Starvation Diets - Questioning that psychological not metabolic damage the reason they fail?
LaraMorgan90
Posts: 5 Member
Ok here goes (Im by no means trying to promote a Low Calorie Diet just trying to understand wether its is metabolic damage or the psychological damage of hunger that causes weight gain after)
Firstly if LCD don't work why do gastric sleeves work? I know multiple people who have had a gastric sleeve reduce calories to <800 calories loose extreme amounts of weight and now maintain on 1800-2500 (multiple people of different ages, weights, genders activity levels. This to me does not suggest huge metabolic damage and all are maintaining at healthy weights on the lower side of their bmi and have been for 5+ years
secondly everyone quotes the Minnesota study for the effects of starvation diets and metabolic damages but people all seem to miss the part:
"Although they were now in the rehabilitation phase, Keys didn't significantly increase their food levels. Instead, he divided them into four subgroups, which received 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 more calories than they had in starvation. He did this in order to investigate the optimum amount of calories for rehabilitation. But to the men — especially the men in the lowest calorie group — it seemed as if they were barely getting any more food than before. They still felt hungry all the time.
Keys simultaneously gave some of them vitamin and protein supplements, to see if these would aid their recovery. After a few weeks it became apparent to Keys that the supplements were doing nothing to help the men. In fact, the men in the lowest calorie group weren't recovering at all. The only thing that seemed to help was more food. So Keys boosted the food intake of each group by 800 calories, and this had a quick and positive effect. He eventually concluded that in order to recover from starvation, a person needs around 4000 calories a day to rebuild their strength."
Which seems to go against everything people say about LCD, all I'm wondering is it not so much metabolic damage the reason LCD fail so often but more to do with the psychological effect i.e. because we have starved our body, our body wants to protect us therefore we are hungrier and driven to eat more high calorie foods therefore taking in more calories than we need thus gaining weight??
all opinions welcome
link to site were I got the passage -http://www.madsciencemuseum.com/msm/pl/great_starvation_experiment
Firstly if LCD don't work why do gastric sleeves work? I know multiple people who have had a gastric sleeve reduce calories to <800 calories loose extreme amounts of weight and now maintain on 1800-2500 (multiple people of different ages, weights, genders activity levels. This to me does not suggest huge metabolic damage and all are maintaining at healthy weights on the lower side of their bmi and have been for 5+ years
secondly everyone quotes the Minnesota study for the effects of starvation diets and metabolic damages but people all seem to miss the part:
"Although they were now in the rehabilitation phase, Keys didn't significantly increase their food levels. Instead, he divided them into four subgroups, which received 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 more calories than they had in starvation. He did this in order to investigate the optimum amount of calories for rehabilitation. But to the men — especially the men in the lowest calorie group — it seemed as if they were barely getting any more food than before. They still felt hungry all the time.
Keys simultaneously gave some of them vitamin and protein supplements, to see if these would aid their recovery. After a few weeks it became apparent to Keys that the supplements were doing nothing to help the men. In fact, the men in the lowest calorie group weren't recovering at all. The only thing that seemed to help was more food. So Keys boosted the food intake of each group by 800 calories, and this had a quick and positive effect. He eventually concluded that in order to recover from starvation, a person needs around 4000 calories a day to rebuild their strength."
Which seems to go against everything people say about LCD, all I'm wondering is it not so much metabolic damage the reason LCD fail so often but more to do with the psychological effect i.e. because we have starved our body, our body wants to protect us therefore we are hungrier and driven to eat more high calorie foods therefore taking in more calories than we need thus gaining weight??
all opinions welcome
link to site were I got the passage -http://www.madsciencemuseum.com/msm/pl/great_starvation_experiment
0
Replies
-
VLCDs mostly don't work because a person can't live that way forever. And it's not necessarily because they mess with your metabolism and weaken your bones, though they certainly are not good for your health. The biggest problem is that after months of severe restriction, most people are so hungry that they rebound to worse eating than before and bounce right back up. Weight loss surgery, on the other hand, prevents the eater from over-eating.0
-
I don't think it's a question of whether they'll "work." I think it's a question of getting the same or better results, just over a longer period of time. For example, if you're in a bigger deficit that can be offset by your body's ability to metabolize fat, you're going to be burning parts of your body you don't necessarily want to be burning, even if you can deal with the other physiological and psychological effects.
I mean, if "work" just means weight loss regardless of the type of weight, a LCD will "work."0 -
SherryTeach wrote: »VLCDs mostly don't work because a person can't live that way forever. And it's not necessarily because they mess with your metabolism and weaken your bones, though they certainly are not good for your health. The biggest problem is that after months of severe restriction, most people are so hungry that they rebound to worse eating than before and bounce right back up. Weight loss surgery, on the other hand, prevents the eater from over-eating.
This is what I was thinking that it is more to do with the psychological impact rather than the metabolic impact?0 -
Firstly if LCD don't work why do gastric sleeves work? I know multiple people who have had a gastric sleeve reduce calories to <800 calories loose extreme amounts of weight and now maintain on 1800-2500
Of course low calories will make you lose weight, but you will also lose large amounts of muscle mass, struggle to get proper nutrition and don't actually learn health eating habits. Gastric sleeves should be seen as a last resort - they have a high failure rate and often some horrible complications.
I'm impressed that you know multiple people who succeeded - many many don't.0 -
It's not just the metabolic impact. You're going to be burning muscle, organs, and who knows what all if you're running a higher deficit than can be met by metabolizing fat stores.LaraMorgan90 wrote: »SherryTeach wrote: »VLCDs mostly don't work because a person can't live that way forever. And it's not necessarily because they mess with your metabolism and weaken your bones, though they certainly are not good for your health. The biggest problem is that after months of severe restriction, most people are so hungry that they rebound to worse eating than before and bounce right back up. Weight loss surgery, on the other hand, prevents the eater from over-eating.
This is what I was thinking that it is more to do with the psychological impact rather than the metabolic impact?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's not just the metabolic impact. You're going to be burning muscle, organs, and who knows what all if you're running a higher deficit than can be met by metabolizing fat stores.LaraMorgan90 wrote: »SherryTeach wrote: »VLCDs mostly don't work because a person can't live that way forever. And it's not necessarily because they mess with your metabolism and weaken your bones, though they certainly are not good for your health. The biggest problem is that after months of severe restriction, most people are so hungry that they rebound to worse eating than before and bounce right back up. Weight loss surgery, on the other hand, prevents the eater from over-eating.
This is what I was thinking that it is more to do with the psychological impact rather than the metabolic impact?
indeed - people forget that the heart is a muscle - if you lose weight too fast you can do damage to your heart.0 -
Just so everyone knows I am not nor have I ever engaged in a LCD I was just looking at metabolic damage and was curious as the what extent it exists and wether or not its as big a problem as we are led to believe (I do however believe LCD have a large psychological impact and obviously are very dangerous to your health!)0
-
Gastric sleeves are VLCDs...but they're under the supervision of a team of doctors/dieticians. It's very different to do that than to go on one without any supervision. Going on one without a dietician is a very bad idea.
Metabolic damage is overstated by most folks, it's not nearly as bad as many people claim.-1 -
LCD in the short term do not have that much of an effect on mind or body imo..it's the long term that causes the issues...
For example anorexics who live that way for years...just hovering above death...who go into recovery never ever come back from it totally...or those who have lived in famine stricken countries for years...
As for the mind that part won't come back either I don't think...it's like those that went through The great Depression they for the rest of their lives saved almost everything that could be reused in some form....due to years of being without.0 -
Well what usually happens is the user does not change there eating habits and goes back to the old way of eating after a VLCD to lose weight. Your body gets used to eating lower ends of calories per day.0
-
In a starvation diet, I'd personally worry more about bone loss and muscle loss and missing nutrition than the potential long-term "metabolic damage." After you go back to eating "normal" what the worst that happens? So you have to eat 200 calories less than everyone else possibly for the rest of your life? That's the least of your worries if two years after you start eating "normal" again you lose your balance and fall due to lack of muscle tone and stamina from a weak heart, and then break bones due to osteoporosis at a young age which won't heal because you lost so much bone mass. And then plates and screws just crumble your bones more, so you start getting bone grafts in addition to the plates.0
-
LaraMorgan90 wrote: »Which seems to go against everything people say about LCD, all I'm wondering is it not so much metabolic damage the reason LCD fail so often but more to do with the psychological effect i.e. because we have starved our body, our body wants to protect us therefore we are hungrier and driven to eat more high calorie foods therefore taking in more calories than we need thus gaining weight??
I think there is a physiological component but the psychological damage is much more pertinent and profound.
One of the saddest things to come out of the Minnesota semi starvation experiment is the profound psychological damage done to men by severely restricting intake who were specifically chosen because they were well adjusted and healthy. The would up with an intense preoccupation with food, personality disorders, self harming and a whole host of undesirable outcomes.0 -
Then what's the point in wondering about metabolic damage? It's like wondering if the powder burns from getting shot in the brain at close range are a big problem. If your body is devouring itself to keep you alive, metabolic issues are pretty far down on the list of potential issues.LaraMorgan90 wrote: »Just so everyone knows I am not nor have I ever engaged in a LCD I was just looking at metabolic damage and was curious as the what extent it exists and wether or not its as big a problem as we are led to believe (I do however believe LCD have a large psychological impact and obviously are very dangerous to your health!)
0 -
VLCDs don't work ? They seem to be used by the medical profession in obese subjects for limited duration.
0 -
Of course it works! Starvation works, too. It's just not the easiest way. It's also not something you can do forever and ever.
Most people who are eating 800 calories aren't being checked by doctors, though some are. I ate 800-900 for quite a while - not every day, but some of them. I stayed full and healthy and I lost weight. I was also taking supplements and at the doctor a lot. WLS people eat that way and remain healthy. The whole "You cannot possibly eat 900 calories and be healthy!" isn't true. Of course it isn't. Optimal? No. Death sentence? No.
Anorexics eat that way (and less.). They're not always eating healthy foods, they aren't checked by doctors. Their hair falls out, they have vitamin deficiencies and electrolyte imbalances and they drop dead every once in a while. They also commit suicide a lot. The first time a former anorexic told me she had wanted to commit suicide, but put it off because she wanted to lose a little more weight first so she wouldn't leave such a fat corpse, we had a good laugh over it. They always want to lose a little weight first.
To many an anorexic, losing weight is always the solution to every problem, being fat is the cause of every problem and everything has to wait until after they've lost a few more pounds. "No, I'm too fat. I'll just lose five more pounds and then I'll do that..." They procrastinate and starve themselves right into the grave and they cannot see it clearly because the starving has messed up their brains to the point where they can't think clearly.
As it turns out, many of them are suicidal and put it off until they have lost more weight.
Eating like an anorexic...or even close to it...without a doctor watching over you - it's crazy.
But every weight loss journey should be overseen by a doctor. If you don't get your doctor on board, you're just not doing it the smartest way, no matter how you do it.0 -
I don't think anyone' saying that you can't lose weight on a VLCD. (With the exception of a few who don't really understand how 'starvation mode' actually works). The thing is, adherence is next to impossible, especially long term, because being hungry all the time is really, really hard. And it leads to disordered eating because once someone can no longer tolerate being hungry all th time, they usually go off the rails and end up binging. Even if someone gets all the way to thei goal weight, they haven't learned how to keep the weight off in a real-world kind of way.
ETA: *Goes back and actually reads OP, mostly.* *Realizes she actually agrees.Probably*0 -
Here's a question. Would a young, 5'10, 350 lb woman who exercises mildly (20 mins of aerobics 2x per week) and also has a job with a physical component (say, 8 hours per week of manual work activity) consuming (not netting) 1,200 - 1,500 calories per day be the equivalent of someone under 200 lbs eating one of these VLCD?
I ask because it's not uncommon to hear of a doctor placing someone in that weight category at such a low calorie limit. I've heard it stated multiple times on this forum that larger people can eat at more aggressive deficits. True or false?0 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Here's a question. Would a young, 5'10, 350 lb woman who exercises mildly (20 mins of aerobics 2x per week) and also has a job with a physical component (say, 8 hours per week of manual work activity) consuming (not netting) 1,200 - 1,500 calories per day be the equivalent of someone under 200 lbs eating one of these VLCD?
I ask because it's not uncommon to hear of a doctor placing someone in that weight category at such a low calorie limit. I've heard it stated multiple times on this forum that larger people can eat at more aggressive deficits. True or false?
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
0 -
The bold is generally where the issue is. The majority of people on here are NOT under doctor supervision and they put themselves on a LCD. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have seen a person under doctors supervision while on a low calorie diet.afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Here's a question. Would a young, 5'10, 350 lb woman who exercises mildly (20 mins of aerobics 2x per week) and also has a job with a physical component (say, 8 hours per week of manual work activity) consuming (not netting) 1,200 - 1,500 calories per day be the equivalent of someone under 200 lbs eating one of these VLCD?
I ask because it's not uncommon to hear of a doctor placing someone in that weight category at such a low calorie limit. I've heard it stated multiple times on this forum that larger people can eat at more aggressive deficits. True or false?
0 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Here's a question. Would a young, 5'10, 350 lb woman who exercises mildly (20 mins of aerobics 2x per week) and also has a job with a physical component (say, 8 hours per week of manual work activity) consuming (not netting) 1,200 - 1,500 calories per day be the equivalent of someone under 200 lbs eating one of these VLCD?
I ask because it's not uncommon to hear of a doctor placing someone in that weight category at such a low calorie limit. I've heard it stated multiple times on this forum that larger people can eat at more aggressive deficits. True or false?
Ask your doctor. The people here aren't doctors. Some of the things that are repeated here, over and over again, by many people...they're just not true. Sometimes, it's very bad advice and is repeated so often that others believe it and begin repeating it, too.
If you have a health question, ask your doctor!0 -
Larger people can eat at more aggressive deficits because they have more fat stores to cover the deficit.afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Here's a question. Would a young, 5'10, 350 lb woman who exercises mildly (20 mins of aerobics 2x per week) and also has a job with a physical component (say, 8 hours per week of manual work activity) consuming (not netting) 1,200 - 1,500 calories per day be the equivalent of someone under 200 lbs eating one of these VLCD?
I ask because it's not uncommon to hear of a doctor placing someone in that weight category at such a low calorie limit. I've heard it stated multiple times on this forum that larger people can eat at more aggressive deficits. True or false?
When I started, I had in the ballpark of 100 pounds of fat. That, standing alone, would be enough to provide about 3100 calories a day if I ate nothing at all. It would easily -- easily -- cover a 2000 calorie a day deficit with no more loss of LBM than a smaller person at a recommended level of deficit.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
Let's say there are no comorbidities going on. How is it healthier?
0 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
Let's say there are no comorbidities going on. How is it healthier?
High levels of excess fat store in the body. Visceral fat the worst fat in the body. Larger your are and quicker you lose some of that excess fat= getting healthier for long term and short term.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
Let's say there are no comorbidities going on. How is it healthier?
High levels of excess fat store in the body. Visceral fat the worst fat in the body. Larger your are and quicker you lose some of that excess fat= getting healthier for long term and short term.
And pointing out, the the intent of LCD/VLCD is generally to get people out of danger zones and only supposed to be use for a few months.
0 -
Ask your doctor. The people here aren't doctors. Some of the things that are repeated here, over and over again, by many people...they're just not true. Sometimes, it's very bad advice and is repeated so often that others believe it and begin repeating it, too.
If you have a health question, ask your doctor!
It's just a curiosity poll. People ask all kinds of health and fitness questions on here. I also keep reading over and over that doctors know nothing about nutrition, but the random posters with personal training certificates from Everest University do.0 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »
Ask your doctor. The people here aren't doctors. Some of the things that are repeated here, over and over again, by many people...they're just not true. Sometimes, it's very bad advice and is repeated so often that others believe it and begin repeating it, too.
If you have a health question, ask your doctor!
It's just a curiosity poll. People ask all kinds of health and fitness questions on here. I also keep reading over and over that doctors know nothing about nutrition, but the random posters with personal training certificates from Everest University do.
My Dr does not know a thing about nutrition.0 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »
Ask your doctor. The people here aren't doctors. Some of the things that are repeated here, over and over again, by many people...they're just not true. Sometimes, it's very bad advice and is repeated so often that others believe it and begin repeating it, too.
If you have a health question, ask your doctor!
It's just a curiosity poll. People ask all kinds of health and fitness questions on here. I also keep reading over and over that doctors know nothing about nutrition, but the random posters with personal training certificates from Everest University do.
What Kelikel should have said, it a person should see a registered dietitian. Most doctors truly don't know anything about nutrition except for if it's a part of their specialty.
And my friend is a pediatic cardiologist with a degree from the University of Pennsylvania (a top rated medical school) and consistently admins she knows nothing about nutrition.
0 -
SherryTeach wrote: »VLCDs mostly don't work because a person can't live that way forever. And it's not necessarily because they mess with your metabolism and weaken your bones, though they certainly are not good for your health. The biggest problem is that after months of severe restriction, most people are so hungry that they rebound to worse eating than before and bounce right back up. Weight loss surgery, on the other hand, prevents the eater from over-eating.
People can and do regain weight after WLS. That regain is caused by over-eating.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
Let's say there are no comorbidities going on. How is it healthier?
High levels of excess fat store in the body. Visceral fat the worst fat in the body. Larger your are and quicker you lose some of that excess fat= getting healthier for long term and short term.
And pointing out, the the intent of LCD/VLCD is generally to get people out of danger zones and only supposed to be use for a few months.
What would you call these danger zones for men and women?
0 -
LaraMorgan90 wrote: »Just so everyone knows I am not nor have I ever engaged in a LCD I was just looking at metabolic damage and was curious as the what extent it exists and wether or not its as big a problem as we are led to believe (I do however believe LCD have a large psychological impact and obviously are very dangerous to your health!)
I think it's both. In theory, metabolic damage isn't a big deal IF you are willing to continue eating less than what would have been the maintenance for someone without metabolic damage (which gastric bypass would make easier to do), but that doesn't mean that it's irrelevant for me if my maintenance is 1800 vs. 2000, with the same activity level.
Also, there are some interesting findings that suggest that for whatever reason you don't get so much slowing with bariatric surgery as with extreme dieting: see, e.g., http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/04/biggest-loser-destroys-participants.html and follow the links. I wonder if part of this relates to the hormonal effects, stuff like how with lost body fat your body tends to want to restore the level and uses leptin to increase hunger and such (this is a superficial reference, it was discussed in another thread, but I'd have to refind my links there). I think one reason bariatric surgery can work for people who struggle to maintain weight loss by other means is that something about it minimizes these kinds of hormonal effects. (Maybe related to how it seems to improve insulin sensitivity even before weight is substantially lost?)
But all this aside, I tend to think the biggest issue IS that extreme dieting messes up your relationship with food and makes it harder for many to exercise restraint or moderation once they consider the diet to be over. The danger would be telling yourself that this means it's not so real or serious or wouldn't happen to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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