Why do VLCD's fail?
Replies
-
This is grossly oversimplifying a very complex process. Insulin spikes are the cause of TEMPORARILY inhibiting fat loss and making the body more prone to storage but net calories for the day still determine fat gains or losses, not insulin. Also, even if you eat low/no carbs, you will still spike insulin. Protein can cause a large insulin spike in the absence of carbs. Low carb diets do hold advantages in the form of protein + fat tending to be more satiating for lots of people, plus protein has a higher thermic effect of food then carbs but low carb dieting doesn't create the type of hormonal magic you are describing.Vlcd is not so much focusrd on calories but harmones. Low carb intake help to control the spike in insulin. A dominant fat storing harmoe. When going back to carbs insulin begins to spike and fat is stored. Its about controlling insulin overptoduction. Low carbon has to be a lifestyle. If you just want to eat caribs still id advise to try another diet. By the way it is very possible to get in all tie nutrients on vlcd if you make wise choices. Google Stephanie Person.0 -
VLCDs fail because people get hungry.0
-
This statement is far too broad. I feel like someone who weighs 500lbs could go on a year long VLCD and see FAR more health benefits occur than health problems. There is a time and place for a VLCD, and they will work better for some people then a slow and steady weight loss.VLCD for an extended period of time damage the body, reduce lean body mass and affect brain and body function.
Your statement is also far to broad, that same person weighing 500lbs could also see FAR more harm and think everything is fine, yet suddenly die on his year long VLCD, as has been recorded happening quite a few times before, mostly due to heart issues/ ventricular arrhythmia. Any nutrient shortage much more easily causes medical problems on VLCDs, and doing them more than a few days should really only be done highly controlled under medical supervision.0 -
0 -
IN for the :
0 -
Someone who weighs 500 lbs should consult a doctor no matter what method they want to use to lose weight. They could easily eat 1000 calories or less safely for quite an extended period of time if they still got in enough vital nutrients which is entirely possible.
This statement is far too broad. I feel like someone who weighs 500lbs could go on a year long VLCD and see FAR more health benefits occur than health problems. There is a time and place for a VLCD, and they will work better for some people then a slow and steady weight loss.VLCD for an extended period of time damage the body, reduce lean body mass and affect brain and body function.
Your statement is also far to broad, that same person weighing 500lbs could also see FAR more harm and think everything is fine, yet suddenly die on his year long VLCD, as has been recorded happening quite a few times before, mostly due to heart issues/ ventricular arrhythmia. Any nutrient shortage much more easily causes medical problems on VLCDs, and doing them more than a few days should really only be done highly controlled under medical supervision.0 -
Hi... I am currently 72hrs into my 2nd go on a VLCD. I think they are quiet successful (I lost 50lbs back around 2006). It is just that people might miss the purpose of a VLCD. These diets are generally for rapid weight look when a medical PR actioner believes that the risks (such obesity and diabetes) outweigh (LOL) the risk of a supervised diet. Shakes and 800 calorie diets are rough!!!
I sustained a healthy weight for 6yrs. I lot of my success had to do with "re-feeding" and a solid exercise plan. Life screwed up a couple of years ago with a compression fracture in my neck (really a mess) and I wasn't/haven't been able to exercise without agonizing pain. I have a surgical consult in a couple of weeks and when I read "MORBIDLY OBESE" on my chart I knew I wanted to work my weight back down in order to HEAL.
I am back on a short-term (4-6 week) PSMF because of a potential surgery. I am not particularly hungry although I got a headache. My neck and hurt all the time though. I am using what I was on before:
1.2 to 1.5 g/kg of ideal body weight per day. no more that 20 to 50 g/day Carbs.
I am taking in approx 1 gal of water. Am taking Potassium supplements and using No-Salt in lieu of salt. We'll see.0 -
Vlcd is not so much focusrd on calories but harmones. Low carb intake help to control the spike in insulin. A dominant fat storing harmoe. When going back to carbs insulin begins to spike and fat is stored. Its about controlling insulin overptoduction. Low carbon has to be a lifestyle. If you just want to eat caribs still id advise to try another diet. By the way it is very possible to get in all tie nutrients on vlcd if you make wise choices. Google Stephanie Person.
VLCD stands for Very Low Calorie Diet, not low carb.
Back to the OP, I think most VLCDs fail because the person gets hungry. Then they binge, then they feel bad about binging and call themselves a failure, eat some more, then one day decide enough is enough and go back to their VLCD again, then the entire cycle repeats.0 -
"Starvation Mode" always makes me ask questions....
A bit of devils advocate here, but I do wonder these things sometimes:
ok, so the theory is that eating at an extreme deficit makes your body realize you are starving, so it uses fat and muscle to do its thing, lowering metabolism to conserve what you DO eat into fat. But, if you eat proper macros and only cut calories to remain at a (smaller) deficit, your body surely also realizes you aren't eating enough also, so it also goes to the sources available and again uses fat and some muscle, this is how you lose weight. So, if this is a perceived deficit from the body anyway, toxins being released from fat aside, wouldn't it hypothetically be better to have a higher deficit first, and lose the fat more quickly so your body isn't at a deficit for a longer period of time?
Is it possible that long term dieting could have an even more drastic effect on your long term metabolism by simulating a longer period of perceived limited food source by the body? Devils advocate only here, but isn't it theoretically possible that your body could care less if it is a 500 calorie deficit or a 1200 calorie deficit as long as you are getting the proper protein and vit/min that you need for minimal health? Does it stop and say "WHOA HUGE deficit here, what up?" or does it realize in BOTH cases, there isn't enough food and therefore loses weight?
Of course, Ideally, wouldn't it be better to ensure you get your "ideal" weight calories at minimum and then use exercise to burn off the difference instead of eating just under your norm for an extended period of time? Maybe then your body will be happy with the calories it gets, but the increased activity burns the excess fat off, instead of starving it off? (this is for reasonably overweight people, not excessively overweight.)
Why would so many doctors suggest VLC diets to obese patients if they were going to create metabolic issues greater than any already being faced? I think the real challenge with VLC diets is that they are flipping hard to start if you like food. Noone gains weight because they don't want to bother eating after all. And maybe a good portion of people see it is a quick fix and then resume bad habits. I have seen it work, and seen people fail. And the ones that gain it back are the ones who start to actually overeat again, and become very sedentary. the ones who succeed have changed their eating habits and realize they need to move the body, and only fuel the body, not eat as recreation alone.
I am thinking that under doctors care, a fast weight loss for obese individuals could actually prevent a host of health issues, plus deal head on with motivational issues you can face when you have 150+ pounds to lose and only seeing a half pound a week loss. Ensuring through supplements and protein requirements that you get the basics that you need -- I think it may be a GOOD thing for many people with extreme amounts to lose. VLCD are not intended for people with 30 pounds to lose. To go on a VLCD with only a few pounds to lose isn' t necessary. Its overkill and potentially sets up a pattern of weight yoyo.0 -
Probably one of the best counter arguments out there:
http://gregnuckols.com/2013/06/04/slow-and-steady-weight-loss-i-think-not/
No necessarily addressing VLCD, but faster weight loss in general.
Well thats fine for some people, especially if you are talking about the author, me or probably you: a highly muscled male with high relative starting weight. I'm similar in strength to that guy who's page you referenced, so I can say yeah for people like us its not so big of a deal to lose (or gain) at that speed of 15 lbs in a month. And in fact to clarify its *NOT* even a VLCD to do it! The problem is when you say things like this in general, people apply it to their own widely varying circumstances, and -15lbs/mo is not the same for him, as it is for the 5'1" girl.
It isn't so bad if someone like him (or myself) cuts 1,500 cals a day because we are big, have a lot of muscle and then adding exercise: 3,500cal/day - 1,500= 2,000 cals/day. So I (and I assume the link author's calorie levels are similar) can do a 1,500/day diet and lose 4lbs/week and get enough nutrients in, no problems (except for my appetite). It is still not even a VLCD according to many until I'm trying to drop closer to 5lbs/week!! But when you get into smaller people, women, those with less muscle mass, and people who ignore other parts of the diet (like eating high protein), -3lbs/week is a massive VLCD, 1,750 -1,500 cals/day= 250 cals/day...which can get you into trouble fast. And there is no way you will get sufficient protein or fats, which means your muscles get torn down.
And also, I say "fine" for someone like me to do it, but I know that I still get tempted to "pork out" if I try to cut so much, and tend to regain fast lost weight back faster. So yeah, I can do it, and be unhappy with my food levels, and be at risk of regaining it faster. Sometimes though gathering your will for a week on a 4lb loss is easier than trying to restrict for a month at -1lb/wk.
The biggest problem with a fast weight loss is you go in and out of a diet, and when you come out you are "starved" for certain foods or quantities and go "ahhh, I can finally eat again!" and go right back to your old habits. You learned no new way of eating that you will do on your own (unless you periodically go through dieting again), so the weight returns easily. If you try for a slow loss, you can "practice" modifying your food intake to a level that is sustainable forever, and never be in massive hunger, so eventually you can just do what you are doing and stay at the weight you wanted, that's the beauty of a slow loss program.
Personally, I go through periods of faster and slower loss, but I never go into VLCD levels anymore. Faster loss usually involves a rebound up after. Slower loss (but not too slow) tends to result in a new range that I fluctuate above and below.
Did you read the article AND the meta-study that was referenced, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full? Here's a quote from the study, disputing your claim that this is only for "highly muscled male with high relative starting weight".
"Except for 3 studies in women (20,3,34) and 1 study in men (23), most studies included both women and men, with a predominance of women."
Also they only included studies that followed up 2 to 5 years after the weight loss was achieved.
Finally, if you are of similar strength as Greg, 1770 competition powerlifting total, those are great lifts, congrats!
0 -
If I was say trying to lose weight on a 400 calorie per day diet, there is absolutely no way I would be able to sustain that, nor would my body get adequate nutrition. On top of that, I would probably "binge" a lot, aka, eat more than 400 calories in a day, because my body is so starved. VLCD's are a non stop yo yo of restriction, and eating more than one's goal for the day. I would say that's the biggest reason why they fail.0
-
because we're descended from millions of survivors of food shortages, and the changes that our bodies make in response to a severe or prolonged food shortage are exactly the things that we *don't* want happening when we're trying to diet.... like burning muscle to reduce the body's daily energy demand and make fat stores last as long as possible...... like binge eating (imagine a half starved Homo erectus when they finally get a decent amount of food... he or she will survive best if he or she eats the whole lot as quickly as possible)..... like obsessing about food (again, imagine a Homo erectus in a food shortage... the more mental energy they devote to finding food the more likely they are to actually find some and survive the food shortage);;;; we've inherited these characterisics so that.s how our bodies respond to a big calorie deficit. And it's not what you want to be battling with while dieting.
Instead, it's better to emulate a mild and short lived food shortage, where you're successfully hunting to get more food, i.e. do strenuous exercise to maintain your muscle mass (used muscle doesn't get burned off in a mild food shortage because used muscle is needed to hunt/gather food, at least in our evolutionary ancestors whose genes we've inherited) while eating just a little less, for slow and steady fat loss, because this increases the likelihood that what you lose will be pure fat...
that's pretty much why... I'm sure some people will go into the biochemistry of it in a bit more detail, but the bottom line is that our bodies are adapted for surviving food shortages, not for having ripped abs while surrounded by an excess of food in a society where you can telephone for pizza and have it delivered through the living room window directly to your sofa.0 -
Fat storage is not a vestigial thing, some leftover function from times when going hungry was common.because we're descended from millions of survivors of food shortages, and the changes that our bodies make in response to a severe or prolonged food shortage are exactly the things that we *don't* want happening when we're trying to diet.... like burning muscle to reduce the body's daily energy demand and make fat stores last as long as possible...... like binge eating (imagine a half starved Homo erectus when they finally get a decent amount of food... he or she will survive best if he or she eats the whole lot as quickly as possible)..... like obsessing about food (again, imagine a Homo erectus in a food shortage... the more mental energy they devote to finding food the more likely they are to actually find some and survive the food shortage);;;; we've inherited these characterisics so that.s how our bodies respond to a big calorie deficit. And it's not what you want to be battling with while dieting.
Instead, it's better to emulate a mild and short lived food shortage, where you're successfully hunting to get more food, i.e. do strenuous exercise to maintain your muscle mass (used muscle doesn't get burned off in a mild food shortage because used muscle is needed to hunt/gather food, at least in our evolutionary ancestors whose genes we've inherited) while eating just a little less, for slow and steady fat loss, because this increases the likelihood that what you lose will be pure fat...
that's pretty much why... I'm sure some people will go into the biochemistry of it in a bit more detail, but the bottom line is that our bodies are adapted for surviving food shortages, not for having ripped abs while surrounded by an excess of food in a society where you can telephone for pizza and have it delivered through the living room window directly to your sofa.
People continue to starve to death today because there is no food.
Here on this board, we are lucky enough to have the opposite problem, but it is happening right now. No need to think about ancestors.0 -
Because they're SO restrictive, people get fed up, say eff it and stop trying. It's easier for most people when you're allowed normal portions of the things you enjoy. VLCD's often mean that people have to give up not only the things they like to eat (because they're high enough on calories to take a huge chunk out of your days allottment) but also have to really trim down on portion sizes.0
-
They don't fail, they do exactly as expected.0
-
Fat storage is not a vestigial thing, some leftover function from times when going hungry was common.because we're descended from millions of survivors of food shortages, and the changes that our bodies make in response to a severe or prolonged food shortage are exactly the things that we *don't* want happening when we're trying to diet.... like burning muscle to reduce the body's daily energy demand and make fat stores last as long as possible...... like binge eating (imagine a half starved Homo erectus when they finally get a decent amount of food... he or she will survive best if he or she eats the whole lot as quickly as possible)..... like obsessing about food (again, imagine a Homo erectus in a food shortage... the more mental energy they devote to finding food the more likely they are to actually find some and survive the food shortage);;;; we've inherited these characterisics so that.s how our bodies respond to a big calorie deficit. And it's not what you want to be battling with while dieting.
Instead, it's better to emulate a mild and short lived food shortage, where you're successfully hunting to get more food, i.e. do strenuous exercise to maintain your muscle mass (used muscle doesn't get burned off in a mild food shortage because used muscle is needed to hunt/gather food, at least in our evolutionary ancestors whose genes we've inherited) while eating just a little less, for slow and steady fat loss, because this increases the likelihood that what you lose will be pure fat...
that's pretty much why... I'm sure some people will go into the biochemistry of it in a bit more detail, but the bottom line is that our bodies are adapted for surviving food shortages, not for having ripped abs while surrounded by an excess of food in a society where you can telephone for pizza and have it delivered through the living room window directly to your sofa.
People continue to starve to death today because there is no food.
Here on this board, we are lucky enough to have the opposite problem, but it is happening right now. No need to think about ancestors.
I didn't say that fat storage was vestigial. Our bodies work the same way our hunter-gatherer ancestors' bodies work, by and large, and all of what any organism inherits are the traits that helped their ancestors survive. People seem to expect their bodies to work in ways that would result in rapidly dying in an actual food shortage, i.e. that they can go on a starvation diet and do x minutes a day workouts and rapidly burn off all their fat while their muscles get bigger.
But yeah, you're right, for many parts of the world, surviving food shortages is still an issue, so I take your point on that, which is your general point I believe.0 -
I've read a lot that they always fail, but I'm wondering why?
I think it fails simply because you end up with massive cravings and always binge/quit. Plus you feel awful the entire time due to a number of medical conditions eg hair loss, fatigue.
Some people do manage it with success, mind - anorexics, prisoners on hunger strikes, cancer patients on chemotherapy, displaced citizens in a famine-struck country.
0 -
The theory is that once you lose about 10% of your body weight in order to maintain that weight you would have to consume less or exercise more than another person that has always been that weight. (There is a name of this theory but i can't think of it)
Why maintenance is so hard is because your body's metabolism slows down as you lose weight. You burn stored fat essentially because your body is hungry but that's all it has left to eat. It seems to be correlational between how much it slows down vs how much of a caloric deficit you have. IE it slows down more the less calories you eat. A maintenance caloric intake at 200lbs is not going to be the same at 130lbs.
I do know some people who have had success with a VLCD but it doens't work for most because it is not sustainable. Losing weight over a long period of time is the preferred method because you are changing poor eating habits for better ones and not stressing your metabolism too much at one time.
Everyone is of course different. If one thing worked for everyone there wouldn't be so many diets out there.0 -
VLCD's often fail because the people doing them don't take the time to address the underlying issues that got them where they were in the first place. It takes more than just meal replacements, it takes a willingness to address psychological issues, and dietary issues combined - if these aren't addressed then the subject will just go back to old habits and the weight rebound is inevitable.
If your doctor is worth his/her salt, and you're doing a VLCD - then nutrient deficiency shouldn't be an issue as the meal replacements are designed to adequately meet your needs, but it's important to do a lot of research before doing it and in my personal opinion a lot of people skip the whole research part (and the whole self-introspection/change part too)0 -
So like I said before, it sounds like (okay besides the binge/restrict cycle) that it fails mostly just like any other "diet", because there was no permanent change in eating habits. 0
-
"Starvation Mode" always makes me ask questions....
A bit of devils advocate here, but I do wonder these things sometimes:
ok, so the theory is that eating at an extreme deficit makes your body realize you are starving, so it uses fat and muscle to do its thing, lowering metabolism to conserve what you DO eat into fat. But, if you eat proper macros and only cut calories to remain at a (smaller) deficit, your body surely also realizes you aren't eating enough also, so it also goes to the sources available and again uses fat and some muscle, this is how you lose weight. So, if this is a perceived deficit from the body anyway, toxins being released from fat aside, wouldn't it hypothetically be better to have a higher deficit first, and lose the fat more quickly so your body isn't at a deficit for a longer period of time?
Is it possible that long term dieting could have an even more drastic effect on your long term metabolism by simulating a longer period of perceived limited food source by the body? Devils advocate only here, but isn't it theoretically possible that your body could care less if it is a 500 calorie deficit or a 1200 calorie deficit as long as you are getting the proper protein and vit/min that you need for minimal health? Does it stop and say "WHOA HUGE deficit here, what up?" or does it realize in BOTH cases, there isn't enough food and therefore loses weight?
Of course, Ideally, wouldn't it be better to ensure you get your "ideal" weight calories at minimum and then use exercise to burn off the difference instead of eating just under your norm for an extended period of time? Maybe then your body will be happy with the calories it gets, but the increased activity burns the excess fat off, instead of starving it off? (this is for reasonably overweight people, not excessively overweight.)
Why would so many doctors suggest VLC diets to obese patients if they were going to create metabolic issues greater than any already being faced? I think the real challenge with VLC diets is that they are flipping hard to start if you like food. Noone gains weight because they don't want to bother eating after all. And maybe a good portion of people see it is a quick fix and then resume bad habits. I have seen it work, and seen people fail. And the ones that gain it back are the ones who start to actually overeat again, and become very sedentary. the ones who succeed have changed their eating habits and realize they need to move the body, and only fuel the body, not eat as recreation alone.
I am thinking that under doctors care, a fast weight loss for obese individuals could actually prevent a host of health issues, plus deal head on with motivational issues you can face when you have 150+ pounds to lose and only seeing a half pound a week loss. Ensuring through supplements and protein requirements that you get the basics that you need -- I think it may be a GOOD thing for many people with extreme amounts to lose. VLCD are not intended for people with 30 pounds to lose. To go on a VLCD with only a few pounds to lose isn' t necessary. Its overkill and potentially sets up a pattern of weight yoyo.0 -
They don't always fail. When they do it's because people are either unable to comply with the very low calorie regimen to actually achieve results, or they are unable to transition out of the diet to a maintenance state. Both reasons are directly related to people eating too much.
^^ That ^^0 -
My thoughts exactly. Slow and steady did not work for me i put it all back on plus another 16 using this site and aiming for ilb a week.- too fiddly, not that I am on VLCD, but i do aim for a kilo a week loss since May and it has worked fine and i am much less bothered by restriction and so on.. Also, the stuff about not eating below BMR makes no sense either, your body either operates to a deficit for what ever reason, or it doesn't. Otherwise, you could only diet safely lying in bed:ohwell:0
-
So like I said before, it sounds like (okay besides the binge/restrict cycle) that it fails mostly just like any other "diet", because there was no permanent change in eating habits.
Exactly 0 -
They never posted any kitty gifs...
0 -
Yes, that was it. We are still hunters/gatherers, just some of us have a much easier time and do our hunting in grocery store aisles, while others are out hunting and fighting in the wild for their food.
Fat storage is not a vestigial thing, some leftover function from times when going hungry was common.because we're descended from millions of survivors of food shortages, and the changes that our bodies make in response to a severe or prolonged food shortage are exactly the things that we *don't* want happening when we're trying to diet.... like burning muscle to reduce the body's daily energy demand and make fat stores last as long as possible...... like binge eating (imagine a half starved Homo erectus when they finally get a decent amount of food... he or she will survive best if he or she eats the whole lot as quickly as possible)..... like obsessing about food (again, imagine a Homo erectus in a food shortage... the more mental energy they devote to finding food the more likely they are to actually find some and survive the food shortage);;;; we've inherited these characterisics so that.s how our bodies respond to a big calorie deficit. And it's not what you want to be battling with while dieting.
Instead, it's better to emulate a mild and short lived food shortage, where you're successfully hunting to get more food, i.e. do strenuous exercise to maintain your muscle mass (used muscle doesn't get burned off in a mild food shortage because used muscle is needed to hunt/gather food, at least in our evolutionary ancestors whose genes we've inherited) while eating just a little less, for slow and steady fat loss, because this increases the likelihood that what you lose will be pure fat...
that's pretty much why... I'm sure some people will go into the biochemistry of it in a bit more detail, but the bottom line is that our bodies are adapted for surviving food shortages, not for having ripped abs while surrounded by an excess of food in a society where you can telephone for pizza and have it delivered through the living room window directly to your sofa.
People continue to starve to death today because there is no food.
Here on this board, we are lucky enough to have the opposite problem, but it is happening right now. No need to think about ancestors.
I didn't say that fat storage was vestigial. Our bodies work the same way our hunter-gatherer ancestors' bodies work, by and large, and all of what any organism inherits are the traits that helped their ancestors survive. People seem to expect their bodies to work in ways that would result in rapidly dying in an actual food shortage, i.e. that they can go on a starvation diet and do x minutes a day workouts and rapidly burn off all their fat while their muscles get bigger.
But yeah, you're right, for many parts of the world, surviving food shortages is still an issue, so I take your point on that, which is your general point I believe.
We are all one plane crash, kidnapping, act of war or illness away from having to depend on our fat to get us through...but many people live a hunter/gatherer life now,
As a species, fat storage is still vital.
That's all I meant. Sorry if it didn't seem that way. 0 -
I think the main reason is, if you are on a VLCD you are likely to be eating horrible food. like lettuce and stff all the time. or special diet food. you get down to goal weight. naturally youslack off and areglad to eat normal food again and might stop your punishing early morning runs. while you may not binge you would gradually gain it all back!
VLCD is not a long term solution0 -
10% of people on any diet succeed. Even VLCD's. Problem is the other 90% thought they would be part of the 10%.
The body is VERY EFFICIENT at energy storage. That's why it's much easier to get overweight/obese, than it is to get fit and lean.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I don't think VLCD are supposed to be long term. I am on one for a week (medically supervised). I am on the 3rd day and miserable. I am eating packaged food which is okay but not like real food and I can add veggies. I imagine the weight gain afterwards is the same as other types of diets.0
-
It would fail for me because I would get real HANGRY real fast!
I would also believe that if I did choose to attempt this type of diet and met my goal, I would probably over eat when I first transitioned to the maintenance, and probably balloon back up.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