Why do VLCD's fail?

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

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.

dakotababy

Everyone should follow the advice of their doctor.

Wrong.

caracrawford1

I actually read a very interesting article concerning regain after weight loss, in sum, it stated that researchers were surprised to find that when people lose weight and go down to a different weight, the calories needed to maintain that weight in someone who has lost weight to get there vs someone who has never lost weight and weighs the same are lower for some reason, almost as though the body puts up a defense against further efforts. The difference wasn't significant qr perhaps 100-200 cals per day, but it does add up, esp. If someone is assuming they should eat X calories to maintain and its really Y. They will gain weight again slowly.

davert123

VLCD for an extended period of time damage the body, reduce lean body mass and affect brain and body function.

cwolfman13

This is just for curiosity purposes...


I've read a lot that they always fail, but I'm wondering why? I know a person can't get enough nutrients on them, so it doesn't make the diet easier, but ultimately what leads to gaining the weight back?

Does a person's metabolism slow down drastically when doing it so when they up their calories they gain? I mean, if they ate their correct new weight maintenance calories after the diet, wouldn't they just maintain like normal?

(To any lurkers, please don't go doing this, like I said I'm only asking for curiosity purposes, unless you are super morbidly obese a vlcd will probably not do you (or anyone) good!)

For people who've had weight control issues, only about 5% actually will keep the weight off after they lose it...regardless of whether or not it is a VLCD, low carb diet, calorie counting, etc...it doesn't matter.

The bottom line is that people talk a good talk about making lifestyle changes...but most people fail to actually follow through with that...and really, most people don't actually even know what that is. I see people on MFP all of the time who think the act of counting calories is the lifestyle...IMHO those people are missing the boat entirely. Calorie counting is just a tool and can be a catalyst for leading a more healthful lifestyle...but you still have to adopt that healthful lifestyle...which means proper and awesome nutrition have to become you...fitness has to become you, and these are forever.

Most people don't actually focus on learning how to live a more healthful life...they just want to lose weight and do so at all costs...they don't teach themselves how to eat and they don't establish healthy relationships with food and fitness. They hit some arbitrary goal weight on the scale and they just go back to doing the things they were doing before...they have succeeded in losing weight, but they've failed to actually make a significant change to the way they live their lives.

dedflwrs

I think because most diets fail. I know this is not scientific but I bet you can look at your life and find the same to be true: 99.9% of the people I personally know who have weight problems will always have them. The most close example is my son who started real strong (did a supervised VLCD for 14 weeks) and during the course of a year lost over 100 lbs. A little over a year later he is struggling and the only solution he has see fit is to go back to the spa where he initially started to lose weight at. My husband and I went to the same spa for two weeks and found that most of the people there had gone multiple times and were still struggling. There was one girl that had been to several different Spas over the course of the last 10 years. She had once stayed at one for 6 months, lost all the weight she had to lose, went home for the holidays and gained it all back.

I could go on with stories such as these. The truth, for most people with this kind of problem is that they will have to be forever vigilant.

And you can call it a change of lifestyle, instead of a diet, if you will (like my son did) but by and by the old habits will creep again. After the spa I started eating real healthy and it did last a few months. Then I got bored. My advantage (or curse, depending on how you see it) being that I seem to be able to eat as much as I can without ever getting over 140 lbs which is still within my healthy weight. But yes, I prefer to be thinner (and have been all of my life except for a year or two) but even though I KNOW that I should eat healthy the siren song of junk food is much too strong.

In conclusion, VLCDs and other diets don't really "work" because we are human and food is delicious.

afortunatedragon

Just my personal opinion, but maybe if you want to lose very quick, you are only focused on the quick loss, not really about healthy or sustainable. So once they reached their goal they continue eating as before or stop exercising or both.
If you lose slowly your whole mindset has more time to change.

Just thinking about eating only 1200 or even less calories a day already puts me in a bad mood.

vismal

VLCD for an extended period of time damage the body, reduce lean body mass and affect brain and body function.

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.

justcat206

For WIW I ate <900/cal a day for 3 years and neither died nor had sudden weight gain. I eat more now because I WAS losing hair, was always tired, and got sick at the drop of a hat. And, you know, food is yummy. But there's been no yo-yoing (the only time I gained much was when pregnant) and it doesn't seem to have 'ruined' my metabolism. I just discovered that if I want to lift, I need to eat more food. So I do. In fact I eat almost 600 more calories but have only gained a few pounds. I'm not sure what my point was there lol.

kiariv

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.

vismal

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.

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.

jennifer_417

VLCDs fail because people get hungry.

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

VLCD for an extended period of time damage the body, reduce lean body mass and affect brain and body function.

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.

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.

SteampunkSongbird

Liftng4Lis

IN for the :

vismal

VLCD for an extended period of time damage the body, reduce lean body mass and affect brain and body function.

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.

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.

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.

brennankp01

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.

kgeyser

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.

Ainevethe

"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.

Remo_Williams

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!