So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?

segovm

For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.

At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.

I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.

(Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of story that I wish more people could be aware of. This is what so many are "preaching" about when they counter the aggressive VLF/VLCD in the forums. There *are* potential consequences of aggressive diets to consider, and at the very least, people taking an aggressive approach should be aware of these issues to watch carefully for them.)

I could be way off on this sounds like someone who was underweight due to an eating disorder that she eventually dealt with by eating more food.

Not sure that's the same thing as an overweight person just trying to drop down into a healthy weight range.

randomtai

I would say that the bad stuff started happening right about the time you said, "Hey! I have a great idea for a forum post!"

QFT!

UpEarly

For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.

At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.

I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.

(Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of story that I wish more people could be aware of. This is what so many are "preaching" about when they counter the aggressive VLF/VLCD in the forums. There *are* potential consequences of aggressive diets to consider, and at the very least, people taking an aggressive approach should be aware of these issues to watch carefully for them.)

I could be way off on this sounds like someone who was underweight due to an eating disorder that she eventually dealt with by eating more food.

Not sure that's the same thing as an overweight person just trying to drop down into a healthy weight range.

Nope - I was a very healthy weight, BMI and body fat percentage for my height when these health problems happened to me. I was 5'9" and about 142 pounds. I had crash dieted down from 236 pound to 142 pounds in about five months with a very low calorie diet. I stuck with the VLCD for years because my body got used to it and it seemed normal and healthy to me. I was never underweight - just malnourished and I lost the weight WAY too quickly.

segovm

Nope - I was a very healthy weight, BMI and body fat percentage for my height when these health problems happened to me. I was 5'9" and about 142 pounds. I had crash dieted down from 236 pound to 142 pounds in about five months with a very low calorie diet.

I was never underweight.

Appreciate you clearing that up. Thought you got down way low to have the negative side effects you mentioned. I guess my next question would be were you eating low calories or netting low calories? I suspect that most of the negative stuff comes from eating too little as I have never heard of anyone having problems from just netting too few calories.

WalkingAlong

For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.

At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.

I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.

(Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of story that I wish more people could be aware of. This is what so many are "preaching" about when they counter the aggressive VLF/VLCD in the forums. There *are* potential consequences of aggressive diets to consider, and at the very least, people taking an aggressive approach should be aware of these issues to watch carefully for them.)

I could be way off on this sounds like someone who was underweight due to an eating disorder that she eventually dealt with by eating more food.

Not sure that's the same thing as an overweight person just trying to drop down into a healthy weight range.

Nope - I was a very healthy weight, BMI and body fat percentage for my height when these health problems happened to me. I was 5'9" and about 142 pounds. I had crash dieted down from 236 pound to 142 pounds in about five months with a very low calorie diet. I stuck with the VLCD for years because my body got used to it and it seemed normal and healthy to me. I was never underweight - just malnourished and I lost the weight WAY too quickly.

How low were your calories? It seems odd that you could eat at a VLCD for years and not lose more weight. Or are we talking about 'net calories'?

UpEarly

Nope - I was a very healthy weight, BMI and body fat percentage for my height when these health problems happened to me. I was 5'9" and about 142 pounds. I had crash dieted down from 236 pound to 142 pounds in about five months with a very low calorie diet.

I was never underweight.

Appreciate you clearing that up. Thought you got down way low to have the negative side effects you mentioned. I guess my next question would be were you eating low calories or netting low calories? I suspect that most of the negative stuff comes from eating too little as I have never heard of anyone having problems from just netting too few calories.

It was the early 1990's - no one talked about 'net calories' then. The trends were very low-fat and fat free. Step aerobics was the workout du jour. Carbs were the focal point of every popular diet. I ate 1000-1200 calories a day - so I'm sure I was eating too little and netting too little.

I'm not sure I understand why you're making a distinction between eating too little and netting too little. In my book, they're the same thing in that you're not providing enough fuel to sustain your body's activities.

My doctor said the patulous ear drum issue came simply from losing weight too fast. The other issues I had... I'm really not sure - I think a person's body can only stay in significant deficit so long before there are consequences. My weight stabilized on 1200 calories a day. I stalled at 142 and never lost another pound despite sticking with the 1200 calories a day. But, cumulatively, 1200 calories a day was not enough to provide me the nutrition I needed over the long haul.

Ironically, my current weight is lower now (135) and I got to that point eating over 2,000 calories a day. It's been much easier to keep off this time, too.

WalkingAlong

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

UpEarly

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

It's been 20 years since I followed anything that could remotely be considered 'low calorie'. All I remember is my doctor saying 'You need to stop this very low calorie diet you're following, or you'll continue to become sicker and weaker.'

So, even if it didn't meet the clinical definition of a VLCD - it was still a very low calorie diet for my age, height, weight and activity level.

segovm

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

That's kind of the distinction I have been making. I eat between 1700-1900 calories a day but burn more than that most days. I don't feel malnourished and keep getting better faster stronger so I'm going with it for now.

I think the people that end up suffering are the ones who eat too little and especially those that eat too little without the proper nutrients. I don't think the whole "net calories" thing is a factor in the whole VLCD thing and certainly haven't found anything yet that would support that idea.

rosebette

I think when "the bad stuff" happens depends on your caloric needs based on size, activity, etc. OP's diary does not show someone who is eating a VLCD. Also, I don't know her height, but if her current weight is what she says it is in her profile, she's a smaller person; she also says she's over 40, which affects metabolism and requires fewer calories than say, a 25-year-old. I'm small myself and older and maintaining on between 1100 and 1200 calories, eating back exercise calories. So far, I feel pretty good.

DavPul

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

That's kind of the distinction I have been making. I eat between 1700-1900 calories a day but burn more than that most days. I don't feel malnourished and keep getting better faster stronger so I'm going with it for now.

I think the people that end up suffering are the ones who eat too little and especially those that eat too little without the proper nutrients. I don't think the whole "net calories" thing is a factor in the whole VLCD thing and certainly haven't found anything yet that would support that idea.

the problem is that you don't get to make up your own rules. you can keep ignoring all the science and all of the shared stories if you want tho. free country and all that.

WalkingAlong

I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

Why would eating healthy and exercising ruin your metabolism and body and cause terrible things to happen?

I believe it's the "healthy" part that gets called into question-- healthy isn't just about food selection. It also means adequate calories and appropriate macros. And exercise can be overdone to the point where it's not healthy anymore.

But again, the OP isn't doing an VLCD really.

segovm

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

That's kind of the distinction I have been making. I eat between 1700-1900 calories a day but burn more than that most days. I don't feel malnourished and keep getting better faster stronger so I'm going with it for now.

I think the people that end up suffering are the ones who eat too little and especially those that eat too little without the proper nutrients. I don't think the whole "net calories" thing is a factor in the whole VLCD thing and certainly haven't found anything yet that would support that idea.

the problem is that you don't get to make up your own rules. you can keep ignoring all the science and all of the shared stories if you want tho. free country and all that.

I get that which is why we are all here talking about it. If I thought I knew everything I wouldn't bother talking to mere mortals. The issue that I am asking about though is from where does one draw this information about "net calories" being the same as "gross calories" because narry a study or report have I seen that implies a person can suffer from eating well and getting a lot of exercise.

BoxerBrawler

I have always wondered about the net calorie vs. gross calorie number as well.

I can eat up to 1200 or more per day but my net will still be too low or even a negative number due to the multiple exercise calories. I am not sure that I trust the net number.

jofjltncb6

I have always wondered about the net calorie vs. gross calorie number as well.

I can eat up to 1200 or more per day but my net will still be too low or even a negative number due to the multiple exercise calories. I am not sure that I trust the net number.

You don't trust the net number?

To be fair, I don't trust your gross number or your exercise number either. Mostly because your calculated weight loss over a fairly long period of time would lead me to believe your numbers are wrong.

RHachicho

Regardless of what you think you burn or how many calories you think you eat, the truth lies in how much weight you gain/lose over a period of time. Your body is the ultimate arbiter in this.

Your 58 lb weight loss in "just over 10 months" (I called it 42 weeks), indicates a daily calorie deficit of 690. that is a very reasonable amount and a healthy rate at which to lose weight. That's why you aren't seeing any of the "bad stuff".

Good job.

Thank you thank you.

Hmm honestly this sounds like about the best way of ultimately deciding whether what you are doing is healthy or not. Find your average weight loss per week over a decent period and work out what your actual deficit is.

Unfortunately mine is a bit worrying. Losing an average of 3lb a week which means a daily deficit of 1500 .... I'm eating 2000 - 2300 lol I thought that was actually balanced. But maybe I am being a wee bit too aggressive.

jofjltncb6

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

Nonetheless, it sounds like some people have experienced significant problems at intakes higher than 800 calories.

segovm

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

Nonetheless, it sounds like some people have experienced significant problems at intakes higher than 800 calories.

Maybe the bad stuff only happens in the real world then and not when under supervised conditions in which all the variables can be observed and measured?

EvgeniZyntx

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

Nonetheless, it sounds like some people have experienced significant problems at intakes higher than 800 calories.

Oh, like the Minnesota starvation experiment?

pinkyslippers

Hi OP

I don't have any experience of "bad stuff" myself but then I'm not maintaining yet! I aim for a moderate calorie deficit so would not fit into the category you are talking about. I'm adding some links here about the adaptive thermogenesis and physiological and hormonal adaptations to weight loss in case you are interested. They are all from good quality sources. Much of the "starvation mode" information on here is inaccurate and there is very little good quality literature which states that VLCD 'ruins' metabolism. In a way, all weight loss affects metabolism negatively - it's part of our evolutionary make up, and explains high incidence of weight regain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901982/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199503093321001#t=articleTop

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1105816

http://www.clinsci.org/cs/124/0231/cs1240231.htm

Something to think about once we start maintaining! Hope these help & best of luck to you :flowerforyou:
.

bcjag76

You'll know though if your hair starts falling out, your nails become brittle and if you have an EKG and it shows something is off with your heart. Not saying any of this is going to happen, but stay on a VLCD long enough and it will...along with other stuff.

This. I lost a lot of weight doing the Eat to Live plan by the book (very low fat vegan) and at the end, when I reached my goal weight, my hair was falling out scary fast, my nails were brittle, and I generally felt like crap. I never counted calories following that plan but they had to be pretty low considering I was eating rabbit food for the majority of my meals.

albayin

when you think you know too much, bad things will happen...

I know people who lost weight without knowing what metabolism is and what muscle fat ratio they have. They are just fine.

UpEarly

I don't see a lot of shared stories, just one recollection from 20 years ago that defies science-- maintaining in the 140s at 1000-1200 then 20 years later maintaining in the 130s at 2000, without significant activity increase.

I don't believe I discussed how my activity level changed from twenty years ago to now. I am much more active now than I was in my early 20s.

BoxerBrawler

I have always wondered about the net calorie vs. gross calorie number as well.

I can eat up to 1200 or more per day but my net will still be too low or even a negative number due to the multiple exercise calories. I am not sure that I trust the net number.

You don't trust the net number?

To be fair, I don't trust your gross number or your exercise number either. Mostly because your calculated weight loss over a fairly long period of time would lead me to believe your numbers are wrong.

I hear what you are saying but even when I put my stats and levels into various systems e.g., MFP, Fitbit and IIFYM I always round up the calories, round down the burn and set my activity as sedentary or at most, working out two or three times per week which is false. I work out everyday, a couple of times a day. In April of 2013 I weighed around 178 - 180 lbs. Today I am at 120. My weight varies between 115-120. The lowest I had it was 113 which was impossible to sustain due to my level of activity. I am 5'5" and 45 years old. TDEE based upon my stats and working out 3 times per week is 1638 and 1310 for for a 25% cut. I am generally averaging 1200-1300 calories (gross). If you are talking net I am getting anywhere between 200 to 600 per day. I have MFP set at 1200 with about the same level of activity and set to lose .8 lbs per week. I eat all day long and sometime snack at night and yeah, sometimes I go up to 1600 a day. From things I have read and from what folks have told me, I am not eating enough to sustain life let alone lose anymore weight. Yes... since I am trying to lose a few vanity pounds my weight loss is really slow and I have to double my effort to get a maximum burn. I still eat low fat or no fat and try to keep my carbs in check just because my body feels good with that plan. So I am starting to think that a body can just adapt. I know different things work for different people depending upon their lifestyle, activities, etc. So I'm going to just assume that some folks can live on under a thousand a day and continue to be healthy while others need a lot more. It is not an exact science but I don't see where my numbers could be terribly wrong. Off here and there? sure... The other day I did an hour of zumba wearing my Nano which only counts the steps and calories burned according to that. It indicated I burned 380 calories. I assumed around 40 minutes to account for small breaks in-between (which I don't take... I'll jog in place or whatever).

VeryKatie

I think I was eating about 1200 calories most days and up to 1400 when I lost my initial 20 lbs. I think I lost a bit of muscle, not a lot, but some. So far every other aspect has improved. So the "bad" things probably only happen when the deficit is very low or depending on the person.

kgeyser

Usually VLCD is 800 calories in intake, or less, independent of burn.

Nonetheless, it sounds like some people have experienced significant problems at intakes higher than 800 calories.

I don't necessarily think it is intake as much as deficit and/or net calories. I think you can be at or above what would be considered a minimal intake (1200 cal) and still create health problems if the deficit is too large or you push your net calories into vlc territory.

DavPul

But again, the OP isn't doing an VLCD really.

And there's one of the big problems with this thread. The OP thinks she's doing a VLCD (even believes she has regular negative net days) and made a thread to extol the benefits of VLCDs. Then, a slight picking at the scab of her story and it turns out that it's actually a moderate calorie deficit.

While she's happy to accept congratulations on her moderate weight loss plan and success, this thread still sits out there claiming that VLCDs are awesome, even as it turns out that no actual VLCDs were harmed the creation of this thread.

Sends the wrong message, imo

Hornsby

But again, the OP isn't doing an VLCD really.

And there's one of the big problems with this thread. The OP thinks she's doing a VLCD (even believes she has regular negative net days) and made a thread to extol the benefits of VLCDs. Then, a slight picking at the scab of her story and it turns out that it's actually a moderate calorie deficit.

While she's happy to accept congratulations on her moderate weight loss plan and success, this thread still sits out there claiming that VLCDs are awesome, even as it turns out that no actual VLCDs were harmed the creation of this thread.

Sends the wrong message, imo

And to elaborate on that, if the OP is actually accurate in her numbers (which she isn't), wouldn't that show that bad stuff has already happened since her weight loss doesn't match her perceived numbers?

Ninkyou

I have always wondered about the net calorie vs. gross calorie number as well.

I'll tell you what happened in my experience, since people seem to think there's a lack of it with some of the replies here. I tested this theory myself in February. I switched to the TDEE method with having a gross intake of around 1690 calories. Some days were higher, but usually I was in the general area. I exercised my butt off. I hiked 3x a week for 2 to 2.5 hours. I also walked 4 miles every Saturday & Sunday (which I still do). I took, in general, 1 rest day a week.

I made a list on notepad to record what my burns from my HRM were and subtracted it from my TDEE-20% to see what my net was. This is what happened for 2 months:

2/4 1766-347=1419
2/5 1714-311=1403
2/6 1735-338=1397
2/7 1732-647=1085
2/8 1766-379=1387
2/9 2139-356=1783
2/10 1705-257=1448
2/11 1727-387=1340
2/12 1765-636=1129
2/13 1705-203=1502
2/14 1752-319=1433
2/15 1622
2/16 1690-414=1276
2/17 1690-494=1196
2/18 1697-599=1098
2/19 1682-593=1089
2/20 1664
2/21 1646-697=949
2/22 1689
2/23 1671-267=1404
2/24 1674-554=1120
2/25 1614-398=1216
2/26 1685-569=1116
2/27 1698
2/28 1678-786=892

3/1 1687-400=1287
3/2 1680-459=1221
3/3 1637-362=1275
3/4 1681-321=1360
3/5 1636-538=1098
3/6 1706
3/7 1682-601=1081
3/8 1517-310=1207
3/9 1652-435=1217
3/10 2056-746=1310
3/11 2046-358=1688
3/12 1610-535=1075
3/13 1516
3/14 1685-518=1167
3/15 1696-347=1349
3/16 1589-327=1262
3/17 1672-273=1399
3/18 1639-355=1284
3/19 1676-486=1190
3/20 1685
3/21 1693-756=937
3/22 1678-347=1331
3/23 1667-387=1280
3/24 1689-383=1306
3/25 1648-390=1258
3/26 1642-678=964
3/27 1687
3/28 1692-786=906
3/29 1694-422=1272
3/30 1669-478=1191
3/31 1670-435=1235

You see all those nets below 1200 calories? There were alot of them. Did I lose weight? Yes. Was I eating a decent amount of calories? Yes. But I was NETTING pretty low. Do you know what happened? My hair started falling out. And it was falling out pretty badly. As a woman, I thought I might spend my life bald if it continued. I was feeling tired all the time, but I kept up with my schedule. I didn't really have much choice, I exercised at the gym or hiked near the gym, because that's where my daughter went to preschool. If she went to school, I had to find something to do for the next 3 hours, so what did I do? I went hiking or did Zumba.

Obviously I did not keep this up. It was a personal temporary experiment. And the results from just 2 months of doing it was enough for me to know it was not something worth doing or continuing.

So there's the experience and the consequences... just with short term. Imagine keeping it up long term or worse netted even lower than what I did, what do you think would happen? Nothing good, that's what. Sure, you lose weight, but you're sacrificing your health in favor of hitting a goal weigh a little faster. That's why people around here say it's better to lose it slow and steady.... so you don't experience the negative side effects. And really, what is the rush? You have to live your life anyway, so do it sensibly.