Crash Diets May Be Most Effective Weight Loss Technique
Replies
-
0
-
I agree. And one thing the studies and stats never seem to address is that practice probably is what leads to eventual maintenance success, so maybe they should quit harping on it. I think 95% of first time smoking quitters also fail, but no one harps on that because it's clear that you learn something each quit and eventually succeed. I think weight loss is the same way. So fail away! ; )0
-
This content has been removed.
-
You are correct!
The implication that crash dieting will turn you into an anorexic little twig is a bit of a misconception. If we're talking about a green tea fast or some other nonsense, then sure I agree 100%. But there are mass-sparing diets that are still considered "crash diets" and yet have been proven effective by many physique competitors. You could probably classify most contest prep. work as a "crash diet" for that matter. Just because your plan worked well for you, that doesn't mean it's the only way to do it or even the optimal way.Ah salute to anybody who sheds the weight and keeps it off.
As for me, crash dieting is a no go. If mere weight loss is the only concern, go ahead.
I lost a bunch of weight but wanted peak fitness and optimal health, and that meant I needed to eat big, train smart and maintain a reasonable deficit.
I did not want to go from being a fat guy to some skinny , little guy.
I wanted more...
As for health, it really depends on where you're at. Given that you didn't have much to lose, a small deficit makes a lot more sense. For someone with a lot more to lose (say a newbie at 40% body fat), what constitutes the optimal decision for their health looks a bit different than it does for you at 22% body fat.
It really just comes down to the individual.
I just would not engage a crash diet. I'd fail big time.
FYI:
And I lost over 90 pounds over 2 years, but again, my hats off to anybody who's doing something that works. The above progress pics were after my weight loss and after a season of weight maintenance.
0 -
You are correct!
The implication that crash dieting will turn you into an anorexic little twig is a bit of a misconception. If we're talking about a green tea fast or some other nonsense, then sure I agree 100%. But there are mass-sparing diets that are still considered "crash diets" and yet have been proven effective by many physique competitors. You could probably classify most contest prep. work as a "crash diet" for that matter. Just because your plan worked well for you, that doesn't mean it's the only way to do it or even the optimal way.Ah salute to anybody who sheds the weight and keeps it off.
As for me, crash dieting is a no go. If mere weight loss is the only concern, go ahead.
I lost a bunch of weight but wanted peak fitness and optimal health, and that meant I needed to eat big, train smart and maintain a reasonable deficit.
I did not want to go from being a fat guy to some skinny , little guy.
I wanted more...
As for health, it really depends on where you're at. Given that you didn't have much to lose, a small deficit makes a lot more sense. For someone with a lot more to lose (say a newbie at 40% body fat), what constitutes the optimal decision for their health looks a bit different than it does for you at 22% body fat.
It really just comes down to the individual.
I just would not engage a crash diet. I'd fail big time.
FYI:
And I lost over 90 pounds over 2 years, but again, my hats off to anybody who's doing something that works. The above progress pics were after my weight loss and after a season of weight maintenance.
Man I was impressed with your pictures before I knew you previously lost 90 pounds. Now I'm floored. Awesome work!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Because breakfast.0
-
This is not my first rodeo. I am 53 and have been dieting in one way or another since I was 16. Crash diets completely screwed up my metabolism and I had to fight my way back from that. I will never go on a crash diet again. It is totally not worth it. In my case, slow and steady wins the race. I have kept 50 lbs off for a year. It took me a year to lose that weight. I have 20 more to lose and I plan to do it exactly the same way. Keep my calories under 1400 but eat what I want, and exercise each and every day for a minimum of 30 minutes and usually more. When I get to goal weight, or close to it, I will try and keep my intake around 1500 and keep exercising like my life depends on it, because it does.0
-
I did a crash diet 2 years ago... I lost ~20 lbs in about a month and then lost ~20 more in the 3 months that followed (I began eating 1600 cals and kept doing 30-60 mins of cardio almost every day). I gave up the "dieting" after that (I stopped eating so much junk food and all but I still ate horrible) and I still haven't gained the weight back... lol
I gained 10 lbs this summer while I went on vacation (I ate pizza literally every other day) and ate lots of candy.... Lost 5lbs when I came back and now I'm trying to lose those last 10-30 lbs (haven't decided how much).
Well the point is, I think it can be more effective to some people. It was for me... The only reason I stopped was because I didn't want saggy skin lol0 -
This was missed from the link I gave on the details of the study.
This is why they didn't do very well, either group likely, in changing habits.
How many flavors of this stuff, and do you maintain on it too?
And from other studies, I'm sure they reached the max 20-25% reduction in daily burn, along with whatever reduction from lost LBM occurred, because of metabolic efficiency, that made eating at maintenance even more difficult.
"In phase 1 of the study, participants in the rapid-weight-loss arm consumed three liquid meal replacements (Optifast, Nestlé Nutrition) daily, for a total of 450 to 800 kcal a day, for 12 weeks, with the aim of losing 1.5 kg each week.
Meanwhile, participants in the gradual-weight-loss arm consumed one to two liquid meal replacements (Optifast) a day plus regular food — based on the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating recommendation (15% protein, 25% to 30% fat, and 55% to 60% carbohydrate) — for a 400- to 500-kcal/day deficit, for 36 weeks, with the aim of losing 0.5 kg per week."
The other study where the fast loss group ate about 800, lowered their daily burn by 500 calories below what was expected after 3 months. That's not going to be good for maintaining if they don't keep doing those meal replacements, because they just can't eat that much anymore.0 -
Lets not forget too, these folks were selected to be in the study because they had no other health issue indicators, besides being over weight, no exercise to speak of, so their 30 min daily walking was a big increase, and measured out the wazoo during the loss periods for any issues coming up health related.
Not everyone gets that kind of support on "crash" diets.0 -
I think we all want the short, easy way, and maybe a crash diet will work for somebody - not me...Ah salute to anybody who sheds the weight and keeps it off.
As for me, crash dieting is a no go. If mere weight loss is the only concern, go ahead.
I lost a bunch of weight but wanted peak fitness and optimal health, and that meant I needed to eat big, train smart and maintain a reasonable deficit.
I did not want to go from being a fat guy to some skinny , little guy.
I wanted more muscle and to maintain weight while losing fat.
^^^^^^^^^
This is me after 3 years of maintaining weight...
Also, very nice ^^^^^^ Your approach is great and I see it the same way. Others won't see it that way. At the end of the day you hit your goals and did it in a way that you felt comfortable with. While taking a more sensible approach it also allows an easier transition into recomps, bulk, mini bulk/cuts, but there are some that have those things planned out while having an actual vision, those that say they'll do that but don't plan ahead and then there are those that the goal is lose all the weight. We all have different goals therefore we will never fully agree on what's best because our personal views differ so much.0 -
Yeah, me too. I just mentioned it because most people here balk at the idea of maintaining at 1300-1700 and not being an old, tiny sloth. But an awful lot of successful maintainers say that is what they do.@WalkingAlong, I eat about that now, so I'm fine with it.
0 -
I suppose I have been on "crash diets", but they were couched as "cleanses". I did vegan, raw food, gluten free, after a tax season for 3 months. I wasn't really trying to lose weight but trying to break my habit of Guinness and jelly beans. Those were my main source of calories for about 4 months. I really don't recommend drinking that much Guinness or eating the amount of jelly beans I did and yes, if I did your taxes, I may not have been entirely sober. Ultimately, I came off the cleanse didn't lose any weight but felt a lot better.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »I trust this study.
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
Would you trust them less to know this?
NWCR participants maintain at 1400 average (1300 for women, 1700 for men, with daily exercise, no eating back).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550162?dopt=Abstract
Self-reported intakes. Bet that's accurate.
I don't think anyone's self-reported intakes are accurate but these are at least National Weight Loss Registry participants, who more than most should know what they're doing.
It's all self-reported here in the forum but still when someone says, "I'm eating 1200/day," people freak out, assuming there is 100% accuracy or something. But cite a published stat and human error is suddenly reason enough to discount that case but not the forum reports?
0 -
Not sure if it's been given in this thread but here is the full 19 page article https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/41262/Protocol_version_5_13 07 13_no_endnote.pdf?sequence=10
-
mmm Ive lost fast twice..and here i am.. Now, I choose to lose slow.. I am actually pretending and eating as if I am at maintenance already. It has made it much easier and i'm slowly getting smaller..
haha.. so far it is working..0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Yeah, me too. I just mentioned it because most people here balk at the idea of maintaining at 1300-1700 and not being an old, tiny sloth. But an awful lot of successful maintainers say that is what they do.@WalkingAlong, I eat about that now, so I'm fine with it.
But 1300-1700 was maintenance (I think 1350 for women and 1700 for men), not the crash diet. I maintain on between 1300-1500 myself (I am short but not a sloth). The crash diet was between 450 and 800 calories, which is a VLCD and should only be done under medical supervision. Obviously, this study was done under those conditions with medical supervision. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the population should be going on Optifast and consuming 450-800 a day until they reach their goal weight.0 -
LumberJacck wrote: »Not sure if it's been given in this thread but here is the full 19 page article https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/41262/Protocol_version_5_13 07 13_no_endnote.pdf?sequence=1
That's helpful but is the study protocol not the results - full text anyone ? The protocol says they intended to measure body composition (by impedance).0 -
All diets are rubbish. Designed for money-making purposes only, they consist of unrealistic and unsustainable ways of eating. No surprises that they dont work. The industry wouldnt be worth the billions that it is if people didnt think they 'had' to try new diets.
Avoid them.
Eat like you have done, just maybe a bit healthier and a bit less of in quantity.0 -
Of course. It makes perfect sense. The process of losing weight is one of motivation and psychological discipline. It's much much easier to remain focused for 18 weeks compared to 36 weeks. That's why all diets fail after 5 years, people lose their mental discipline.
Really? All diets fail?
I would say the diet succeeded. The weight came off and stayed off long enough to know it's not just water weight or similar. It's the maintenance strategy (or the fact that there was none) that is the failure.
Besides. There are people who manage to keep weight off for 5 years and more. They're a minority, but they do exist.
Just ignore him. All diets fail according to him. No one knows anything. The only people that supposedly succeed are the ones that read one book.
All died protocols fail five years out, because people do not keep them up. I started a thread on this not long ago and it should be.
There was a review study out of UCLA on this.
And I see M 27 is at it again. He must have finished his EMT shift. Hey, you never did get back to me on discussing Guyton's text book with all your doctor friends.
Did they ridicule it and dismiss it to the degree that you do?
Just curious.
Would they ridicule the book itself? Probably not.
Would they ridicule your understanding of it? Absolutely.
-1 -
For me yes, maintenance is the hardest part. I've been in maintenance for 3.5 years and it was hellaver learning curve from weight loss.
Done the crash diet things - never worked. I needed a re-education in food and exercise and that's what has worked for me from MFP. I can never 'un-learn' the calories in a block of cheese or the true damage that second unecessary plate is going to do to my waistline, and I've also learned that I really quite like exercise...
0 -
I haven't really read anyone else's posts just yet, but I do know that that article didn't sound very empirical at all. Also, I didn't feel it really told us anything that we didn't already know. What I got out of it was that those who crashed dieted lost weight faster, but apparently gained it back at the same rate as the group who "gradually" dieted. Didn't we already know this? It would be nice if the article told us how many calories or macros they were restricting to in both groups and how many they ate after the diet phase was over with. Otherwise, this article just seems kind of like a waste of time for someone to write.0
-
I mean, I can see the point that the article is trying to make. But this study has a very narrow scope. It does not approach at all how health is impacted by crash dieting, only the effectiveness of weight loss. Yes, rapid results can be motivating, but to truly effectively maintain weight loss, you have to be motivated to do it for the sake of your health and not your appearance. Rapid weight loss puts an inordinate amount of strain on liver, kidneys, and other vital organs.0
-
I'm curious as to if these people were restricted to certain exercises. That's a big factor. Were their calorie goals just straight calories or net?
I mean...all I really get from the article is that it's supposedly easier to stick with a diet for a short period of time when you see faster results (which makes sense), but that essentially you're greatly restricting yourself for something you aren't even going to maintain.
If the majority of them failed to maintain equally in both groups, the "crash diet group" went through serious restrictions for the exact same results in the end. All they really got was momentary results. Seems more like an advertisement for "restrict yourself quickly for fast results you'll keep for a short period of time." I think we all know that is possible but we don't desire it.
I also wonder how they were monitored to ensure they were only eating that amount. Mentally, it's much easier to cheat when you think you have an extended period of time to achieve your diet goals. Both groups boil down to people aiming to lose over a certain period rather than aiming to make a lifestyle change.
Why didn't they include a way to 'Like' other posts in this new set up?
0 -
Ah salute to anybody who sheds the weight and keeps it off.
As for me, crash dieting is a no go. If mere weight loss is the only concern, go ahead.
I lost a bunch of weight but wanted peak fitness and optimal health, and that meant I needed to eat big, train smart and maintain a reasonable deficit.
I did not want to go from being a fat guy to some skinny , little guy.
I wanted more muscle and to maintain weight while losing fat.
^^^^^^^^^
This is me after 3 years of maintaining weight...
You look fantastic! Very nicely done!0 -
LumberJacck wrote: »Not sure if it's been given in this thread but here is the full 19 page article https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/41262/Protocol_version_5_13 07 13_no_endnote.pdf?sequence=1
That's helpful but is the study protocol not the results - full text anyone ? The protocol says they intended to measure body composition (by impedance).
My academic library doesn't subscribe to that journal.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I see once again you insist on mentioning that I am an EMT. Apparently you think that's insulting me. You're just pathetic. Not sure why you have to continue to mention that but you're a joke.Of course. It makes perfect sense. The process of losing weight is one of motivation and psychological discipline. It's much much easier to remain focused for 18 weeks compared to 36 weeks. That's why all diets fail after 5 years, people lose their mental discipline.
Really? All diets fail?
I would say the diet succeeded. The weight came off and stayed off long enough to know it's not just water weight or similar. It's the maintenance strategy (or the fact that there was none) that is the failure.
Besides. There are people who manage to keep weight off for 5 years and more. They're a minority, but they do exist.
Just ignore him. All diets fail according to him. No one knows anything. The only people that supposedly succeed are the ones that read one book.
All died protocols fail five years out, because people do not keep them up. I started a thread on this not long ago and it should be.
There was a review study out of UCLA on this.
And I see M 27 is at it again. He must have finished his EMT shift. Hey, you never did get back to me on discussing Guyton's text book with all your doctor friends.
Did they ridicule it and dismiss it to the degree that you do?
Just curious.
I see that you are quite a bit older than I suspected you of being. That makes your reluctance to embrace real science all the more puzzling and disturbing.
And again, you still aren't willing to show anyone that you've accomplished anything. Just repeatedly pushing that book with your fake profile picture. Everyone should forever hit the spam button on your posts.
Steve has accomplish being my entertainment when he comments. That is good enough for me.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions