Lose Weight Slowly

Why do people say you should lose weight slowly. What is the scientific
data, medical research and other criteria that support this theory.

On Apr 23, 9:17 am, "2Phat" wrote:
Why do people say you should lose weight slowly. What is the scientific
data, medical research and other criteria that support this theory.

I will give me thought. This is not based in science, but observation.

People who lose a lot of weight fast tend to do so by making changes
that are not sustainable in the long term. So, they lose, go back to
old habits, and gain the weight back very quickly. I just saw, on TLC
last night, inside the Brookhaven Clinic, the story of Michael
Hebranko (sp?) The guy, back in the day, weighed over 1000 lbs. He
lost down to sub 200 with Richard Simmons. He is in the Guinness book
as the guy who lost the most the fastest. On a previous show, I saw
him talk about getting to goal. Then he went out and had a hot dog.
Which turned into 4 with cheese & chili. Which had to have gravy
fries, which turned into multiple orders. The guy hits goal, then
tacks on 50 lbs the next week. He's 580 now (so there is some
maintenance) but he was crying about the indignity of the ambulance
company's inability to find a solution to cart him from bed to
Brookhaven. They wanted him to slide down his steps on his butt. He
said no. So, they tried to wheel him down the steps in his wheel
chair. But the FIVE people couldn't handle him.

He's the sixth sigma out in every way. But, he lost fast, and he
gained fast. I've seen more than a few other people who did same on
the super morbid obese slow car crash shows on Discovery networks.
Starve hard, lose fast, gain with interest faster.

I'm sure there are metabolic explanations for this, that someone else
might offer (Roger, JBuch, Cubit?) but observation is enough for me.
You have to make permanent changes to make a permanent change. And the
things that make you lose real fast are things that most people cannot
do forever.

PS- Recall the aging and metabolic slowing issue. So, to maintain, you
have to make changes that you can scale down as you get older. If you
cut to 600 calories, can you do it forever? Can you scale down to 500
in 12 years? I don't think I can. If you can, more power to you.

See I'm thinking that regardless if you lose slow or fast, in the end it is
your decision to keep it off and change your habits.

With all my diet research, I have never come across any hard fact based
reason for a slow lose. However, everyone claims that is the way to go.
Why?


"Hollywood" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 23, 9:17 am, "2Phat" wrote:
Why do people say you should lose weight slowly. What is the scientific
data, medical research and other criteria that support this theory.

I will give me thought. This is not based in science, but observation.

People who lose a lot of weight fast tend to do so by making changes
that are not sustainable in the long term. So, they lose, go back to
old habits, and gain the weight back very quickly. I just saw, on TLC
last night, inside the Brookhaven Clinic, the story of Michael
Hebranko (sp?) The guy, back in the day, weighed over 1000 lbs. He
lost down to sub 200 with Richard Simmons. He is in the Guinness book
as the guy who lost the most the fastest. On a previous show, I saw
him talk about getting to goal. Then he went out and had a hot dog.
Which turned into 4 with cheese & chili. Which had to have gravy
fries, which turned into multiple orders. The guy hits goal, then
tacks on 50 lbs the next week. He's 580 now (so there is some
maintenance) but he was crying about the indignity of the ambulance
company's inability to find a solution to cart him from bed to
Brookhaven. They wanted him to slide down his steps on his butt. He
said no. So, they tried to wheel him down the steps in his wheel
chair. But the FIVE people couldn't handle him.

He's the sixth sigma out in every way. But, he lost fast, and he
gained fast. I've seen more than a few other people who did same on
the super morbid obese slow car crash shows on Discovery networks.
Starve hard, lose fast, gain with interest faster.

I'm sure there are metabolic explanations for this, that someone else
might offer (Roger, JBuch, Cubit?) but observation is enough for me.
You have to make permanent changes to make a permanent change. And the
things that make you lose real fast are things that most people cannot
do forever.

PS- Recall the aging and metabolic slowing issue. So, to maintain, you
have to make changes that you can scale down as you get older. If you
cut to 600 calories, can you do it forever? Can you scale down to 500
in 12 years? I don't think I can. If you can, more power to you.

2Phat" wrote in message
...
See I'm thinking that regardless if you lose slow or fast, in the end it
is your decision to keep it off and change your habits.

With all my diet research, I have never come across any hard fact based
reason for a slow lose. However, everyone claims that is the way to go.
Why?


"Hollywood" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 23, 9:17 am, "2Phat" wrote:
Why do people say you should lose weight slowly. What is the scientific
data, medical research and other criteria that support this theory.

I will give me thought. This is not based in science, but observation.

People who lose a lot of weight fast tend to do so by making changes
that are not sustainable in the long term. So, they lose, go back to
old habits, and gain the weight back very quickly. I just saw, on TLC
last night, inside the Brookhaven Clinic, the story of Michael
Hebranko (sp?) The guy, back in the day, weighed over 1000 lbs. He
lost down to sub 200 with Richard Simmons. He is in the Guinness book
as the guy who lost the most the fastest. On a previous show, I saw
him talk about getting to goal. Then he went out and had a hot dog.
Which turned into 4 with cheese & chili. Which had to have gravy
fries, which turned into multiple orders. The guy hits goal, then
tacks on 50 lbs the next week. He's 580 now (so there is some
maintenance) but he was crying about the indignity of the ambulance
company's inability to find a solution to cart him from bed to
Brookhaven. They wanted him to slide down his steps on his butt. He
said no. So, they tried to wheel him down the steps in his wheel
chair. But the FIVE people couldn't handle him.

He's the sixth sigma out in every way. But, he lost fast, and he
gained fast. I've seen more than a few other people who did same on
the super morbid obese slow car crash shows on Discovery networks.
Starve hard, lose fast, gain with interest faster.

I'm sure there are metabolic explanations for this, that someone else
might offer (Roger, JBuch, Cubit?) but observation is enough for me.
You have to make permanent changes to make a permanent change. And the
things that make you lose real fast are things that most people cannot
do forever.

PS- Recall the aging and metabolic slowing issue. So, to maintain, you
have to make changes that you can scale down as you get older. If you
cut to 600 calories, can you do it forever? Can you scale down to 500
in 12 years? I don't think I can. If you can, more power to you.



So they can feel superior and knowlegeable. And rub it in your face...and
also, a lot of the time, the people who needed to lose the weight were not
morbidly obese...at that level, you will lose a lot faster, even as a woman.
As you approach a more...normal overweight situation, the loss will slow
down anyways.

--
~Melodie~ Aka AnonomissX

2Phat wrote:
:: Why do people say you should lose weight slowly. What is the
:: scientific data, medical research and other criteria that support
:: this theory.

If you weigh a lot, you can easly lose weight quickly while you weigh a lot
if you do certain things. If you don't weigh a lot, it is very difficult to
lose weight quickly. That's one point. I think the science here is simple
to grasp.

If you weigh a lot, then most likely, in the beginning you'll drop pounds
fast if you really follow the plan. But eventually, your weight loss will
slow. Again, this is easy science.

I did that when I weighed 350+lbs in the early 90s and did a lot, and I mean
a lot, of exercise. Pounds just flew off. But I was doing something I
could not maintain.

Now, expecting science to provide you with complete answers is unwise,
because figuring this stuff out is very, very difficult. The best
information we have is based on experience of those who have loss lots of
weight and kept it off. Also, it is known that rapid weight loss, due to
very low calorie input (or excessive exercise), can result in loss of lean
body mass, not just in the muscles but also in organs, which would have dire
long-term consequences. Your body will feed upon itself if it needs to.

I think the most significant reason to not lose weight too fast is simply
because doing so requires drastic change in lifestyle. The science here is
quite fuzzy, IMO. People just aren't good at that over the long haul. We
"revert" back to habits we developed over years. Trying to change an
ingrained habit is very, very hard and we must train ourselves to do this.
In this regard, time is your friend because by constantly working at this
change, and hence, losing weight slowly, you are forcing new habits to
develop and truly become a part of you. I know that it is quite easy for
anyone to think "hey, i'm special, I really, really want to do this and
therefore I will succeed. " Well, I think, and I have seen this in myself,
that there are forces within that are really, really hard to overcome. We
all fall victim to our very nature. If you've ever in your life have been
really overweight, IMO, you'll always carry that overweight person within
you no matter what you weigh. That person can return.

I lost significant weight two times in my life. The first time was in the
early 90s when I used low fat and lots and lots of exercise. I lost weight
really fast. I got hurt. I got busy with life issues, and slowly but
surely I gained every damn pound back, with interest. The second time I lost
weight I did it on LC, with exercise. However, as I was older I could not
devote the same amount to time to it as I could before. Still, at the
beginning, the weight did come off quickly, up to 10 lbs a month, at first.
Nothing like the 25 lbs a month you report. This time, however, I had
better info and I eventually set targets of 5 lbs a month. Also, I had a
plan for maintenance. When you drop pounds slowly, you basically glide into
the maintenance. In other words, you reach a point where you are in state
of equilibrium with your weight and your eating, rather than fighting hard
and just stopping. For me now, it's still a struggle. I fully expect that
it always will be a struggle to maintain 140+ lbs of weight loss. I find
myself dieting almost all the time, really. Everyday, in fact. My basic
nature is that I like to eat. Since I'm diabetic, carbs don't work well for
me, so I've learned not to drop LC like a lot of people do. But I can still
attack a bag of almonds (or any nut) with a fury.

It is my personal belief that those who "actively" try to lose weigh fast
are not really committed to sustained, long-term weight loss.

Anyway, 2Phat, people do what ever the hell they want to do. You're here
asking why lose weight slowly, because you don't want to do that. Hence, you
look for data in a very-well-known-to-be fuzzy area, and find little. So you
say to yourself, "Hey, there's no basis for this theory." That allows you to
happily do what you want to do. Well, you certainly won't be the first
person to have done so.

There are several books out that attempt to report on the characteristic of
those who have maintained weight loss for long periods of time. You might
find your answers there.

My personal opinion is that folks reccomend slow loss as opposed to fast
loss is because most folks, if they make small changes daily, then a person
may be more apt to stick with it. Alot of folks don't do well with a huge
change in their diets/exercise. Also it's less of a shock for the metabolic
system in general. I think when it gets right down to it, a person has to
know what will benefit them on a personal basis the most. If hitting the
solution hard and fast will meet your need and not harm you overall then by
all means, that's the way to go. But if you're the kind of person who needs
to put change into place slowly then that's the way they should go. Both
ways will get a person to their end result if they stick with it. Some will
just get there quicker is all:-)

Like me, I choose to do the gastric by-pass route because at age 52 I'd
tried everything else and nothing worked past losing the initial 20 lbs or
so. I was still into the dense carb thinking though, was still eating
breads, potatoes etc.....thinking I was making healthy choices. When I hit
350 lbs, I knew it was time to take drastic action. Losing it fast and
really learning what my body needs as fuel, that's been a much better way
for me personally to go. It ain't for everyone. But it's worked for me.
I'm down to 185 as of yesterday, almost to my goal. It's been 14 months
since the surgery so I'm doing pretty good. You need to figure out what
your body really needs to lose weight and feel healthy, based on your recent
posts, I'm not sure that I think you really know how to meet that need yet.
What works for me now would have worked for me prior to having the surgery
but I didn't realize it before getting all the processed carbs out of my
system. I take in about 900-1100 calories a day now. I'm not very active,
working a desk job now.........and I have fibromyalgia on top of everything
else so there's not much ability to weight train or walk for long periods of
time. So I just boost my active level thoughout the day by walking further,
walking purposely during my work day, going places just to be able to walk
like thrift stores and parks..........but like for 15 minutes at a time.
When I'm able I also so work out for an hour at a local gym in a heated
pool. That helps with my fibro too. Doesn't do alot for weightloss though.
My food choices are simple, a protein shake for breakfast with a piece of
honeydew melon or some other fruit that is low glycemic........lunch is 4 oz
of protien be it meat, chicken, fish, etc. I have a portion of natural
veggie with that.......steamed cauilflower maybe or sliced up steam
zuchinni, something simple.........another piece of fruit in the afternoon
for a snack......then same thing for dinner with a high protein snack near
bedtime. It meets my body's needs. My labs are always all good and I do
feel better overall. I also take centrum silver, extra Vit C, MSM, Omego
3/6/9, magnesium 2400 mgs a day, Vit B complex, Vit D, and some other meds
for my fibromyalgia symptoms. It took me YEARS to come up with a system
that does what I need it to do for me though, you gotta find what works for
you. Good luck with that:-) It will probably be the hardest thing you'll
ever do for yourself? But man, the payoff is feeling like living your life
each day instead of life just passing you by:-) At least that's how I felt
when I was at my heaviest.

Carol j



2Phat wrote:
See I'm thinking that regardless if you lose slow or fast, in the end
it is your decision to keep it off and change your habits.

With all my diet research, I have never come across any hard fact
based reason for a slow lose. However, everyone claims that is the
way to go. Why?


"Hollywood" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 23, 9:17 am, "2Phat" wrote:
Why do people say you should lose weight slowly. What is the
scientific data, medical research and other criteria that support
this theory.

I will give me thought. This is not based in science, but
observation.

People who lose a lot of weight fast tend to do so by making changes
that are not sustainable in the long term. So, they lose, go back to
old habits, and gain the weight back very quickly. I just saw, on TLC
last night, inside the Brookhaven Clinic, the story of Michael
Hebranko (sp?) The guy, back in the day, weighed over 1000 lbs. He
lost down to sub 200 with Richard Simmons. He is in the Guinness book
as the guy who lost the most the fastest. On a previous show, I saw
him talk about getting to goal. Then he went out and had a hot dog.
Which turned into 4 with cheese & chili. Which had to have gravy
fries, which turned into multiple orders. The guy hits goal, then
tacks on 50 lbs the next week. He's 580 now (so there is some
maintenance) but he was crying about the indignity of the ambulance
company's inability to find a solution to cart him from bed to
Brookhaven. They wanted him to slide down his steps on his butt. He
said no. So, they tried to wheel him down the steps in his wheel
chair. But the FIVE people couldn't handle him.

He's the sixth sigma out in every way. But, he lost fast, and he
gained fast. I've seen more than a few other people who did same on
the super morbid obese slow car crash shows on Discovery networks.
Starve hard, lose fast, gain with interest faster.

I'm sure there are metabolic explanations for this, that someone else
might offer (Roger, JBuch, Cubit?) but observation is enough for me.
You have to make permanent changes to make a permanent change. And
the things that make you lose real fast are things that most people
cannot do forever.

PS- Recall the aging and metabolic slowing issue. So, to maintain,
you have to make changes that you can scale down as you get older.
If you cut to 600 calories, can you do it forever? Can you scale
down to 500 in 12 years? I don't think I can. If you can, more power
to you.

Roger:

Stop trying to read me because as usually you are wrong about why I'm
asking. I'm asking for conversation, debate, opinions and data, hence the
starting of a thread.

And yes I will do what I want to do, as most humans, thinking people,
eventually do.

Opinions are always welcome, trying to figure my motives out, you will fail
each and every time.


"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Anyway, 2Phat, people do what ever the hell they want to do. You're here
asking why lose weight slowly, because you don't want to do that. Hence,
you look for data in a very-well-known-to-be fuzzy area, and find little.
So you say to yourself, "Hey, there's no basis for this theory." That
allows you to happily do what you want to do. Well, you certainly won't be
the first person to have done so.

Carol J wrote:
:: My personal opinion is that folks reccomend slow loss as opposed to
:: fast loss is because most folks, if they make small changes daily,
:: then a person may be more apt to stick with it. Alot of folks don't
:: do well with a huge change in their diets/exercise. Also it's less
:: of a shock for the metabolic system in general. I think when it
:: gets right down to it, a person has to know what will benefit them
:: on a personal basis the most. If hitting the solution hard and fast
:: will meet your need and not harm you overall then by all means,
:: that's the way to go. But if you're the kind of person who needs to
:: put change into place slowly then that's the way they should go.
:: Both ways will get a person to their end result if they stick with
:: it. Some will just get there quicker is all:-)

That sounds really nice. However, one can never know "how" they really are
until they've reached the other side. "Hitting the solution hard and fast"
has little meaning until you've accomplished the goal long erm, because,
again, you're dealing with deeply ingrained habits and forces that are hard
to overcome. I don't think it's quite the same thing as tackling a big
project at work or building a new deck on your house!!!!

::
:: Like me, I choose to do the gastric by-pass route because at age 52
:: I'd tried everything else and nothing worked past losing the initial
:: 20 lbs or so. I was still into the dense carb thinking though, was
:: still eating breads, potatoes etc.....thinking I was making healthy
:: choices. When I hit 350 lbs, I knew it was time to take drastic
:: action. Losing it fast and really learning what my body needs as
:: fuel, that's been a much better way for me personally to go. It
:: ain't for everyone. But it's worked for me. I'm down to 185 as of
:: yesterday, almost to my goal. It's been 14 months since the surgery
:: so I'm doing pretty good. You need to figure out what your body
:: really needs to lose weight and feel healthy, based on your recent
:: posts, I'm not sure that I think you really know how to meet that
:: need yet. What works for me now would have worked for me prior to
:: having the surgery but I didn't realize it before getting all the
:: processed carbs out of my system. I take in about 900-1100 calories
:: a day now. I'm not very active, working a desk job now.........and
:: I have fibromyalgia on top of everything else so there's not much
:: ability to weight train or walk for long periods of time. So I just
:: boost my active level thoughout the day by walking further, walking
:: purposely during my work day, going places just to be able to walk
:: like thrift stores and parks..........but like for 15 minutes at a
:: time. When I'm able I also so work out for an hour at a local gym in
:: a heated pool. That helps with my fibro too. Doesn't do alot for
:: weightloss though. My food choices are simple, a protein shake for
:: breakfast with a piece of honeydew melon or some other fruit that is
:: low glycemic........lunch is 4 oz of protien be it meat, chicken,
:: fish, etc. I have a portion of natural veggie with
:: that.......steamed cauilflower maybe or sliced up steam zuchinni,
:: something simple.........another piece of fruit in the afternoon for
:: a snack......then same thing for dinner with a high protein snack
:: near bedtime. It meets my body's needs. My labs are always all
:: good and I do feel better overall. I also take centrum silver,
:: extra Vit C, MSM, Omego 3/6/9, magnesium 2400 mgs a day, Vit B
:: complex, Vit D, and some other meds for my fibromyalgia symptoms.
:: It took me YEARS to come up with a system that does what I need it
:: to do for me though, you gotta find what works for you. Good luck
:: with that:-) It will probably be the hardest thing you'll ever do
:: for yourself? But man, the payoff is feeling like living your life
:: each day instead of life just passing you by:-) At least that's how
:: I felt when I was at my heaviest.

I'm glad everything has worked out for you, Carol!

2Phat wrote:
:: Roger:
::
:: Stop trying to read me because as usually you are wrong about why I'm
:: asking. I'm asking for conversation, debate, opinions and data,
:: hence the starting of a thread.

Get over yourself. Perhaps if you admitted to yourself what's in your head
to could get on with it. Your entire posting history of late says what in
your head. Why don't you read your own posts.

::
:: And yes I will do what I want to do, as most humans, thinking people,
:: eventually do.
::

haha....

:: Opinions are always welcome, trying to figure my motives out, you
:: will fail each and every time.
::

Keep in mind that this is usenet.

::
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: Anyway, 2Phat, people do what ever the hell they want to do. You're
::: here asking why lose weight slowly, because you don't want to do
::: that. Hence, you look for data in a very-well-known-to-be fuzzy
::: area, and find little. So you say to yourself, "Hey, there's no
::: basis for this theory." That allows you to happily do what you want
::: to do. Well, you certainly won't be the first person to have done
::: so.

Carol:

This has nothing to do with HCG or Kimkins. It's just a general
question/opinion/debate/data because so much of what you hear always say
'lose weight slowly' and I decided to pose the question why? As I've never
seen any data to support the statement. SO I pose to the group to come up
with any data to support the overused statement and in the process dialogue
to have a conversation would be started.

And yes I'm very much sure I am a low carber for life, and I see what I was
doing wrong. I was doing my dieting on maintenance vs. on the diet phase of
low carb because that is what I was use to. So that is over and done with
and I've moved on.


"Carol J" wrote in message
. ..
My personal opinion is that folks reccomend slow loss as opposed to fast
loss is because most folks, if they make small changes daily, then a
person
may be more apt to stick with it. Alot of folks don't do well with a
huge
change in their diets/exercise. Also it's less of a shock for the
metabolic
system in general. I think when it gets right down to it, a person has to
know what will benefit them on a personal basis the most. If hitting the
solution hard and fast will meet your need and not harm you overall then
by
all means, that's the way to go. But if you're the kind of person who
needs
to put change into place slowly then that's the way they should go. Both
ways will get a person to their end result if they stick with it. Some
will
just get there quicker is all:-)

Like me, I choose to do the gastric by-pass route because at age 52 I'd
tried everything else and nothing worked past losing the initial 20 lbs or
so. I was still into the dense carb thinking though, was still eating
breads, potatoes etc.....thinking I was making healthy choices. When I
hit
350 lbs, I knew it was time to take drastic action. Losing it fast and
really learning what my body needs as fuel, that's been a much better way
for me personally to go. It ain't for everyone. But it's worked for me.
I'm down to 185 as of yesterday, almost to my goal. It's been 14 months
since the surgery so I'm doing pretty good. You need to figure out what
your body really needs to lose weight and feel healthy, based on your
recent
posts, I'm not sure that I think you really know how to meet that need
yet.
What works for me now would have worked for me prior to having the surgery
but I didn't realize it before getting all the processed carbs out of my
system. I take in about 900-1100 calories a day now. I'm not very
active,
working a desk job now.........and I have fibromyalgia on top of
everything
else so there's not much ability to weight train or walk for long periods
of
time. So I just boost my active level thoughout the day by walking
further,
walking purposely during my work day, going places just to be able to walk
like thrift stores and parks..........but like for 15 minutes at a time.
When I'm able I also so work out for an hour at a local gym in a heated
pool. That helps with my fibro too. Doesn't do alot for weightloss
though.
My food choices are simple, a protein shake for breakfast with a piece of
honeydew melon or some other fruit that is low glycemic........lunch is 4
oz
of protien be it meat, chicken, fish, etc. I have a portion of natural
veggie with that.......steamed cauilflower maybe or sliced up steam
zuchinni, something simple.........another piece of fruit in the afternoon
for a snack......then same thing for dinner with a high protein snack near
bedtime. It meets my body's needs. My labs are always all good and I do
feel better overall. I also take centrum silver, extra Vit C, MSM, Omego
3/6/9, magnesium 2400 mgs a day, Vit B complex, Vit D, and some other meds
for my fibromyalgia symptoms. It took me YEARS to come up with a system
that does what I need it to do for me though, you gotta find what works
for
you. Good luck with that:-) It will probably be the hardest thing you'll
ever do for yourself? But man, the payoff is feeling like living your
life
each day instead of life just passing you by:-) At least that's how I
felt
when I was at my heaviest.

Carol j



2Phat wrote:
See I'm thinking that regardless if you lose slow or fast, in the end
it is your decision to keep it off and change your habits.

With all my diet research, I have never come across any hard fact
based reason for a slow lose. However, everyone claims that is the
way to go. Why?


"Hollywood" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 23, 9:17 am, "2Phat" wrote:
Why do people say you should lose weight slowly. What is the
scientific data, medical research and other criteria that support
this theory.

I will give me thought. This is not based in science, but
observation.

People who lose a lot of weight fast tend to do so by making changes
that are not sustainable in the long term. So, they lose, go back to
old habits, and gain the weight back very quickly. I just saw, on TLC
last night, inside the Brookhaven Clinic, the story of Michael
Hebranko (sp?) The guy, back in the day, weighed over 1000 lbs. He
lost down to sub 200 with Richard Simmons. He is in the Guinness book
as the guy who lost the most the fastest. On a previous show, I saw
him talk about getting to goal. Then he went out and had a hot dog.
Which turned into 4 with cheese & chili. Which had to have gravy
fries, which turned into multiple orders. The guy hits goal, then
tacks on 50 lbs the next week. He's 580 now (so there is some
maintenance) but he was crying about the indignity of the ambulance
company's inability to find a solution to cart him from bed to
Brookhaven. They wanted him to slide down his steps on his butt. He
said no. So, they tried to wheel him down the steps in his wheel
chair. But the FIVE people couldn't handle him.

He's the sixth sigma out in every way. But, he lost fast, and he
gained fast. I've seen more than a few other people who did same on
the super morbid obese slow car crash shows on Discovery networks.
Starve hard, lose fast, gain with interest faster.

I'm sure there are metabolic explanations for this, that someone else
might offer (Roger, JBuch, Cubit?) but observation is enough for me.
You have to make permanent changes to make a permanent change. And
the things that make you lose real fast are things that most people
cannot do forever.

PS- Recall the aging and metabolic slowing issue. So, to maintain,
you have to make changes that you can scale down as you get older.
If you cut to 600 calories, can you do it forever? Can you scale
down to 500 in 12 years? I don't think I can. If you can, more power
to you.