Why is it safe for a super morbidly obese person to eat 800 cals a day?
Replies
-
Because they have a lot of excess fat to lose and are under medical supervision throughout the process to minimise negative side effects.0
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »It seems extreme.... certainly there's no way anyone would get enough nutrients on so low calories...
Seems like no one could even eat that low for very long without it leading to falling off the wagon which is why I think they'd be better to eat say 2000 cals + and lose a bit slower...
(This figure could be alot higher but without knowing stats it's just an example)
Actually getting enough nutrients is not really a problem. It just depends on how much vegetables you eat.
You need to eat ALOT of vegetables though, or have a slowjuice machine.
3 -
Have a look at studies like the Minesotta Starvation Study. Very interesting regarding VLCD or in this case water fasting for long periods of time.0
-
Is "super" morbidly obese a term now?
Wasn't morbidly obese enough?
Often when classifications of anything get too broad, subcategories are added.
"BMI categories help evaluate the degree of obesity in a particular person. A person with a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered to be in the healthy range. An individual with a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight, and a person with a BMI of 30 or more is considered obese. A person with a BMI of 40 to 49.9 is morbidly obese and an individual with a BMI of 50 or more has super obesity or super morbid obesity, according to a 2009 article published in "Archives of Surgery."
http://www.livestrong.com/article/369944-super-morbid-obesity-body-mass-index/1 -
-
AimiAutumn wrote: »I'm super confused by this! Usually the heavier/taller you are the more calories you can eat and still lose weight aslong as their is a deficit, but why is it when someone is super morbidly obese its not uncommon or unhealthy according to Doctors to put them on a diet of 800 - 1000 calories?
But if you are just obese its not safe to be on a 1000 calorie diet and they recommend something closer to 1200- 1600 (for a female)
Any thoughts?
I haven't read anything else but my immediate reaction is that an extremely low calorie diet isn't"safe" but it's less dangerous than being morbidly obese.0 -
I believe it's a couple of things. First, the danger of a VLCD is overridden by the danger of being that overweight, so the goal is to get some weight off as quickly as possible. Second, someone on that category has plenty of fat reserves that the body may feed off of, so malnutrition doesn't necessarily become a problem right away.1
-
I think its safe because they probably aren't exercising - sedentary fat doesn't burn calories. Yes they would burn more calories if they were moving, because they are heavier, but they probably aren't. Cutting to 1500 or 1200 calories might not do anything for them. They are better off learning to eat lower calorie foods until they are able to move more.0
-
Just my theory:
The health risks of being super morbidly obese may outweigh the health risks of being on a very low calorie diet, and being under a doctor's care could help to spot issues arising from VLCD early in order to offset them.AimiAutumn wrote: »I'm super confused by this! Usually the heavier/taller you are the more calories you can eat and still lose weight aslong as their is a deficit, but why is it when someone is super morbidly obese its not uncommon or unhealthy according to Doctors to put them on a diet of 800 - 1000 calories?
But if you are just obese its not safe to be on a 1000 calorie diet and they recommend something closer to 1200- 1600 (for a female)
Any thoughts?
0 -
Conventional wisdom is slow, steady and sustainable weight loss. The scientific literature to date shows that the faster weight loss with a protein-sparing modified fast diet results in less hunger and better long term maintenance which I assume is why doctors prescribe "crash diets" for the morbidly obese. There are risks associated with it, of course, the most notable from a paper this year:
"Attention should be paid, particularly in the early phase of weight loss, to high heart rates in order to reduce the spontaneous risk of atrial arrhythmias." -Drastic Calorie Restriction for the Treatment of Massive Obesity1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Conventional wisdom is slow, steady and sustainable weight loss. The scientific literature to date shows that the faster weight loss with a protein-sparing modified fast diet results in less hunger and better long term maintenance which I assume is why doctors prescribe "crash diets" for the morbidly obese.
Never pondered it, but there is probably a good reason they're called "crash diets."2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Conventional wisdom is slow, steady and sustainable weight loss. The scientific literature to date shows that the faster weight loss with a protein-sparing modified fast diet results in less hunger and better long term maintenance which I assume is why doctors prescribe "crash diets" for the morbidly obese.
Never pondered it, but there is probably a good reason they're called "crash diets."
adjective: crash
1. done rapidly or urgently and involving a concentrated effort.
"a crash course in Italian"
synonyms: intensive, concentrated, rapid, short1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Conventional wisdom is slow, steady and sustainable weight loss. The scientific literature to date shows that the faster weight loss with a protein-sparing modified fast diet results in less hunger and better long term maintenance which I assume is why doctors prescribe "crash diets" for the morbidly obese.
Never pondered it, but there is probably a good reason they're called "crash diets."
adjective: crash
1. done rapidly or urgently and involving a concentrated effort.
"a crash course in Italian"
synonyms: intensive, concentrated, rapid, short
I think they're also using the term with this definition in mind:
transitive verb; 1 a: to break violently and noisily3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Is "super" morbidly obese a term now?
Wasn't morbidly obese enough?
Often when classifications of anything get too broad, subcategories are added.
"BMI categories help evaluate the degree of obesity in a particular person. A person with a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered to be in the healthy range. An individual with a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight, and a person with a BMI of 30 or more is considered obese. A person with a BMI of 40 to 49.9 is morbidly obese and an individual with a BMI of 50 or more has super obesity or super morbid obesity, according to a 2009 article published in "Archives of Surgery."
http://www.livestrong.com/article/369944-super-morbid-obesity-body-mass-index/amusedmonkey wrote: »
I've never heard it before, was only aware of class IV and V
Interesting0 -
AimiAutumn wrote: »I'm super confused by this! Usually the heavier/taller you are the more calories you can eat and still lose weight aslong as their is a deficit, but why is it when someone is super morbidly obese its not uncommon or unhealthy according to Doctors to put them on a diet of 800 - 1000 calories?
But if you are just obese its not safe to be on a 1000 calorie diet and they recommend something closer to 1200- 1600 (for a female)
Any thoughts?
It's not safe...thus the whole doctor supervision part...but generally the benefits outweigh the risk for someone who is actually morbidly obese.1 -
Where does the 1200 calories come from? I can't find a study on it.0
-
Most of the time that amount of calories is closely monitored by the doctor to ensure the patient is getting proper nutrient supplementation.
Perhaps the most important caveat to VLCDs. They must be closely supervised by well-informed medical personnel and also include proper vitamins and other supplements to avoid malnutrition, organ damage, etc.
0 -
Where does the 1200 calories come from? I can't find a study on it.
There wasn't one. 1200 calories was considered the minimum number of cals where the average person would be reasonably likely to get adequate nutrition without extra effort (i.e. supplementation or a carefully crafted diet). I can't remember off of the top of my head which organization came up with it - FDA, I think.
It was a committee decision and not a scientifically determined one, though for once it's a pretty good baseline.0 -
Where does the 1200 calories come from? I can't find a study on it.
There wasn't one. 1200 calories was considered the minimum number of cals where the average person would be reasonably likely to get adequate nutrition without extra effort (i.e. supplementation or a carefully crafted diet). I can't remember off of the top of my head which organization came up with it - FDA, I think.
It was a committee decision and not a scientifically determined one, though for once it's a pretty good baseline.
And it was for average sedentary woman. (height & weight)
And using average eating habits - not even hitting the recommended food group quantities.
Avg male was 1500.1 -
Eat under to a reasonable calorie count that you can maintain and still loose weight. a couple years ago my BMI was at a stellar 85.1, it is now 70.9... my doctors advice back then was try a 3000 calorie diet, now he says try for 2000 so naturally i am averaging a 2750 calorie diet with much more exercise than i used to get, since i can move better now. diabetes, high blood pressure and arthritis in most of my load bearing joints.
of course he thinks i should have surgery, but my personal thought on that is: 'i have large bore rifles which i would use on myself before i would allow them to modify me'.
sorry.1 -
philippakate197 wrote: »
I am 100-150 lbs overweight at 6'3" and 350lbs and I feel like what you say in the quote rings right by me.justincooper405 wrote: »I also think that doctors believe it won't be adhered to rigidly, so advise a lower calorie goal to account for the extra calories that the patient will probably consume.1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Where does the 1200 calories come from? I can't find a study on it.
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/0 -
Well you just pinpointed the reason so many fail with the low calorie diets as low as 500- 1000calories or get ill. I see it as Doctor being reakless even cruel. A 1200-1500cal diet for a Woman y higher for a man they would safely drop the weight just walking a little more at home more y more daily makes a difference.10min then 30min until they find themselves doing it multiple times a day for longer periods of time.
Look up Those tv ones who were on 500-700calories for tv weight loss quickly for contest to gastric bypass where are they now? Some died,heart issues,y some gained some back. Loosing slowly also helps with the skin of weight loss. They all lost so fast they needed skin removal surgeries.2 -
Not exactly sure why this got bumped after 3 years, but I will take a swing at it:
A couple of the points have already been covered, that the risks of continuing obesity sometimes outweigh the risk of rapid weight loss, and these dieters are getting supplemented nutrition that they are not getting from their calorie intake.
One other thing though is that the more excess fat someone has, the more comfortable the body feels with burning fat stores for energy. So even though it is counter intuitive, a very obese person may handle a VLCD better than a skinny person, because their body has the fat stores to handle more aggressive deficits. This does not mean that there are not risks still associated with it, but it's some of the reasoning behind it.
6 -
I think it is a terrible idea regardless of medical supervision. The only thing more terrible is dying because you need a surgery and something like the amount of visceral fat is preventing it from happening.
A super morbidly obese person can already lose weight at a really fast pace. There is no reason to go faster unless it was life threatening.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
The risks of being that obese outweigh the risks from living on too few calories.0
-
Is it safe, or is it judged (whether correctly or incorrectly, and with all the outcomes not known ahead of time) as a better alternative than other options?
About the only statement *I* would make about that safety is that it's relatively safer for them as compared to someone with less fat available to lose.
Safer does not equal safe and problem-free.
7 -
As I'm sure has been mentioned it's not safe which is why it is only done under very close medical supervision and when deemed appropriate by the doctors who will be taking responsibility for the care of the patient. It's not something people should be doing on their own. So it's not a case of you can't and more a case of it's risky to do so and needs to be professionally managed.
In the extreme is the case of Angus Barbieri who under supervision of doctors didn't eat for over a year (fasted for 382 days). This included very regular visits with a team of doctors at a Dundee university including frequent overnight stays in hospital.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions