Starvation Diets - Questioning that psychological not metabolic damage the reason they fail?
Options
Replies
-
from my understanding, metabolic damage is a short run kind of thing...it isn't long term. the bigger issues with VLCDs is a lack of proper nutrition...that, combined with inadequate energy will result in all kinds of wonky *kitten* happening with your hormones as well as loss of lean tissue (organs, muscles, etc) and bone mass. this is also when people start losing hair, nails go brittle, periods cease, etc.
i think those things are far worse than any short term metabolic damage.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I disagree. fasting is healthy for almost everybody even if you have 7 to 10 percent body fat. let's say you weigh 200 pounds and are 10 percent body fat that means you have 20 pounds of body fat from an energy perspective 3500 calories is an estimated value of one pound of body fat. so if you burn 2000 calories a day as your metabolic resting rate you can see that even a lame person with only 20 pounds of body fat at 10% of the total weight is carrying 70,000 + calories in reserve. if you stop eating your body what happened to the 70 thousand plus calories to feed you because your brain will not allow you do not feed your vital organs and body. so with 70,000 calories in reserve in theory you could go 35 days without food and your body would still get its 2000 calories a day right from your own body fat.. clinical test have proven fasting is actually healthy for our bodies as it improves blood lipids & our auto immune functions.
FASTING however is not highly popular because people want to eat. There are other ways to fast while you eat and that is to deprive your body of carbohydrates and sugars which is as effective as true fasting.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I disagree. fasting is healthy for almost everybody even if you have 7 to 10 percent body fat. let's say you weigh 200 pounds and are 10 percent body fat that means you have 20 pounds of body fat from an energy perspective 3500 calories is an estimated value of one pound of body fat. so if you burn 2000 calories a day as your metabolic resting rate you can see that even a lame person with only 20 pounds of body fat at 10% of the total weight is carrying 70,000 + calories in reserve. if you stop eating your body what happened to the 70 thousand plus calories to feed you because your brain will not allow you do not feed your vital organs and body. so with 70,000 calories in reserve in theory you could go 35 days without food and your body would still get its 2000 calories a day right from your own body fat.. clinical test have proven fasting is actually healthy for our bodies as it improves blood lipids & our auto immune functions.
FASTING however is not highly popular because people want to eat. There are other ways to fast while you eat and that is to deprive your body of carbohydrates and sugars which is as effective as true fasting.
Lol lol lol
Because your body would get 100% of its needed energy from the fat alone. It wouldn't use muscle or bone mass?0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »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?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
0 -
Your body can't metabolize fat that quickly. Twenty pounds of fat might get you 600 calories a day. The rest of your deficit is going to come from burning something else in your body.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
I disagree. fasting is healthy for almost everybody even if you have 7 to 10 percent body fat. let's say you weigh 200 pounds and are 10 percent body fat that means you have 20 pounds of body fat from an energy perspective 3500 calories is an estimated value of one pound of body fat. so if you burn 2000 calories a day as your metabolic resting rate you can see that even a lame person with only 20 pounds of body fat at 10% of the total weight is carrying 70,000 + calories in reserve. if you stop eating your body what happened to the 70 thousand plus calories to feed you because your brain will not allow you do not feed your vital organs and body. so with 70,000 calories in reserve in theory you could go 35 days without food and your body would still get its 2000 calories a day right from your own body fat.. clinical test have proven fasting is actually healthy for our bodies as it improves blood lipids & our auto immune functions.
FASTING however is not highly popular because people want to eat. There are other ways to fast while you eat and that is to deprive your body of carbohydrates and sugars which is as effective as true fasting.
0 -
IMHO it is a combination of psychological and physiological torture. Most of my experience in weight loss, due to very low calorie intake, came from pregnancies. I had Hyperemesis gravidarum, I began vomiting before I missed a period and continued until 24 hours after delivery. I always ended up weighing less after delivery than prior to conception. While pregnant, I dreamed about food, I craved food, but the moment I tried to eat the nausea would over power the desire. I had to force myself to eat. 24 hours after delivery, I could eat again, and I did! I gained weight faster than ever before. I felt run down, weak and tired. This was apart from the rigors associated with caring for a newborn. 7 pregnancies and only 3 live births gave me ample opportunity to compare. When I have chosen to eat a VLCD I am extremely uncomfortable physically and emotionally after a few days. Why would anyone volunteer for such self torture as a VLCD when sustainable changes in CICO result in successful weight loss as well as an enhanced sense of health and well being?0
-
daniwilford wrote: »Why would anyone volunteer for such self torture as a VLCD when sustainable changes in CICO result in successful weight loss as well as an enhanced sense of health and well being?
Speed. If your BMI is over 40 and your looking at fixing it then faster loss rate has its appeal. Actual VLCDs don't involve high levels of hunger or discomfort, any more than fasting does.
0 -
daniwilford wrote: »Why would anyone volunteer for such self torture as a VLCD when sustainable changes in CICO result in successful weight loss as well as an enhanced sense of health and well being?
Speed. If your BMI is over 40 and your looking at fixing it then faster loss rate has its appeal. Actual VLCDs don't involve high levels of hunger or discomfort, any more than fasting does.
Yes, but in these cases they should be doctor monitored.0 -
My BMI was over 40, March 8, 2015, I have since lost over 40 pounds. I have never lost that much that fast before. All without the torture of fasting or feeling hungry.
Speed. If your BMI is over 40 and your looking at fixing it then faster loss rate has its appeal. Actual VLCDs don't involve high levels of hunger or discomfort, any more than fasting does.
0 -
The "torture" is in your head.0
-
-
" In comparison with baseline ratings obtained on a 1000-1200 kcal balanced-calorie diet, PSMF subjects reported significantly less hunger and preoccupation with food during 2 of the 4 weeks on very-low-calorie diet " http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/41/3/533.full.pdf0
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »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?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
Where exactly do you see the OP stating anything about this diet? She said VLCD. You're talking about a very specific diet that is high in protein, low in carbs. Regardless, this has nothing to do with my statement.0 -
I, too, am trying to understand the parallel. I dont think anyone would dispute that protein is sparing, even while on a lcd. There are plenty of resistance training studies that show maintenance of lean body mass over short term.Liftng4Lis wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »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?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
Where exactly do you see the OP stating anything about this diet? She said VLCD. You're talking about a very specific diet that is high in protein, low in carbs. Regardless, this has nothing to do with my statement.
In fact, it would be my opinion that if you were under a supervised vlcd then low carb would be ideal to ensure you get vital nutrients and it will keep you full.0 -
LaraMorgan90 wrote: »Firstly if LCD don't work..
Who said they don't work?
LCDs have the same success rate as go-slower calorie-counting methods.
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?
That individual could eat literally nothing but supplements for six months and come out of it completely fine.
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »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?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
Where exactly do you see the OP stating anything about this diet? She said VLCD. You're talking about a very specific diet that is high in protein, low in carbs. Regardless, this has nothing to do with my statement.
PSMF is an example of a VLCD. Since it is well established that PSMFs work extremely well at both dropping weight and preserving lean body mass, any blanket statement about VLCDs claiming VLCDs don't work is automatically wrong.
THAT is the connection.
0 -
I have yet to hear a testimonial of an individual for whom a VLCD yielded a sustainable and maintainable weight loss. How happy were they with their sense of well being and health during the process? I plan on a level of CICO for my lifetime to be similar to now, because it feels so great.0
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »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?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
Where exactly do you see the OP stating anything about this diet? She said VLCD. You're talking about a very specific diet that is high in protein, low in carbs. Regardless, this has nothing to do with my statement.
PSMF is an example of a VLCD. Since it is well established that PSMFs work extremely well at both dropping weight and preserving lean body mass, any blanket statement about VLCDs claiming VLCDs don't work is automatically wrong.
THAT is the connection.
So what he was trying to say was that "ON SOME OCCASIONS, with this EXCEPTION"......
I reiterate, it had nothing to do with OP's post.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Your body can't metabolize fat that quickly. Twenty pounds of fat might get you 600 calories a day. The rest of your deficit is going to come from burning something else in your body.
That "31 calories/pound/day" went away a long time ago.
And the number isn't even static - it changes significantly in response the external pressures. Going into an 18 hour fast is, by itself, good for a 20%+ boost.
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