Slow vs Fast dieting?
eduction6364
Posts: 20 Member
So just like many of us over the winter months bulked up or gain some undesirable fat and are getting ready to shred some fat off and get our summer bodies. So i am currently 5’9 182 pounds i want to get around 160 as my end goal before i start bulking back up to make some lean gains but ive been deciding weather i should take it slower or go faster ive heard when going faster you sacrifice more muscle loss and when going the slower route it’s possible to even gain a little muscle or atleast preserve almost all of it, now my meaning of slow is 1lb per week and im consider fast being 1.5 lbs a week i’d never go above 1.5lb a week because you will for sure be burning all your hard worked muscle. So my question is what do you prefer to do a slower or fast weight loss/cut and what was your experiences doing either one. All comments welcomed and appreciated. Edit: I go to the gym 6x aweek mostly strength/weight training i do cardio also but dont iver do it.
0
Replies
-
Ideally with so little to lose (I know it doesn't seem like very little to you but compared with someone trying to lose 50+ pound it is) you only really want to be aiming for 0.5-1lbs per week.
To maintain muscle whilst losing ideally you want to be aiming for a small-moderate deficit, ensuring you're getting adequate protein and doing some form of strength training.
I've lost weight at an average rate of around 1lb per week and have found this far more easy to maintain than when I would lose weight quickly in the past. The strength training has also made a big difference to my appearance, despite the fact I am still an obese BMI, I have a pretty flat stomach now.
8 -
I preferred slow because I hate restricting and wanted to do that as little as possible. It also solidifies your new habits and makes them more likely to stick, and doesn't wear you out with the constant mental effort.9
-
I'm 5'9, 177 lbs, shooting for 160. I'm set to lose at 0.5 lbs per week because I want to lose a little muscle as possible.4
-
eduction6364 wrote: »So just like many of us over the winter months bulked up or gain some undesirable fat and are getting ready to shred some fat off and get our summer bodies. So i am currently 5’9 182 pounds i want to get around 160 as my end goal before i start bulking back up to make some lean gains but ive been deciding weather i should take it slower or go faster ive heard when going faster you sacrifice more muscle loss and when going the slower route it’s possible to even gain a little muscle or atleast preserve almost all of it, now my meaning of slow is 1lb per week and im consider fast being 1.5 lbs a week i’d never go above 1.5lb a week because you will for sure be burning all your hard worked muscle. So my question is what do you prefer to do a slower or fast weight loss/cut and what was your experiences doing either one. All comments welcomed and appreciated.
A good general range to land in would be about .5 to 1% change in BW per week.
My personal preference is to start a diet out aggressively for the first couple of weeks but there's plenty of wiggle room here for what suits you best.
At the start of the diet you are carrying more bodyfat and you SHOULD have much better execution of the diet and so an aggressive deficit fits this scenario better than it would later into the dieting phase.
4 -
I've read that, assuming adequate protein and proper training, the differences in lean mass lost during slow vs aggressive dieting is pretty minimal. So IMO, it comes down to degrees of "optimal" and some personal preference.
I'd much rather do a hard and fast cut because I hate cutting. But that's me.7 -
When I lost 22 lbs last year, I set MFP for a 1 lb per week loss, but didn't eat back all the exercise calories, making the loss somewhat faster, particularly at first. The last ~7lbs were at just barely 1 lb per week and I have fluctuated up and down by at least 5lbs from my goal weight. (You could say that my goal weight is at the bottom of my acceptable weight band.)
Anyhoo: I'm stronger that ever. Just pick a loss rate that is sustainable for the required duration and keep exercising while you lose. (And I don't think it matters much what exercise you do-- weights and/or cardio-- just do what you like.)2 -
I would keep my caloric deficit to no more than 20% of TDEE while keeping to the loss range sidesteel mentioned (0.5 to 1% loss a week) (Just in case you run marathons every day)
1 -
I usually put on about 10 Lbs every winter...I usually start cutting that weight with day light savings time when I can start getting my evening road rides in again and make a few tweaks to my diet...I usually cut at a rate of 1 - 1.5 Lbs per week initially.1
-
.0
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »I'm 5'9, 177 lbs, shooting for 160. I'm set to lose at 0.5 lbs per week because I want to lose a little muscle as possible.
Ehh0.5 would drive me crazy with 20 pounds needed to lose8 -
I'd rather suffer severely for a short period of time than drag it on indefinitely and suffer moderately.
Fast cut.8 -
I prefer fast cuts too. Helps keep me focused if I know it’s just 6 weeks (or whatever) of torture.5
-
If you're going to do a mini cut, just go aggressive. You won't lose much muscle. If anything you'll lose more spending your time in a damn deficit for 6 months rather than cleaning up some fat and getting back into a surplus and training hard.
If you've got 20lbs to lose, I'd chose a moderate deficit.1 -
i'm 5 '9 and down to 163... lost 27 pounds since Jan 1. Loving that i lost it fast.....and hope to weigh in tomorrow near my first goal of losing 30. Then i may go down to150. i'm gong to lose all my fat first..then hit the gym and work out part of my plan. I find when i work out and diet. .well. it takes forever and my will power wanes..2
-
eduction6364 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I'm 5'9, 177 lbs, shooting for 160. I'm set to lose at 0.5 lbs per week because I want to lose a little muscle as possible.
Ehh0.5 would drive me crazy with 20 pounds needed to lose
Agreed. That's 40 weeks. I get all the noise about slow and steady, change your lifestyle, form better habits... but 40 weeks? *kitten* that!6 -
eduction6364 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I'm 5'9, 177 lbs, shooting for 160. I'm set to lose at 0.5 lbs per week because I want to lose a little muscle as possible.
Ehh0.5 would drive me crazy with 20 pounds needed to lose
Agreed. That's 40 weeks. I get all the noise about slow and steady, change your lifestyle, form better habits... but 40 weeks? *kitten* that!
And, I think this is the difference between someone wanting to lose weight, and someone doing a cut.
Someone wanting to lose 20 lbs needs to have a long term plan to lose and keep it off. They need to learn how to manage at a lower calorie level forever. Someone doing a cut is going to track a lot more carefully, is looking short term and is planning to gain it again, in a bulk.
I'm good to lose at .5 lbs as I intend to keep it off and am not looking to bulk at any time. So if it takes a year to drop 20, I'm fine with that.
Different goals, different processes.19 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »eduction6364 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I'm 5'9, 177 lbs, shooting for 160. I'm set to lose at 0.5 lbs per week because I want to lose a little muscle as possible.
Ehh0.5 would drive me crazy with 20 pounds needed to lose
Agreed. That's 40 weeks. I get all the noise about slow and steady, change your lifestyle, form better habits... but 40 weeks? *kitten* that!
And, I think this is the difference between someone wanting to lose weight, and someone doing a cut.
Someone wanting to lose 20 lbs needs to have a long term plan to lose and keep it off. They need to learn how to manage at a lower calorie level forever. Someone doing a cut is going to track a lot more carefully, is looking short term and is planning to gain it again, in a bulk.
I'm good to lose at .5 lbs as I intend to keep it off and am not looking to bulk at any time. So if it takes a year to drop 20, I'm fine with that.
Different goals, different processes.
I agree. I’ve been overweight for several years now due to lifestyle changes, so taking a couple of years to lose that weight and teach myself to live healthier feels right, even if I expect the last 20 pounds to take about eight months. I’ve also decided that my “happy” diet place is about 1700 calories a day average, and this way I never have to go under that. But if I decide in a couple of years to give bulk/cut a try, or want to shave off five pounds of winter flab, I expect I might use a different strategy.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »eduction6364 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I'm 5'9, 177 lbs, shooting for 160. I'm set to lose at 0.5 lbs per week because I want to lose a little muscle as possible.
Ehh0.5 would drive me crazy with 20 pounds needed to lose
Agreed. That's 40 weeks. I get all the noise about slow and steady, change your lifestyle, form better habits... but 40 weeks? *kitten* that!
And, I think this is the difference between someone wanting to lose weight, and someone doing a cut.
Someone wanting to lose 20 lbs needs to have a long term plan to lose and keep it off. They need to learn how to manage at a lower calorie level forever. Someone doing a cut is going to track a lot more carefully, is looking short term and is planning to gain it again, in a bulk.
I'm good to lose at .5 lbs as I intend to keep it off and am not looking to bulk at any time. So if it takes a year to drop 20, I'm fine with that.
Different goals, different processes.
I dunno. I think sometimes I'm an outlier regarding most of MPF's typical "best practices", and maybe this is one of those times. I have no interest in gaining back the weight I'm losing. I also have no interest in spending 6+months losing that weight. I know how to lose weight, I know how to maintain, and I know how to gain. What I lack (typically) is the discipline to do those things.
Then again, maybe I'm not an outlier... maybe I just hate the way I look and place enough of my own self worth on how I look (and how I'm able to progress towards my appearance goals) that, for me, cutting/losing/dieting/whatever you want to call it is hard and fast all the way.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »eduction6364 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I'm 5'9, 177 lbs, shooting for 160. I'm set to lose at 0.5 lbs per week because I want to lose a little muscle as possible.
Ehh0.5 would drive me crazy with 20 pounds needed to lose
Agreed. That's 40 weeks. I get all the noise about slow and steady, change your lifestyle, form better habits... but 40 weeks? *kitten* that!
And, I think this is the difference between someone wanting to lose weight, and someone doing a cut.
Someone wanting to lose 20 lbs needs to have a long term plan to lose and keep it off. They need to learn how to manage at a lower calorie level forever. Someone doing a cut is going to track a lot more carefully, is looking short term and is planning to gain it again, in a bulk.
I'm good to lose at .5 lbs as I intend to keep it off and am not looking to bulk at any time. So if it takes a year to drop 20, I'm fine with that.
Different goals, different processes.
I dunno. I think sometimes I'm an outlier regarding most of MPF's typical "best practices", and maybe this is one of those times. I have no interest in gaining back the weight I'm losing. I also have no interest in spending 6+months losing that weight. I know how to lose weight, I know how to maintain, and I know how to gain. What I lack (typically) is the discipline to do those things.
Then again, maybe I'm not an outlier... maybe I just hate the way I look and place enough of my own self worth on how I look (and how I'm able to progress towards my appearance goals) that, for me, cutting/losing/dieting/whatever you want to call it is hard and fast all the way.
There are always outliers and maybe you’re one of them, but I don’t think that relying on discipline is a great way to get things done. Building habits, finding ways to enjoy what you’re doing or make it easier for yourself, creating coping strategies and so on makes it so you don’t have to rely on discipline.2 -
I go fast because I’m impatient and I want it over with.1
-
eduction6364 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »I'm 5'9, 177 lbs, shooting for 160. I'm set to lose at 0.5 lbs per week because I want to lose a little muscle as possible.
Ehh0.5 would drive me crazy with 20 pounds needed to lose
Agreed. That's 40 weeks. I get all the noise about slow and steady, change your lifestyle, form better habits... but 40 weeks? *kitten* that!
When I had 40 Lbs to lose, slow was the way to go...I'd never tried to lose weight before in my life and frankly never had a weight issue until I took a desk job at 30 years old...but basically I had a lot of figuring out to do and I needed the time and the analysis and the adjusting of habits, etc.
I put on about 10 Lbs every winter when my activity level goes into the shitter and I cut that much differently than when I had more weight to lose and I was trying to make life adjustments, and I hit it pretty hard.1 -
I go fast because past experience suggests that slow leads to frustration leads to saying "screw it." Probably not optimal, but it works for me.2
-
eduction6364 wrote: »So just like many of us over the winter months bulked up or gain some undesirable fat and are getting ready to shred some fat off and get our summer bodies. So i am currently 5’9 182 pounds i want to get around 160 as my end goal before i start bulking back up to make some lean gains but ive been deciding weather i should take it slower or go faster ive heard when going faster you sacrifice more muscle loss and when going the slower route it’s possible to even gain a little muscle or atleast preserve almost all of it, now my meaning of slow is 1lb per week and im consider fast being 1.5 lbs a week i’d never go above 1.5lb a week because you will for sure be burning all your hard worked muscle. So my question is what do you prefer to do a slower or fast weight loss/cut and what was your experiences doing either one. All comments welcomed and appreciated. Edit: I go to the gym 6x aweek mostly strength/weight training i do cardio also but dont iver do it.
Nobody should try to lose weight over 1,5 lbs per week unless they're obese. Losing weight will simply erase a lot of muscles That you've been able to build. Unless your goal is to look like a post, fast is not the most optimal way.1 -
eduction6364 wrote: »So just like many of us over the winter months bulked up or gain some undesirable fat and are getting ready to shred some fat off and get our summer bodies. So i am currently 5’9 182 pounds i want to get around 160 as my end goal before i start bulking back up to make some lean gains but ive been deciding weather i should take it slower or go faster ive heard when going faster you sacrifice more muscle loss and when going the slower route it’s possible to even gain a little muscle or atleast preserve almost all of it, now my meaning of slow is 1lb per week and im consider fast being 1.5 lbs a week i’d never go above 1.5lb a week because you will for sure be burning all your hard worked muscle. So my question is what do you prefer to do a slower or fast weight loss/cut and what was your experiences doing either one. All comments welcomed and appreciated.
A good general range to land in would be about .5 to 1% change in BW per week.
My personal preference is to start a diet out aggressively for the first couple of weeks but there's plenty of wiggle room here for what suits you best.
At the start of the diet you are carrying more bodyfat and you SHOULD have much better execution of the diet and so an aggressive deficit fits this scenario better than it would later into the dieting phase.
I like this advice.0 -
eduction6364 wrote: »So just like many of us over the winter months bulked up or gain some undesirable fat and are getting ready to shred some fat off and get our summer bodies. So i am currently 5’9 182 pounds i want to get around 160 as my end goal before i start bulking back up to make some lean gains but ive been deciding weather i should take it slower or go faster ive heard when going faster you sacrifice more muscle loss and when going the slower route it’s possible to even gain a little muscle or atleast preserve almost all of it, now my meaning of slow is 1lb per week and im consider fast being 1.5 lbs a week i’d never go above 1.5lb a week because you will for sure be burning all your hard worked muscle. So my question is what do you prefer to do a slower or fast weight loss/cut and what was your experiences doing either one. All comments welcomed and appreciated. Edit: I go to the gym 6x aweek mostly strength/weight training i do cardio also but dont iver do it.
Nobody should try to lose weight over 1,5 lbs per week unless they're obese. Losing weight will simply erase a lot of muscles That you've been able to build. Unless your goal is to look like a post, fast is not the most optimal way.
For some people, there are more pressing priorities than retaining maximum muscle mass. Especially when the difference between maximum and sub-maximum doesn't have to be significant*.
* significant in the eye of the person losing the weight.0 -
Bump would like to hear more opinions.0
-
eduction6364 wrote: »So just like many of us over the winter months bulked up or gain some undesirable fat and are getting ready to shred some fat off and get our summer bodies. So i am currently 5’9 182 pounds i want to get around 160 as my end goal before i start bulking back up to make some lean gains but ive been deciding weather i should take it slower or go faster ive heard when going faster you sacrifice more muscle loss and when going the slower route it’s possible to even gain a little muscle or atleast preserve almost all of it, now my meaning of slow is 1lb per week and im consider fast being 1.5 lbs a week i’d never go above 1.5lb a week because you will for sure be burning all your hard worked muscle. So my question is what do you prefer to do a slower or fast weight loss/cut and what was your experiences doing either one. All comments welcomed and appreciated. Edit: I go to the gym 6x aweek mostly strength/weight training i do cardio also but dont iver do it.
Nobody should try to lose weight over 1,5 lbs per week unless they're obese. Losing weight will simply erase a lot of muscles That you've been able to build. Unless your goal is to look like a post, fast is not the most optimal way.
0 -
I said something similar in another thread... but I will repeat it here... my take is it depends.. but for the most part slow and steady is typically the way to go for more sustainable habits. If you have a lot of weight to lose you can start off faster, it is more motivating and less chance of muscle loss...but as someone gets to goal the general recommendation is to slow things down to prevent excess muscle loss, fatigue, burn out, binging etc.
There are exceptions obviously. Some people who do bulk/cut cycles do fast aggressive cuts to drop some weight, they do lose some extra lean mass but it's usually temporary (comes back on when they hit surplus again). If I wanted to drop some weight fast I could do it because I already have good habits and I know what I'm getting myself into. However being already lean I wouldn't go more than 1% bodyweight per week since I'd like to minimize muscle loss.
In general though for me personally, I tend to go more slow. When I cut down after a bulk I lose 0.5lb per week or less, I don't have much to lose (usually 8lbs or less) and I usually see physique results fairly quickly.0 -
I am all about the slow loss because it means I will be making permanent changes to my diet that I can live with rather than restricting myself, making myself miserable, and then going right back to eating like crap as soon as I lose the weight.0
-
I'm working on vanity weight right now, and people would probably say that for the amount I want to lose, I'm trying to do it fast. It's at a rate to lose a pound a week rather than half a pound a week, but this is where my appetite and exercise habit line up at a happy place.
The problem for me has been that I've been stuck here for a year because that happy place kept me binging because me it IS overly restrictive with so little to lose, but when I implement consistent weekend refeeds, it's pretty easy to stick to deficit eating for 5 days a week.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions