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?

Options
13»

Replies

  • Verdenal
    Verdenal Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    I've never been a fan of slow weight loss. I say lose it as fast as is safe. Seeing progress provides motivation.

    I like to jump-start my weight loss with a short-term extreme diet like a PSMF or do IF. I then proceed to something more moderate. Although my weight is higher than I like, I'm not fat and the pounds don't fall off the way they do with someone heavier.

    The New York Times did an article a couple of years ago reporting that losing weight quickly is not unhealthy and that people may stick with the diet longer because they are seeing results.

    Both rapid and quick losers have to monitor their eating afterwards.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Options
    wackyfunster wrote: »
    TBH, arbitrary calorie limits are what mess up a lot of people on here. If you are formerly obese, your BMR may be permanently reduced by up to 40%. It is quite possible that there are people out there who will spend the rest of their lives MAINTAINING at 1200 calories. Should they just stay overweight and unhealthy forever because someone somewhere decided that some arbitrary number of calories was the minimum for everyone regardless of height, weight, age, and medical history?

    You will upset the people who advise eating spoonfuls of peanut butter regardless of whether one is hungry just to get up to their daily calorie limit. There's a contingent here that is vehement about the number on the app being a minimum that must be reached no matter what, even if you're not hungry, regardless of whether you are lacking in energy, and that it doesn't matter if you've gotten your vitamins and minerals. They will get angry and obstinate at the idea that anyone might not spend all their time focused on how to eat the most food possible.

    The same people have also questioned why it is that someone in the normal BMI range isn't happy at the top of that range and would want to drop weight down to the lower end when "already healthy" as if they are the ultimate authorities on what everyone's weight should be and body should look like. They will argue against you and demand that what you're doing is unsustainable and that you're damaging your health. They will do this even if you doctor is on board with your weight loss. I just ignore them now.
  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    Options
    Yeah I'm all for the go slow approach and its meant success at keeping it off long term for me.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    Slow and steady worked for me. My stats:
    5'2 female over 40.
    Started 153. Currently maintaining at around 118-120.
    Took me about a year to lose down to 125, and then slowly lost another 5-7 while transitioning to maintenance over the next 6 months or so.
    I ate 1600-1800 while losing, and my TDEE in maintenance is 2200, I've been maintaining for a couple years now.

    I have a pretty high TDEE for a petite middle aged female with a desk job. I credit some of that with the fact that I took a conservative approach to weight loss, with a moderate deficit while I worked to increase my activity level through both a high NEAT and purposeful exercise.

    For me, the idea of losing rapidly to hit a goal, so that you can say "ok now that I'm here, what do I do", is likely to contribute to yo yoing and struggles transitioning to maintenance. I get for some folks the rapid weight loss is something that is part of the bigger picture (people on bulk/cut cycles, people for whom there is a medical risk due to their current weight, etc). But for an average female who is just looking to be at a healthy weight, and have an active lifestyle while still enjoying the lifestyle (which for me includes yummy food); I think the slow approach with a modest deficit is the best way to ensure long term success.
  • sardelsa
    sardelsa Posts: 9,812 Member
    Options
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    wackyfunster wrote: »
    TBH, arbitrary calorie limits are what mess up a lot of people on here. If you are formerly obese, your BMR may be permanently reduced by up to 40%. It is quite possible that there are people out there who will spend the rest of their lives MAINTAINING at 1200 calories. Should they just stay overweight and unhealthy forever because someone somewhere decided that some arbitrary number of calories was the minimum for everyone regardless of height, weight, age, and medical history?

    You will upset the people who advise eating spoonfuls of peanut butter regardless of whether one is hungry just to get up to their daily calorie limit. There's a contingent here that is vehement about the number on the app being a minimum that must be reached no matter what, even if you're not hungry, regardless of whether you are lacking in energy, and that it doesn't matter if you've gotten your vitamins and minerals. They will get angry and obstinate at the idea that anyone might not spend all their time focused on how to eat the most food possible.

    The same people have also questioned why it is that someone in the normal BMI range isn't happy at the top of that range and would want to drop weight down to the lower end when "already healthy" as if they are the ultimate authorities on what everyone's weight should be and body should look like. They will argue against you and demand that what you're doing is unsustainable and that you're damaging your health. They will do this even if you doctor is on board with your weight loss. I just ignore them now    .

    When I see this, it is not a matter of telling them that they shouldn't lose more (unless it of course puts them in the underweight category),but usually they are people that are losing or have lost and are unhappy with their body composition. I give them my opinion on what they should do and what I have done to get where I am, if they don't like that advice, they don't have to listen. The advice on MFP is free, take it or leave it.

    I will say I have been here a while and I continually see the same exact people come back who either lost more or didn't take advice and they are unhappy with the results. Not all of them obviously, but I see it....a lot.. Again, people can do what they want but if they are asking "I am almost underweight but I am very unhappy because I still have lots of fat on my body" and going around in circles, well I am going to give them the best advice I know that will help them.
  • Onamissionforfit
    Onamissionforfit Posts: 90 Member
    Options
    I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »
    I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss

    Not necessarily.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    Options
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »
    I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss

    Not necessarily.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

    Help me out here as I find these things over my head:(....

    Initial weight loss meaning 10% of weight. What about the rest? Especially if you are really overweight?
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »
    I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss

    Not necessarily.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

    Help me out here as I find these things over my head:(....

    Initial weight loss meaning 10% of weight. What about the rest? Especially if you are really overweight?

    Honestly, there aren't too many people that can even claim to have shed 5%, so I'm not shocked that there isn't much available data for anything beyond that, especially in anything even remotely resembling free living conditions.
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    Options
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »
    I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss

    Not necessarily.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

    Help me out here as I find these things over my head:(....

    Initial weight loss meaning 10% of weight. What about the rest? Especially if you are really overweight?

    Honestly, there aren't too many people that can even claim to have shed 5%, so I'm not shocked that there isn't much available data for anything beyond that, especially in anything even remotely resembling free living conditions.

    Yeah I guess they would have to follow someone that say like me needs to lose 100 overall (60ish now) for some time which would be expensive I'm sure. Most studies are what 30 days?
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »
    I've read that the slower the weight loss the better chances you have keeping it off vs someone with rapid weight loss

    Not necessarily.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

    Help me out here as I find these things over my head:(....

    Initial weight loss meaning 10% of weight. What about the rest? Especially if you are really overweight?

    Honestly, there aren't too many people that can even claim to have shed 5%, so I'm not shocked that there isn't much available data for anything beyond that, especially in anything even remotely resembling free living conditions.

    Yeah I guess they would have to follow someone that say like me needs to lose 100 overall (60ish now) for some time which would be expensive I'm sure. Most studies are what 30 days?

    If even that long. I tend to see typical ranges of 14-30. That's honestly part of why I am submitting my stuff to the National Weight Control Registry. I've been down by 75 lbs. (or more) from my starting weight for four years now, and down about 18 from my two-year maintenance weight for about two of that. I feel like if more people who actually succeed in getting and holding their *kitten* together share specific information, it will help things along.

    One of the biggest cracks against the registry from the HAES movement is it's small number of people involved. Of course, they extrapolate this to mean that almost all weight loss ends in failure, but the fact is, unless you actually petition to be involved in the registry, they don't know that you exist.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    I think the question is wrong if the goal is to identify long term success in weight management.

    The focus on this should be on the habits that promote weight management. Conduct your analysis identifying the differences between rapid and slow loss and review which are more successful in long term studies such as the National Weight Control Registry. I suspect slow loss will win as this requires a strategy of identifying bad habits and replacing these with good habits. Rapid loss strategies are designed for those with strong goal achievement abilities - the average person simply does not have the skillset to succeed with this in the long term.
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    edited April 2017
    Options
    CeeBeeSlim wrote: »
    Having said all that - today my weight was 133.0. Last Monday, I was 136.6. Perplexing - at least to me!!

    Thanks again.

    we have almost identical numbers, in every respect. tbh i'm not interested enough in the science of weight loss to make a whole study of it, so i don't have much to add about the article that started this off.

    but i thought i'd chime in that your fluctuation range is also pmuch the same as mine. i have the luxury of a digital scale in the locker/shower room where i work, so lately i've been making a game of getting familiar with that range and the sometimes-fun things that can influence it. i ride in in the morning, weigh myself in full bike gear with backpack: always 150-some. strip down to skivvies and pee - 132. shower, re-dress, go about the business of my regular day and weigh again in the afternoon while i'm changing to do my ride home.

    i'm pretty consistently 136-ish these days on that final weigh-in before my bike clothes are on. i started this job in january, and i can't remember what my weight was exactly to begin with. but 140 is always my trigger point to get serious, so i'm pretty sure it was fluctuating around that, back then. the overall trend is definitely downwards. the part i find most entertaining is my with-backpack weight is always the same in the evening as it was in the morning. it's just that my lunch is inside me by then :tongue:

    i guess one place where we're different is i'm just starting my fourth year of weightlifting. last year i made more progress with that than i ever have in the past and i did not want to lose any of that ground in order to shed a few pounds, so my deficit has definitely been very stingy if i've been on one at all. i'm on my way towards 52 and i've been lifting a while, so i don't kid myself that i'm trading much fat for much muscle here. but i've been getting a little bit stronger all the time while getting a little bit lighter all the time at the same time, so there's that. and i can't tell for sure, but i feel like if they held a fat drive tomorrow in my neighbourhood, the absolute most i'd be able to donate to the cause would be five or ten pounds. so i'm not in much of a hurry, i guess.

    tl;dr: 'slow' camp here too.
  • ConquerAndBloom
    ConquerAndBloom Posts: 94 Member
    Options
    ekim2016 wrote: »
    I vote for slow to hopefully mitigate skin sag issues....

    This is where I'm at as well. I started with over 100 pounds to lose, I want to minimize my skin sag issues as best as possible.

Categories