Buy so much cocaine that you don’t have enough money left for food, and you still owe the cartel a lot of money. Fleeing from hitmen burns a lot of calories.
A surgical procedure called the **Duodenal Switch **(DS) not only restricts the size of the stomach, but rearranges the intestines to that they don’t absorb much of what is consumed. When comparing it to other bariatric surgeries, the results are superior, but it’s not performed as widely because not nearly as many surgeons have the expertise to do it. A friend of mine had it and she went from being morbidly obese to competing in triathlons. She’s strong, healthy and has maintained her weight loss for about 10 years now. She has to have lab work drawn yearly and will take vitamin supplements every day for life to prevent malnutrition.
IF you are consuming fewer calories than your body needs, then you will loose weight. Say a person greatly reduces calories and, along with that, also reduces output due to lethargy, they can appear to not loose weight even in the face of reduced calories, but the fact is that they’ve also reduced their calorie burn rate. Another thing that can happen is that the dieter doesn’t accurately account for all the calories that they are taking in, so are not correctly counting their calorie intake.
There really is no way to maintain weight without calories. “Weight” is not an inanimate object that can just stay around without the calories to maintain it. There is no resource aside from calories that can maintain it (aside from a temporary effect of over hydrating tissues).
If an adult is eating 900 calories/day and not loosing weight, that means that their body is efficient and maintaining its weight on 900 calories per day or they are mis-calculating their actual calorie intake.
[QUOTE=Enkel]
If an adult is eating 900 calories/day and not loosing weight, that means that their body is efficient and maintaining its weight on 900 calories per day or they are mis-calculating their actual calorie intake.
[/QUOTE]
My vote’s on the latter. You’ve got to read mutritional labels very carefully these days. There are many beverages, for example that may boldly proclaim something like “120 calories!” but in the fine print, it’s 120 calories per serving and there are 2.5 servings per bottle, so you’re really getting 300 calories if you drinkthe whole thing.
As for duodenal switch and other bypass procedures, getting from “I want to have surgery” to the OR is not quick unless you’re paying cash with no insurance. Most insurance companies will slog you through a long process of physical and psych evaluations, history checks and approvals before green-lighting the surgery. Once you have the procedure, be prepared to shrink quickly. My husband has dropped 100 pounds in eight months, going from 3XL shirts to L, after having a Roux-en-Y.
Become a vegan. Or vegetarian.
May work well for some, not so much for others. I’ve known people to gain weight going on such a diet and not paying attention to their caloric intake, especially if they went ovo-lacto vegetarian instead of vegan. This is not to say that, on average, vegetarians and vegans aren’t less heavy meat-eating counterparts, but it’s just no guarantee to weight loss. Plenty of obese vegetarians out there.
I bet that fucker was drinking a shitload of water before the initial weigh-in and maybe even secreting some additional (lead?) weights on his person. Then, before the final weigh-in, he could do some minor dieting/exercise, then dehydrate like crazy, and he’d pretty much be a lock to win it.
If a person is exercising, there’s also the confounding factor of building muscle while losing fat.
ETA: Note the one “o” in the word “losing” 
cookies and ice cream are both vegetarian options
Not to mention the deliciously healthy vegan meal of French fries and peanut brittle.
I’d say it’s easier to get fat as a vegan/vegetarian-if one isn’t careful. If you aren’t careful and vigilant, you could find yourself eating mostly processed/refined carbohydrates. Yes, there are plenty of fatty vegans out there.
Seriously! I mean - no one drops 10 pounds a week from just eating a little less.
Actually, that’s not that difficult. During the first two weeks of Weight Watchers I lost 8 lbs each week simply by changing what I ate and exercising a bit more. It was mostly water weight, but the scale doesn’t care.
Who knows, people are different. A pound of fat is 3500 calories but a pound of muscle is only about 1000 calories (I have heard wildly varied claims from 600 to 1600, so I’m going with 1000). There is no rule saying those 40 pounds had to be pure fat. It could’ve easily been a mix of water and muscle with maybe 10-15 pounds of fat thrown in. Fifteen pounds of fat & fifteen pounds of muscle is about 68k calories. Add in 10 pounds of water and there you go, a 2k deficit per day for a month leads to a 40 pound weight loss.
I’ve seen studies on overfeeding and underfeeding, and people respond in drastically different ways. Some gain or lose far more than others, some gain mostly muscle, some gain mostly fat, etc.
One thing that I want to mention, based on what I have heard (on this board; example), losing muscle is MUCH easier than losing fat; all you have to do is stop moving and you will lose 10% of your muscle mass a week (although I have always been skeptical of this, even for individual muscles, not total muscle mass; what happens to all of that muscle and the calories embedded in it, as a large well-muscled man can have 100+ pounds of muscle mass (average is 42% of total body mass), or do they just mean muscle strength; this is also a far faster loss rate than what even the best bodybuilders can put on in that timeframe; you might be lucky to put on 10-20 pounds a year naturally).
I live in a town on the NW coast that is full of vegans and vegetarians. I work with and know many personally. I’d say that 80% of them are overweight.
Fastest way to lose fat - reduce calorie intake drastically, cut down on carbs, increase protein. Exercise - cardio and weigh lifting 5 days/wk.
That’s how I did it. I lost 40 lbs within one year and have kept it off for the last two and half.
Yeah, but I sincerely doubt that you could maintain this rate for four weeks/40 pounds of weight loss, unless you started out massively obese, which ChickenLegs says his (her) friend did not. (And actually, ChickenLegs said that his/her friend was “normal, not fat,” in which case 40 pounds of weight loss would leave him looking like a meth user.)
Although speaking of meth, I will also vote for this as the quickest weight loss method.
You won’t lose weight any faster using meth than you would by simply stopping eating a comparable amount of calories on your own that using the meth would prompt you to do without thinking of it. So it might be easier with meth but it wouldn’t be any quicker than simple starvation (or “dieting”).
Yes, I was taking “ease of following method” into consideration with my vote. Good point, though.
Actually, now that I think of it, my response was premature. While the primary mechanism of action of weight loss with meth I’m SURE is simply a complete lack of appetite; it is an amphetamine, and a very strong one at that. So it does speed up the body’s metabolism and calorie burning.