What is the absolute fastest fat loss regimen?
May 14, 2011 9:56 AM Subscribe
What is the fastest way to lose fat? I am looking for the probably impractical ways that are too hard for most people to stick to. I imagine eating nothing and exercising a lot is even slower fat loss than eating 500 calories a day. So what would an optimal (fastest) fat loss regimen look like? (purely to satisfy my curiosity, not for practical or real use)
Response by poster: I don't want to drop fat like crazy. I don't even want to drop fat. I'm just curious of what the nearest optimal fat loss methods for humans are.
posted by crawltopslow at 10:04 AM on May 14, 2011
posted by crawltopslow at 10:04 AM on May 14, 2011
I'm just curious of what the nearest optimal fat loss methods for humans are
Define optimal. Are you equating optimal with humanly possible? Because the absolute most optimal way of losing fat is to have it excised from your body.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:48 AM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Define optimal. Are you equating optimal with humanly possible? Because the absolute most optimal way of losing fat is to have it excised from your body.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:48 AM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Liposuction.
On the diet and exercise front, however, it is simply this: eat less, exercise more. All calories not consumed below your maintenance level will burn fat; all exercise that burns calories beyond your daily caloric intake burn fat. Higher exercise rates may increase you metabolic rate, which will help the process. Beyond that, all schemes are just schemes; the physics of it is not changed, and you're going to burn off a pound of fat for every 3500 calories consumed below the calories used. So, your extreme example of eating nothing and exercising a lot is the theoretical limit.
posted by beagle at 10:48 AM on May 14, 2011
On the diet and exercise front, however, it is simply this: eat less, exercise more. All calories not consumed below your maintenance level will burn fat; all exercise that burns calories beyond your daily caloric intake burn fat. Higher exercise rates may increase you metabolic rate, which will help the process. Beyond that, all schemes are just schemes; the physics of it is not changed, and you're going to burn off a pound of fat for every 3500 calories consumed below the calories used. So, your extreme example of eating nothing and exercising a lot is the theoretical limit.
posted by beagle at 10:48 AM on May 14, 2011
I thought metabolism played a part? Or am I just a victim of advertising... Somehow I have the nebulous and not-researched idea that if you don't eat enough your metabolism slows and the x calories = x weight loss thing breaks down..
posted by nile_red at 11:04 AM on May 14, 2011
posted by nile_red at 11:04 AM on May 14, 2011
All the research I've read has found that reucing calories far below your needed caloric intake will cause you to mostly lose muscle. And will lower metobolism. The net result is that you might lose some amount of weight will on the restrictive diet but then when you return to eating the same diet you were on before you have less muscle and less metobolism meaning that our weight sky rockets far above what your weight was BEFORE you went on the restricted diet. Meaning you start at 150 you loose ten punds and get to 140, you revert back to normal diet and you shoot up to 160 over the next year.
You do the restrictive diet again and get down to 150 and then you shoot up to 170 after. The basic point is quite honestly you would be better off just maintaining your same weight wieight than do a ridiculously low restrictive diet. If you restrict your colories below your needs then you will be missing needed fiber, essential fats, nutrients, vitamins and minerals and amino acids. Your system will decline in health and you will be more likely to develop metabolic and hormonal disorders that can lead to hypoglycemia, addiction, obesity, epigenetic changes, diabetis, cholesterol problems, mood disorders, the list goes on and on.
You would be better off to focus not on reducing calories but maximizing nutrient dense foods, including healthy amounts of fiber, complete protein/amino acids, vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids etc and increase your exercise to build muscle. You will net lose unnecessary body fat and have over all better health. Another thing to consider is that eating fat and salt and sugar does more to releave stress than just about anything else. If you can make sure you're in a healthy nurturing environment and have supportive friends and relaxing enriching activites your system won't need to store extra body fat and keep sodium levels high to protect you from the stress you keep being subjected to.
You can tell your body it doesn't need extra fat or salt or sugar all you want, if your environment dictates the extra fat is needed, your body will know better than you and will find a way to make sure you get it.
posted by xarnop at 11:29 AM on May 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
You do the restrictive diet again and get down to 150 and then you shoot up to 170 after. The basic point is quite honestly you would be better off just maintaining your same weight wieight than do a ridiculously low restrictive diet. If you restrict your colories below your needs then you will be missing needed fiber, essential fats, nutrients, vitamins and minerals and amino acids. Your system will decline in health and you will be more likely to develop metabolic and hormonal disorders that can lead to hypoglycemia, addiction, obesity, epigenetic changes, diabetis, cholesterol problems, mood disorders, the list goes on and on.
You would be better off to focus not on reducing calories but maximizing nutrient dense foods, including healthy amounts of fiber, complete protein/amino acids, vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids etc and increase your exercise to build muscle. You will net lose unnecessary body fat and have over all better health. Another thing to consider is that eating fat and salt and sugar does more to releave stress than just about anything else. If you can make sure you're in a healthy nurturing environment and have supportive friends and relaxing enriching activites your system won't need to store extra body fat and keep sodium levels high to protect you from the stress you keep being subjected to.
You can tell your body it doesn't need extra fat or salt or sugar all you want, if your environment dictates the extra fat is needed, your body will know better than you and will find a way to make sure you get it.
posted by xarnop at 11:29 AM on May 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
Right -- I've been working out all year (ok -- on and off, but more than I have since high school 20 years ago)...and I've found that the more I exercise, the more I need energy (food). So I eat somewhat more during weeks when I'm exercising a lot (non-religious p90x workouts, treadmill at the gym, and running outside like a common squirrel). I've been in a lull the last 10 days because of crazy work deadlines, but generally, I've lost about 5 pounds since January. Frustrating. I can stand to lose an additional 15. I am, however, in better cardiovascular shape, and I am definitely stronger.
Back to what the OP was asking -- where on the graph is the best place to shoot for, in terms of reducing calories and increasing exercise? Not enough calories and you won't have the energy to complete those heavy workouts. Too much and you won't lose any weight.
posted by Buffaload at 11:52 AM on May 14, 2011
Back to what the OP was asking -- where on the graph is the best place to shoot for, in terms of reducing calories and increasing exercise? Not enough calories and you won't have the energy to complete those heavy workouts. Too much and you won't lose any weight.
posted by Buffaload at 11:52 AM on May 14, 2011
After explaining in layperson’s terms the science that debunks the idea that weight control is a matter of burning more calories than one consumes...Taubes
posted by larry_darrell at 11:54 AM on May 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by larry_darrell at 11:54 AM on May 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
low calorie ketogenic diet with ample protein and some weights - heavy weights and compound movements.
On a ketogenic diet the body draws energy directly from fat stores as opposed to the ingested carbs (in the form of glucose) floating around your bloodstream. Protein and weights will help maintain muscle and thus keep the metabolic rate up. There's also been some studies that show that weightlifting causes slight hormonal change that aid fat loss (can't remember offhand though).
posted by Xianny at 12:38 PM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
On a ketogenic diet the body draws energy directly from fat stores as opposed to the ingested carbs (in the form of glucose) floating around your bloodstream. Protein and weights will help maintain muscle and thus keep the metabolic rate up. There's also been some studies that show that weightlifting causes slight hormonal change that aid fat loss (can't remember offhand though).
posted by Xianny at 12:38 PM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: The protein sparing modified fast is designed to maintain lean body mass and burn fat as rapidly as possible, especially in obese, sedentary patients. It recommends 1.2-1.5g protein per kg of body weight, or about 5 calories per kg, which is pretty crazy low.
posted by ecmendenhall at 12:46 PM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by ecmendenhall at 12:46 PM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Seconding PSMF, which I'm on right now. Lyle McDonald has a good e-book out. He suggests a 2 week jump-start into a more sane calorie restricted diet.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:51 PM on May 14, 2011
posted by leotrotsky at 12:51 PM on May 14, 2011
Look up Protein Sparing Modified Fasts. There's no "best crash diet" but if you must go on one, a PSMF is your best bet. Lyle McDonald's "Rapid Fat Loss Handbook" at BodyRecomposition.com is one of the "better" ones in that vein.
posted by Anonymous at 1:54 PM on May 14, 2011
posted by Anonymous at 1:54 PM on May 14, 2011
Semi starvation and enforced exercise, probably. Not good for the body or brain, but periods of semi-starvation is why fat exists.
I think it's fairly questionable whether there's compelling evidence as yet that restricting carbohydrate calories actually results in more rapid loss of fat than restricting calories from other sources. There is evidence that a high protein, low glycemic index oriented diet is most effective for maintaining weight loss, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the most efficient for losing fat, it might be that it is simply easier to maintain satiety on that type of diet and therefore adhere to those restrictions. Or it might well be some basic truth about how metabolism works. For most people of course the distinction is academic.
I personally think Taubes and many others like him are making assertions about the benefits of restricting carbohydrates far past good scientific evidence and there are plenty of nutritional scientists that agree with me but of course part of Taubes' whole schtick is how the mainstream has gotten everything wrong. As the MN experiment noted above shows it is perfectly possible to lose substantial weight on an almost exclusively carbohydrate centered, heavily calorie restricted diet, as long as you don't mind a bit of edema and psychosis.
posted by nanojath at 2:04 PM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think it's fairly questionable whether there's compelling evidence as yet that restricting carbohydrate calories actually results in more rapid loss of fat than restricting calories from other sources. There is evidence that a high protein, low glycemic index oriented diet is most effective for maintaining weight loss, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the most efficient for losing fat, it might be that it is simply easier to maintain satiety on that type of diet and therefore adhere to those restrictions. Or it might well be some basic truth about how metabolism works. For most people of course the distinction is academic.
I personally think Taubes and many others like him are making assertions about the benefits of restricting carbohydrates far past good scientific evidence and there are plenty of nutritional scientists that agree with me but of course part of Taubes' whole schtick is how the mainstream has gotten everything wrong. As the MN experiment noted above shows it is perfectly possible to lose substantial weight on an almost exclusively carbohydrate centered, heavily calorie restricted diet, as long as you don't mind a bit of edema and psychosis.
posted by nanojath at 2:04 PM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
For fastest fat loss possible, at least in the short term, I'd n-th PSMFs.
For fastest fat loss long-term, probably a meal plan centered around fatty meat dishes (including organ meats) with ample vegetable side dishes, and no calories consumed by drinking.
posted by Earl the Polliwog at 2:34 PM on May 14, 2011
For fastest fat loss long-term, probably a meal plan centered around fatty meat dishes (including organ meats) with ample vegetable side dishes, and no calories consumed by drinking.
posted by Earl the Polliwog at 2:34 PM on May 14, 2011
The Five Principles of Radical Fat Loss by John Romaniello covers all the big topics and it's built aroun the idea that - all facets of the program must be geared toward fat loss.
posted by P.o.B. at 2:47 PM on May 14, 2011
posted by P.o.B. at 2:47 PM on May 14, 2011
I lost 20 pounds in about 3 weeks on a liquid fast--only strained broths and juices.
After the first couple days I wasn't even hungry, my stomach just turned itself off.
I did not do it to lose weight (more just to see if I could, and what it was like), but I did end up gaining all of it back, although it took a while.
posted by zachawry at 3:32 PM on May 14, 2011
After the first couple days I wasn't even hungry, my stomach just turned itself off.
I did not do it to lose weight (more just to see if I could, and what it was like), but I did end up gaining all of it back, although it took a while.
posted by zachawry at 3:32 PM on May 14, 2011
Best answer: If you're qualifying this question with words like "absolute fastest" and "impractical" then I'd imagine that being incinerated in a fire would be faster than liposuction or any dietary weight loss regimen. You'll lose fat but you'll also lose muscle, and if you keep it up, bone. This is very dangerous. IANYD.
posted by Jeff Howard at 3:51 PM on May 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by Jeff Howard at 3:51 PM on May 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
All I can offer is a very nonscientific method that works for me: healthy, non-processed food and no sugar product or substitute of any kind. Usually boils down to nothing packaged. I consistently lose about 10lbs of fat in a couple weeks (9% of my body weight). YMMV but even eating hamburgers, avocados, nuts, whatever and it still drops off. I'm not losing muscle because my caloric intake stays steady. (I think sugar free or fat free or reduced calorie is bullshit. Natural natural natural.)
So this plus reducing caloric intake should be a recipe for quick success.
posted by crankyrogalsky at 3:52 PM on May 14, 2011
So this plus reducing caloric intake should be a recipe for quick success.
posted by crankyrogalsky at 3:52 PM on May 14, 2011
I lost 55 pounds in 2.5 months by eating 2000 calories a day spread out over 6 meals a walking for hours.
How to eat 2000 calories a day and exercise that much? Learn what kind of fats, carbs and proteins you should be eating. Lots of veggies, almost no bread or rice(well on weekends I had a meal with whatever I liked).
It was simple once I learned that losing/gaining weight is a simple plus or minus effort. Also not overdoing impact heavy exercise allowed me to exercise everyday without needing recovery period.
posted by tarvuz at 1:31 AM on May 15, 2011
How to eat 2000 calories a day and exercise that much? Learn what kind of fats, carbs and proteins you should be eating. Lots of veggies, almost no bread or rice(well on weekends I had a meal with whatever I liked).
It was simple once I learned that losing/gaining weight is a simple plus or minus effort. Also not overdoing impact heavy exercise allowed me to exercise everyday without needing recovery period.
posted by tarvuz at 1:31 AM on May 15, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by katypickle at 10:03 AM on May 14, 2011 [1 favorite]