Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?
Replies
-
This is a fascinating thread.
I have some opinions having read everything (all the replies). Since I'm posting from my phone I won't be very coherent.
Ironanimal: I've seen one theoretical paper on maximal fat loss. It's been a while but I think it's this one:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15615615/
Regarding the VLCD, the bigger issue in my opinion is that most of the people who would gravitate towards this solution are looking for a quick fix more than they are looking to establish better habits and this also makes it increasingly likely that they additionally won't diligently learn the right way to attempt it. Please note that I'm not saying this is the case with all people.
Regarding research, I'm only aware of one study that actually showed that rapid initial weight loss lead to greater success rates long term. This doesn't necessarily mean that these were VLCDs, but it does lend some merit to the idea that initial rapid weight loss may have benefits. I certainly wouldn't argue that there's a cost associated with it as well.
Context matters a crapload. I wouldn't say that VLCDs should never be used. But I wouldn't promote them on these forums for reasons I previously stated and for reasons stated already in this thread.
Here's the study I was referring to.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.abstract
I agree that context matters a crapload and VLCDs shouldn't be promoted here, especially VLCD as in sub-1000 calorie diets. And the girls at 115 trying to get to 110 should be discouraged. And the first-time dieter who thinks if 1600 is good, 800 is twice as good.
But I think there are a lot of people here who responsibly eat at 1200 and with good reason, so these sort of knee-jerk responses are offensive:
"1200??? WHAT??? I eat that for BREAKFAST!!! I crap 1200! No one can survive on 1200!! You are uninformed and not fueling your body, you LIE that you're not hungry! Stuff in peanut butter! How'd you get fat in the first place? Why the hurry!?! You're ruining your LBM! You will gain it all back!" :laugh:
And I think there are possibly a lot of WLS patients medically supervised who eat less and don't need to read here that their doctors are idiots, they're ruining their bodies, etc.
Thanks, the paper I had in my head was this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
I mostly agree with the above although one thing I would add is that there are also many people (and I do think this is a high %) here who are given 1200 calories by MFP, and don't understand that you are intended to eat back exercise calories, but they don't do it which puts them at a static 1200 calories which is likely not a good idea.
This again is just for contextual purposes. Most of the people eating 1200 calories do not know any better. They do it because they don't understand. But not ALL people.
I agree with the argument that not all people are doing it wrong at 1200.0 -
I'm still waiting for all the negative issues to manifest from eating 1700-1900 calories a day but "netting" zero because of exercise. According to many:
I should not be losing weight because I am not eating enough...
I should be lethargic due to lack of net calories...
My hair should be falling out...
My organs shutting down...
Instead I get up in the morning, hop on the bike and go for a fifty mile ride that is more often than not longer or faster than the day before. I sleep better. Have more energy. Feel great.
I know at some point it's all going to come crashing down... that's what everyone says...
If it doesn't and by chance eating well and getting lots of exercise is a good way for me personally to lose weight I guess I will just have to accept that I am an exception to the rule.
The simplest explanation is that your math is wrong.
That's what I figured too. Maybe you could help. How many calories does a 235 lbs guy burn riding a bike for 4 hours at an average pace of 13 mph? MFP seems to think it is about 3500, I end up putting in about a 1000 less than that. I guess you think it's lower? Maybe like 200-300 calories for the day?
No clue on the riding (I'm a runner). Do you weigh your food too?0 -
You're probably right, you'd know the population better than me. (That's not sarcasm. I mean the MFP population.)Thanks, the paper I had in my head was this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
I mostly agree with the above although one thing I would add is that there are also many people (and I do think this is a high %) here who are given 1200 calories by MFP, and don't understand that you are intended to eat back exercise calories, but they don't do it which puts them at a static 1200 calories which is likely not a good idea.
This again is just for contextual purposes. Most of the people eating 1200 calories do not know any better. They do it because they don't understand. But not ALL people.
Nice study!
I have another issue with 'eating back' when you're at 1200, because it assumes that you can increase your deficit through 'daily activity level' but not 'exercise'. Which to me makes no sense. I've read a lot of books about it all and none of them talk about 'net calories' or 'only the very obese can have 1000/day deficits'.0 -
LMFAO!0 -
Speaking as someone who was married to a bariatric surgery patient, just because she lost a bunch of weight after the surgery, it didn't mean she was healthier. She suffers to this day from vitamin deficiencies, mineral deficiencies, and anemia, all of which have been traced back to her surgery and her body's inability to absorb enough nutrients. The same thing can be said of people who are eating very low calorie diets. It's not worth it in the long run. Just eat a sensible number of calories, exercise as best you can, and let the weight come off at a reasonable rate.
This is a little off-topic, but I'm curious....why can't you eat a low calorie diet and still get enough vitamins? For instance, if you eat fruits, vegetables, and nuts every day, as part of a low-calorie diet, why wouldn't you get enough vitamins and nutrients? I don't believe I practice a low-calorie diet (2000/day isn't low?), but I do watch calorie intake and focus primarily on nutritious foods. I prefer not to take vitamin supplements, but since my goal is health, I don't want to sabotage myself either.0 -
0 -
What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.
This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.
Seriously???
I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.
The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)
If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.0 -
I am profoundly disturbed by the lack of kitteh gifs on this thread.0
-
What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.
This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.
Seriously???
I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.
The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)
If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.
It's king of ridiculous to compare a PEG feed to a minimum ambulatory recommendation.
Red herring post is red herring.
While medical care might recommend a low calorie diet, I've yet to see PEG as a reasonable weight loss strategy.0 -
This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.0
-
What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.
This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.
Seriously???
I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.
The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)
If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.
It's king of ridiculous to compare a PEG feed to a minimum ambulatory recommendation.
Red herring post is red herring.
While medical care might recommend a low calorie diet, I've yet to see PEG as a reasonable weight loss strategy.
Oh I agree up it is a ridiculous comparison, was just amazed at the idea everyone on PEG feeds would get a standard set amount.
Was just responding to that, just couldn't let it go uncontested, I know this doesn't really have any relevance to thread :blushing:0 -
Speaking as someone who was married to a bariatric surgery patient, just because she lost a bunch of weight after the surgery, it didn't mean she was healthier. She suffers to this day from vitamin deficiencies, mineral deficiencies, and anemia, all of which have been traced back to her surgery and her body's inability to absorb enough nutrients. The same thing can be said of people who are eating very low calorie diets. It's not worth it in the long run. Just eat a sensible number of calories, exercise as best you can, and let the weight come off at a reasonable rate.
This is a little off-topic, but I'm curious....why can't you eat a low calorie diet and still get enough vitamins? For instance, if you eat fruits, vegetables, and nuts every day, as part of a low-calorie diet, why wouldn't you get enough vitamins and nutrients? I don't believe I practice a low-calorie diet (2000/day isn't low?), but I do watch calorie intake and focus primarily on nutritious foods. I prefer not to take vitamin supplements, but since my goal is health, I don't want to sabotage myself either.
Because a minimum number of calories are part of your nutritional needs. And that goes double for protein and fat. Not getting enough fat is like not getting enough iron.0 -
What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.
This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.
Seriously???
I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.
The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)
If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.
It's king of ridiculous to compare a PEG feed to a minimum ambulatory recommendation.
Red herring post is red herring.
While medical care might recommend a low calorie diet, I've yet to see PEG as a reasonable weight loss strategy.
Oh I agree up it is a ridiculous comparison, was just amazed at the idea everyone on PEG feeds would get a standard set amount.
Was just responding to that, just couldn't let it go uncontested, I know this doesn't really have any relevance to thread :blushing:
I think it was a valid argument. My lay-understanding is that "BMR" is the "amount to maintain your weight in a coma". I've also heard the 1200 is the minimum amount doctors will feed even the smallest adult in a coma. If that is a myth, then this is a good thread to address.0 -
This^its the fact that for MOST people, VLC diets are dangerous since there is such a low energy intake. also these diets tend to be alot less sustainable and often lead to binges
for someone who is extremely obese and unactive, a VLC diet may be in order. but for someone who is <50 lbs overweight its unhealthy and will often lead to them gaining back the weight they lost0 -
And also this^When someone is actually heavy they're probably not as bad as people make them out to be. The problem is the 1200 calorie posts are usually by 18 year old girls who do 3 hours of cardio a day and want to lose 3lbs so they can be 110lbs instead of 113lbs.0 -
This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.
Are you talking about adaptive thermogenisis or the magical MFP state where specialsnowflakes can't lose weight no matter how little they eat?0 -
I am profoundly disturbed by the lack of kitteh gifs on this thread.
It hasn't been that dumb a thread.0 -
I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.0
-
I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.
Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.
It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate
0 -
What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.
This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.
Seriously???
I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.
The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)
If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.
It's king of ridiculous to compare a PEG feed to a minimum ambulatory recommendation.
Red herring post is red herring.
While medical care might recommend a low calorie diet, I've yet to see PEG as a reasonable weight loss strategy.
Oh I agree up it is a ridiculous comparison, was just amazed at the idea everyone on PEG feeds would get a standard set amount.
Was just responding to that, just couldn't let it go uncontested, I know this doesn't really have any relevance to thread :blushing:
I think it was a valid argument. My lay-understanding is that "BMR" is the "amount to maintain your weight in a coma". I've also heard the 1200 is the minimum amount doctors will feed even the smallest adult in a coma. If that is a myth, then this is a good thread to address.
Oh, my comment was addressed to the original PEG post. Not the rebuttal.
BMR is a theoretical consideration as to what might be a minimum based on zero activity. It has often been confused in the research with RMR (resting metabolic rate).
I consider it a red herring because no one is recommending PEG feeding nor does it really relate to normal diet or a VLC. In a PEG, the liquid nutrients provided directly to the stomach have a low calorie "cost" of digestion and are easily available to the body. Furthermore, as has been noted, PEG feeding can vary from sub-800 cals to up to 2400 cals per day based on weight loss monitoring.
The intent of PEG isn't weight loss but functional organ maintenance, so even if it was 1200 as some minimum, there is no real reason to consider this as the "absolute minimum" for VLCs under proper medical supervision. The idea of a VLC is to maximize weight loss and might make sense for some people, under proper medical supervision, for a limited period of time and not as a MFP diet of the week thing.
A different example, again medical, it might be to good to suggest to people to avoid electric shocks given that burns and death might occur however there is a place for defibrillators. The fact that people have died on 20 volt and 100 J shocks doesn't negate the usefulness of 200-1000V and 100-200J AEDs under certain medical conditions. Context matters.
Having said that - I recognize that if people somehow believe 1200 is some sort of minimum "coma" limit and that gets addressed, then it might serve an info purpose. Are there really that many people saying that? Didn't see one in this thread until the PEG post.0 -
Speaking as someone who was married to a bariatric surgery patient, just because she lost a bunch of weight after the surgery, it didn't mean she was healthier. She suffers to this day from vitamin deficiencies, mineral deficiencies, and anemia, all of which have been traced back to her surgery and her body's inability to absorb enough nutrients. The same thing can be said of people who are eating very low calorie diets. It's not worth it in the long run. Just eat a sensible number of calories, exercise as best you can, and let the weight come off at a reasonable rate.
This is a little off-topic, but I'm curious....why can't you eat a low calorie diet and still get enough vitamins? For instance, if you eat fruits, vegetables, and nuts every day, as part of a low-calorie diet, why wouldn't you get enough vitamins and nutrients? I don't believe I practice a low-calorie diet (2000/day isn't low?), but I do watch calorie intake and focus primarily on nutritious foods. I prefer not to take vitamin supplements, but since my goal is health, I don't want to sabotage myself either.
2000 cals/day is not a low calorie diet - this may even be too many calories for smaller people and sedentary people. The exact amount of calories needed varies depending on size and activity levels. Your approach sounds very sensible, i.e. ensuring adequate calorie intake plus paying attention to the other nutrients.
regarding your question - protein-energy malnutrition is a lot more severe and will make you ill and kill you much more quickly than any vitamin or mineral deficiency. That fact is overlooked by pretty much everyone on ultra-restrictive diets (which goes for diets like fruitarian and the like too). They overfocus on vitamins, minerals and fibre at the expense of other nutrients. It really does not matter if someone is getting all the vitamins and minerals they need, if they're not getting enough protein and energy to support basic survival. It's like if you want to build a house and you have no bricks and no builders, but someone says "but we've got lots of wall paper and curtains" - the wallpaper and curtains are no use without the bricks and builders. Protein is like the bricks, and energy is like the builders - this is what's needed to grow new cells and repair old ones... vitamins and minerals help out with a lot of functions around the body (including some minor aspects of growing and repairing cells), but without protein (including all 8 essential amino acids) and sufficient energy, your body can't repair or regenerate its own tissues, or keep the existing cells alive and no amount of vitamins and minerals can make up for this. Protein and energy are essential and cells need a constant supply of them. People can survive a long time on insufficient calories and protein by drawing on its own resources (fat stores, skeletal muscle), but there's a big cost in terms of health when the body has to catabolise skeletal muscle in order to make up a shortfall of either protein or energy or both. A fat loss diet needs to give the person all the nutrients they need, and just the right amount of energy, so the body draws only from the fat stores in order to make up the energy shortfall. This results in slow fat loss - because the body can't use all that much fat at one time - and it requires patience.
VLCDs are fine for certain people in certain circumstances under medical supervision, when the benefits outweigh the risks and problems (e.g. if someone's likely to die of obesity related illness unless they drop the weight quickly - the risk of the body drawing on lean tissue to supply an energy shortfall is minimal in people who are severely obese, and so long as protein intake is adequate there's no need to draw on skeletal muscle for amino acids either so not only are the benefits greater for these people, the risks are smaller too).... but for most people the risks far outweigh the benefits, and most people on here doing VLCDs are not super-morbidly obese, they're people who really don't have that much weight to lose, but they're looking for a quick fix, because they want to fit into a nice bikini on their summer holiday in 6 weeks and aren't going to have time to lose the weight the healthy way. And they're also the kinds of people for whom the risks of VLCDs are that much greater, because they don't have that much fat to lose. Which is why people promoting them on here are generally not well received. Most people on here promoting them are the very people who are most likely to be harmed by them.0 -
What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.
This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.
Seriously???
I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.
The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)
If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.
It's king of ridiculous to compare a PEG feed to a minimum ambulatory recommendation.
Red herring post is red herring.
While medical care might recommend a low calorie diet, I've yet to see PEG as a reasonable weight loss strategy.
Oh I agree up it is a ridiculous comparison, was just amazed at the idea everyone on PEG feeds would get a standard set amount.
Was just responding to that, just couldn't let it go uncontested, I know this doesn't really have any relevance to thread :blushing:
I think it was a valid argument. My lay-understanding is that "BMR" is the "amount to maintain your weight in a coma". I've also heard the 1200 is the minimum amount doctors will feed even the smallest adult in a coma. If that is a myth, then this is a good thread to address.
Oh, my comment was addressed to the original PEG post. Not the rebuttal.
BMR is a theoretical consideration as to what might be a minimum based on zero activity. It has often been confused in the research with RMR (resting metabolic rate).
I consider it a red herring because no one is recommending PEG feeding nor does it really relate to normal diet or a VLC. In a PEG, the liquid nutrients provided directly to the stomach have a low calorie "cost" of digestion and are easily available to the body. Furthermore, as has been noted, PEG feeding can vary from sub-800 cals to up to 2400 cals per day based on weight loss monitoring.
The intent of PEG isn't weight loss but functional organ maintenance, so even if it was 1200 as some minimum, there is no real reason to consider this as the "absolute minimum" for VLCs under proper medical supervision. The idea of a VLC is to maximize weight loss and might make sense for some people, under proper medical supervision, for a limited period of time and not as a MFP diet of the week thing.
A different example, again medical, it might be to good to suggest to people to avoid electric shocks given that burns and death might occur however there is a place for defibrillators. The fact that people have died on 20 volt and 100 J shocks doesn't negate the usefulness of 200-1000V and 100-200J AEDs under certain medical conditions. Context matters.
Having said that - I recognize that if people somehow believe 1200 is some sort of minimum "coma" limit and that gets addressed, then it might serve an info purpose. Are there really that many people saying that? Didn't see one in this thread until the PEG post.
Yes, I have seen 1200 been mentioned as a coma limit, fairly regularly and since this thread seems to be (amazingly) factual rather than emotional, it seems like a great place to get a deeper insight into the reality of this.
I didn't take the original post in this back-and-forth to mean that the PEG diet was something that we should base our dietary needs on, just that the idea that 1200 as the minimum to support organ function (I think there was a breakdown in calorie needs for different organs earlier in the thread) might be off-base.0 -
I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.
Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.
It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate
I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.
Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.0 -
I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.
Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.
It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate
I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.
Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.
A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.0 -
Yes, I have seen 1200 been mentioned as a coma limit, fairly regularly and since this thread seems to be (amazingly) factual rather than emotional, it seems like a great place to get a deeper insight into the reality of this.
I didn't take the original post in this back-and-forth to mean that the PEG diet was something that we should base our dietary needs on, just that the idea that 1200 as the minimum to support organ function (I think there was a breakdown in calorie needs for different organs earlier in the thread) might be off-base.
Well, here is a personal experience.
My mother was well below 500 cals (orally) and conscious for several months and when we discussed a PEG (which my father and I both refused based on my mother's wished but he wavered on it, since reality is sometimes trying) the possible cals per day would have been around 800 for maintenance.0 -
I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.
Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.
It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate
I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.
Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.
A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.
And I think that is the other element - we want people to succeed long term - I think it is easier to be content and reach your goals when you haven't limited the "field of play" with calories to the minimums... staying very active, having the maximum LBM (or the minimum loss) and the minimum risk of adverse effects of dieting is what people should, in my opinion, recommend...0 -
Yes, I have seen 1200 been mentioned as a coma limit, fairly regularly and since this thread seems to be (amazingly) factual rather than emotional, it seems like a great place to get a deeper insight into the reality of this.
I didn't take the original post in this back-and-forth to mean that the PEG diet was something that we should base our dietary needs on, just that the idea that 1200 as the minimum to support organ function (I think there was a breakdown in calorie needs for different organs earlier in the thread) might be off-base.
Well, here is a personal experience.
My mother was well below 500 cals (orally) and conscious for several months and when we discussed a PEG (which my father and I both refused based on my mother's wished but he wavered on it, since reality is sometimes trying) the possible cals per day would have been around 800 for maintenance.
Thank you for sharing that insight. I'm very sorry about your loss.0 -
I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.
Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.
It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate
I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.
Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.
A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.
I have seen many success stories on MFP from women who ate 1200 or less, especailly at the beginning when they were very overweight. And one recently from a man who ate that low.
It really is not necessary to eat the same number of calories throughout the entire period of weight loss. A VLCD in the beginning for those that are obese is not necessarily a bad thing. And 1200 calories for the obese is rarely a bad thing. Being obese is a bad thing. Obesity is very hard on the body. Sometimes, getting rid of the fat quickly is the most important thing.0 -
This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.
Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:
Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?
I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?
The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.
ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.
Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.
The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.
Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?
It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.
I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.0 -
I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.
Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.
It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate
I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.
Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.
A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.
And I think that is the other element - we want people to succeed long term - I think it is easier to be content and reach your goals when you haven't limited the "field of play" with calories to the minimums... staying very active, having the maximum LBM (or the minimum loss) and the minimum risk of adverse effects of dieting is what people should, in my opinion, recommend...
Yeah. I wish more people would start out with "what is the very minimum that I can do to change the direction that I'm going?" Instead of "I'm serious this time and it's going to be a LIFESTYLE change!"
I mean I get it, I understand why. I HATED how I looked and felt when I was obese. I would have done anything to change - I'd tried eating less and just ended up binging and feeling worse. I was working full time, pumping during my breaks and every minute not working was spent trying to parent. I had no more time. And there were all the popular magazines: "put a single blueberry in your mouth and just savor it instead of eating chocolate" Why not "here's how to figure out your calorie needs and here's how to work nutritionally beneficial chocolate into them"?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions