapid is better for me, i do 6 to 12 weeks of rapid, after the 6 to 12 weeks i go into maintenance calories for 2 weeks, and then if you want to do a 6 to 12 again you start all over , Lyle Mcdonald knows alot about this look him up on the web, every body has there own opinion , you have to find out what works for you, GOOD LUCK3
-
Yea I would say this is more for bodybuilders. I definitely get what he is saying. But I prefer a small deficit over a longer period of time.. I've never had any issues cutting. Mind you I don't have a choice since I am typically breastfeeding.
I did do a one week 1500 cal cut years ago... holy smokes it was awful.. I never want to eat that little ever again!!!
0 -
I'm a fan of a "sledge hammer" approach. A big deficit to achieve maximum fat loss as fast as possible as I am highly impatient.
However if people are looking to lose large amounts of weight or haven't changed their lifestyle to aid them in their journey then I would highly recommend using a more conservative approach.4 -
The issue:i have done slow and rapid weight loss,<snip...>, but lets say you have 50 to 100 or even more weight to drop if you go the slow way it can be done but you have to have a lot of discipline you got to stay real focused, its a lot harder than people think 6 to 12 months at a time or even longer if you have a lot of weight to drop is not easy to do, with that being said i find that rapid is better for me
The answer:trigden1991 wrote: »However if people are looking to lose large amounts of weight or haven't changed their lifestyle to aid them in their journey then I would highly recommend using a more conservative approach.
0 -
Unfortunately @CeeBeeSlim you really don't have enough calories to work with to make this an effective approach.
Being a woman, slightly older, short, and within a healthy weight range, you would really be in a lose lose situation. Your lifting would suffer, as would your nutrients. This could have an impact on your hormone levels, and bones and muscles in the future.
Look at doing a reasonable approach where you are losing, retaining as much muscle as possible, getting good nutrition, building strength and not sacrificing your daily energy levels.
Cheers, h.10 -
There are downsides and pluses to both. But remember: just because something may cause faster fat loss does not mean that the loss will be sustainable in the long term. In other words, sometimes faster is not better. Sigma Nutrition did a good write up on this issue here:https://sigmanutrition.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-aggressive-dieting/0
-
TL;DR: For people who are already a health weight, 1 lb/week is probably the ideal rate of weight loss. For overweight, 2 lbs/week. Morbidly obese, consult your doctor.
I've tried pretty much everything related to weight loss, from ice baths to water fasts to cyclical ketogenic diets, etc. At this point I can drop pretty much any amount of weight at any rate, and have had a ton of DEXA scans to evaluate results. The short version of what I found:
1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean.
Anything over 2 lbs/week resulted in the loss of lean body mass, regardless of exercise regimen and protein intake. When I did 8 pounds in 2 weeks, I lost 4 pounds of LBM (even after ensuring glycogen repletion, so most/all of that was muscle) and 4 pounds of fat, which was incredibly disappointing. I was ~14% body fat to start with that time, so I imagine if you are still 20%+ body fat you could maintain a higher rate of weight loss, but extremely rapid weight loss is still probably a bad idea (you also have to contend with the issue of liberation of fat-soluble toxins, which can cause health issues at >2 lbs/week weight loss).2 -
wackyfunster wrote: »TL;DR: For people who are already a health weight, 1 lb/week is probably the ideal rate of weight loss. For overweight, 2 lbs/week. Morbidly obese, consult your doctor.
I've tried pretty much everything related to weight loss, from ice baths to water fasts to cyclical ketogenic diets, etc. At this point I can drop pretty much any amount of weight at any rate, and have had a ton of DEXA scans to evaluate results. The short version of what I found:
1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean.
Anything over 2 lbs/week resulted in the loss of lean body mass, regardless of exercise regimen and protein intake. When I did 8 pounds in 2 weeks, I lost 4 pounds of LBM (even after ensuring glycogen repletion, so most/all of that was muscle) and 4 pounds of fat, which was incredibly disappointing. I was ~14% body fat to start with that time, so I imagine if you are still 20%+ body fat you could maintain a higher rate of weight loss, but extremely rapid weight loss is still probably a bad idea (you also have to contend with the issue of liberation of fat-soluble toxins, which can cause health issues at >2 lbs/week weight loss).
You nailed it. Because we live in a convenience society, we want everything fast and we want it now, without mentioning the fact that faster is not always better. Although some people are able to tolerate very large deficits of 40% or more, your body will most likely fight you to keep from what it perceives is you starving to death, assuming that you are not morbidly obese. This increases the risk of bingeing and muscle loss over the long term, as well as a sharper decline in metabolic rate and BMR. The choice is yours to make. However, as with anything, proceed with caution. And for the love of all that is sacred, don't even think of attempting a juice cleanse or detox or any other psuedoscientific garbage in the hope of making it a quick fix. Large amounts of body fat do not come on in a single week, and they will not be lost in a single week either. It takes a lifetime of learning to fix bad exercise and diet habits, not some gimmicky program or fad diet.3 -
@wackyfunster
'1 lb/week is incredibly easy and maintainable for long periods of time without any excessive fatigue/appetite, and also seems to result in the loss of virtually no lean body mass (coupled with resistance training), even down to 8% body fat, which is extremely lean'
The op is a 5'3 52yo woman weighing 137lbs looking to lose 10-12lbs.
1lbs a week would probably work for the first 5-8 lbs then it would gradually diminish as she would be eating at 1200 cals.
Context is important.
Cheers, h.7 -
different things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it is3
-
It took me nearly 2 years to lose the 30lbs i needed to lose. So you can guess which camp I'm in.
Ofcourse it would have been nice to lose it quicker and have it over and done with, but i just don't have the willpower. I pretty much stayed at maintenance over the winters, and got slack with logging here and there, but i got there in the end.
Now it may have been a whole nother story if i had 50-100 + lbs to lose, i think i would have been a lot more determined and disciplined if i had that "journey" ahead of me.4 -
different things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it isdifferent things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it is
Yep, and I was not saying that at all. My point is that it would be irresponsible to tell them to go for it without describing some of the potential real nasty side effects that might occur. There are smart ways to diet in an extreme matter and really dumb ways-- unfortunately, most people choose the really dumb ways and end up being so food deprived and hungry that the neighbor's dog begins to look appetizing.0 -
LucasWilland wrote: »different things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it isdifferent things work for people everybody has there own opinion, the main thing is you have to find out what works for you, its not a one size fits all type deal, some people think it is
Yep, and I was not saying that at all. My point is that it would be irresponsible to tell them to go for it without describing some of the potential real nasty side effects that might occur. There are smart ways to diet in an extreme matter and really dumb ways-- unfortunately, most people choose the really dumb ways and end up being so food deprived and hungry that the neighbor's dog begins to look appetizing.
That is where the discipline comes in. I don't care who you are, or which methods you use, if you ever diet down to bodybuilding contest fat levels, you're gonna be absurdly hungry by the end. The human brain does NOT like the body being at 4-6% bodyfat, and puts up one hell of a fight as you try to get there.
Interestingly, I found my first rapid cut to be very enlightening, for this very reason. I very quickly realized that up to then, I had absolutely no idea what real hunger felt like. After spending most of my life as obese, my hunger signaling was all kinds of screwed up, to the point where boredom would actually result in a feeling of "true" hunger. After a few weeks of RFL though, stuff laying next to the dumpster behind 7-11 starts to look pretty damned delicious.
It was at that point that I realized just how screwed up the decades of poor eating had made my brain. Apparently it flipped a switch though, as my hunger/satiety cues have been a lot more on point since then.3 -
i agree lol deprived and hungry that the neighbor's dog begins to look appetizing now thats funny0
-
My problem has always been not being able to cope with being hungry.
I found out I can't last a day on 1,200 calories - there's just no way I can eat that little, I'd become ravenously hungry and have binges, which totally defeats the purpose!
I can only go as low as 1,500 for a few days at a time.
But I discovered I can sustain about 1,650-1,800 calories almost indefinitely. So I went with slow and steady, and I'm down 45 lbs from my starting weight, and actually as of today my weight is in 130s for the first time in a couple of decades.
So fast is good if you are confident you can sustain it, but I always think it's behind so many people giving up as they are not able to sustain it for the time period required.9 -
Count my vote for slow.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions