I don't lose weight- scientific miracle?

SnuggleSmacks

1. Weigh, measure, log. Do this consistently. It is the only way to know what you are actually putting in your mouth. Take the guesswork out of "calories in."

2. Get a Bodymedia Fit band. Or a Fitbit, Vivofit, Polar Loop, or any other fitness band, although Bodymedia is the most accurate. Wear it consistently to track how many calories you're burning through your regular activity daily. Take the guesswork out of "calories out."

3. Make sure #1 is less than #2. Bodymedia makes this easy, as it syncs with MFP and shows you a number called "deficit" or on a bad/fun/cheat day, "surplus." So, it even takes the guesswork out of the math.

SnuggleSmacks

Not to mention, promoting such diets is against MFP's TOS and can get you deleted.

EvgeniZyntx

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.

Do you have any sources for these claims?

Sure. i'll focus on current guidelines unlress you have a specific question you'd like me to address. Guidelines each have references to research.

With regards to duration, audience and medical supervision of Very low Calorie Diets - I would suggest that NICE has recommendations of:
- 12 weeks (@1000 cals not 800)
- for BMI of 30 or greater and with a plateau
- lower cal diets should be medically supervised.

NIH/WIN/Diabetes - NIDDK factsheet states

Doctors must monitor all VLCD patients regularly—ideally every 2 weeks in the initial period of rapid weight loss—to be sure patients are not experiencing serious side effects.

Many patients on a VLCD for 4 to 16 weeks report minor side effects such as fatigue, constipation, nausea, or diarrhea. These conditions usually improve within a few weeks and rarely prevent patients from completing the program.

The most common serious side effect is gallstones. Gallstones, which often develop in people who are obese, especially women, may be even more commonly developed during rapid weight loss. Some medicines can prevent gallstones from forming during rapid weight loss. Your health care provider can determine if these medicines are appropriate for you. For more information, see the WIN fact sheet on dieting and gallstones, listed under Resources.

(My bold)

NHLBI guidelines

VLCDs (less than 800 kcal/day) are not recommended for weight loss therapy because the deficits are too great, and nutritional inadequacies will occur unless VLCDs are supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Moreover, clinical trials show that LCDs are just as effective as VLCDs in producing weight loss after 1 year.

BTW - the generally accepted term is that VLCDs are somewhere in the <800-1000 range (depending on the person)...

I also understand that some recommendations might be dated. However, I would like to see one recommendation that states that VLCDs are "generally safe and recommended" as the first-line treatment.

So based on the evidence of current recommendations I stand by the statement a) other options should be considered b) VLCDs should be medically supervised.

in_the_stars

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

still waiting...

nltg13

If you're consuming dairy or its by-products, hate to burst your bubble here, but you are not vegan.

This. This all over!

Also, you said your bloods have been checked and are normal, so you know this isn't anything medical, which would have been unlikely anyway. I'd guess you're either underestimating how much you eat or overestimating how active you are, there isn't really another logical explanation

swilkinson0705

I haven't ready every post in this particular string but I want you to know you are not alone. I have been the same damn weight forever and have been making major lifestyle changes in the last 3 years to no avail. I've often wondered if I am a miracle of science. Everyone on here will have an opinion, whatever. You are not the only one struggling. Wish I had some advice, good luck.

stealthq

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

still waiting...

Then you haven't read all my posts. I discuss the RDI and the scientific and historical evidence that contradicts it. I also provided several diets that provide more nutrients in 500 calories than the average American gets in 3,000 that still continues to live for many years.

Translation: "I can't do it unless I lower the bar ..."

BTW, btente. 3000 cals of fast food and soda can easily meet all nutritional requirements AND provide more nutrients than 500 cals of spinach. Or it might meet very few. Depends on the choices the individual makes. But, I will guarantee you that it is a heck of a lot easier to get your nutritional requirements with 3000 cals to play with than < 1200 cals.

Also, this argument that some people managed to live with malnutrition for years and still survived ... not a great one, mmkay? Better to avoid the malnutrition in the first place, since we have the means to do so.

timrpm

Nope, not really, lots of people think they're logging carefully but aren't.

What do you reckon, stop eating - will you get thin and starve, or live forever by a MIRACLE? Your body powers itself? Or G-D powers you from on high, removing your need for food?

If none of the above apply, try eating healthier, measured portions and exercise more intensively with cardio intervals and weight training.

EvgeniZyntx

Sure. i'll focus on current guidelines unlress you have a specific question you'd like me to address. Guidelines each have references to research.

I do seriously appreciate the time to put those together, but I need actual study references. Please provide links to the actual study references or the pages that contain them.

The problem is many recommendations are without scientific merit. Take sodium... The CDC recently commissioned the IOM to investigate it's sodium recommendations of 2,300mg to see if it should be lowered to 1,500mg to match other recommendations from places like the AHA. In the study conducted by the IOM they found no negative associations for consumption at the current average American intake of 4,300mg and even a little higher; however, the CDC did not change it's recommendations.

The issues around the sodium guidelines and studies are well-known and critized - like I stated, some guidelines are old.
However, they remain useful, especially when no overview committee has opposing info (as is not the case with salt):

-http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/e_txtbk/txgd/4321.htm
-http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/very-low-calorie-diets.aspx
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG43quickrefguide2.pdf

BTW - thanks for the study on diabetes "reversal" in two weeks - it was an interesting read. Despite the results seen, I am concerned about long-term results once that restriction (600 cals a day, oy vey!) was removed.

THe authors note

In addition, further studies are required to determine the long-term outcome in respect of glucose regulation as the observations made after 12 weeks of return to a normal diet were necessarily limited.

So we don't even know if the reversal was transient. And the study was performed on T2D patients without treatment for their diabetes. Based on

This study demonstrates for the first time the time course of a return of normal beta cell function and hepatic glucose output by acute restriction of dietary energy intake in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

of 11 patients (and 4 drop outs) without long-term evaluation it is cavalier to recommend this as a general method of management.
It should also be noted that the average lean body mass loss was 2.5 kg in the 8 weeks.

So what happens when you look at the data and see if this is really a cure?
Well, someone has done the work for us. You can read their review of 22 studies here:

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/upload/DPC_Speakers2013/Wed/11.20_Wed_Dyson_Aud.pdf

I'll note three points from their summary:

1 Despite recent short-term studies demonstrating reversal over the short-term, there is no evidence of a cure over the long term
2 They are effective in a small sub-­‐group of health-­‐motivated individuals who are recently diagnosed and who are able to achieve significant weight loss
3 According to NICE guidance, very low calorie diets require medical supervision

cebreisch

I agree with the nutritionist. You aren't eating enough, or enough of the right foods.

I am proof positive that you eat at a deficit, and you WILL lose weight. Even with hormone imbalances and other things that typically hinder weight loss.

I have been on the weight lose extravaganza since my teens. I'll be 48 next month. I thought I had tried ever weight loss gig imaginable. The one place I had the most success was 30 years ago when Weight Watchers actually had you track the number of protein, vegetable, fruit, dairy, and carb servings a day, and spelled out what constituted each category. I lost 40 pounds, and then went into the "lying to myself" mode over how well I was actually eating, and gained it all back.

That went on-again and off-again until April/May 2011. I actually started seeing a nutritionist, got "real" about what I was really eating, documented everything down to the condiments, and I lost 115 pounds thru March 2013. I had skin removal surgery, had a rough recovery, went on vacation, and lost my dad in the last year. Meaning: I fell off the wagon and had a lot of excuses why I couldn't follow or stay on track - back on came the weight.

This last week, I logged everything, was "real" about it, and lost 5 pounds.

My nutritionist told me to focus on lean, healthy protein and the fats/carbs would take care of themselves, and I've found that to be pretty accurate. The more protein and fiber I have, the less hungry I am. I have a fitbit that I wear that tells me how many calories I burn, and my MFP that tells me how much I eat. The fitbit site has a chart that shows calories in vs. calories out, and as long as my "in" line stays UNDER the "out" line, then I lose. Always. Really - ALWAYS.

The only occasion that hasn't happened is if I had a lot of salt. I'd gain 3 pounds 1 week, and lose 4 or so the next.

I do still belong to WW. I convert my MFP data to WW points. I was still hungry using MFP numbers because they are a bit on the low side. However, I got more food on WW points, so that's now my range - Low (MFP) to high (WW). and since I know where my in vs. out numbers are, I can look and see what sort of snack I can afford - if I need it to be a protein, or if I can afford a carb.

Be real about what you're eating, about making sure your nutritional needs are being met, about making sure you're getting enough to eat, and you will lose.

It really isn't rocket science.

in_the_stars

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

still waiting...

Then you haven't read all my posts. I discuss the RDI and the scientific and historical evidence that contradicts it. I also provided several diets that provide more nutrients in 500 calories than the average American gets in 3,000 that still continues to live for many years.

I guess I missed it. Post again, please?

in_the_stars