Why VLCD "work" and why they are a horrible idea
Options
allenpriest
Posts: 1,102 Member
Promotion of very low calorie diets is prohibited on these discussion forums. VLCD will allow one to lose weight rapidly. So why is promotion banned and why do so many regular posters jump on any discussion of such with a vengeance? Here is why.
You will lose lots of weight rapidly on VLCD. When you restrict calories below about 1100 for women and 1500 for men, the body starts to hunt for enough energy to keep the brain running properly. The first reserve is the store of glucose stored in the liver. There is about a pound there. That pound of sugar also ties up about 3 pounds of water. So over the first couple of days the liver gets drained of sugar and you dump the water and you lose 3.5 to 4 pounds.
Now the liver is depleted, so the body looks for another energy source. The amino acids in muscle proteins are very similar to glucose and the liver and easily convert them into glucose. So, taking the path of least resistance, the body tears down muscle to keep the brain running. One pound of muscle yields about 700 calories so the body burns one half to one pound of muscle trying to keep up. So this will yield 3-5 pounds per week - a pretty common claim of VLCD.
Now what? When your body is under this level of stress your metabolic rate starts to drop so that one can get by on fewer calories. This slows down the weight loss. Then the intense feelings of depravation and just bad feelings kick in and the dieter abandons the VLCD.
In returning to regular eating habits the liver fills back up with the pound of glucose and the accompanying water. That four pound bounce happens in a day or two. Building the muscle back won't happen like that though. The body with push the extra calories into fat. And since the maintenance of muscle requires more calories than does the maintenance of fat, the body gets set in the pattern of less muscle and more fat.
So we end up with a messed up metabolism, less muscle, more fat, and a temporary drop in weight that is not a drop in any fat and that cannot be maintained.
That is why VLCD promotion is banned and why regular posters attack such so vociferously.
You will lose lots of weight rapidly on VLCD. When you restrict calories below about 1100 for women and 1500 for men, the body starts to hunt for enough energy to keep the brain running properly. The first reserve is the store of glucose stored in the liver. There is about a pound there. That pound of sugar also ties up about 3 pounds of water. So over the first couple of days the liver gets drained of sugar and you dump the water and you lose 3.5 to 4 pounds.
Now the liver is depleted, so the body looks for another energy source. The amino acids in muscle proteins are very similar to glucose and the liver and easily convert them into glucose. So, taking the path of least resistance, the body tears down muscle to keep the brain running. One pound of muscle yields about 700 calories so the body burns one half to one pound of muscle trying to keep up. So this will yield 3-5 pounds per week - a pretty common claim of VLCD.
Now what? When your body is under this level of stress your metabolic rate starts to drop so that one can get by on fewer calories. This slows down the weight loss. Then the intense feelings of depravation and just bad feelings kick in and the dieter abandons the VLCD.
In returning to regular eating habits the liver fills back up with the pound of glucose and the accompanying water. That four pound bounce happens in a day or two. Building the muscle back won't happen like that though. The body with push the extra calories into fat. And since the maintenance of muscle requires more calories than does the maintenance of fat, the body gets set in the pattern of less muscle and more fat.
So we end up with a messed up metabolism, less muscle, more fat, and a temporary drop in weight that is not a drop in any fat and that cannot be maintained.
That is why VLCD promotion is banned and why regular posters attack such so vociferously.
0
Replies
-
Sorry, but I don't think so. Not sure where you got your info.
VLCD isn't ideal, and it sure isn't fun. But it is effective for weight loss for the morbidly obese under a doctor's supervision.
Been there, done that.
If you had done the same you would likely know that rule number one on a VLCD is to prioritize protein and hit a minimum protein goal every day to maintain muscle mass.
In my first 3 months on 800 calories a day I lost 30 pounds the first month and then another 30 over the next two months. Proceeded to lose a total of 100 pounds.
I didn't regain because I did VLCD, I regained because I had a lot of stress and grief in my life and I didn't prioritize good eating and exercise habits.
And, per another thread that came up here, VLCD isn't banned. What is banned is promoting VLCD without a doctor's supervision and/or promoting if for people who are not morbidly obese.0 -
-
Sorry, but I don't think so. Not sure where you got your info.
VLCD isn't ideal, and it sure isn't fun. But it is effective for weight loss for the morbidly obese under a doctor's supervision.
Been there, done that.
If you had done the same you would likely know that rule number one on a VLCD is to prioritize protein and hit a minimum protein goal every day to maintain muscle mass.
In my first 3 months on 800 calories a day I lost 30 pounds the first month and then another 30 over the next two months. Proceeded to lose a total of 100 pounds.
I didn't regain because I did VLCD, I regained because I had a lot of stress and grief in my life and I didn't prioritize good eating and exercise habits.
And, per another thread that came up here, VLCD isn't banned. What is banned is promoting VLCD without a doctor's supervision and/or promoting if for people who are not morbidly obese.
There's the crux. Almost never even one of those is a given when it comes up.0 -
Sorry, but I don't think so. Not sure where you got your info.
VLCD isn't ideal, and it sure isn't fun. But it is effective for weight loss for the morbidly obese under a doctor's supervision.
Been there, done that.
If you had done the same you would likely know that rule number one on a VLCD is to prioritize protein and hit a minimum protein goal every day to maintain muscle mass.
That seems more along the lines of PSMF?
Either way threads like these are why I Love/hate the MFP forums. People here love to speak in absolutes any will deny till they are blue that any exceptions exist until the magical D word is mentioned. Be it Keto, VLCD/PSMF, or appetite suppressants.
I also find it interested this thread implied you will long term damage your metabolism, but do a search for "starvation mode" and everyone jumps on that there is no such thing or that it doesn't work like that.
0 -
I feel like I'm missing some context. Were there recent VLCD threads that I missed?0
-
-
When the Protocol was written, it was written with the idea that once the weight was lost YOU WOULD EAT PROPERLY. After my recent 50lb loss, I have maintained my new weight (within 5lbs) for months. I agree, it will all come back if I do what I always DID (changing those habits, is key).
The VLCD and subsequent introduction of new and HEALTHY foods in a slow and methodical manner, will allow me to maintain my new figure. The addition of exercise that I enjoy (for me, walking) also ensures that all my body functions are optimal. The VLCD sounds scary, but it does work for those who CHOOSE to stick with the program and who have given up all other hope.
It's no unhealthier than my old cholesterol numbers and associated dietary habits were (worth the trade off)...0 -
allenpriest wrote: »Promotion of very low calorie diets is prohibited on these discussion forums. VLCD will allow one to lose weight rapidly. So why is promotion banned and why do so many regular posters jump on any discussion of such with a vengeance? Here is why.
You will lose lots of weight rapidly on VLCD. When you restrict calories below about 1100 for women and 1500 for men, the body starts to hunt for enough energy to keep the brain running properly. The first reserve is the store of glucose stored in the liver. There is about a pound there. That pound of sugar also ties up about 3 pounds of water. So over the first couple of days the liver gets drained of sugar and you dump the water and you lose 3.5 to 4 pounds.
Now the liver is depleted, so the body looks for another energy source. The amino acids in muscle proteins are very similar to glucose and the liver and easily convert them into glucose. So, taking the path of least resistance, the body tears down muscle to keep the brain running. One pound of muscle yields about 700 calories so the body burns one half to one pound of muscle trying to keep up. So this will yield 3-5 pounds per week - a pretty common claim of VLCD.
Now what? When your body is under this level of stress your metabolic rate starts to drop so that one can get by on fewer calories. This slows down the weight loss. Then the intense feelings of depravation and just bad feelings kick in and the dieter abandons the VLCD.
In returning to regular eating habits the liver fills back up with the pound of glucose and the accompanying water. That four pound bounce happens in a day or two. Building the muscle back won't happen like that though. The body with push the extra calories into fat. And since the maintenance of muscle requires more calories than does the maintenance of fat, the body gets set in the pattern of less muscle and more fat.
So we end up with a messed up metabolism, less muscle, more fat, and a temporary drop in weight that is not a drop in any fat and that cannot be maintained.
That is why VLCD promotion is banned and why regular posters attack such so vociferously.
I call woo. Unless a person goes straight into fasting, metabolic changes are more dictated by the diet composition and exercise types taking place. There are studies showing increased metabolism after different types of VLCD diets, as well as overall improvements in multiple health markers. That's why they are used at times by doctors, and only in context with the desired/needed results.
A person not eating or training properly can lose just as much lean mass on a slow and "safe" deficit. Or preserve just as much, even possibly gain, if they eat and train correctly.
You're using the extremes of LBM loss more compared to full starvation type fasting, along with the assumption that everything would be done wrong after the diet is over. When no food at all is being eaten, the body does alter and essentially converts to ketosis, at which point LBM losses slow as compared to the initial period. Most VLCD's these days order moderate to high levels of protein and control carbs as well, avoiding any LBM losses over what "conventional" diets might influence.
VLCD promotion is banned per terms of service due to the site not allowing promotion without medical interests involved. As for why any regular members attack, I'll leave that up to them to state, if it applies.0 -
Bull-Pucky! 1200 for men!0
-
Sorry, but I don't think so. Not sure where you got your info.
VLCD isn't ideal, and it sure isn't fun. But it is effective for weight loss for the morbidly obese under a doctor's supervision.
True - a necessarily short term, medically supervised approach weighing up.risks of not losing the weight against risks of the VLCD approach
Been there, done that.
If you had done the same you would likely know that rule number one on a VLCD is to prioritize protein and hit a minimum protein goal every day to maintain muscle mass.
This will help reduce the rate of loss as a proportion of total loss when coupled with progressive resistance but will absolutely not maintain muscle mass. Still a medical decision
In my first 3 months on 800 calories a day I lost 30 pounds the first month and then another 30 over the next two months. Proceeded to lose a total of 100 pounds.
I didn't regain because I did VLCD, I regained because I had a lot of stress and grief in my life and I didn't prioritize good eating and exercise habits.
And, per another thread that came up here, VLCD isn't banned. What is banned is promoting VLCD without a doctor's supervision and/or promoting if for people who are not morbidly obese
.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
Also I'm finding it impossible to read accurately without more context
I'm getting n=48 but can't work out the randomisation or who is on a self selected ..what's CR and EX? What's the time range?
Assume LCD is low calorie diet but it appears to imply this is a 15% cut which isn't by definition under a specified calorie number0 -
your search skills need a bit of work :-) LCD is the VLCD at 800 cals until a 15% weight goal was hit, then maintenance. CR is a 25% calorie reduction from baseline by eating less. CR+EX is 12.5% food restriction plus 12.5% extra exercise compared to baseline. Three groups.0
-
your search skills need a bit of work :-) LCD is the VLCD at 800 cals until a 15% weight goal was hit, then maintenance. CR is a 25% calorie reduction from baseline by eating less. CR+EX is 12.5% food restriction plus 12.5% extra exercise compared to baseline. Three groups.
Post the study0 -
allenpriest wrote: »Promotion of very low calorie diets is prohibited on these discussion forums. VLCD will allow one to lose weight rapidly. So why is promotion banned and why do so many regular posters jump on any discussion of such with a vengeance? Here is why.
You will lose lots of weight rapidly on VLCD. When you restrict calories below about 1100 for women and 1500 for men, the body starts to hunt for enough energy to keep the brain running properly. The first reserve is the store of glucose stored in the liver. There is about a pound there. That pound of sugar also ties up about 3 pounds of water. So over the first couple of days the liver gets drained of sugar and you dump the water and you lose 3.5 to 4 pounds.
Now the liver is depleted, so the body looks for another energy source. The amino acids in muscle proteins are very similar to glucose and the liver and easily convert them into glucose. So, taking the path of least resistance, the body tears down muscle to keep the brain running. One pound of muscle yields about 700 calories so the body burns one half to one pound of muscle trying to keep up. So this will yield 3-5 pounds per week - a pretty common claim of VLCD.
Now what? When your body is under this level of stress your metabolic rate starts to drop so that one can get by on fewer calories. This slows down the weight loss. Then the intense feelings of depravation and just bad feelings kick in and the dieter abandons the VLCD.
In returning to regular eating habits the liver fills back up with the pound of glucose and the accompanying water. That four pound bounce happens in a day or two. Building the muscle back won't happen like that though. The body with push the extra calories into fat. And since the maintenance of muscle requires more calories than does the maintenance of fat, the body gets set in the pattern of less muscle and more fat.
So we end up with a messed up metabolism, less muscle, more fat, and a temporary drop in weight that is not a drop in any fat and that cannot be maintained.
That is why VLCD promotion is banned and why regular posters attack such so vociferously.
Bless your heart, but no. Just no. Let me get some coffee and I'll be willing to go point by point what you got wrong. It'll take less time if I say "pretty much every word" but I can go point by point if you like. Since I've been living a VLCD for over a year under a doctor's supervision, I can speak with some authority on the matter.0 -
allenpriest wrote: »Promotion of very low calorie diets is prohibited on these discussion forums. VLCD will allow one to lose weight rapidly. So why is promotion banned and why do so many regular posters jump on any discussion of such with a vengeance? Here is why.
You will lose lots of weight rapidly on VLCD. When you restrict calories below about 1100 for women and 1500 for men, the body starts to hunt for enough energy to keep the brain running properly. The first reserve is the store of glucose stored in the liver. There is about a pound there. That pound of sugar also ties up about 3 pounds of water. So over the first couple of days the liver gets drained of sugar and you dump the water and you lose 3.5 to 4 pounds.
Now the liver is depleted, so the body looks for another energy source. The amino acids in muscle proteins are very similar to glucose and the liver and easily convert them into glucose. So, taking the path of least resistance, the body tears down muscle to keep the brain running. One pound of muscle yields about 700 calories so the body burns one half to one pound of muscle trying to keep up. So this will yield 3-5 pounds per week - a pretty common claim of VLCD.
Now what? When your body is under this level of stress your metabolic rate starts to drop so that one can get by on fewer calories. This slows down the weight loss. Then the intense feelings of depravation and just bad feelings kick in and the dieter abandons the VLCD.
In returning to regular eating habits the liver fills back up with the pound of glucose and the accompanying water. That four pound bounce happens in a day or two. Building the muscle back won't happen like that though. The body with push the extra calories into fat. And since the maintenance of muscle requires more calories than does the maintenance of fat, the body gets set in the pattern of less muscle and more fat.
So we end up with a messed up metabolism, less muscle, more fat, and a temporary drop in weight that is not a drop in any fat and that cannot be maintained.
That is why VLCD promotion is banned and why regular posters attack such so vociferously.
Bless your heart, but no. Just no. Let me get some coffee and I'll be willing to go point by point what you got wrong. It'll take less time if I say "pretty much every word" but I can go point by point if you like. Since I've been living a VLCD for over a year under a doctor's supervision, I can speak with some authority on the matter.
Most people do not do it under doctor's supervision. They're likely to *kitten* themselves over with it. Inadequate nutrition, not enough fat mass to warrant it, etc.0 -
Since I've been living a VLCD for over a year under a doctor's supervision, I can speak with some authority on the matter.
Oh god love you...that is a long time. I hope you have found some good variety to work with. I got so bored eat the SOS everyday, and I'm not that easily bored with food.Most people do not do it under doctor's supervision. They're likely to ***** themselves over with it. Inadequate nutrition, not enough fat mass to warrant it, etc.
I think we got that. There does tend to be a "one size fits all" dogma on the site though, when in reality "one size fits most". It could be that there are people on the board that could/would benefit from a doctor supervised VLCD and the information posted by the OP just straight up demonizes the concept.
My trigger is a near universal incidence of diabetes in my maternal family, a mix of Type I and Type II. Grandmother's generation...something like 7-8 kids, all diabetic. My mom's generation, 4 girls, all Type II diabetic.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Most people do not do it under doctor's supervision. They're likely to *kitten* themselves over with it. Inadequate nutrition, not enough fat mass to warrant it, etc.
Oh I know and I'm one of the first to tell them they're being boneheads.Oh god love you...that is a long time. I hope you have found some good variety to work with. I got so bored eat the SOS everyday, and I'm not that easily bored with food.
Coming out of it now. Although my calorie intake is normal for someone sedentary, it's still not normal for what I'm doing with exercise. But the doctors say keep on keeping on, so I am.
As for variety, my docs sent me to keto and told me don't look back. I get veggies and fruits I like and I now know how to track it so it's mostly tolerable. I can have a couple of grains that don't absolutely kill me, but in small quantities. If nothing else, it was one helluva elimination diet to figure out which foods weren't working.
I am glad the weekly blood work is done, because I got tired of looking like a drug addict with the track marks. Long sleeves in Florida in the summer are murder. And my hair is growing back. Yay!
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I feel like I'm missing some context. Were there recent VLCD threads that I missed?
At least 2 within the last couple of days. One who is starting at 252 and wants to get to 150 by June. People told her it was a bad idea, and then did the calorie/exercise math for her anyway. Then someone jumped in who lost 122 lbs since June, the OP declared the second person their idol, and they rode off into the sunset together.
I don't remember the other, but it was locked & presumably vanished.0 -
I think we got that. There does tend to be a "one size fits all" dogma on the site though, when in reality "one size fits most". It could be that there are people on the board that could/would benefit from a doctor supervised VLCD and the information posted by the OP just straight up demonizes the concept.
I tend to agree with the above. And though I'm all about people being safe and speaking with professionals, I'm actually shocked that much of the medical community still seems to view VLCD as a set number, and not a percentage of body weight. As with the MFP guidelines, lower calorie limits to what is or isn't safe seem quite flawed IMO. Those lower limits might be needed for a very small person with a low RMR/TDEE for even slight weight loss, where someone who is grossly obese shooting for those lower limits would be dealing with a huge deficit.
But many if not most diets will result in some loss of muscle mass, even for those with the right diet and lifting. IMO people just want to fool themselves that loss of muscle mass as well as weight fluctuations due to glycogen stores happen in most diets. And I can't at all agree that any VLCD will result in screwed up metabolism and/or quick loss of LBM. There seems to be evidence that the short duration of a medically supervised VLCD is often just as good or superior in preserving LBM vs fat as percentages.
I think that at times the extremes recommended in other areas are just as harming as people using VLCDs without professional supervision. It's just that the MFP guidelines and TOS aren't as specific when it comes to certain types of advice. I think weight control is much more individual and avoiding the "one size fits all" approach is a good thing. Making suggestions or tossing it out there as a consideration are great, but at times I think people want to say "that is bad, this is good!" when in fact they are getting hung up on what worked for them.0 -
allenpriest wrote: »Promotion of very low calorie diets is prohibited on these discussion forums. VLCD will allow one to lose weight rapidly. So why is promotion banned and why do so many regular posters jump on any discussion of such with a vengeance? Here is why.
You will lose lots of weight rapidly on VLCD. When you restrict calories below about 1100 for women and 1500 for men, the body starts to hunt for enough energy to keep the brain running properly. The first reserve is the store of glucose stored in the liver. There is about a pound there. That pound of sugar also ties up about 3 pounds of water. So over the first couple of days the liver gets drained of sugar and you dump the water and you lose 3.5 to 4 pounds.
Now the liver is depleted, so the body looks for another energy source. The amino acids in muscle proteins are very similar to glucose and the liver and easily convert them into glucose. So, taking the path of least resistance, the body tears down muscle to keep the brain running. One pound of muscle yields about 700 calories so the body burns one half to one pound of muscle trying to keep up. So this will yield 3-5 pounds per week - a pretty common claim of VLCD.
Now what? When your body is under this level of stress your metabolic rate starts to drop so that one can get by on fewer calories. This slows down the weight loss. Then the intense feelings of depravation and just bad feelings kick in and the dieter abandons the VLCD.
In returning to regular eating habits the liver fills back up with the pound of glucose and the accompanying water. That four pound bounce happens in a day or two. Building the muscle back won't happen like that though. The body with push the extra calories into fat. And since the maintenance of muscle requires more calories than does the maintenance of fat, the body gets set in the pattern of less muscle and more fat.
So we end up with a messed up metabolism, less muscle, more fat, and a temporary drop in weight that is not a drop in any fat and that cannot be maintained.
That is why VLCD promotion is banned and why regular posters attack such so vociferously.
Bless your heart, but no. Just no. Let me get some coffee and I'll be willing to go point by point what you got wrong. It'll take less time if I say "pretty much every word" but I can go point by point if you like. Since I've been living a VLCD for over a year under a doctor's supervision, I can speak with some authority on the matter.
And you know how many folks on here want to lose 10 oR 15 pounds and jump to VLCD. They are not under a doc's care. They are just winging it. Example? Those "military diet" threads perhsps?? And what I described is exactly what happens.
You may be working with a doc. Good for you. Hope it works. But there are good reasons why VLCD are discouraged.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions