I don't lose weight- scientific miracle?

SLLRunner

Didn't see you post any sources to counter my original argument (outside of loosely referencing the MSE), but since you ask here are my references for the previous comments I made:

That's because I'm not the one who is making too-good-to-be true assertions. I don't see where the articles support your assertion that very low calorie diets provide more nutrition than a 3,000 calorie diet. Most of them are studies on insulin resistance and very low calorie diets used in fighting obesity. The thing about very low calorie diet, however, is that they are not sustainable long term and nobody can successfully live on a 600 calorie diet.

However, I did like the article on the myths, but even some of those are off and pretty much based on opinion rather then reality. The scholars, if you will, who wrote this article

With this statement;

The important part to pay attention to is eating enough nutrients and you can eat more nutrients in 500 calories than 3,000.

it sounds to me like you are advising the original poster to eat 500 calories to lose weight Is that your intent?

My main point is you can eat more nutrition in 500 calories than you can in 3,000 which you don't disagree with. The average American diet has less nutrition than this and yet millions of people live off of it for many many years. When talking about a 500 calorie diet to either loss weight or reverse diabetes for a temporary or intermittent dieting solution is quite viable[/b]

I think the bold part is a misquote. I DO disagree with that statement.

I'm sorry, but one week studies of using VLCD to reverse diabetes does not seem viable in the long term to me. VLCD are not sustainable in the long run, therefore when a person returns to eating normally I'm sure their diabetes is right there waiting for them.

As for eating more to raise your BMR, I don't see where any of the articles support this.

in_the_stars

?500 calories a day to get all your micros and macros? I eat until I meet and exceed them but I have never been able to do it under 1200+ calories.

SLLRunner

?500 calories a day to get all your micros and macros? I eat until I meet and exceed them but I have never been able to do it under 1200+ calories.

Right, that's my point exactly.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

SLLRunner

Betente,

I'm not saying that VLCD are evil, and I realize that they are successful for obese people when done under a docto'r's case. And, yes tI did read the articles you provided after the gym as I sat at the kitchen eating my 825 calorie lunch.

if someone is not losing weight OR is maintaining, then they indeed are eating too much. Common sense dictates to decrease calories. However, a VLCD is not necessary at all. What is necessary in the mainstream diet journey is to to figure out where one is overestimating on food and underestimating on calories burnt and making adjustments. I know, I've been there before, and so have countless other people.

As for eating 500 calories in spinach and getting all your nutrients, man does not survive on spinach alone. And, besides this, we both seem to have forgotten that it's calories that determines weight loss and nutrients are for energy. The big picture is that 500 calories is not enough fuel to get you very far, and VLCD are for those are obese and under a doctor's care, not for someone is is simply overweight and can't figure out why they are not losing weight.

Mini_horse_lover

You're vegetarian, not vegan

When I cut out all animal products I put on weight, but I gathered that was because I was eating less fat so was more hungry.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MelodyandBarbells

Adjusting down to super low calorie intake may have the same effect as figuring out where you are over logging and fixing it, however, only one of the two approaches is in compliance with the MFP site-wide guidelines:

"3 b) Profiles, groups, messages, posts, or wall comments that encourage anorexia, bulimia, or very low calorie diets of any kind will be removed, and may be grounds for account deletion. This includes positive references to ana/mia, purging, or self-starving. Our goal is to provide users with the tools to achieve their weight management goals at a steady, sustainable rate. Use of the site to promote, glamorize, or achieve dangerously low levels of eating is not permitted."

So, for example, if someone says she's eating 1200 calories but in reality is probably eating 2200, rather than adjust down the goal to 500 she really should figure out where she's under logging and resolve any issues

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MelodyandBarbells

Adjusting down to super low calorie intake may have the same effect as figuring out where you are over logging and fixing it, however, only one of the two approaches is in compliance with the MFP site-wide guidelines:

"3 b) Profiles, groups, messages, posts, or wall comments that encourage anorexia, bulimia, or very low calorie diets of any kind will be removed, and may be grounds for account deletion. This includes positive references to ana/mia, purging, or self-starving. Our goal is to provide users with the tools to achieve their weight management goals at a steady, sustainable rate. Use of the site to promote, glamorize, or achieve dangerously low levels of eating is not permitted."

So, for example, if someone says she's eating 1200 calories but in reality is probably eating 2200, rather than adjust down the goal to 500 she really should figure out where she's under logging and resolve any issues

Wow. Thanks for sharing that, although I do find it absurd to include VLED in the mix of eating disorders. It also implies that eating a highly nutritious VLED is dangerous and again the overwhelming whole of scientific evidence confirms VLEDs are the best overall approach for long term weight loss and reversal of Type II diabetes. What's more dangerous, living with diabetes for 6 months unnecessarily on a moderate approach or using a VLED to reverse it in weeks?

If you're talking about the cure for a disease, hopefully that should be best discussed with a doctor

Most of us here just ate too much and if we can lose it eating >1200 calories per day, why not? *shrug*

Unknown

This content has been removed.

SLLRunner

Yes, which is entirely my point. If you don't lose calories at 1,200 calories a day eat less calories. You don't have to worry about health because you can eat more nutrients than the average person does in 500 calories then they do in 3,000.

No. Because if someone were eating 1,200 calories a day, they would be losing weight unless there are special circumstances such as thyroid, insulin resistance, or the person is very short and very tiny. That's misinformation to believe that someone can get all their nutrients in 500 calories. That's playing with fire.

The big picture is if you have fat to burn you need to be worried about nutrients not calories and you'd be surprised how many nutrients you can get in with so few calories. VLED is for anyone who has weight to lose whether it's 5 lbs or 50 lbs.

Wrong on the 5 pounds, because those five pounds you lose via a VLCD (or VLED) will come back on as soon as you start eating normally again. Besides this, what you lose via a VLCD is water weight and not fat. [/quote]

Also wrong that calories less important than nutrients when it comes to weight loss. In fact, calorie reduction is the only way to lose weight, proper nutrition along with enough calories fuels your body.

SLLRunner

The fact is for many people a simple caloric target is not going to fix their problems. It's why 66% of the population is still overweight and over 50% of the population goes on diets every year.

Of course a simple caloric target/deficit will not fix problems, but it's the only way to lose weight. A large part of the population is overweight because they eat too much. As to why people eat too much is individual, but is powered by too much fork to mouth movement.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

albertabeefy

Wow. Thanks for sharing that, although I do find it absurd to include VLED in the mix of eating disorders. It also implies that eating a highly nutritious VLED is dangerous and again the overwhelming whole of scientific evidence confirms VLEDs are the best overall approach for long term weight loss and reversal of Type II diabetes. What's more dangerous, living with diabetes for 6 months unnecessarily on a moderate approach or using a VLED to reverse it in weeks?

The issue is a VLED should ONLY be done under strict supervision / doctors care. To encourage it here in a forum as a solution is poor advice. Even if you were a medical professional - medical professionals cannot give this kind of advice over the internet.

As for your idea that a VLED is the best overall approach for long-term weight-loss or reversing Type II diabetes, this is simply untrue. Compared to a high-carb/low-fat diet, this may be true, but if you compare it to a VLCKD (very low carb ketogenic diet) the truth is that with a moderate deficit, VLCKD's reverse symptoms of Type II diabetes at the same rate as a VLED.

The reason VLED's work is they are, by nature, also VLCKD - though they're a starvation type instead of moderate deficit.

And even though it can take over a year to develop a nutrient deficiency, this doesn't mean we should recommend it to people. VLED's take serious monitoring and nutritional counselling.

VLCKD's are a much-safer, more-sustainable and proven-effective alternative to VLED's.

MelodyandBarbells

Well btente we'll be sure and sign up for your website when we all regain our weight after using MFP

For now I can't even be bothered to eat as little as the so called bare minimum 1200 calories. Long term trend is still acceptable weight loss

EvgeniZyntx

Wow. Thanks for sharing that, although I do find it absurd to include VLED in the mix of eating disorders. It also implies that eating a highly nutritious VLED is dangerous and again the overwhelming whole of scientific evidence confirms VLEDs are the best overall approach for long term weight loss and reversal of Type II diabetes. What's more dangerous, living with diabetes for 6 months unnecessarily on a moderate approach or using a VLED to reverse it in weeks?

The issue is a VLED should ONLY be done under strict supervision / doctors care. To encourage it here in a forum as a solution is poor advice. Even if you were a medical professional - medical professionals cannot give this kind of advice over the internet.

As for your idea that a VLED is the best overall approach for long-term weight-loss or reversing Type II diabetes, this is simply untrue. Compared to a high-carb/low-fat diet, this may be true, but if you compare it to a VLCKD (very low carb ketogenic diet) the truth is that with a moderate deficit, VLCKD's reverse symptoms of Type II diabetes at the same rate as a VLED.

The reason VLED's work is they are, by nature, also VLCKD - though they're a starvation type instead of moderate deficit.

And even though it can take over a year to develop a nutrient deficiency, this doesn't mean we should recommend it to people. VLED's take serious monitoring and nutritional counselling.

VLCKD's are a much-safer, more-sustainable and proven-effective alternative to VLED's.

VLCKD are just a subset of of VLED/VLCD and it's just as badto suggest them as "safer/sustainable" - any very low calorie diet of ANY TYPE has risks, especially when maintained, and should be done under correct medical supervision.

VLCD/VLCKDs may make sense when considering risk/benefit situations with other conditions that may be life-threatening, but those are individual and medically-informed decisions to be made - not umbrella recommendations of which is better or safer on this website.

in_the_stars

btente, can you give me an example of this 500 calorie diet that gives you all the micros needed? Curious.

odusgolp

I am so IN! Sh*the is getting fun in here.

CarrieLincoln

I have to wonder if you are eating enough and including enough fats. Do you track how many calories you are burning during your workouts? Do you focus just on cardio or weight training as well?

What is your goal weight? What would you like to reach within 30 - 60 days?

~ Carrie
Fitness Life Coach
Certified Insanity, PiYo Instructor

ihad

It's unfortunate that there are so many people out there that claim that eating in a particular way (paleo, low carb, vegan, raw food, etc etc etc) will result in weight loss even if there's no calorie deficit. The result is that some people put in a ton of effort to eat this way, then experience no weight loss, and get extremely frustrated. These diets work for some people because they make them feel full while they're still in a calorie deficit. I.e. they eat less than they burn off, and stop eating because they're full. But this doesn't work for everyone, some people will still manage to eat enough to be in maintenance, or even eat a surplus, no matter how strictly they follow these diets. I'm guessing that you're one such person.

You don't need to give up any foods that you want to eat. You do need to ensure that you're taking in adequate amounts of protein fat and carbohydrate, but not too much, so you're still in calorie deficit. You also need to ensure you're getting enough vitamins, minerals fibre and water......... the difficult bit is getting the right amount of protein, fat and carbs, and that's where MFP comes in... you need to *weigh* your food, and log it accurately. Log *everything* you eat or drink. Weighing is much more accurate than other methods of measuring foods - a lot of people come undone with cups and volume measurements as these can be out by 10% and that can obliterate your deficit and result in failing to lose weight. Eat all your daily MFP calorie goal, and set your macro ratios to 40% carb 30% fat 30% protein, and try to hit the targets for fat, carb and protein each day. If you don't hit it exactly, it's better to be over on protein and a little under on either of the other two. You can eat what you like to hit these goals, but try to include fresh fruit and veg somewhere along the line, and for some of the fat containing foods you eat to be foods high in essential fatty acids and fat soluble vitamins. Also try to get enough water to drink (can be in the form of other drinks, but if the drink contains calories you have to log the drink with your food). You need to eat back exercise calories, but this site tends to overestimate calorie burns so only eat back 80% of them.

Doing this ensures that you are eating at a deficit, as opposed to just hoping that the diet really will put you in a calorie deficit at the end of the day.

When you log everything like this, you can basically eat what you want so long as you're hitting your calorie goals (therefore are still in a deficit) and getting close to your macro (fat protein and carb) goals. It may seem like a real PITA logging everything, but when it becomes a habit and all your favourite foods are in your "my foods" categories and similar, logging becomes quick and easy. And you won't feel deprived because you'll be eating all the foods you want to eat, just maybe not in the same quantities as before.

Try this for a few weeks... if you're still not losing, then either subtract 100-200 calories and try again OR try to get more physical activity in for the same number of calories..... OR try only eating back 50% of exercise calories (in case the previous amount was an overestimate)... it's common to need to adjust the initial calorie estimate up or down, but you need to be sure you're logging accurately before there's any benefit in doing that, because inaccurate logging could put all your calories out by as much as 50% and explain why someone isn't losing weight.

note: if, after doing this, it transpires that you're not losing when eating a calorie number that's a lot lower than the estimates, then see a doctor because this could be indicative of a hormonal problem such as hypothyroidism. These conditions don't break the laws of physics - calories in v calories out is still true - what they do is slow the metabolism, i.e. make the calories out part of the equation lower than it should be, so weight loss isn't possible on the amount of calories you should be able to eat and still lose weight. Such conditions need to be treated, and the treatment usually results in it being easier to lose weight as the calories out side of the equation is back where it should be. BUT no-one should diagnose themselves with conditions like this if they haven't been logging accurately, because inaccurate logging is the main cause of failure to lose weight

This too.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

amsipub

I can't read everything that everyone is saying in this string. But your diary only has one day that was tracked in the whole month of May. I know for myself, if I'm not tracking my calories then I'm definitely not watching what I am eating. I try to some extent, but seriously, I know that I'm going down the wrong path. Also, the one day wasn't exactly filled with veggies and fruits. Two power bars and some sausages and under by almost 400 calories. If that is truly what you ate all day (no taste of anything or a bite of something) then you are putting your body into starvation mode and that isn't going to help you at all.

Unfortunately, I've gone back up to the same weight (for multiple reasons). But I eat a lot more variety of foods than what you are allowing yourself. I eat mostly vegetarian through the day (I get my protein through Greek yogurt and cream cheese), but then I do have a meal with meat most days (otherwise, it's chickpeas, or beans).

It is so very easy to think you aren't eating much when you actually are eating more than 1200 calories. It's not that much food at all unless you are eating just tons of salads without dressing.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

gravexgirl

Try cutting your carbs...leave out breads, pasta, rice, and other starchy or sugary foods. I do Atkins and the weight comes off FAST. Check out their website.

EvgeniZyntx

VLCKD are just a subset of of VLED/VLCD and it's just as badto suggest them as "safer/sustainable" - any very low calorie diet of ANY TYPE has risks, especially when maintained, and should be done under correct medical supervision.

Again just to clarify three diet types:

VLED - Very low energy diet. Typically defined as less than 800 calories a day.

VLCD - Very low carbohydrate diet. No real formal definition on what constitutes low carbs although some use as high as 20% total energy intake.

Ketogenic diet - This is a diet that was originally designed to treat epilepsy in children who didn't respond well to medication. The standard implementation is a 0/15/85 ratio. In a true ketogenic diet protein must be restricted because the body can use gluconeogenesis to create glucose from amino acids. This diet induces ketosis usually within a week.

The majority of people have a misapplication of ketogenic as the popular purpose of ketogenic is to induce ketosis and you cannot induce full ketosis without eat severely restricted carbs and protein.

VLCD/VLCKDs may make sense when considering risk/benefit situations with other conditions that may be life-threatening, but those are individual and medically-informed decisions to be made - not umbrella recommendations of which is better or safer on this website.

I'm not saying this is an end-all approach because it's true these aren't sustainable long term, but these can be sustained for up to 6 months without any type of refeed. I tell you what though... The majority of people have at least one cheat meal a month and in that case they'd likely be in refeed situations anyway.

My point is these aren't unsafe. I've never said this should be the blanket recommendation, but it's a damn good recommendation for those open and willing. Again research shows that VLEDs have the best record for both short term and long term weight loss. They also have the best record for reversing Type II diabetes. There's no reason not to recommend them unless a person has existing nutritional deficiencies.

VLCDs often means Very Low Calorie Diet in the literature and if you are quoting me; I posted under that sense.

There is no reason to recommend them without some sort of medical check up or supervision, especially for extended terms beyond 16 weeks. And, given the website policy, I suggest you read the terms of use before continuing to promote VLEDs here without medical supervision (it won't end pretty).

Also, the research is rather all over the place - there is also some research that suggest that there results are not consistent over the long term. Enough evidence to suggest that while LCD (and not VLCDs) might be the best long-term solution, for some, other options should be considered.

There are a lot of reasons not to recommend VLCDs with regards to personal fitness objectives around performance, muscle development, osteo health, child rearing plans, etc... without knowing a person's medical history.

Unknown

This content has been removed.