Why do VLCD's fail?

missiontofitness

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.

neandermagnon

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.

Kalikel

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.

Fat storage is not a vestigial thing, some leftover function from times when going hungry was common.

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.

VelveteenArabian

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.

neanderthin

They don't fail, they do exactly as expected.

neandermagnon

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.

Fat storage is not a vestigial thing, some leftover function from times when going hungry was common.

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.

darrensurrey

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.

Daphnerose86

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.

Theotherkels

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)

TestingFun01

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.

jbse26

"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.

SideSteel

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 ^^

jbse26

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:

Theotherkels

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

TestingFun01

They never posted any kitty gifs...

Kalikel

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.

Fat storage is not a vestigial thing, some leftover function from times when going hungry was common.

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.

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.

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.

oremus1

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 solution

ninerbuff

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 nutrition

lorib642

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.

MscGray

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.