Iron Game
Veteran
Rapid Fat Loss Superior To Gradual Slow Approach
By Lyle McDonald
A question worth examining is whether or not it’s better to go into a gradual, slow approach to weight loss, making small changes to habits or to just jump in feet first and go for rapid weight loss. Psychologically, many people are inherently drawn to faster programs because they get the weight off sooner. It’s just human nature, people always want more faster now. But is faster better or worse than a slower approach to weight loss?
It’s taken almost as a matter of faith in the fitness world that slower rates of weight loss are superior to faster rates, that diets generating faster weight loss always cause faster rates of regain and poorer long-term results. As I’ll mention below, there is certainly some data to support that.
It’s also often suggested that dieters set more moderate weight loss goals (e.g. lose ten pounds vs. 40 pounds) compared to larger ones; this is based on the idea that smaller goals are more realistic and more likely to succeed.
But just because something is a long-standing dogma doesn't make it true. And if it were as simple as slower is always better, I wouldn't be bothering to write this article.
Fast vs. Slow Initial Weight Loss
It might come as a shock to many readers, who have only ever seen the standard dogma, that a fair amount of data actually shows that a faster/greater initial weight loss is often associated with better long-term maintenance. Yup, that’s right, better weight maintenance. Not worse.
In a 2000 review titled “Lessons from obesity management: greater initial weigh loss improves long-term maintenance.” (1) along with a more recent review (2), it’s actually pointed out that a good deal of research has found that more rapid initial weight loss actually shows better long-term weight maintenance.
Quoting from reference 1 (pg. 17):
However, against this notion speaks numerous post hoc analyses of weight loss intervention studies showing that a greater initial weight loss, usually achieved in the first 2-4 weeks of treatment, is associated with a better long-term outcome, i.e. a sustained weight loss 1-5 years later.
As one example, Astrup (3) showed that the group of dieters who had lost the most weight at week 36 (17.7 kg vs. 9.8kg) had maintained more weight loss 2-5 years later (they were still down 7.1 kg vs. a 2.8 kg weight GAIN). Other research supports that conclusion as well; that is, in many studies, a faster rate and greater amount of weight loss is predictive of better long-term weight maintenance rather than worse.
What's Going On?
Now, analyzing studies after the fact can be a problem, it’s easy to confuse correlation with causation. For example, it’s well established that some people lose weight more easily than others due to differences in biology, hormones such as thyroid, leptin and others, etc. Perhaps the folks who lose weight the most readily early on are the ones who are biologically more likely to keep it off in the long-term.
For this reason it’s crucial that controlled studies, where the rate of weight loss is manipulated be performed. Not a lot of work has been done in this area but what work has been done is certainly supportive of the idea.
In one study, subjects were placed on either a very low calorie diet or a conventional diet so that they would lose the same amount of weight over different times frames (8 vs. 17 weeks). Both groups lost 13.6 kg but, of course, the rate of weight loss was double in the very low energy group. Weight loss maintenance was higher by 2.4 kg at one year and 3 kg at two years although this wasn’t statistically significant (4).
Even if the long-term results weren’t any better, to quote again from the review (1): “At least this study does not support that a rapid weight loss influences long-term outcome adversely.”
Now, a problem with many dieting studies is that the often use multi-factorial approaches to weight loss and this can make it difficult to isolate out what’s doing what. For example, some studies will examine diet with behavioral therapy or exercise, or diet with or without diet drugs, or some combination of all of those. Figuring out what’s driving what can be difficult. Maybe it was the diet, maybe it was the drugs, maybe it was the behavioral intervention, maybe it was the combination of everything tested.
And this in part explains some of the research showing a worse effect from very low calorie rapid weight loss approaches; many of them contain exactly zero nutritional re-education as they are based around protein powder and pre-mixed type diets. They may generate stunningly fast weight loss but they don’t do anything to help with long-term maintenance. No change in food habits, nothing.
I will be the first to admit that just measuring out powders makes it extremely easy to control food intake….The problem in my mind is that, while this approach to dieting generates amazing weight/fat loss in the short term, it does nothing to teach or retrain overall eating habits in the longer term.
It’s also beneficial if aspects such as increased physical activity are included. As I’ve discussed in many of my books, and once again going against the dogma on the topic: at realistic levels, exercise actually has at most a small impact on total weight loss (although proper exercise spares lean mass loss and increases fat loss as a result). However, it’s absolutely critical for long-term weight maintenance. Any diet or training program that doesn’t set the person up with tools for long-term maintenance is a bad one, simple as that.
Is Faster Always Better?
As much as the research may support them, in the real-world rapid weight loss plans are absolutely not appropriate for everyone. The main exception are folks who have shown a pattern of on-again/off-again or binge type eating; they invariably tend to have poor success with extreme diets. While they may do stunningly on the diet but they won’t move to maintenance well (or at all) and will end up flip-flopping between two extremes.
But for many individuals, given the information discussed above, it’s becoming clear from the research that rapid weight loss plans, as long as they include certain factors such as nutritional re-education, exercise, etc. may be superior to more moderate approaches.
By Lyle McDonald
A question worth examining is whether or not it’s better to go into a gradual, slow approach to weight loss, making small changes to habits or to just jump in feet first and go for rapid weight loss. Psychologically, many people are inherently drawn to faster programs because they get the weight off sooner. It’s just human nature, people always want more faster now. But is faster better or worse than a slower approach to weight loss?
It’s taken almost as a matter of faith in the fitness world that slower rates of weight loss are superior to faster rates, that diets generating faster weight loss always cause faster rates of regain and poorer long-term results. As I’ll mention below, there is certainly some data to support that.
It’s also often suggested that dieters set more moderate weight loss goals (e.g. lose ten pounds vs. 40 pounds) compared to larger ones; this is based on the idea that smaller goals are more realistic and more likely to succeed.
But just because something is a long-standing dogma doesn't make it true. And if it were as simple as slower is always better, I wouldn't be bothering to write this article.
Fast vs. Slow Initial Weight Loss
It might come as a shock to many readers, who have only ever seen the standard dogma, that a fair amount of data actually shows that a faster/greater initial weight loss is often associated with better long-term maintenance. Yup, that’s right, better weight maintenance. Not worse.
In a 2000 review titled “Lessons from obesity management: greater initial weigh loss improves long-term maintenance.” (1) along with a more recent review (2), it’s actually pointed out that a good deal of research has found that more rapid initial weight loss actually shows better long-term weight maintenance.
Quoting from reference 1 (pg. 17):
However, against this notion speaks numerous post hoc analyses of weight loss intervention studies showing that a greater initial weight loss, usually achieved in the first 2-4 weeks of treatment, is associated with a better long-term outcome, i.e. a sustained weight loss 1-5 years later.
As one example, Astrup (3) showed that the group of dieters who had lost the most weight at week 36 (17.7 kg vs. 9.8kg) had maintained more weight loss 2-5 years later (they were still down 7.1 kg vs. a 2.8 kg weight GAIN). Other research supports that conclusion as well; that is, in many studies, a faster rate and greater amount of weight loss is predictive of better long-term weight maintenance rather than worse.
What's Going On?
Now, analyzing studies after the fact can be a problem, it’s easy to confuse correlation with causation. For example, it’s well established that some people lose weight more easily than others due to differences in biology, hormones such as thyroid, leptin and others, etc. Perhaps the folks who lose weight the most readily early on are the ones who are biologically more likely to keep it off in the long-term.
For this reason it’s crucial that controlled studies, where the rate of weight loss is manipulated be performed. Not a lot of work has been done in this area but what work has been done is certainly supportive of the idea.
In one study, subjects were placed on either a very low calorie diet or a conventional diet so that they would lose the same amount of weight over different times frames (8 vs. 17 weeks). Both groups lost 13.6 kg but, of course, the rate of weight loss was double in the very low energy group. Weight loss maintenance was higher by 2.4 kg at one year and 3 kg at two years although this wasn’t statistically significant (4).
Even if the long-term results weren’t any better, to quote again from the review (1): “At least this study does not support that a rapid weight loss influences long-term outcome adversely.”
Now, a problem with many dieting studies is that the often use multi-factorial approaches to weight loss and this can make it difficult to isolate out what’s doing what. For example, some studies will examine diet with behavioral therapy or exercise, or diet with or without diet drugs, or some combination of all of those. Figuring out what’s driving what can be difficult. Maybe it was the diet, maybe it was the drugs, maybe it was the behavioral intervention, maybe it was the combination of everything tested.
And this in part explains some of the research showing a worse effect from very low calorie rapid weight loss approaches; many of them contain exactly zero nutritional re-education as they are based around protein powder and pre-mixed type diets. They may generate stunningly fast weight loss but they don’t do anything to help with long-term maintenance. No change in food habits, nothing.
I will be the first to admit that just measuring out powders makes it extremely easy to control food intake….The problem in my mind is that, while this approach to dieting generates amazing weight/fat loss in the short term, it does nothing to teach or retrain overall eating habits in the longer term.
It’s also beneficial if aspects such as increased physical activity are included. As I’ve discussed in many of my books, and once again going against the dogma on the topic: at realistic levels, exercise actually has at most a small impact on total weight loss (although proper exercise spares lean mass loss and increases fat loss as a result). However, it’s absolutely critical for long-term weight maintenance. Any diet or training program that doesn’t set the person up with tools for long-term maintenance is a bad one, simple as that.
Is Faster Always Better?
As much as the research may support them, in the real-world rapid weight loss plans are absolutely not appropriate for everyone. The main exception are folks who have shown a pattern of on-again/off-again or binge type eating; they invariably tend to have poor success with extreme diets. While they may do stunningly on the diet but they won’t move to maintenance well (or at all) and will end up flip-flopping between two extremes.
But for many individuals, given the information discussed above, it’s becoming clear from the research that rapid weight loss plans, as long as they include certain factors such as nutritional re-education, exercise, etc. may be superior to more moderate approaches.
