Amputation is faster and more permanent.
I’m not even sure fasting is the best way to lose weight fast, as you won’t have any energy to do anything, and if there’s anything to the “starvation mode” thing fasting will make it happen. But for obvious reasons you can’t fast forever, so what’s the point? You need to adopt eating habits that will let you maintain your lower weight at some point anyway, better start with that sooner rather than later.
Certainly not, if your intention is to lose weight over an extended period of time, and keep it off. Also not the best way if you intend to stay healthy.
Next you are going to say amputation is a poor method as well.
PLEASE don’t anyone put the idea of amputation into John Clay’s head.
Reminds me of an old joke from grammar school: “Want to lose 10 pounds of ugly fat? Cut off your head!”
Fine, if this works for you. What has worked for me (I am 80 lb lighter than I was in 2000 and have pretty much stabilized at this weight) was to eat three modest meals a day and nothing between meals except maybe a piece of fruit. And the food was what most people would agree is healthy food, but not vegetarian or any fad.
The bit about 100 calories of carrots is also misleading. Our stomach is not a bomb calorimeter (the device used to measure calories) and we don’t get nearly the full calorie value from raw carrots. We may well from cooked carrots, but I don’t think people are thinking of cooked carrots. I imagine we get 100 calories from 100 calories of sugar. Or honey, or maple syrup.
Any human can lose weight by consuming less calories.
If you cut calories, and find that you’re not losing an appreciable amount of weight, it simply means that you need to consume even less calories.
This is rather irrelevant to the OP.
A Protein Sparing Modified Fast is a much better way to avoid losing muscle mass or feeling lethargic all the time.
Big generalization, but I find that most people eat so much garbage that just cutting out junk can make a big difference. I’m not a big sugar person. I mostly only drink water, but I’ve known people who lost 20 lbs in a month just cutting out soft drinks or whatever. I’ve done that myself when I was younger and had worse habits.
I’ve lifted on and off my whole life. I was definitely the leanest when I prioritized eating over exercise, though. It would be a lot easier for me to create a caloric deficit through very moderate food changes than drastic exercise changes.
Seconded, at least from personal experience.
At various points in my life, I’ve shredded through 40-50 lbs. in relatively short spans of time. When it comes to purely losing weight & cutting body fat, it really is as simple as burning more calories than you consume.
Seriously, if somebody is dead set on losing X amount of weight, he or she should cut the calories & do a bunch of cardio. If this individual can handle the constant feeling of background hunger, then the pounds will eventually start to drop.
Where dieting DOES begin to matter, however, is when the dieter is aiming for more than just weight loss, as in, say, achieving the ripped look or alternatively GAINING muscle mass. In either case, protein intake in particular will have to be increased, as will the amount of calories themselves if the goal is to increase muscle mass.
Nuts illustrate that difference between physics calories and nutrional ones quite well on several points. Points that some here seem to have difficulty comprehending.
Because the fat is contained inside cellular structures that are incompletely digested, it (and its calories) are incompletely absorbed. Roughly 18% of the fat eaten in whole nuts comes out in the stool.
Nuts also increase calories out by increasing resting energy expenditure.
On those two alone, 100 calories of nuts eaten is very very different than 100 calories of sugar or French Fries.
Then there is the impact of a food on other intake behaviors. Nuts are high satety so the X calories in the form of nuts reduces hunger much more than X calories in many other forms, such sugar or French Fries. As a result a snack of nuts results in reduction of calories taken in later in the day.
Adding a daily handful (usually about 1/4 cup, 200 to 300 calories) of unsalted nuts as a snack will generally either cause no weight gain or contribute to weight loss (multiple studies); adding the same 200 to 300 calories as sugar will cause gain. They also improve insulin sensitivity, decrease triglycerides, and help preserve or increase fat free mass during fat loss.
The physics is the physics but of course the physics is a bit more complicated than some here portray it. Total calories absorbed by the body (not consumed) against total number expended - with certain foods having various different amounts of what is consumed absorbed and having differing impacts on how much gets consumed otherwise in the day (especially satiety and palatability factors), and various differing impacts on how many calories get expended by impacts on metabolism and on activity levels and even by the differing energy costs of digesting different foods.
In any case if the issue is losing weight for health then the nutritional value of the long term diet plan matters greatly.
No offense 2ManyTacos but if one is looking for advice about a nutrition plan that will work long term to achieve and maintain lower amounts of body fat, someone who has lost and gained 40 to 50 lbs multiple times is probably not the best role model to follow. Just sayin’
And don’t forget (as noted in a post above) amputation! Quick AND permanent!
I wonder why so many weight loss books/ebooks say to try and only eat organic foods? Perhaps it appeared to make sense to them but it wasn’t based on any hard evidence?
BTW the point of this thread is not about being as healthy as possible, it is about relatively healthy weight loss.
BTW I wonder if someone had only diet soft drinks and another had only water if there would be a difference in their weight loss. I heard that diet soft drinks might cause cravings for carbs which in turn would lead to weight gain. (BTW they’d both eat food)
This is mostly true, but not entirely: your fat cells have to release the fat for this to happen. In rare cases, that doesn’t happen so people stay fat while they starve.
There are many stories of people doing just that but without the intended effect. I’m not sure what exactly is going on in these cases. Certainly a good number of them are fooling themselves and are actually eating much more than they think. But eating very little also leads to lethargy and conservation of energy as well as breaking down muscle for energy. None of that helps you burn fat, you don’t want to go down the super low calorie route unless nothing else works.
I think shodan is right here. I’ve had to gain weight after an illness & the formula 3500 calories = 1 lb basically holds true. I’ve also counted calories from time to time in order to avoid gaining weight. I’m sedentary because of disability. I could easily become overweight by eating too much. But I’m just moderate, careful, and never deny myself anything. I love food. I just eat less.
Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that thin or average weight people (regardless of family history/genetics) stay that way by being moderate over long periods of time including during the aging process. I do know people who were overweight (and significantly so) who lost weight by being careful about portions (which is really being careful about calories) but I’ve noticed that the longer it took the person to lose the weight, the more it stays off. When it took years to become obese, why expect a quick solution to slimming? That never makes sense to me.
Gaining, losing, & maintaining weight happens over time. If your estimated calorie expenditure is 1500 calories, don’t stress over 1700 one day, or 1400 another. It’s when you spend weeks, months, years eating significantly more calories than you expend that you gain weight and cannot lose weight.
Another thing I would like to advise people struggling with obesity, if you are desperate to lose weight, try at least not gaining weight first. The less you gain the less you’ll have to lose.
Also, I’m not saying that some of the additional factors mentioned in the posts above do not matter at all, but I believe these are negligible in comparison to the importance of calories. In addition, calories are calculated taking some of these factors into account:
There are lots of reasons why eating the caloric equivalent in sugar vs. carrots matters in terms of nutrition. That is not necessarily the same as weight loss or gain. I don’t think anyone has proven that eating one thing vs. another (equivalent in calories) matters. Lots have tried, and there is significant money to be made in the pursuit. Nothing much to sell in the proven science of calories in, calories out.
The only logical reason I can think of for organic food helping weight loss is that the food might be more likely to be whole food based or it’s so damn expensive that you might not be willing to throw down boxes of organic cookies. But calories are still calories, and people will gain, maintain, & lose weight accordingly.
That’s because those people are lying or delusional.
Again… if you cut calories, and find that you’re not losing an appreciable amount of weight, it simply means that you need to consume even less calories.
And it’s kinda fun. I’ve done the Dukan Diet twice. It was funny forcing down a Flintstone sized T-Bone, all the while craving lettuce.