Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

Amitysk

Awwww! Duckie!

Meerataila

Here is an interesting article that answers your question as to why eating a VLCD is a bad idea. You are not giving your body the fuel it needs to function properly.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html


As you can see in the chart organs needs a minimum to function properly, in the "average" human the following figures are used:

Liver 200
Brain 240
Heart 400
Kidneys 400

As you can see in just these 4 organs the average person needs to consume 1240 calories a day to allow normal organ function. Its up to you whether or not to believe it, or even care; this was just to answer your questions.

TL;DR - Because its not necessary and can be dangerous.

I actually wonder about this when I read it. Why isn't my body, a survival beast, at least in evolutionary terms, happily gobbling down my excess fat every day to provide the calories my vital organs need regardless of how much I eat that day?

because fat is what's going to make you survive a food shortage - your body wants to make your fat last as long as possible. This is why your body will catabolise skeletal muscle to make fat last longer in a food shortage. Also, your BMR is reduced by more than what you'd expect from the catabolism of lean mass alone (this is called adaptive thermogenesis) because it's diverting energy away from non-essential purposes (such as your reproductive system, brain, skin, nails and hair) to make your fat stores last even longer. These changes increase your chances of surviving a food shortage but it's at a cost to general health and wellbeing - less energy going to non-essential functions makes you more prone to being ill, it makes you look ill, it makes you feel tired and run down, and the loss of lean body mass (especially if it's combined with a cessation in menstruation (for women) or falling sperm count (for men)) increases the risk of osteoporosis, and loss of muscle tissue and bone density makes the whole body weaker.

The above won't happen straight away in a food shortage (aggressive calorie deficit) - but there are several behavioural responses that kick in pretty early on, that evolved to stop people or animals from accidentally starving to death, such as increased hunger and binge eating... so many people who do aggressive calorie deficits succumb to binge eating, then blame themselves for their lack of willpower and often get stuck in a cycle of excessive restriction and binge eating... this results in the body composition worsening (loss of lean mass in the restriction phase and fat storage post-binge)... for a Homo erectus enduring a food shortage this is good news as the fat ensures they'll survive longer and the loss of lean mass makes their whole body able to run on fewer calories....... but for a Homo sapiens who's trying to diet down to get a flat stomach and look lean and toned, it's very bad news. It means they'll maintain their body weight at a lower calorie intake and will be hungry and miserable and beating themselves up over binge eating, and their body fat will increase as a result of binge eating.

So basically, the human body is actually extremely good at surviving on too little food... but the changes in the body that enable it to do this result in sub-optimal health and worsening of body composition, and also make people freaking miserable. I'm sure Homo erectus people were extremely miserable while enduring food shortages... but for most Homo sapiens people nowadays it's self-induced..... and it's not at all necessary to succeed at fat loss.

A conservative calorie deficit is best, in order to avoid all the above problems (especially the excessive hunger and binge eating which kicks in long before any physical health issues happen), plus strength training and adequate protein intake, in order to protect the lean mass and only lose fat. in evolutionary terms, this is emulating what life would have been like during the harsher seasons in the year, when people got nearly enough to eat but not quite, but had to carry on hunting and gathering... in fact the cutting and bulking cycles of bodybuilders and strength athletes mimic this the best, i.e. cutting cycles = the harsher seasons of the year, fat is lost but muscle is maintained in order to keep on hunting successfully (because the muscles are being used, they're protected to some extent from catabolism, but it needs to be fairly strenuous exercise, because unused muscle fibres are likely to be catabolised).... bulking cycles = more plentiful time of the year where you still need to keep on hunting, but the more plentiful food means your muscles can grow a little bigger and you can lay down a little fat that's going to see you through the harsher times of the year.

Not arguing with most of this at all, however, you'd think the body would decide to get rid of fat before going after vital organs if it was capable. Then again, I speak as a modern day human living in climate control. I suppose keeping some fat even at the cost of some organ damage might be beneficial for survival? I know I'm all of a sudden freezing in Winter since I dropped a lot of weight, and I used to hate the heat! Or maybe as you mention, it has to do with fat being needed for reproduction. I could see that.

WalkingAlong

Even Lyle has a very low calorie diet plan. It goes down to below 800 calories, I believe.

Have you read his book on crash dieting? That is the one where he discusses that plan. He stresses that it is rarely appropriate (and when it might be), should never be long term, and he discusses tons of things you need to mind in order to avoid harming yourself. Even with that, he points out that you are harming your metabolism and will likely suffer negative effects.

To reduce those damages, his plan has structured refeeds, full diet breaks (where you eat at maintenance for a few weeks), and other periods of high calories. It is hardly a good example of VLC dieting endorsement. Even if you were to mind all of the details and specifics he goes into (which is hard), he recommends not doing that diet and instead following a different and more sustainable diet (he recommends his own books on those diets).

Edit: He only published that guide because he recognizes that there are idiots who will do VLC diets regardless of how bad they are and he wanted to reduce the damage they were going to do to themselves to the bare minimum. He doesn't endorse such plans.

I have read it. I don't know if we can say he doesn't endorse them when he wrote one of his own. I'm sure it's not the first plan he recommends for most but if I recall correctly, he recognizes that for a few months, it's not dangerous and is often perfectly defensible for something like an upcoming wedding or reunion. I didn't think the details of the diet were that hard at all.

I'm not saying VLCD is great for all people at all times. I'm just saying it's a valid choice for many people and could perhaps be afforded a little more tolerance here than it gets. Not everyone on VLC is anorexic or 'doing it wrong' or 'stupid', which is often the implication.

And 1200 is rarely considered 'VLC' anywhere but here. But we get the sub-800 level facts applied to sub-1200 diets here all the time.

konpeki

The fact that you are only really using very obese people/bariatric patients as an example speaks for itself. No one said VLC diets are a terrible idea for those types of people. But they are probably in the extreme minority.

This is a straw man argument. My very first post referred to "fighting obesity". Also, the example I gave was of people reacting in a strong negative fashion to a very overweight person trying to do a 1200 kcal/d diet, so I was am discussing both LC and VLC dieting. The title of this thread also makes clear what I am talking about.

It would be a good idea to not start your argument generalising, and then changing your mind and focusing it on a specific group of people.

It would be a good idea to read my posts before you try to argue with them.

neandermagnon

Here is an interesting article that answers your question as to why eating a VLCD is a bad idea. You are not giving your body the fuel it needs to function properly.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html


As you can see in the chart organs needs a minimum to function properly, in the "average" human the following figures are used:

Liver 200
Brain 240
Heart 400
Kidneys 400

As you can see in just these 4 organs the average person needs to consume 1240 calories a day to allow normal organ function. Its up to you whether or not to believe it, or even care; this was just to answer your questions.

TL;DR - Because its not necessary and can be dangerous.

I actually wonder about this when I read it. Why isn't my body, a survival beast, at least in evolutionary terms, happily gobbling down my excess fat every day to provide the calories my vital organs need regardless of how much I eat that day?

because fat is what's going to make you survive a food shortage - your body wants to make your fat last as long as possible. This is why your body will catabolise skeletal muscle to make fat last longer in a food shortage. Also, your BMR is reduced by more than what you'd expect from the catabolism of lean mass alone (this is called adaptive thermogenesis) because it's diverting energy away from non-essential purposes (such as your reproductive system, brain, skin, nails and hair) to make your fat stores last even longer. These changes increase your chances of surviving a food shortage but it's at a cost to general health and wellbeing - less energy going to non-essential functions makes you more prone to being ill, it makes you look ill, it makes you feel tired and run down, and the loss of lean body mass (especially if it's combined with a cessation in menstruation (for women) or falling sperm count (for men)) increases the risk of osteoporosis, and loss of muscle tissue and bone density makes the whole body weaker.

The above won't happen straight away in a food shortage (aggressive calorie deficit) - but there are several behavioural responses that kick in pretty early on, that evolved to stop people or animals from accidentally starving to death, such as increased hunger and binge eating... so many people who do aggressive calorie deficits succumb to binge eating, then blame themselves for their lack of willpower and often get stuck in a cycle of excessive restriction and binge eating... this results in the body composition worsening (loss of lean mass in the restriction phase and fat storage post-binge)... for a Homo erectus enduring a food shortage this is good news as the fat ensures they'll survive longer and the loss of lean mass makes their whole body able to run on fewer calories....... but for a Homo sapiens who's trying to diet down to get a flat stomach and look lean and toned, it's very bad news. It means they'll maintain their body weight at a lower calorie intake and will be hungry and miserable and beating themselves up over binge eating, and their body fat will increase as a result of binge eating.

So basically, the human body is actually extremely good at surviving on too little food... but the changes in the body that enable it to do this result in sub-optimal health and worsening of body composition, and also make people freaking miserable. I'm sure Homo erectus people were extremely miserable while enduring food shortages... but for most Homo sapiens people nowadays it's self-induced..... and it's not at all necessary to succeed at fat loss.

A conservative calorie deficit is best, in order to avoid all the above problems (especially the excessive hunger and binge eating which kicks in long before any physical health issues happen), plus strength training and adequate protein intake, in order to protect the lean mass and only lose fat. in evolutionary terms, this is emulating what life would have been like during the harsher seasons in the year, when people got nearly enough to eat but not quite, but had to carry on hunting and gathering... in fact the cutting and bulking cycles of bodybuilders and strength athletes mimic this the best, i.e. cutting cycles = the harsher seasons of the year, fat is lost but muscle is maintained in order to keep on hunting successfully (because the muscles are being used, they're protected to some extent from catabolism, but it needs to be fairly strenuous exercise, because unused muscle fibres are likely to be catabolised).... bulking cycles = more plentiful time of the year where you still need to keep on hunting, but the more plentiful food means your muscles can grow a little bigger and you can lay down a little fat that's going to see you through the harsher times of the year.

Not arguing with most of this at all, however, you'd think the body would decide to get rid of fat before going after vital organs if it was capable. Then again, I speak as a modern day human living in climate control. I suppose keeping some fat even at the cost of some organ damage might be beneficial for survival? I know I'm all of a sudden freezing in Winter since I dropped a lot of weight, and I used to hate the heat! Or maybe as you mention, it has to do with fat being needed for reproduction. I could see that.

It will run out of fat before metabolising vital organs. Metabolising of vital organs only happens in the extreme, advanced stages of starvation - when the person looks like a walking skeleton and has less than 1% body fat and virtually no skeletal muscle left) and is a last ditched attempt by the body to survive... and death from multiple organ failure usually follows.

But I don't think anyone said that your body would metabolise your vital organs before the fat runs out (if someone did then I missed it or misunderstood it)... the mention of how much energy the vital organs need, I understood to be in relation to the body catabolising skeletal muscle along with fat in order to provide a constant supply of energy for those vital organs while also conserving fat (i.e. burning less of it - fat burning doesn't cease, and fat storage doesn't happen in a deficit, but in a temporary surplus created by binge eating between episodes of excessive calorie restriction can cause fat gain).

Also, adaptive thermogenesis involves energy being diverted away from non-essential organs in order to keep the vital organs functioning, which is why people tend to have difficulty concentrating and why menstruation ceases - energy is being diverted away from the brain and reproductive system, to keep the heart and essential organs functioning.

likitisplit

Because it's against MFP's Terms of Service

LexiMelo

There's this myth mainly seems to be promoted by the diet industry that losing weight is incredibly hard for everyone and you have to deprive yourself, suffer and buy into one of their products to do this. When in reality its a lot easier than most people think it just takes, consistency, some patience, common sense and the will to do it and you really don't have to be miserable.

This is such a true and powerful statement. I struggled with weight loss and used to think if I wasn't hungry and miserable, I couldn't possibly lose enough weight. I gained and lost the same 40-50 pounds for about ten years eating VLC. A couple of years ago I realized it didn't have to be a struggle. My will has wavered, and I've let myself down from time to time, but not because it was too hard. Frankly, it was mostly a lack of patience and consistency.

+1...I too lost and gained the same 20-30 lbs using a VLCD. Now I've maintained for 3 years feel great about myself and don't feel deprived. If we can help people stop the yo-yo cycle and keep $ in their pockets why does that bother anyone?

Meerataila

Here is an interesting article that answers your question as to why eating a VLCD is a bad idea. You are not giving your body the fuel it needs to function properly.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html


As you can see in the chart organs needs a minimum to function properly, in the "average" human the following figures are used:

Liver 200
Brain 240
Heart 400
Kidneys 400

As you can see in just these 4 organs the average person needs to consume 1240 calories a day to allow normal organ function. Its up to you whether or not to believe it, or even care; this was just to answer your questions.

TL;DR - Because its not necessary and can be dangerous.

I actually wonder about this when I read it. Why isn't my body, a survival beast, at least in evolutionary terms, happily gobbling down my excess fat every day to provide the calories my vital organs need regardless of how much I eat that day?

because fat is what's going to make you survive a food shortage - your body wants to make your fat last as long as possible. This is why your body will catabolise skeletal muscle to make fat last longer in a food shortage. Also, your BMR is reduced by more than what you'd expect from the catabolism of lean mass alone (this is called adaptive thermogenesis) because it's diverting energy away from non-essential purposes (such as your reproductive system, brain, skin, nails and hair) to make your fat stores last even longer. These changes increase your chances of surviving a food shortage but it's at a cost to general health and wellbeing - less energy going to non-essential functions makes you more prone to being ill, it makes you look ill, it makes you feel tired and run down, and the loss of lean body mass (especially if it's combined with a cessation in menstruation (for women) or falling sperm count (for men)) increases the risk of osteoporosis, and loss of muscle tissue and bone density makes the whole body weaker.

The above won't happen straight away in a food shortage (aggressive calorie deficit) - but there are several behavioural responses that kick in pretty early on, that evolved to stop people or animals from accidentally starving to death, such as increased hunger and binge eating... so many people who do aggressive calorie deficits succumb to binge eating, then blame themselves for their lack of willpower and often get stuck in a cycle of excessive restriction and binge eating... this results in the body composition worsening (loss of lean mass in the restriction phase and fat storage post-binge)... for a Homo erectus enduring a food shortage this is good news as the fat ensures they'll survive longer and the loss of lean mass makes their whole body able to run on fewer calories....... but for a Homo sapiens who's trying to diet down to get a flat stomach and look lean and toned, it's very bad news. It means they'll maintain their body weight at a lower calorie intake and will be hungry and miserable and beating themselves up over binge eating, and their body fat will increase as a result of binge eating.

So basically, the human body is actually extremely good at surviving on too little food... but the changes in the body that enable it to do this result in sub-optimal health and worsening of body composition, and also make people freaking miserable. I'm sure Homo erectus people were extremely miserable while enduring food shortages... but for most Homo sapiens people nowadays it's self-induced..... and it's not at all necessary to succeed at fat loss.

A conservative calorie deficit is best, in order to avoid all the above problems (especially the excessive hunger and binge eating which kicks in long before any physical health issues happen), plus strength training and adequate protein intake, in order to protect the lean mass and only lose fat. in evolutionary terms, this is emulating what life would have been like during the harsher seasons in the year, when people got nearly enough to eat but not quite, but had to carry on hunting and gathering... in fact the cutting and bulking cycles of bodybuilders and strength athletes mimic this the best, i.e. cutting cycles = the harsher seasons of the year, fat is lost but muscle is maintained in order to keep on hunting successfully (because the muscles are being used, they're protected to some extent from catabolism, but it needs to be fairly strenuous exercise, because unused muscle fibres are likely to be catabolised).... bulking cycles = more plentiful time of the year where you still need to keep on hunting, but the more plentiful food means your muscles can grow a little bigger and you can lay down a little fat that's going to see you through the harsher times of the year.

Not arguing with most of this at all, however, you'd think the body would decide to get rid of fat before going after vital organs if it was capable. Then again, I speak as a modern day human living in climate control. I suppose keeping some fat even at the cost of some organ damage might be beneficial for survival? I know I'm all of a sudden freezing in Winter since I dropped a lot of weight, and I used to hate the heat! Or maybe as you mention, it has to do with fat being needed for reproduction. I could see that.

It will run out of fat before metabolising vital organs. Metabolising of vital organs only happens in the extreme, advanced stages of starvation - when the person looks like a walking skeleton and has less than 1% body fat and virtually no skeletal muscle left) and is a last ditched attempt by the body to survive... and death from multiple organ failure usually follows.

But I don't think anyone said that your body would metabolise your vital organs before the fat runs out (if someone did then I missed it or misunderstood it)... the mention of how much energy the vital organs need, I understood to be in relation to the body catabolising skeletal muscle along with fat in order to provide a constant supply of energy for those vital organs while also conserving fat (i.e. burning less of it - fat burning doesn't cease, and fat storage doesn't happen in a deficit, but in a temporary surplus created by binge eating between episodes of excessive calorie restriction can cause fat gain).

Also, adaptive thermogenesis involves energy being diverted away from non-essential organs in order to keep the vital organs functioning, which is why people tend to have difficulty concentrating and why menstruation ceases - energy is being diverted away from the brain and reproductive system, to keep the heart and essential organs functioning.

You're right. Stupid headcold, I can't think straight! It was about providing nutrients for those organs and eating the fat in order to do so. Speaking of energy being diverted from the brain, I think mine is all about producing snot right now.

hookilau

whoa.
really interesting read guys :drinker:

srslybritt

Lots of good reasons listed in this thread. Just throwing my support behind "it's not necessary and can have adverse affects if not properly monitored by a healthcare professional"

Now...

likitisplit

Lots of good reasons listed in this thread. Just throwing my support behind "it's not necessary and can have adverse affects if not properly monitored by a healthcare professional"

Now...

Thank you!

srslybritt

Lots of good reasons listed in this thread. Just throwing my support behind "it's not necessary and can have adverse affects if not properly monitored by a healthcare professional"

Now...

Thank you!

Did the kitty make it less mean?

FIT_Goat

I have read it. I don't know if we can say he doesn't endorse them when he wrote one of his own. I'm sure it's not the first plan he recommends for most but if I recall correctly, he recognizes that for a few months, it's not dangerous and is often perfectly defensible for something like an upcoming wedding or reunion. I didn't think the details of the diet were that hard at all.

Let me quote his own words for you.

I want to say at the outset that writing this book makes me a little bit uncomfortable for reasons I’ll explain in a moment. Now, for the most part, an individual’s personal choices are really none of my concern: what people do to or for themselves is their own problem. [. . .]

The bottom line is this, no matter what I or anybody else says about it, people are going to crash diet. Sometimes it’s necessary or beneficial, other times it’s not. Regardless, people are going to do it. With that realization made, I figure that the least that can be done is to make sure that such crash diets are done as safely and as intelligently as possible. Using nutritional science and research, we can develop a crash diet that isn’t totally stupid, that will be safe and sane (within the limits of crash dieting) at least compared to everything else that’s out there.

[. . . ]

Now [sic] matter how safe you make it, extended crash dieting can cause problems, both physiologically and psychologically (I’ll talk about each in a later chapter). I’m going to be very specific in terms of the time frames I think people should use such an extreme approach. I’m not kidding when I say that you should follow them. Frankly, that’s really my main concern about writing this book: I understand human behavior when it comes to this stuff.

People tend to read diet books selectively, hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the rest (especially the warnings). Once people hear just how much fat they can lose in a short period of time, they turn into dumb****s. They’ll try to stay on an extreme approach like this for extended periods of time and get themselves into trouble. Then they blame me. And I simply don’t need that crap in my life. If you’re going to be a dumb**** and not follow my recommendations exactly, don’t blame anyone but yourself if you get into problems. My recommendations are going to be very specific, you ignore them at your own risk.

And, while he admits that people may want to lose weight rapidly for weddings, reunions, and such he is talking about 10-20 pounds and not for the full time they are dieting.

I imagine many women and men reading this book can relate to the concept of an upcoming special even like a wedding or high school reunion where they feel the need to drop weight (and some fat) rapidly: either to impress old schoolmates or to fit into a special outfit for the occasion. [. . .] A 10-20 pound total weight loss accompanied by a many pounds fat loss can help to get you in shape for the occasion.

The necessary times are the body builders, weight class athletes, models, and such. The "beneficial" ones would be the wedding thing and kick-starting a more moderate diet. And, all of those are not meant to be done for long periods of time. If you are obese (25%+ bf% for men and 35%+ bf% for women) he only recommends it for 6-12 weeks at most before a full diet break (back to eating at maintenance) for 1-2 weeks and then preferably going to a moderate diet instead of back to the PSMF he outlines (although he does say the severely obese may choose to do a second round).

Anyway, my point is that it is a misstatement to suggest that he is a proponent of such plans, especially for months at a time (which I will explain below). He speaks against it repeatedly throughout the book, constantly references his book on a more moderate diet, and harps on the fact that it should be done only for the time-frames he specifies.

Also, there are free meals incorporated into the plan (for the obese it is 2/week), which would make those days closer to a normal caloric intake. And the category 2 people get a free meal and a 5 hour carb refeed a week... which is again two days that are closer to a normal caloric intake. Without those 2 days/week... (which would be category 1)... he recommends a full diet break after only 10-12 days.

It would be false to state that he believes people should eat <800 calories a day for extended periods of time. His plan doesn't include periods of more than 12 days in a row at that level (and the typical version has stretches of 3-4 days at that level before a meal/refeed). Even putting my own numbers in (not that I would do it), gives me 900-1,000 calories/day. Which is still insanely low. You'd have to be a pretty small and inactive person to get much lower then 800 calories/day on his plan. At my level (Cat. 2), I would need to take a full break every 2-6 weeks. Hardly "a few months" like you suggested.

levitateme

Lots of good reasons listed in this thread. Just throwing my support behind "it's not necessary and can have adverse affects if not properly monitored by a healthcare professional"

Came to post the same thing. VLCD's are NOT NECESSARY and UNSUSTAINABLE.

The main reason people go on a VLCD is to lose weight fast, which I never understood. I see a lot of new people posting threads "Why am I only losing 1 pound a week?? This isn't working like I wanted it to!" What did you expect? Did you gain an extra 30 lbs in 3 days? No of course not, so why do you want to lose it, like yesterday?

likitisplit

Lots of good reasons listed in this thread. Just throwing my support behind "it's not necessary and can have adverse affects if not properly monitored by a healthcare professional"

Now...

Thank you!

Did the kitty make it less mean?

I was inspired and motivated. Wait. M isn't in THINK... I was H...eartened?

Timshel_

The issue is longevity of that kind of diet vs. reducing calories in a more manageable amount over time. Research has shown over and over that people who go too extreme in calorie reduction tend to gain the weight back within a year or so. While it is also true that people can gain the weight back with more managed caloric deficits, it is far less. So if someone is arguing from the perspective that 1200 calories is hard to maintain long term, I agree. If someone says ANYTHING about starvation mode, they are just dead wrong.

Now, If someone does a 1200 cal thing to kick start things, I have no problem.

WalkingAlong

Sometimes it’s necessary or beneficial,

It would be false to state that he believes people should eat <800 calories a day for extended periods of time.

Do you agree with him that 'sometimes it's necessary or beneficial? Because the outcry here is that it is never necessary or beneficial. I agree with him.

I never said anything about extended periods of time. Arguing that it's not ok for extended periods of time does not mean it's never ok for any periods of time.

WalkingAlong

The issue is longevity of that kind of diet vs. reducing calories in a more manageable amount over time. Research has shown over and over that people who go too extreme in calorie reduction tend to gain the weight back within a year or so. While it is also true that people can gain the weight back with more managed caloric deficits, it is far less. So if someone is arguing from the perspective that 1200 calories is hard to maintain long term, I agree. If someone says ANYTHING about starvation mode, they are just dead wrong.

Now, If someone does a 1200 cal thing to kick start things, I have no problem.

I agree except for the part about 'research shows that people with larger deficits gain the weight back faster'. The research I've seen mostly shows the opposite.

levitateme

Sometimes it’s necessary or beneficial,

It would be false to state that he believes people should eat <800 calories a day for extended periods of time.

Do you agree with him that 'sometimes it's necessary or beneficial? Because the outcry here is that it IS never necessary or beneficial. I agree with him.

I never said anything about extended periods of time. Arguing that it's not ok for extended periods of time does not mean it's never ok for any periods of time.

I think it's never necessary. If an obese person is eating 3500 calories a day to sustain their weight, why have them cut down to 800 calories when they could lose eating 2000? So they can say "Omg I'm STARVING dieting is so hard!!" and when they eventually quit, they'll say "I've tried everything and nothing works!"

Just eat slightly less than you require for an extended period of time, find an activity you enjoy and you will eventually be very happy with your body. It's not a race.

leggup

4 pages and no one has mentioned that MyFitnessPal's community guidelines are against very low calorie diets. The "Why" is right in the guidelines. I have bolded it.

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.

ironanimal

Because fat metabolism only happens so quickly. If you exceed your body's ability to metabolise fat, the deficit has to be taken from other sources of energy; muscle, bone, connective tissues etc.

I'm not sure of the actual maximal rate of fat metabolism, and haven't found any literature on the numbers, though.

The quoted numbers typically range from 22 Cal - 32 Cal per pound of body fat per day.

So, if you weigh 200 pounds and have 55 pounds of fat, your max deficit would be between 1,210 and 1,815 calories a day. There are studies on this, but there is also some debate about whether or not this would apply to people getting sufficient protein (the criticisms generally are around the fact that the studies use typical levels of protein and not high protein).

Thank ye. I wonder to what degree the range is influenced by LBM, HGH, testosterone, insulin and so forth. For myself that would be between 1500~ and 2200~ deficit a day, tops. I'm currently working on an estimated 1.5k a day deficit (to later be assessed by weightloss versus calorie intake) and I've seen good results in the last 3 weeks.

Michelle_Padgett13

4 pages and no one has mentioned that MyFitnessPal's community guidelines are against very low calorie diets. The "Why" is right in the guidelines. I have bolded it.

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.

Likitisplit mentioned it. I came in to say the same thing.

Also, OP, the thread you referenced in your post is one where the poster admitted that she was lowering her calorie intake below her BMR and what MFP suggested on a whim, just to see how many days she could do it. That doesn't sound very healthy or sustainable, which is why people were quick to point out what was "off" about her plan.

MFP isn't the place to glorify LC or VLC diets. For those kinds of diets, people should take their questions and concerns to their health care practitioner, not strangers on the internet.

But stick around here, lurk on the forums, and learn. You'll lose weight, and you get to have ice cream.

:drinker:

roanokejoe49

I started reading this thread, but instead of pulling out my hair, I'm gonna go find some cleavage to look at.

FIT_Goat

Do you agree with him that 'sometimes it's necessary or beneficial? Because the outcry here is that it is never necessary or beneficial. I agree with him.

I never said anything about extended periods of time. Arguing that it's not ok for extended periods of time does not mean it's never ok for any periods of time.

Necessary? That would be an extremely rare exception. For example, it may be necessary if your career/income absolutely depend on you being a certain weight on a certain date. Of course, this could have been avoided if you had planned properly in advance. If you're in one of those categories, you probably knew well in advance what weight you needed to be and could have avoided putting yourself in a bad spot.

Those people may include: members of the military who are at their last step before being discharged for being overweight, professional athletes, professional body builders, models, actors/actresses, etc. This would not be someone looking to lose weight for a wedding. These are people where there are serious financial consequences for not meeting a specific weight and who also have messed up by getting behind in their progress.

Beneficial? I would argue that it's rarely beneficial. You may argue that the psychological boost from jump-starting a diet outweighs the physical risks. Or that looking good at a wedding/reunion is worth the risk and effort. I would say these are not good reasons and you usually know these things are coming well in advance. They don't just pop up out of nowhere. If you decided to put off self-improvement until the last minute, that's a personal issue that probably needs to be dealt with along with weight loss.

As for my comment about time-frames. You stated that Lyle "recognizes that for a few months, it's not dangerous". This is not at all what he states in his book. That is what I was responding to. He even states that if can cause problems no matter how safe you make it. It can even cause problems within the limited time-frames he outlines (he just tries to minimize the effects of those problems with his guidelines, especially for refeeds and free meals). Further, the vast majority of his time-frames are less than two months (hardly what most would consider "a few months"). To go for the full 12 weeks (which is less than 3 months), you would need to be well into the third category (not even close to being a category 2... if you were on the cusp, you would only do the 6 weeks not the full 12) and you would be eating close to a normal amount of calories almost 30% of those days.

WalkingAlong

Sometimes it’s necessary or beneficial,

It would be false to state that he believes people should eat <800 calories a day for extended periods of time.

Do you agree with him that 'sometimes it's necessary or beneficial? Because the outcry here is that it IS never necessary or beneficial. I agree with him.

I never said anything about extended periods of time. Arguing that it's not ok for extended periods of time does not mean it's never ok for any periods of time.

I think it's never necessary. If an obese person is eating 3500 calories a day to sustain their weight, why have them cut down to 800 calories when they could lose eating 2000? So they can say "Omg I'm STARVING dieting is so hard!!" and when they eventually quit, they'll say "I've tried everything and nothing works!"

Just eat slightly less than you require for an extended period of time, find an activity you enjoy and you will eventually be very happy with your body. It's not a race.

I think many diet methods are never necessary but I don't condemn their use for all or imply their adherents are stupid and misinformed for choosing it for themselves.

To some people, there is urgency to it for health reasons so it is a bit of a race. Often their doctors put them on these diets, so who are we to say, "It's not right for me so it's also not right for you?"

It's not even just VLCD that is vilified here. It's MFP's own 1200 plan. You can't even admit to following that without being frowned upon, usually by people twice your size and half your age who have vastly different caloric needs and a skewed view of what is safe dieting and isn't.

VGomez22

Because for people who love food, 1200 calories is NOTHING. And that leads to binging. I've struggled with the yo yo dieting when I did 1200. I wasn't losing anything because my binges offset all the hard work I put in. Slow and steady wins the race. Always. Besides, 1200 hardly gives you enough energy to live your life, I could never workout while eating 1200 because I was always so tired!

allylbrown67

You will end up binge eating if you eat a low calorie diet and gain all your weight back...there should be a lifestyle change not an quick fix diet plan.

DebbieLyn63

nv

gussied_up_girl

It has never been sustainable for me

MegE_N

In for some great knowledge dropping, some silly VLC diet cheerleaders, and ducks.