University Studies on Rapid Weight Loss Diets

13

Replies

  • 3bambi3
    3bambi3 Posts: 1,650 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    Just curious, are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?

    Stop.
    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.

    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.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    Just curious, are all of the threads you start going to be about Dr. Katahn's Magical Rotation Diet?

    Stop.
    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.

    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.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    zmusic wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    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.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    zmusic wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    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.
  • ahoy_m8
    ahoy_m8 Posts: 3,052 Member
    edited April 2015
    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.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    There is so much wrong with that article I do not even know where to start.

    Well, starting with the source is one way...
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    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.

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    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.

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    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.


  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    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".
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    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.


  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    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.
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    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!

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    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.


  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    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.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    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:

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    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.
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    be528b9c08f4f062931b416e56be1c98.jpg