The "slow and steady wins the race" myth...

sloth3toes

So that's where I'm coming from really.... I think what's going to succeed long term for most people is the easiest route that's actually going to work and give them the long term results that they really want, i.e. somewhere in the middle between wishful thinking that the weight's going to magically melt away while making no changes at all and torturing yourself into eventual submission and binge eating. With the emphasis on sustainable. Some people will be able to sustain faster weight losses than others, some people will care more for getting results within a time frame, but on the other hand if it's that much of a torture that you want to lose weight as quickly as possible, then IMO the mindset is in the wrong place, i.e. focusing on a short term (and torturous) fix followed by returning to the old lifestyle, rather than focusing on long term sustainable changes.

I agree that this is a process and pretty much no-one settles into the eventual maintenance lifestyle right away, but IMO long term maintenance, health and fitness should always be the ultimate goal, and there are no prizes for losing weight more quickly than anyone else. The prize is long term health and fitness.

I think we are in agreement then, that it's an individual thing. I will say, however. ( somewhat against what I've been arguing all along ) that probably far too many people, keep grasping for the holy grail... the pill, or the fad that will finally 'cure' them... when, they coulda / woulda / shoulda just gotten on the straight caloric deficit all along. Those people, who may never 'get it,' are probably the most likely ones to try to dump huge lbs in a big hurry. I'm not trying to stereotype here.... I'm very much an all or nothing type guy, myself. It's not the easiest personality trait to live with. I think I am starting to see why the #1 MFP mantra, is just start eating less than you burn, and good things will happen.

Not all VLCD are torturous... while the brain fog can be downright dangerous.... the euphoria you can sometimes experience can be as enjoyable as LSD. ( I'm mostly kidding... )

While I'm typing though... another MFP mantra that grinds my gears is.... the disdain for the word 'jumpstart.' Yes, it's a word used by alot of newbies, who don't necessarily have a clear plan, and when they say 'jumpstart,' they mean, lose a cr@pload of weight, in a big freakin' hurry. However, some of us, kind of need that mental / emotional boost, for a certain period of time... losing a little more than just the minimum, or average... to get us in gear. Anytime anyone uses the term 'jumpstart' around here, they get 'jumped' on... and told, "why you wanna do that.... Get with the program, start logging, eat at a deficit, and forget the jumpstart.'

Well, IMHO, that's all some 'quick weight loss' is to some of us... a 'jumpstart.....' towards a future of eating less, and moving more, and becoming healthy.

Vailara

Thank you for the posting the study. I haven't read the whole thing in detail, but I'm confused. The article says that the fast weight loss didn't regain more than the slow weight loss group, but the figures say the fast group regained twice as much as the slow group (2.6kg compared to 1.3kg). Isn't that twice as much? Faster weight loss = faster regain?

I'd have been more interested in a longer term study. This was very short, and it's not clear what would have happened if the groups had "lost" for longer or "maintained" for longer.

geekyjock76

I think people should look beyond weight loss in relation to potential physiological adaptations and consider the psychological changes that may occur when chronically restricting at lower intakes. Judging by peoples' comments on these forums, a fair number of them are quoted as being frightened at the thought of increasing calories after adhering to a very low amount chronically. This isn't all that surprising considering disordered eating is often a negative outcome of very restrictive diets.

xapril77x

I was one of those ppl that didn't have a healthy relationship with food when I joined. I thought the faster I was losing the better... I had lost about 17 lbs or so in a month by barely eating & working out like crazy. I was doing it MY way & nobody could tell me what I should be doing! Well, after being on MFP for awhile & seeing how the ppl that did it slowly looked in their pics (Amazing!) I realized I had lost a LOT of my LBM. Even though I'm thinner I still look pudgy! That's what changed my mind about the way I was going about weight loss. Now I'm more worried about feeling better & shaping my body. Just a cpl months ago I wouldn't have ever thought I'd say this but for me, slow & steady WINS!!! & I thank the awesome members of MFP!

cdahl383

I say do whatever works best for you personally. If losing fast works better, then do it. If slower is better, than do it. As long as you do something to get into shape and then make an attempt to maintain you're doing better than a lot of people out there.

I've personally found losing weight at 1-2 lbs a week is much easier to do than losing more than that. A calorie deficit of 20% is easy to handle coupled with exercising 3-4 times a week. I find I'm not that hungry after a few weeks of bringing down my calorie level and then its easy to just keep maintaining that pace. As the one poster said above, I don't really care how I get there, I just want to get the weight off as reasonably as possible.

I'm not sure how all the metabolism/LBM retention stuff really works in science, but I know from personal experience, while on a 20% deficit I've been able to go up on all of my lifts considerably and I'm not a newbie to lifting either. So I think lifting while in a deficit and losing weight is definitely good for you because you start reshaping your body and not only just look smaller from losing the weight, but you look better, because your stomach is shrinking and your chest/arms/shoulders/legs are all getting bigger and more muscular. Between losing the fat and lifting to retain/add muscle it is much more rewarding.

I can see the one poster's logic as well, with it being more behavioral than "broscience" in that many people who go on diets just revert back to old habits again afterwards. Obviously that approach will fail whether you lost fast or slow, but generally if you are losing slower, you are making less drastic changes in your lifestyle and as you gradually get to the desired diet/exercise routine, it might be easier for many to maintain that after getting there slowly than quickly. But that's not everyone. Everyone is different and what works great for some or many may not work best for you.

That's why you should just experiment and see what works best for you, and then stick with it. Reading studies and articles is great to obtain knowledge, but at the end of the day, you have to interpret it and apply it to yourself in whatever manner is most effective.

jofjltncb6

If I had to lose 100+ lbs and lost it at 1lb/week, there's no way I'd stay on track.

So instead you'd rather lose it quickly...say, in a few months...

...and then go back to eating the way you were before? The way that led to needing to lose 100+ lbs?

I don't think this is going to end well...(but is likely a nice summary of how many end up back where they started).

Anyhow, I'm in to catch up on the rest of this thread...

Cindyinpg

I was one of those ppl that didn't have a healthy relationship with food when I joined. I thought the faster I was losing the better... I had lost about 17 lbs or so in a month by barely eating & working out like crazy. I was doing it MY way & nobody could tell me what I should be doing! Well, after being on MFP for awhile & seeing how the ppl that did it slowly looked in their pics (Amazing!) I realized I had lost a LOT of my LBM. Even though I'm thinner I still look pudgy! That's what changed my mind about the way I was going about weight loss. Now I'm more worried about feeling better & shaping my body. Just a cpl months ago I wouldn't have ever thought I'd say this but for me, slow & steady WINS!!! & I thank the awesome members of MFP!

I could've written these words. I am sure people are gratified to see quick results, and it can be done, but for myself, it is far more sustainable to just plug along slowly, enjoy eating a good amount of food and lift weights. I don't need the motivation of a big loss every week, a downward trend, no matter how small, is enough. Plus, with the weight training, even when the losses are smaller, they are more noticeable.

wild_wild_life

Thank you for the posting the study. I haven't read the whole thing in detail, but I'm confused. The article says that the fast weight loss didn't regain more than the slow weight loss group, but the figures say the fast group regained twice as much as the slow group (2.6kg compared to 1.3kg). Isn't that twice as much? Faster weight loss = faster regain?

I'd have been more interested in a longer term study. This was very short, and it's not clear what would have happened if the groups had "lost" for longer or "maintained" for longer.

They are saying that the difference between 2.6kg and 1.3kg did not reach statistical significance in their study. This would depend on the total amount of weight lost and how they ran their stats. Their p value* was <0.9 though -- I am not a statistician but generally p<0.05 can be considered significant, so I'm not sure why they used a higher p value.

*Actually they seem to be using a ps value and I don't know what that is. Maybe someone else can chime in.

Even if you look at the hard numbers, the fast group lost more weight, so the numbers do seem reasonably comprable.

SinomenJen

bump to read later

ldrosophila

interesting anecdotally I don't agree

atibrat

If I *had* to lose slowly, I would fail miserably. Takes too damn long. I'm much happier losing a whack fast and maintaining for while, then losing another whack fast, and maintaining for a while, repeat until done.

It's worked for 70 pounds and 2 years, so I'm comfortable I've found my groove.

Like so much else in the human experience - different strokes for different folks.

V0lver

tagging

atibrat

I understand that this works for you but I do not think that it is healthy for your body in anyway. I am not sure how old you are but at 51 and recently diagnosed with multiple autoimmune diseases I am sure my yo-yo dieting most of my life and major sun exposure were at least a partial factor that I am now very unhealthy.

I would love to snap my fingers - or wiggle my nose and be at goal weight but if you make small life time changes you can continue for the rest of your life you will not only lose the weight but keep it off because you have made these changes for LIFE.
I wish I would of gotten this concept when I was in my 20s, 30s or even early 40s.

I think the problem is too many people want to lose weight for the wrong reasons " I want to LOOK GOOD now" it gets a lot different when you are losing the weight to try to be Healthier and believe it or not someday will come where your health will be more important than how you look. Doesn't matter how skinny you are when you can hardly get out of bed or go anywhere. When your eyes are swollen and you have big dark purple circles around your eyes and your hands because your immune system is attacking you. When it is hard to take in air because your lungs hurt so bad.

There is no guarantee that if you eat healthy and exercise on a regular basis that you will still not get sick with an autoimmune disease, cancer or something else but I think it is wise to be kind to your body and I believe it will reduce the risk of getting any of these disease and any way to reduce the risk is SO WORTH IT!

featherbrained

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. This has been on my mind for quite awhile.

As someone who lost some slow, and regained fast, and has lost a lot fast, and maintained for years, it's always thrown me for a loop this insistence that slower losers somehow had an advantage. I've done both and seen no advantage to taking the slow route.

But someone earlier made an excellent point in regards to the transition from loss to maintenance. Yes, I do believe we all have a higher chance at maintaining fat loss if we're able to undertake a sustainable maintenance journey. Now what each of us considers sustainable obviously varies wildly.

And to the other poster, I concur; not nearly enough of these studies cover weight loss vs fat loss, and the impact on an increased higher LBM.

As others have said, I don't think it's a 'myth' insomuch as the often touted 'right' way to do it. Which is false. The 'right' way to do it for you is to do what works for you.

Must say, I'm a career lifestyle changer And I've always taken the sensible approach, lost slowly, subscribed to starvation mode, yadda yadda. Here I am, starting back at 311lbs. (actually I'm back down to 295, woohoo! not even 3 weeks in)

So my conclusion is, there is no magic formula. I'm trying the lose fast route now, because I never have before, and I feel like the one thing that starting out so large affords me is the ability to lose fast in the beginning. I can cut far more calories at this stage then I will be able to at 200lbs.

I've been fasting 2 days a week, and eating 1800 to 2200 cals the other 5 days. I'm cutting a couple hundred calories each week. We eat healthy, nutritious food with a few treats thrown in to keep it interesting. Tonight is steak tips in gravy over brown rice with spinach salad, and a homemade angel food cake for dessert.

Will this help me keep it off at the end of my journey? I dunno. But I do know with this approach I may actually, for the first time ever, SEE the end of my journey :P

rlbear

This is a great answer and spot on!

Chevy_Quest

Everyone is different ...

But for me... I have been steadily losing 1-2 lbs per month and I feel like I am already on maintenance even though I still have 25-30 lbs to go to get where I want to be body fat wise.

Here is my opinion (and my opinion only) why I think "slow and steady" makes sense ( I am not going to apologize for my stance):

1. If you eat a small deficit every day it means that you have enough fuel to exercise.
2. If you try to lose eating very low calories and exercise a lot you will always be "hangry" - hungry+angry. (I am talking about that I used to net 400-600 per day - it was an ugly situation)
3. Psychologically you can accept every weight "stage" and body "stage"
4. If you know that you are going to lose slowly, it means that you are less likely to have that mindset that you have to deprive yourself of certain foods. You can eat nearly "normally" all the time - you just have to be mindful that you eat less than you burn. ( I eat pizza at least 4 times a week)

I will "put my money" where my mouth is....
I will put this post in my blog and then reply to This link 3 months from now.

carolina822

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. This has been on my mind for quite awhile.

As someone who lost some slow, and regained fast, and has lost a lot fast, and maintained for years, it's always thrown me for a loop this insistence that slower losers somehow had an advantage. I've done both and seen no advantage to taking the slow route.

But someone earlier made an excellent point in regards to the transition from loss to maintenance. Yes, I do believe we all have a higher chance at maintaining fat loss if we're able to undertake a sustainable maintenance journey. Now what each of us considers sustainable obviously varies wildly.

And to the other poster, I concur; not nearly enough of these studies cover weight loss vs fat loss, and the impact on an increased higher LBM.

I think that those who figure out what works for them have the advantage.

The only way I'm losing weight fast is if I lose a couple of limbs, and I think I'll pass on that. So I can either get frustrated by some study that says fast is better, embrace a study that says slow is better, or I can just keep doing what I can to move in the right direction and not worry too much about what others are doing.

cdahl383

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. This has been on my mind for quite awhile.

As someone who lost some slow, and regained fast, and has lost a lot fast, and maintained for years, it's always thrown me for a loop this insistence that slower losers somehow had an advantage. I've done both and seen no advantage to taking the slow route.

But someone earlier made an excellent point in regards to the transition from loss to maintenance. Yes, I do believe we all have a higher chance at maintaining fat loss if we're able to undertake a sustainable maintenance journey. Now what each of us considers sustainable obviously varies wildly.

And to the other poster, I concur; not nearly enough of these studies cover weight loss vs fat loss, and the impact on an increased higher LBM.

I think that those who figure out what works for them have the advantage.

The only way I'm losing weight fast is if I lose a couple of limbs, and I think I'll pass on that. So I can either get frustrated by some study that says fast is better, embrace a study that says slow is better, or I can just keep doing what I can to move in the right direction and not worry too much about what others are doing.

Great response and great approach! Obtain knowledge, get different perspectives, then apply whatever works best for you and work toward your goals!

elisa123gal

as i lose so slowly... I'm getting tired of doing this .."this way" ..and now prefer if I could jus tlose it more quickly. I agree with the OP. I think losing it so slow makes you want to give up.

geekyjock76

Ok...

The weight loss categories of Fast, Moderate and Slow should be held in context within a person's baseline weight and degree of adiposity. I would not consider a mean total loss of 29.7 lbs after 6 months in individuals having a mean baseline weight of 212 lbs to be fast based on their likely degree of adiposity. For these women ranging between 180 to 245 lbs, many probably stood to lose 50 to 100+ lbs, total, depending on height and build. Thus, within this context, a 1.5 lb (or even 2.0 lb for some) initial weight loss per week is not rapid by any means nor would I expect any significant physiological adaptations as a result during restriction or post-maintenance.