He didnt gain the weight back after crash diet

WalkingAlong

There is a lot of evidence that deeper deficits lead to better maintenance.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long

That isn't what you'd expect to find if they burned up more LBM.

That study compares people who lost a lot of weight on a VLED with people who lost a smaller amount of weight on an HBD. The greater amount of weight lost on the VLED could very well be the driving factor, rather than the calorie deficit used to lose weight in the first place.

I've read the whole thing and it's a meta-analysis of 29 studies done over decades, not one study, and I think it does say what I think it says. Though I agree that if it was only one study and the HBD group lost less, that would be an important factor.

vismal

We don't even know what his protein intake was. Why are we googling protein intake?

You'd think if 'loss of lean body mass' was a common side effect of VLCD, it'd be listed here as one.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/low-calorie-diets

"What Are the Side Effects of Very Low-Calorie Diets?

People on a very low-calorie diet for 4 to 16 weeks report minor side effects such as fatigue, constipation, nausea, and diarrhea. These conditions usually improve within a few weeks and rarely prevent people from completing the program.

Gallstones are most common serious side effect seen with very low-calorie diets. Gallstones are more common during rapid weight loss. It’s unclear whether very low-calorie diets directly cause gallstones or whether the amount of weight loss is responsible for them."

The OP of this thread's friend was eating supposedly nothing but fruits and vegetables. I would assume a very low protein intake. Wouldn't you?

parkscs

This thread was about someone losing on a crash diet and not gaining back. His story was about that. I didn't say anything about his body except that he appears to be functional and healthy since he's an avid runner. If people decided to point to him as an example of an undesirable body type, that's their own rudeness and a change of subject.

I PMed him. Maybe he'll show up. His post count is low, I suspect he doesn't hang out here much.

Again, n=1 anecdotal evidence is pretty meaningless. Not to mention, I don't see anything in his post that says he followed a crash diet. He lost weight quickly at 1400 calories because he started off at a very high weight of 500+ pounds and was doing quite a bit of cardio at the same time. That's not an extreme diet, at least not in my mind, nor would it produce the same results mentioned in the OP for 99.x% of people. In short, you're not only using a runner as an example of someone who has significant LBM, but he's not even a good example of a crash dieter. For that matter, he even upped his calories as he got leaner. He's an example of doing it the right way, not crashing dieting and "keeping it off." Why you're choosing to defend your bad example and even messaged the guy is beyond me, unless you simply can't admit when you're wrong.

A crash diet would be if I decide to eat 600 calories for the next 16 weeks until I hit 6% body fat, and at that point there's a very high chance (if not a practical certainty) that I could run into LBM retention issues, malnutrition and the like if done improperly. That sort of diet could produce the results listed in the OP within the first month, assuming I wasn't glycogen depleted to start with. There are safer ways to do such diets for limited periods of time while minimizing the adverse side effects, but generally there's a lot more risk involved than eating a more reasonable caloric deficit. And at the end of the day, I think that's why people strongly recommend against such diets; they aren't sustainable and there's quite a bit of risk involved when they're done incorrectly (which they usually are unless a doctor is involved).

WalkingAlong

The OP of this thread's friend was eating supposedly nothing but fruits and vegetables. I would assume a very low protein intake. Wouldn't you?

Hard to say. Lots of plant protein sources. And the whole thing sounds exaggerated, anyway.

I think there are a lot of MFP users/readers who had WLS surgery and are on VLCDs (supervised) and don't need to constantly be reading that all VLCDs are dangerous and all people who lose on them are destined to regain.

WalkingAlong

Not to mention, I don't see anything in his post that says he followed a crash diet. He lost weight quickly at 1400 calories because he started off at a very high weight of 500+ pounds and was doing quite a bit of cardio at the same time. That's not an extreme diet, at least not in my mind, nor would it produce the same results mentioned in the OP for 99.x% of people. In short, you're not only using a runner as an example of someone who has significant LBM, but he's not even a good example of a crash dieter.

He lost on average nearly a pound a day for 18 months.

You guys understand that legs have muscles, right? And that most of us don't want Thor torsos, we want to be a healthy BMI and do our thing?

Ugh, never mind. Some myths never die.

parkscs

There is a lot of evidence that deeper deficits lead to better maintenance.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long

That isn't what you'd expect to find if they burned up more LBM.

That study compares people who lost a lot of weight on a VLED with people who lost a smaller amount of weight on an HBD. The greater amount of weight lost on the VLED could very well be the driving factor, rather than the calorie deficit used to lose weight in the first place.

I've read the whole thing and it's a meta-analysis of 29 studies done over decades, not one study, and I think it does say what I think it says. Though I agree that if it was only one study and the HBD group lost less, that would be an important factor.

After VLEDs or after weight losses of ≥20 kg, individuals maintained a significantly greater weight loss at 5 y than after HBDs or weight losses of ≤10 kg. Our analysis suggest that individuals are more likely to sustain long-term weight losses of ≥5% of initial body weight if they participate in VLEDs or lose ≥20 kg initially. This is not consistent with the common recommendation that individuals lose weight slowly and set initial weight-loss goals of ≈5% of their body weight (3,6).

For one, look at Figure 1 and you can clearly see the VLED participants lost significantly more weight to begin with. But considering the above passage, do you honestly think the improved long-term maintenance is due to the use of a VLED more than the greater amount of total weight lost? Particularly in view of:

All 4 VLED studies reported weight losses of ≥20 kg and 5 HBD studies reported weight losses of <10 kg. Comparisons of the groups with weight losses of ≥20 kg with those with weight losses <10 kg were almost identical to the results of the comparisons of the VLEDs and HBDs.

In any event, interpret it however you want, but I think it's illogical to think that crash dieting today will increase your odds of weight loss maintenance tomorrow. I could easily see how losing a significant amount of weight though could very well produce a more long-term change.

vismal

Not to mention, I don't see anything in his post that says he followed a crash diet. He lost weight quickly at 1400 calories because he started off at a very high weight of 500+ pounds and was doing quite a bit of cardio at the same time. That's not an extreme diet, at least not in my mind, nor would it produce the same results mentioned in the OP for 99.x% of people. In short, you're not only using a runner as an example of someone who has significant LBM, but he's not even a good example of a crash dieter.

He lost on average nearly a pound a day for 18 months.

You guys understand that legs have muscles, right? And that most of us don't want Thor torsos, we want to be a healthy BMI and do our thing?

Ugh, never mind. Some myths never die.

It's not a myth that crash dieting, especially if protein is not sufficient (which is extremely likely to be the case with OP's friend) will cause MORE losses to lean mass then losing weight slower with adequate protein. Whether or not that bothers you is an entirely different topic. Yes we all understand legs have muscles. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

WalkingAlong

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24372837

Here's another, though I think you'll have the same beef with it.

Sidesteel posted a good one once. I wish I could find that one.

lemurcat12

This got kind of buried, so is worth reposting:

ETA: How long has it been, for real, since he stopped the diet?

its been about 5 months and has kept the weight off.He didn't have that much to lose because at first assumed he lost 20 to 30 lbs and he now looks slim.He wasn't overweight to begin with.Maybe more like thick

So the guy wasn't actually overweight and claims he lost 44 lbs in a month by eating fruits and vegetables only.

Seems fishy.

If he wasn't actually overweight, where did he get this deficit of over 5100 calories?

Also, I could swear this exact thread was posted before, about a month ago.

vismal

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24372837

Here's another, though I think you'll have the same beef with it.

Sidesteel posted a good one once. I wish I could find that one.

The entire population of that study did the VLCD. It merely found that those who lost the most in the initial phase kept weight off the best. But the whole group did a VLCD. It does not compare to people doing a more moderate deficit and once again does not talk about lean mass whatsoever.

WalkingAlong

Do you have any studies about the amount of LBM lost via deeper vs shallower deficits? From all I've read over the years I think it's not as significant as people here think. Though I have seen some studies that claim it is.

I think most dieters if you asked them if they'd rather lose 42lbs. of fat and 2 lbs. of LBM in 4 months or 40 fat/4 LBM in 2 months, they'd pick the latter. People often react here like a steep deficit dieter loses at 50% of each or 0% fat or something.

And some LBM loss is unavoidable and even needed in large losses.

Here's another outside opinion but it also doesn't specifically address LBM, just success rates.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-rapid-fat-loss-right-for-you.html

With so many studies showing high success with it and mainstream health sites not even listing loss of LBM as a potential side effect, I just wish there was less of a witch-burning response to it here.

brower47

Do you have any studies about the amount of LBM lost via deeper vs shallower deficits? From all I've read over the years I think it's not as significant as people here think. Though I have seen some studies that claim it is.

I think most dieters if you asked them if they'd rather lose 42lbs. of fat and 2 lbs. of LBM in 4 months or 40 fat/4 LBM in 2 months, they'd pick the latter. People often react here like a steep deficit dieter loses at 50% of each or 0% fat or something.

And some LBM loss is unavoidable and even needed in large losses.

Here's another outside opinion but it also doesn't specifically address LBM, just success rates.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-rapid-fat-loss-right-for-you.html

With so many studies showing high success with it and mainstream health sites not even listing loss of LBM as a potential side effect, I just wish there was less of a witch-burning response to it here.

Stop projecting.

WalkingAlong

Stop attacking.

vismal

Do you have any studies about the amount of LBM lost via deeper vs shallower deficits? From all I've read over the years I think it's not as significant as people here think. Though I have seen some studies that claim it is.

I think most dieters if you asked them if they'd rather lose 42lbs. of fat and 2 lbs. of LBM in 4 months or 40 fat/4 LBM in 2 months, they'd pick the latter. People often react here like a steep deficit dieter loses at 50% of each or 0% fat or something.

And some LBM loss is unavoidable and even needed in large losses.

Here's another outside opinion but it also doesn't specifically address LBM, just success rates.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-rapid-fat-loss-right-for-you.html

With so many studies showing high success with it and mainstream health sites not even listing loss of LBM as a potential side effect, I just wish there was less of a witch-burning response to it here.

Your made up scenario is meaningless. You made up numbers and said most dieters would pick one set of made up numbers over another.

brower47

Stop attacking.

That's not attacking. You're saying you know what most dieters want. You don't. You only know what you want. Therefore, you are projecting.

WalkingAlong

I asked if you had any non-made-up numbers.

Can you guys discuss without insulting?

I guess I should just be glad it's not gif central.

PikaKnight

I asked if you had any non-made-up numbers.

Can you guys discuss without insulting?

I guess I should just be glad it's not gif central.

Nobody is attacking or insulting you.

WalkingAlong

Stop attacking.

That's not attacking. You're saying you know what most dieters want. You don't. You only know what you want. Therefore, you are projecting.

No, I didn't say "I know", I said, "I think..." Is thinking projecting?

Do you have any facts on this or are you just here to attack me?

PikaKnight

Stop attacking.

That's not attacking. You're saying you know what most dieters want. You don't. You only know what you want. Therefore, you are projecting.

No, I didn't say "I know", I said, "I think..." Is thinking projecting?

Do you have any facts on this or are you just here to attack me?

Is this a way for you to derail since you seem to be losing this argument? If not, then please stop with the false accusations.

WalkingAlong

Do you have any facts on the topic to support your side?

I recall you had a strong opinion about BodyPump too yet you didn't even know that the class used barbells.

I think some of the things you know, maybe you know them from having read them here a thousand times and won't consider that maybe it's been somewhat wrong all along? But no one wants to say anything because the response is to henpeck the person who presents evidence to the contrary?

PikaKnight

Do you have any facts on the topic to support your side?

I recall you had a strong opinion about BodyPump too yet you didn't even know that the class used barbells.

I think some of the things you know, maybe you know them from having read them here a thousand times and won't consider that maybe it's been somewhat wrong all along? But no one wants to say anything because the response is to henpeck the person who presents evidence to the contrary?

So basically, the answer to my question was yes. Got it.

brower47

Do you have any facts on the topic to support your side?

I recall you had a strong opinion about BodyPump too yet you didn't even know that the class used barbells.

I think some of the things you know, maybe you know them from having read them here a thousand times and won't consider that maybe it's been somewhat wrong all along? But no one wants to say anything because the response is to henpeck the person who presents evidence to the contrary?

Are you talking to me? It's hard to know since you decided to stop using the quote feature. If you are addressing me, then I'm not the person you're thinking of. I know Body Pump uses barbells. Why are you derailing the thread?

vismal

Here's the issue with VLCD's and lean mass. While I will agree that if you do a proper VLCD (Lyle McDonald rapid fat loss for example) where resistance training is utilized and protein is kept high, lean mass loss won't be all that much more then a traditional deficit. The problem lies in compliance. All of the studies done on VLCD's feature populations who completed the VLCD. In reality what usually occurs is that people attempt them, lose weight initially (both lean mass and fat), then ultimately binge or give up due to hunger, fatigue, or a myriad of other reasons. Weight is regained. We see this exact scenario posted in the forums ALL THE TIME. When the weight is regained, unless done so at a very slow rate, with adequate protein and resistance training, the weight that was lost as a combination of fat +lean mass is regained almost entirely as fat. This is why yo-yo dieting is so bad. Each cycle of weight loss and regain is going to result in some net lean tissue losses and fat gains.

Branstin

Why was your boyfriend in such a hurry to lose weight, especially since you stated that he didn't have that much weight to lose? Did he gain 44 lbs. in 4 months?

WalkingAlong

Here's the issue with VLCD's and lean mass. While I will agree that if you do a proper VLCD (Lyle McDonald rapid fat loss for example) where resistance training is utilized and protein is kept high, lean mass loss won't be all that much more then a traditional deficit. The problem lies in compliance. All of the studies done on VLCD's feature populations who completed the VLCD. In reality what usually occurs is that people attempt them, lose weight initially (both lean mass and fat), then ultimately binge or give up due to hunger, fatigue, or a myriad of other reasons. Weight is regained. We see this exact scenario posted in the forums ALL THE TIME. When the weight is regained, unless done so at a very slow rate, with adequate protein and resistance training, the weight that was lost as a combination of fat +lean mass is regained almost entirely as fat. This is why yo-yo dieting is so bad. Each cycle of weight loss and regain is going to result in some net lean tissue losses and fat gains.

I agree. But the assumption here is that they will all quit, binge, regain and do it again. Those are a lot of assumptions. It is not a foregone conclusion that it's always bad. It can be done right. I don't know if this guy did it right because the facts are fishy but the responses mostly imply that it's an impossibility to lose weight quickly and be ok.

If people would say, "very low cal diets are hard to maintain and often cause bingeing", that'd be much more factual. But it's always about the LBM and virtually always with a self-righteous, "I'm doing this right and safely and you're not" attitude.

Mr_Knight

Weight is regained.

That is true.

But it isn't a reason to avoid this approach, because EVERY approach results in similarly depressing rates of failure and weight regain.

WalkingAlong

Do you have any facts on the topic to support your side?

I recall you had a strong opinion about BodyPump too yet you didn't even know that the class used barbells.

I think some of the things you know, maybe you know them from having read them here a thousand times and won't consider that maybe it's been somewhat wrong all along? But no one wants to say anything because the response is to henpeck the person who presents evidence to the contrary?

Are you talking to me? It's hard to know since you decided to stop using the quote feature. If you are addressing me, then I'm not the person you're thinking of. I know Body Pump uses barbells. Why are you derailing the thread?

No, I was talking to the person in the post above mine.

vismal

Here's the issue with VLCD's and lean mass. While I will agree that if you do a proper VLCD (Lyle McDonald rapid fat loss for example) where resistance training is utilized and protein is kept high, lean mass loss won't be all that much more then a traditional deficit. The problem lies in compliance. All of the studies done on VLCD's feature populations who completed the VLCD. In reality what usually occurs is that people attempt them, lose weight initially (both lean mass and fat), then ultimately binge or give up due to hunger, fatigue, or a myriad of other reasons. Weight is regained. We see this exact scenario posted in the forums ALL THE TIME. When the weight is regained, unless done so at a very slow rate, with adequate protein and resistance training, the weight that was lost as a combination of fat +lean mass is regained almost entirely as fat. This is why yo-yo dieting is so bad. Each cycle of weight loss and regain is going to result in some net lean tissue losses and fat gains.

I agree. But the assumption here is that they will all quit, binge, regain and do it again. Those are a lot of assumptions. It is not a foregone conclusion that it's always bad. It can be done right. I don't know if this guy did it right because the facts are fishy but the responses mostly imply that it's an impossibility to lose weight quickly and be ok.

If people would say, "very low cal diets are hard to maintain and often cause bingeing", that'd be much more factual. But it's always about the LBM and virtually always with a self-righteous, "I'm doing this right and safely and you're not" attitude.

But again I will stress my that protein must be adequate in order to preserve lean mass. When the dieter in question ate only fruits and vegetables the likelihood of adequate protein intake is quite low. Is it possible to eat adequate protein eating only fruits and vegetables, sure, anything's possible. Likely? No way.

vismal

Weight is regained.

That is true.

But it isn't a reason to avoid this approach, because EVERY approach results in similarly depressing rates of failure and weight regain.

Not all methods result in returning to starting weight with less lean mass and more fat then before the diet though. Someone who loses 50 lbs while eating adequate protein and engaging in resistance training will likely retain more mass than someone who loses 50 lbs having poor protein intake and no resistance training. If both parties then regain the 50 lbs, the person who lost more lean mass will ultimately have gained more fat than the person who retained more mass.

Mr_Knight

Not all methods result in returning to starting weight with less lean mass and more fat then before the diet though. Someone who loses 50 lbs while eating adequate protein and engaging in resistance training will likely retain more mass than someone who loses 50 lbs having poor protein intake and no resistance training. If both parties then regain the 50 lbs, the person who lost more lean mass will ultimately have gained more fat than the person who retained more mass.

It doesn't work that way. The person who lost more LBM on the way down will gain more LBM on the way up, as it takes more LBM to move the excess fat around. End results are all about the same.

There are endless studies on this - no method of dieting or "liftestyle change" has better long term outcome than any other. That doesn't mean that some methods aren't better than others - there are clear differences for those who succeed - it means that people fail to stick with any and all methods at roughly the same rate.