I’m on the “Eat Less Food” diet. I can eat whatever I want. Pizza, hamburgers, fries, whatever. I just don’t eat very much of it.
Instead of eating half a pizza, I only eat one or two pieces.
Instead of a Big Mac and a super-sized fries, I get a regular hamburger and a small fries.
At first you’ll feel hungry when you reduce how much you’re eating, but after a while your body adjusts and you’ll feel just as full eating small hamburger as when you ate the Big Mac.
It can be done. I’ve done it. BUT…
A lot depends on how overweight you are. If you’re just 15 pounds over your ideal weight, I don’t see any way you can lose that weight in two weeks. And frankly, you shouldn’t try to lose it that fast- it would probably be dangerous.
On the other hand, if you’re 40+ pounds overweight, you’d be surprised at how fast the first 10-15 pounds can come off if you eat a lot less and start exercising. AFTER that, however, the weight comes off a lot more slowly.
I will fourth the Atkins Diet, Munch. Get the book and read it. You are not guaranteed miracle weight loss, but I was down nine pounds in one week, and am down 23 pounds overall (I have hit a stall!).
Don’t think it works this way. They body doesn’t “tag” fat as gained fast or slow. It stores fat, plain and simple. If it has been stored for a month, or stored for an hour, fat is fat. The truth is that it is easier to put on weight than it is to take it off. One can easily consume 4000 calories in one day, yet depending on activity level, may eat nothing the next day and only burn off 2000. (granted the muscle and such will go first by eating nothing like that)
Lets see how much Theoretical weight one can lose by doing no activity and eating nothing. (not recommended, btw)
Say your BMR is 2000 calories. This is your calories your body needs to just maintain itself. Keep body temp up, maintenence, etc. So you eat nothing and burn that 2000 calories. In two weeks? well, 2000 X 14 is 28,000 calories, or 8 lbs. Your going to have to do some activity I am afraid. Like burn off nearly twice as much. Which is a butload of activity. A couple hours of running every day should suffice.
Now when a person loses weight in reality, it isn’t all fat or muscle. It is mostly water. So when a person claims that they didn’t exercise and lost 30lbs in one month, they are either lying or lost a whole stinking lot of water.
I lost 15 pounds in 3 days after having a REALLY unpleasant reaction to antibiotics…I know that’s not what you’re going for.
3-6 pounds a week is a relatively good goal to aim for.
Increase the fibre, cut down the fat, buy smaller bowls and plates and only have one serving, increase the fruit and veg, cut out sugar, no snacks,calorie counting, a Weight Watchers point system, Atkins.
Whatever.
Find something you can do for the rest of your life. Kooky yo-yo diets are not the way to go, you need a PERMANENT lifestyle change.
My mother dropped 4 dress sizes in 2 years (Uk 14/16 down to Uk 8/10), lost 40 pounds, and is fitter than I am (her BP is110/70, resting heart rate 49).
She swims a mile twice a week, lifts weights and goes to 2 classes (pilates and spinning) weekly, and plays golf at weekends.
All on 1200 calories per day of whatever she fancies (weight watcher style plan, she decreased the calorie intake gradually to maintain steady weight-loss).
She’s 50-something, a busy mother and part-time worker.
Go for it Munch!
You can do it!
I can do it!
Of course, it’s gonna cost me. I just coughed up some cash yesterday and joined my grad school’s gym. Pretty good deal (cheaper than the Y), but certainly a hit on my wallet. It’s the registration fee that kills ya.
But, they throw me in some sort of contraption called “The Bod Pod” on Saturday, and tell me how fat I am. Then they’ll tell me how to not be fat, and what I need to do to shake the fat.
Now I have to buy some tennis shoes and workout shorts. And hopefully some new pants in a couple months.
The only way you’ll lose 15 lbs of weight (not water) in two weeks is by cutting off parts of your body. I’ve been doing Weight Watchers since the end of February and I’ve lost 35 lbs. This is eating way less than I’m used to, and going to the gym 5 times a week.
I lost about 8 pounds in two weeks recently during a particularly unpleasant bout of canker sores (right after my post in one of the “how I avoid canker sores” topics, ironically).
It was from not eating much – I was probably down to about 400 or 600 or so calories a day instead of my proper 2300. At the end of the two weeks, I was 12 pounds down but 4 pounds came back quickly, so that was most likely water loss. I am still working on regaining the remaining 8 (I am not overweight, and my impression so far has been that most of the lost weight was muscle, which sucks) - it has been about a month now and the 8 pounds are still missing. 
Running the 3500-calories-per-pound calculations show I was taking in around 400 calories a day rather than 600. Oh well. Considering how little I was eating which resulted in the 8 pound loss, I think a 15 pound loss in two weeks could only be accomplished through the combination of not eating anything and massive fluid loss – i.e., some awful illness.
I believe the exact opposite is true. What you are eating is the most important factor- excercise, while important, is secondary.
In my case, I have gone down 4 sizes because I’ve changed the way I eat. I have not set foot in the gym for over a year, and have not been taking my walks or working out at home. I am not deprived, nor am I starving. I may have taken a few days to get used to eating differently, but that’s all it was- a few days.
Obviously you cannot add or tone muscle without weight bearing excercise. But to say that what you eat is not #1 seems incorrect to me.
Of course, YMMV.
Gypsie curse.