Starvation Diets - Questioning that psychological not metabolic damage the reason they fail?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »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?
Danger zones would be based on ones medical history, blood work and their doctors desire to lower certain factors (whether it's high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc...) or other medical conditions caused by obesity. By no means, am I actually defining what a danger zone is.
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?
To answer this, you have to consider why it's unhealthy at lower weights.
One reason is that if your body doesn't have so much fat it is more likely to use other things (like muscle) in greater amounts to provide the fuel it needs. Another is that you should have minimum micronutrients, protein, so on, and could more likely get this at 1200 than at 600, regardless of weight (presumably how much you need does vary by weight somewhat, though).
I'd certainly defer to an experienced doctor on this topic (or a registered dietician I trusted), but it's also consistent with my own experience -- 1200 was pretty easy for me when I had a LOT of weight to lose, but I'd struggle to eat that now even eating the same foods, although it's much less of a deficit (I could probably do it if I weren't active, but I was probably burning a similar number of calories from exercise when I was eating 1200 at first, as I was heavier so burnt more with less activity). I am sure a lot of this is psychological, but I think there's a physical component too.
0 -
Very low calorie diets are perfectly appropriate for some people. They are recommended (in certain formats) by the UK National Health Service (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/very-low-calorie-diets.aspx) and there is compelling evidence that a VLCD (very low calorie diet) can 'cure' diabetes within one week. This claim is now being tested by a £2.4 million research project. (http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20110624/very-low-calorie-diet-may-reverse-diabetes) https://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/News_Landing_Page/Low-calorie-liquid-diet-study-launched/
I so often hear that VLCD will put your body into 'starvation mode' and that rapid weight loss 'causes loose skin'. As far as I know there is little, if any, evidence for either case. As you say, it is not the gastric sleeve that causes the weight loss but the calorie deficiency following it. As far as I know, there is no harm at all in enforcing that calorie deficiency without the gastric sleeve operation, and it avoids a great many side effects of the op. After following it for a few weeks, I can say that the hunger is annoying, but tolerable. I thought I would be light-headed, unable to concentrate but actually that hasn't happened at all.
My only concern on a VLCD is whether I am getting enough protein and whether I am getting the correct nutrients. Meal replacement shakes often take care of this as they give a percentage of your recommended daily nutrients / protein, and I also have some lean meat and vegetables just to keep it interesting.
0 -
Yes they make you lose weight, but at what cost? You lose muscle mass, in addition to vital nutrients your body needs. Not to mention what has the person really learned? What about sustainability?0
-
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
A large calorie deficit is never " healthier " for anyone. But for very obese people it is not as unhealthy than for less heavy people.
I know that this sounds like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between something being " healthier " and something being less bad.
0 -
I'm not sure what the OP is trying to ask. There are sometimes differences at the biochemical level in weight gain after excess weight loss compared to weight gain in people who haven't experienced extreme weight loss, but you seem to be asking about people who gain too much weight.
VLCDs "work". But there's a reason they require medical supervision and monitoring. For bariatric patients, that includes regular bloodwork and monitoring of hydration levels. Things like electrolyte balance and liver enzyme levels are ongoing concerns. Even with monitoring, nutritional deficiencies are not uncommon. For someone recovering from starvation, the initial physiological and psychological changes that happen after beginning to eat more normally can be frightening, uncomfortable, and sometimes even dangerous - even if they ultimately lead to improved health.
I disagree with trying to define whether psychological or physiological aftereffects of VLCD are more significant. You're trying too hard to separate mind and body here - it's not that simple.
People regain excess weight after monitored VLCD for the same reasons anyone else regains weight: simple ignorance of nutrition, habits and family norms, disordered thinking about food, using food to meet emotional needs, you name it. And any form of restriction, whether it's extreme as in a VLCD or simply saying "I'll never eat sugar again" puts someone at greater risk for binges later. Sugar-free folks, don't jump down my throat here - I'm saying it's a risk, not that it'll happen for everyone.
I'm not a physician. I'm a mental health professional who's worked as part of a medical team on an eating disorder unit, and I've had ED clients in my private practice. I started writing in more detail about the effects of starvation on eating patterns in recovery but deleted it, as it doesn't feel right to have that discussion on these boards.
I'm not really comfortable that you feel the need to ask about this. I'll just put that out there.
**like**0 -
BTW, as a post-bariatric patient, I was only on VLCD for a couple weeks before and a few weeks after surgery. Losses continued after I was able to meet my 1200 calorie a day target.
I don't see how the results of the Minnesota Starvation experiment can be interpreted that the desire to eat more after starvation is "psychological" rather than metabolic.
BTW, three of the Minnesota volunteers went on to become chefs.
Food is lovely.0 -
Can you explain it isn't healthy for someone with enough body fat to provide 3000 calories a day, even apart from food, to have a large calorie deficit?
A large calorie deficit is never " healthier " for anyone. But for very obese people it is not as unhealthy than for less heavy people.
I know that this sounds like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between something being " healthier " and something being less bad.
0 -
LaraMorgan90 wrote: »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
■■■ likely a little of all things. But fasting itself is very beneficial to our health especially for overweight or obese people. The longest clinical fast was 383 days and the patient only hot better day by dsy, week by week month by month until he broke his fast. The man lost 276lbs, and 5 years later is still a healthy 190lbs.
I belive tell biggest reasons people get overweight is due to metabolic syndrome. It's common it seems that most people simply secrete to much insulin in the presence of carbohydrates or sugars. Over secretion of insulin results in insulin resistance or diabetes.
Insulin lower blood sugar
insulin in excess blocks leptin which tells you to stop eatLaraMorgan90 wrote: »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
■■■ MAYBE for some but not most. Mostly it's what they eat that causes them to secrete too much insulin. Most people are prone to ever secreting insulin in response to Sugars and carbohydrates. Too much insulin keeps you hungry because in excess insulin blocks the hormone leptin which tells you to stop eating. It also tells your body to store everything you eat into body fat and it lowers blood sugar effectively if you're not suffering from metabolic disorder. So if you eat the wrong foods high in carbohydrate or sugars you're going to provoke insulin secretion and you're probably going to over secrete insulin and block hormones that tell you your full. this means you will be hungry all the time no matter how little or how much you eat. so I believe it's mostly a metabolic disorder with insulin.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions