University Studies on Rapid Weight Loss Diets
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/16/crash-diets-rapid-weight-loss-better-gradual-weight-loss-study
Contrary to most research that recommends long term weight loss diets, the University of Melbourne paper, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, has suggested that ‘crash diets’ may be more effective
"Around 71 per cent of subjects in both groups ended up regaining similar amounts of weight within three years, regardless of the diet program they were assigned."
Doesn't seem more effective.
yes, but this study opens up new perspectives, no ?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/16/crash-diets-rapid-weight-loss-better-gradual-weight-loss-study
Contrary to most research that recommends long term weight loss diets, the University of Melbourne paper, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, has suggested that ‘crash diets’ may be more effective
"Around 71 per cent of subjects in both groups ended up regaining similar amounts of weight within three years, regardless of the diet program they were assigned."
Doesn't seem more effective.
yes, but this study opens up new perspectives, no ?
Only if you're looking for medically supervised crash diets.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/16/crash-diets-rapid-weight-loss-better-gradual-weight-loss-study
Contrary to most research that recommends long term weight loss diets, the University of Melbourne paper, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, has suggested that ‘crash diets’ may be more effective
"Around 71 per cent of subjects in both groups ended up regaining similar amounts of weight within three years, regardless of the diet program they were assigned."
Doesn't seem more effective.
yes, but this study opens up new perspectives, no ?
Not really, there's a place for rapid weight loss. I and others have posted about that. It isn't new.
And various studies have shown that rapid loss has higher short-term adherence and larger total weight loss results (but ... read on). Other studies have shown low carb diets result in larger body weight results.
The caveat exists. These studies fail in comparing body weight versus fat loss or comparing versus long term calorie counting and overall adherence. They fail to demonstrate fat loss vs LBM maintenance or small gains while exercising. If what you are trying to achieve is improved body composition, better eating habits and long term fitness performance then we are not, by definition, focusing on 8-12 week programs.
There is a place for low cal, protein sparing diets but the Daily Fail and other sensationalist press don't provide sufficient information and in their sensationalism the result is that crash dieting is generally "not a good thing"; remember that practiced as it was in the 70and 80 it led to various physiological issues including deaths.
A variety of risks from gallstones, to eating disorder, to metabolic hormonal issues, to depression, to critical tissue loss, etc exist with crash dieting. Getting health information from journalists (and book writers selling diet books) that ignore that is unfortunate.
Some of the discussions relevant to this:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1116315/science-only-please-the-case-against-1200-kcals/
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10074833/dangers-of-losing-weight-too-quickly-how-fast-is-too-fast
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1331580/new-here-360lbs-and-doing-the-1200-calorie-diet-am-i-nuts/p3
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1092657/starvation-mode-real-fake-or-a-matter-of-opinion/p2
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1153883/too-few-calories0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Just curious, are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?
Stop.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/16/crash-diets-rapid-weight-loss-better-gradual-weight-loss-study
Contrary to most research that recommends long term weight loss diets, the University of Melbourne paper, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, has suggested that ‘crash diets’ may be more effective
"Around 71 per cent of subjects in both groups ended up regaining similar amounts of weight within three years, regardless of the diet program they were assigned."
Doesn't seem more effective.
yes, but this study opens up new perspectives, no ?
Not really, there's a place for rapid weight loss. I and others have posted about that. It isn't new.
And various studies have shown that rapid loss has higher short-term adherence and larger total weight loss results (but ... read on). Other studies have shown low carb diets result in larger body weight results.
The caveat exists. These studies fail in comparing body weight versus fat loss or comparing versus long term calorie counting and overall adherence. They fail to demonstrate fat loss vs LBM maintenance or small gains while exercising. If what you are trying to achieve is improved body composition, better eating habits and long term fitness performance then we are not, by definition, focusing on 8-12 week programs.
There is a place for low cal, protein sparing diets but the Daily Fail and other sensationalist press don't provide sufficient information and in their sensationalism the result is that crash dieting is generally "not a good thing"; remember that practiced as it was in the 70and 80 it led to various physiological issues including deaths.
A variety of risks from gallstones, to eating disorder, to metabolic hormonal issues, to depression, to critical tissue loss, etc exist with crash dieting. Getting health information from journalists (and book writers selling diet books) that ignore that is unfortunate.
Some of the discussions relevant to this:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1116315/science-only-please-the-case-against-1200-kcals/
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10074833/dangers-of-losing-weight-too-quickly-how-fast-is-too-fast
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1331580/new-here-360lbs-and-doing-the-1200-calorie-diet-am-i-nuts/p3
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1092657/starvation-mode-real-fake-or-a-matter-of-opinion/p2
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1153883/too-few-calories
This is excellent. Based on personal experience with a close family member who underwent all of this, I would support this.0 -
There's nothing particularly wrong with it. It's a calorie restriction diet and while it has a few bad days (nutrition wise) it's pretty close a short term 1200 diet - with diet breaks every few weeks. One week is particularly very low.Just curious, are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?
Stop.
Would I do it? Eff no. It sounds of sadness and punched puppies, but if you want to follow yesterday's fad? Why not?0 -
Dr. Katahn's research at Vanderbilt University is tried and true and has withstood the test of time. His book is still in publication after 30 years. It saved my life and it saved his life. He wrote to book after he had health problems related to obesity. He personally lost 75 pounds on his diet and kept it off for 30 years.
Dr. Katahn is a Psychology professor. Who seems to believe that dietary fat = increase in body fat. And his diet has women eating 600 calories for 3 days, 900 for 4 days and a week of 1200. Yeah, I'd lose weight on that as well since it is basically starving myself.0 -
Dr. Katahn's research at Vanderbilt University is tried and true and has withstood the test of time. His book is still in publication after 30 years. It saved my life and it saved his life. He wrote to book after he had health problems related to obesity. He personally lost 75 pounds on his diet and kept it off for 30 years.
Dr. Katahn is a Psychology professor. Who seems to believe that dietary fat = increase in body fat. And his diet has women eating 600 calories for 3 days, 900 for 4 days and a week of 1200. Yeah, I'd lose weight on that as well since it is basically starving myself.
Are we going to let a pesky little thing like updated medical understanding get in the way of becoming true believers in a diet plan?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
There's nothing particularly wrong with it. It's a calorie restriction diet and while it has a few bad days (nutrition wise) it's pretty close a short term 1200 diet - with diet breaks every few weeks. One week is particularly very low.Just curious, are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?
Stop.
Would I do it? Eff no. It sounds of sadness and punched puppies, but if you want to follow yesterday's fad? Why not?
I wouldn't mind a mention once or twice, but it's all dude talks about.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
There's nothing particularly wrong with it. It's a calorie restriction diet and while it has a few bad days (nutrition wise) it's pretty close a short term 1200 diet - with diet breaks every few weeks. One week is particularly very low.Just curious, are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?
Stop.
Would I do it? Eff no. It sounds of sadness and punched puppies, but if you want to follow yesterday's fad? Why not?
I wouldn't mind a mention once or twice, but it's all dude talks about.
Ah, well. It does sound like zealotry in this thread. I missed his other threads.0 -
are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?
.
No. Actually none of my threads have been about Dr. Katahn's diet.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10142943/what-r-best-foods-4-protein#latest
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10142949/what-r-the-best-exercises-4-abs#latest
Oh, really?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10141996/zs-rapid-reduction-rotation-diet
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10141999/shredding-losing-20-lbs-fast-and-healthily
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/32176860#Comment_32176860
Sure.
0 -
are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?
.
No. Actually none of my threads have been about Dr. Katahn's diet.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10142943/what-r-best-foods-4-protein#latest
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10142949/what-r-the-best-exercises-4-abs#latest
You have a strange definition of 'none'
The rotation diet is a VLCD and needs to be done under medical supervision. Rapid weight loss is not a terrible approach, but there are risks that must be monitored for and the food choices must be precise.
0 -
are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?
.
No. Actually none of my threads have been about Dr. Katahn's diet.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10142943/what-r-best-foods-4-protein#latest
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10142949/what-r-the-best-exercises-4-abs#latest
It seems facts counter your claims. Good day.0 -
I confess, OP, the fact that you are following this diet for the second time (having regained weight lost from the first effort) does suggest it does not appear to be sustainable... for you. Doing the same thing over tends to have the same results. There are myriad healthy ways to implement a caloric deficit. Lower BF% requires more precision/care to prevent damage, especially if VLC, but people with high BF% have more latitude in finding a formula that works for them. I hope you find what works best for you--long term.0
-
There is so much wrong with that article I do not even know where to start.
Well, starting with the source is one way...0 -
Issue #1:
"There is also the widely held view that crash dieters will put the weight back on more quickly because drastic food plans can't be sustained long term. But research is turning this advice on its head. Last month, an Australian study in the Lancet showed rapid weight loss was more effective in the short term than a gradual, sustained approach."
Nothing new so how is this turning anything on its head?
"One group of obese adults were put on a 12-week rapid weight loss programme with meal replacements of 450 to 800 calories a day (an average man needs 2,500 calories a day to maintain his weight. For a woman, it's 2,000 calories).Another group was put on a gradual weight loss programme, cutting 500 calories per day.
More of those in the rapid weight loss group achieved the goal of losing 15 per cent of their weight."
Of course the did...it was 12 weeks and the lower calorie group had a larger deficit....not exactly mind boggling
"When the researchers followed up the participants two years later, both groups had regained most of the weight they had lost. But there was no difference in how quickly they put it back on, which flies in the face of conventional thinking that losing weight too quickly means you'll put it back on just as fast."
So...not more effective.
0 -
Other issues:
"Concerns have been raised over what crash dieting does to the body. 'On a very low calorie diet, it's unlikely you'll be able to get five portions of fruit and veg a day or three portions of calcium,' says Sian Porter of the British Dietetic Association. 'This is why some obese people who go on drastically low calorie diets have been found to be suffering from malnutrition.'
But she says slashing your food intake can be helpful as a kick-start because fast results get you motivated. However, these kinds of diets should be followed for a maximum of only 12 weeks and with advice from a doctor.
'It can help initially, but it still needs to be combined with learning new habits, such as eating because you're hungry and not for comfort,' says Jane Ogden, professor of health psychology at the University of Essex, who researches obesity."
So...adding counselling makes it successful. How many people have access to counselling or will stick to it for only 12 weeks or will have a doctors supervision?
"Another theory is that yo-yo dieting can slow the metabolism over time. The thinking behind this is that every time you lose weight, you lose muscle. When you regain weight, you put on fat, which burns calories more slowly.
But Michael Mosley says this is a myth. 'There's nothing wrong with losing weight rapidly, as long as you have adequate protein and nutrients, and exercise to maintain muscle,' he says. And weight loss, even if not maintained, can benefit the heart, a team at University College London reported earlier this year. They analysed data from more than 1,200 people and found adults who lost enough weight to drop a BMI category (from obese to overweight or overweight to normal weight) - even if the weight was then regained - had less furring of the arteries at ages 60 to 64 than those who had never lost weight."
Yes, losing weight is better for your health generally - not exactly a shocker there. What I want to know, is how in earth people are supposed to get adequate protein and nutrients on 450 calories a day?
This article is about morbidly obese people, but typical of the Daily Mail, it makes an attention grabbing headline and misses out the context of what is being discussed.
0 -
More issues with the article:
"Reducing your daily energy intake to 800 calories can reverse type 2 diabetes in just eight weeks, research by Professor Roy Taylor, director of Newcastle Magnetic Resonance Centre at Newcastle University"
Really - an eight week study of 11 people?
And then he goes on to explain that it has nothing to do with the speed of the weight loss - just the weight loss itself.
Nicely distorted attention grabbing quote though.
0 -
Anything can be perverted into nonsense. Even IIFYM can be (routinely is) turned into a diet of protein shakes and pop tart pancakes at one extreme and the banana-gourging 811ers at another extreme.
Judging any basic principle by its most idiotic adherents doesn't teach us anything, other than that our species has a flair for the...."dramatic".
0 -
Anything can be perverted into nonsense. Even IIFYM can be (routinely is) turned into a diet of protein shakes and pop tarts.
Judging any plan by its most idiotic adherents doesn't teach us anything.
You are missing most of what I have an issue with - the article misses so much context and is basically contradicting itself.
Its a terrible article.
0 -
Anything can be perverted into nonsense. Even IIFYM can be (routinely is) turned into a diet of protein shakes and pop tarts.
Judging any plan by its most idiotic adherents doesn't teach us anything.
You are missing most of what I have an issue with - the article misses so much context and is basically contradicting itself.
Its a terrible article.
Most articles are.0 -
Other issues:
*
What I want to know, is how in earth people are supposed to get adequate protein and nutrients on 450 calories a day?
*
Personally...I don't think it is possible.
Disclaimer...I eat between 1400-1500 calories daily.
However...yesterday I ate only 950. I managed to hit my protein and fat levels...carbs were around 75. Everything else was also at or above my 1400 calorie levels except for calcium and iron. I was considerably low on those.
It was an interesting experiment but one that required that I had to do a lot of planning.
I couldn't eat that way for more than a couple of days at best...life would not be fun!
0 -
Anything can be perverted into nonsense. Even IIFYM can be (routinely is) turned into a diet of protein shakes and pop tarts.
Judging any plan by its most idiotic adherents doesn't teach us anything.
You are missing most of what I have an issue with - the article misses so much context and is basically contradicting itself.
Its a terrible article.
Most articles are - includes those on IIFYM.
So? Not sure what your point is then. Are you saying that we cannot say they are terrible? Also, not sure why you keep bringing up IIFYM.
0 -
Other issues:
*
What I want to know, is how in earth people are supposed to get adequate protein and nutrients on 450 calories a day?
*
Personally...I don't think it is possible.
Disclaimer...I eat between 1400-1500 calories daily.
However...yesterday I ate only 950. I managed to hit my protein and fat levels...carbs were around 75. Everything else was also at or above my 1400 calorie levels except for calcium and iron. I was considerably low on those.
It was an interesting experiment but one that required that I had to do a lot of planning.
I couldn't eat that way for more than a couple of days at best...life would not be fun!
That is lower than any PSMF I have seen. I fact, the P will not be S'ing on that low of an intake.
However, if someone is morbidly obese, its less of an issue and the benefits of getting weight off will often outweigh any risks - however, these are supervised and additional supplements taken.
My issue (as I have mentioned) is the total lack of context or decent explanation in the article.0 -
Anything can be perverted into nonsense. Even IIFYM can be (routinely is) turned into a diet of protein shakes and pop tarts.
Judging any plan by its most idiotic adherents doesn't teach us anything.
You are missing most of what I have an issue with - the article misses so much context and is basically contradicting itself.
Its a terrible article.
Most articles are - includes those on IIFYM.
So? Not sure what your point is then. Are you saying that we cannot say they are terrible? Also, not sure why you keep bringing up IIFYM.
It's the internet, we can all say what we want. :drinker:
0 -
Anything can be perverted into nonsense. Even IIFYM can be (routinely is) turned into a diet of protein shakes and pop tarts.
Judging any plan by its most idiotic adherents doesn't teach us anything.
You are missing most of what I have an issue with - the article misses so much context and is basically contradicting itself.
Its a terrible article.
Most articles are - includes those on IIFYM.
So? Not sure what your point is then. Are you saying that we cannot say they are terrible? Also, not sure why you keep bringing up IIFYM.
It's the internet, we can all say what we want. :drinker:
Errrr...ok then.0 -
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions