the myth, starvation mode, and dont eat before bed.

Mad_Dog_Muscle

*BUMP*

registers

Why would anyone EVER want to use scientific studies to critically assess a theory after all? What's better than going on a hunch, using anecdotal evidence and personal whim? It's much more likely to produce the expected result after all. I mean, what if the scientific studies don't even AGREE with you!? What would you do then?

--

You claim you don't need scientific studies, and yet you use the scientific studies you WANT to bring up because they agree with you. You claim that hunger increases the number of IGF-1 receptors (in what tissues, you haven't mentioned). WHERE. Have you found that information. Was it off somebody's website on a distant corner of the internet? Because I've googled it and there's nothing commendable. Give me a scientific study - a peer reviewed paper. Something with that kind of weight and importance should come from a respectable journal, too. Furthermore, increasing the number of IGF-1 receptors does not necessarily result in growth. Growth and the cell cycle are FAR more complex than that.

You will need to learn to appreciate *all* the scientific evidence out there, critically assess their content and not exclude studies because they don't support your argument.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12483226
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21606872

The links above are more of a cause and effect. First pretty much says taking IGF-1 can increase longevity, and become more immune to stress. I believe that everything is all related. So if IGF-1 increases life span. Low caloric diets have been linked to increase of life span. Hunger is stress, so when you eat you recover from the stress, this will cause a toughening to stress. Same thing how exercise works. The only way to be less immune to stress is to stress the energy system, and recover so it gets stronger.

You might be right, I might be DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD WRONG. I might be the most wrong person on the face of this planet. My waistline is going down, so who cares???

registers

Ladyhawk, the 2 post still don't explain why it happens. I don't think its really matters. But okay i'll agree with it, it has been said multiple times by credible sources..

It might have nothing to do with weight at all, that's what i am saying. They say "it's because a person is over weight they lose less muscle mass" That might be wrong. I was just reading, that high fat diets help perseve muscle mass.

"One important by-product of the “metabolic shift” that takes place when you move from a
high carb diet to the Anabolic Diet is that fat becomes a protector for protein in the body. When
you’re utilizing carbs as your main source of energy, the body will take muscle protein, break it
down and form glucose from it to burn for energy, once immediate energy stores are exhausted.
This is where catabolic activity (muscle breakdown) takes place. You’ll be sitting there, happily
working, and you’re actually making your muscle shrink away as you do it."

This is out of the book "the anabolic diet" He just says that eating more fats, changes your metabolism to a fat utilizing metabolism. Instead of a carb utilization metabolism. Where is the proof in this? one name "stu mittleman" He is an elite marathon runner, who has ran from San Diego to New York, He runs on average 3 marathons a day. His diet is mostly made up of protein and fat. How can he accomplish such long distances? Because he's utilizing his energy from fat, not from carbs, and he talks about this in his book. Maybe fat people utilize more fat for energy than a thin person causing them to preserve more muscle tissue.

This is just a theory, nothing more. My point is, there is an assumption in the theory, the theory is that "fat people lose less muscle than thin people on a restrictive caloric diet." Yes that might be true, but it doesn't mean because they're fat, it might be because their metabolism can be using energy differently.

MyaPapaya75

Nice post....personally I have never been in "Starvation Mode" and I have never known anyone in Starvation Mode...I just dont believe you can be in such a critical state physically and not have to seek some type of medical help to get your body back on track...its not as simple just to feed yourself more and "Starvation Mode" miraculously vanishes and you have no medical setbacks from it...its a much overused word along with Plateau's .....

helenium

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12483226
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21606872

The links above are more of a cause and effect. First pretty much says taking IGF-1 can increase longevity, and become more immune to stress. I believe that everything is all related. So if IGF-1 increases life span. Low caloric diets have been linked to increase of life span. Hunger is stress, so when you eat you recover from the stress, this will cause a toughening to stress. Same thing how exercise works. The only way to be less immune to stress is to stress the energy system, and recover so it gets stronger.

You might be right, I might be DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD WRONG. I might be the most wrong person on the face of this planet. My waistline is going down, so who cares???

1. You didn't give me any evidence that IGF-1 receptor numbers increase when hunger increases. At all.
2. Read up on "correlation vs. causation".
3. The fact that I believe you're spreading wrong, potentially dangerous information does not mean I am relieved and appeased when I hear that your waistline happens to be diminishing. I'm not concerned about you as such, but the people you are educating without scientific backing.

ramseyrose

[/quote]
I don't need scientific studies to tell me anything. I go by personal experience, not someone who has been "taught" to read books, and believe them, just because "someone said so"
[/quote]

After page 2 I got fed up so I don't know if this has been mentioned. Your signature says you have spent 16 years reading books; therefore your statement above is rather contradictory.

I am not going to pass comment on your post because it's each to their own. I would like to ask though why you are using this site? If your theory works surely you have been at your ideal weight for years!

HMonsterX

This is obviously a very emotive subject.

There are many, many ways to lose weight, we all know that. We all have experience of different ways, and we will all claim they work.

But lowering those scale numbers is only a small part of our goal. Its also how we feel, how fit we are, how strong we are, and how likely we are to keep it off and maintain healthy living.

In my experience ive found that the smaller changes i make, the more likely i am to keep it going. If i deny myself things, i find i really want them, and when i stop "dieting" i end up going back to them, and gaining the weight. This i feel is the problem with actual "Dieting". For me now, its about education. Knowing what is in the foods you eat. Also, dont deny yourself things. If i want something, i know i can have it, just work it into my daily calories. Now i know i CAN have it, i find i dont really want it.

Im just coming out of "starvation mode", and upping my calories has me losing weight again. Nothing different, just eating 3-400 calories more a day. There are several theories out there, its down to us to get educated, try things, and see which works for us, as we are all different.

registers

I don't need scientific studies to tell me anything. I go by personal experience, not someone who has been "taught" to read books, and believe them, just because "someone said so"
[/quote]

After page 2 I got fed up so I don't know if this has been mentioned. Your signature says you have spent 16 years reading books; therefore your statement above is rather contradictory.

I am not going to pass comment on your post because it's each to their own. I would like to ask though why you are using this site? If your theory works surely you have been at your ideal weight for years!
[/quote]

I understand your point. The reason is because maybe I didn't apply what i knew. Why am I using this site, to track my calories. What are you fed up about. Have you even tried what i mentioned? if not, how can you say it does work or doesn't work? My weight has fluctuated many times. Not because the theories didn't work, just a discipline issue which has nothing to do with diet. But I am doing good now. I am not saying the stuff doesn't work. The typical advice does work, I have lost weight like that before. Never said it doesn't work. The typical advice is what I used when i was in to body building. I do believe there are better ways. That doesn't put the outdated theories invalid, they're still valid.

fteale

References? Evidence? Scientific, reproducable studies?

Here is a short list of scientific studies that validate the concept of "starvation mode" (or famine response or adaptive thermogenesis, whichever you prefer). There are many others, but this is a good start on evidence for lowered metabolism and loss of lean mass in extreme caloric restriction (VLCD or underfeeding).

http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-I/dp/0816672342/ref=pd_sim_b_3
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-II/dp/0816672334/ref=pd_sim_b_2

WHere did i say... "lower caloric levels don't decrease muscle mass???"

You said:

1. Starvation mode .... The theory is, if you don't eat enough calories, your metabolism will slow down,

Which you claim is a myth.

And then said:

Does it make sense that when you're hungry, get rid of the most essential part of your body muscle mass??? NO. It does its best to preserve it when you're hungry.

That seems to be a pretty clear statement that you believe that extreme calorie restriction will not decrease muscle mass.

I think the point he was making is that while you will lose some muscle mass, what you will lose most of is fat, as the least essential material in the body. And the one that is actually designed to be used as a long term energy store. Just as when you exercise first thing in the morning before eating you burn more fat than you do later in the day when you have plenty of glycogen stores.

ramseyrose

I understand your point. The reason is because maybe I didn't apply what i knew. Why am I using this site, to track my calories. What are you fed up about. Have you even tried what i mentioned? if not, how can you say it does work or doesn't work? My weight has fluctuated many times. Not because the theories didn't work, just a discipline issue which has nothing to do with diet. But I am doing good now. I am not saying the stuff doesn't work. The typical advice does work, I have lost weight like that before. Never said it doesn't work. The typical advice is what I used when i was in to body building. I do believe there are better ways. That doesn't put the outdated theories invalid, they're still valid.

I was fed up with the ongoing debate. I never said anything about it working or not working; as I said each to their own. I am glad it is working for you. Personally I couldn't go through the day eating very little.

registers

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12483226
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21606872

The links above are more of a cause and effect. First pretty much says taking IGF-1 can increase longevity, and become more immune to stress. I believe that everything is all related. So if IGF-1 increases life span. Low caloric diets have been linked to increase of life span. Hunger is stress, so when you eat you recover from the stress, this will cause a toughening to stress. Same thing how exercise works. The only way to be less immune to stress is to stress the energy system, and recover so it gets stronger.

You might be right, I might be DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD WRONG. I might be the most wrong person on the face of this planet. My waistline is going down, so who cares???

1. You didn't give me any evidence that IGF-1 receptor numbers increase when hunger increases. At all.
2. Read up on "correlation vs. causation".
3. The fact that I believe you're spreading wrong, potentially dangerous information does not mean I am relieved and appeased when I hear that your waistline happens to be diminishing. I'm not concerned about you as such, but the people you are educating without scientific backing.

If science was right, there wouldn't be so many dead people due to drugs Science works on the null hypothesis. Which is also highly invalid. How do you know it's wrong, what I am saying? You're not proving any scientific evidence that provides my theories are wrong. Where is your scientific evidence that says "it doesn't increase IGF-1 receptors?" Most of my theories come from Ori Hofmekler, look him up on youtube. Look him up in google images, and tell me he looks unhealthy... I am doing a hybrid of his theory. Most of what I am doing is a hybrid of the top body building theories, which body builders use to get extremely lean during competition. You can't argue with results. Youre concerned I am educating people without scientific backing. 99% what you have learned about health/nutrition has no scientific backing. What my concern is, not really about the scientific backing, my concern is that people are fed a bunch of bs in the community(health/fitness) with out even thinking about it. Not once have i said "do my method" I advise against using my method, I have said that many times. This is still experimental. I don't want anyone to get hurt or anything. WHat bothers me the most is that people just blindly follow something based on what someone has said. With out even thinking about it, or testing it. That's what this post is all about, to make people think about it, look at things from another side. These methods are pretty solid in the body building community. If science says "they don't work." and people get results, who cares about the scientific backing. MANY MANY MANY TIMES have scientific theories have been proven invalid over time.

registers

I understand your point. The reason is because maybe I didn't apply what i knew. Why am I using this site, to track my calories. What are you fed up about. Have you even tried what i mentioned? if not, how can you say it does work or doesn't work? My weight has fluctuated many times. Not because the theories didn't work, just a discipline issue which has nothing to do with diet. But I am doing good now. I am not saying the stuff doesn't work. The typical advice does work, I have lost weight like that before. Never said it doesn't work. The typical advice is what I used when i was in to body building. I do believe there are better ways. That doesn't put the outdated theories invalid, they're still valid.

I was fed up with the ongoing debate. I never said anything about it working or not working; as I said each to their own. I am glad it is working for you. Personally I couldn't go through the day eating very little.

Okay herb, thank you, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I am glad you have an open mind, and yes I do agree the debate is completely stupid. If people don't agree, that's fine, no need to sit there and criticize. With out even trying it.

fteale

Seing as it is obvious people have lost weight both ways - eating more, eating less, low carb, low fat, bla bla bla......... Clearly it ALL works. I don't know why everyone seems so determined that their way is THE ONLY way, because it demonstrably isn't. There are many paths to the same result.

Both sides of this debate always come across as preachy, and it is such an inconsequential and minor debate, I really don't know why anyone cares.


Do what works for you. Why does anyone care what anyone else does?

ilsie99

In one meal today i ate about 3000 calories.

What did you eat in one sitting that comprised 3000 calories and didn't distend your stomach? Six sticks of butter?

dave4d

I've read a few articles on paleo type dieting, where they mention the way the caveman ate, and a lot of it makes sense. The only problem I see is, if you look at the primitive tribes in Africa, South America, Etc. These people follow similar ways of eating that the caveman followed. Do they have 6 pack abs? Do they have bulging muscles? No. Most look severely malnourished with bulging stomachs, low muscle mass, and disease. They are basically malnourished. I would imagine the caveman was similar in their appearance as well. It's not a very good example for someone trying for a healthy life.

Now I do agree with eating clean, and as close to natural as possible. Whether it is 6 small meals a day, or one large one, I don't think it makes much difference, as long as you keep your average calories in a healthy range, and work for balanced nutrition.

daisabelle

Hmmm interesting. My weight loss has slowed down considerably. My calorie intake has been increasingly low, barely making 1100 a day. I've also been exercising 5x a week burning around 500 calories each session. I think I'm going to increase my calorie intake to 1300 and eat a lot cleaner. My brothers wedding is in 5 weeks and i'd really like to lose about 7lb. I think that's why I'm getting so obsessive with having low calories, but it doesn't seem to be doing me any favours!

registers

I've read a few articles on paleo type dieting, where they mention the way the caveman ate, and a lot of it makes sense. The only problem I see is, if you look at the primitive tribes in Africa, South America, Etc. These people follow similar ways of eating that the caveman followed. Do they have 6 pack abs? Do they have bulging muscles? No. Most look severely malnourished with bulging stomachs, low muscle mass, and disease. They are basically malnourished. I would imagine the caveman was similar in their appearance as well. It's not a very good example for someone trying for a healthy life.

Now I do agree with eating clean, and as close to natural as possible. Whether it is 6 small meals a day, or one large one, I don't think it makes much difference, as long as you keep your average calories in a healthy range, and work for balanced nutrition.

That's very interesting. I do remember reading something about african americans. I don't remember what exactly, like they are more prone to heart disease or something along those lines.

registers

Hmmm interesting. My weight loss has slowed down considerably. My calorie intake has been increasingly low, barely making 1100 a day. I've also been exercising 5x a week burning around 500 calories each session. I think I'm going to increase my calorie intake to 1300 and eat a lot cleaner. My brothers wedding is in 5 weeks and i'd really like to lose about 7lb. I think that's why I'm getting so obsessive with having low calories, but it doesn't seem to be doing me any favours!

This is common daise, Not once have i said "decreasing calories will not cause muscle atrophy" Eating low calories does cause muscle loss. You just found a new median with your weight. The solutions are, reduce your calories more, reduce some carbs but maintain the same total caloric intake, or exercise more. I wouldn't advise lowering your calories due to lose of muscle mass.

jen0619

This was an interesting read thanks for that.

I don't eat clean all the time, I do eat before bed, I don't do low carb, I don't zig zag my calories, I go over my calories during the week and I exercise regularly. No problems here.

helenium

I'm not going to continue arguing because I believe it is pointless and I have better things to do. This will be my last point. If you think that science is useless/bad because it disproves theories... I don't know where to start explaining what science is. Science *IS* disproving theories. There is NOTHING else to it.

If the null hypothesis is so terrible, please prove to me that there isn't a giant teapot in the sky about to pour scalding tea upon us all. If you say "well, that is preposterous", then you're obviously assuming the null hypothesis to be true, and don't mind it after all.

I have also learned through years of internet arguments that neither of us are going to change our mind and we're going to be doing the typing equivalent of wasting a lot of breath. I probably won't check this thread again.

crisanderson27

Let's face it. Noone is ever going to be able to 'prove' or have sufficient evidence for this. Everyones body works differently and everyone has a different way of loosing weight that works for them. Leave them to it I say!

Wrong.

Everyone's body doesn't work differently. Within the three main body types...they ALL work precisely...the same, within a very small margin. This whole 'everyone's body works differently' thing is kind of an excuse for covering ones ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!!'. It's also just as effective. The truth is everyone is inputting things into their body differently, using their energy differently, and the result is...their bodies are reacting differently. What may seem similar on the top, may be TOTALLY different underneath. A young lady the other day said 'I am over and under my calorie goal all the time, so I'm zig zagging calories right?'. Umm...no, you're just under and over your calorie goal...zig zagging is something else entirely...with a very specific purpose and very specific triggers that you're trying to meet. Randomly eating too much or too little is often what got us here in the first place. The point is, she thought she was doing something specific (she wasn't!), and since it didn't work for her...many people's responses were 'All of our bodies are different!'.

Get my point??

One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?

So lets see...go to a website where people are literally DYING to lose weight...where (particularly in women) chronic undereating is rampant...and tell them (with no proof to back it up) that all the SAFE, PROVEN information they've received that's in direct opposition to how they're eating now, is bunk.

Great.

I don't care how many times you've said 'I don't recommend you try this!' all those people are going to hear is 'I'm doing it right, some dumb *kitten* (not being specific here) on the internet said so!'. Yoru information is very potentially unsafe. Go get a damn grant, do some REAL, SCIENTIFIC studies (maybe you should contact the woman I quote below...she clearly has a handle on what that entails), THEN get back to us. Until then you're simply endangering people who don't have the emotional ability to differentiate between good information and bad...due to and incredible desire to improve themselves regardless of the cost.

I'm not going to continue arguing because I believe it is pointless and I have better things to do. This will be my last point. If you think that science is useless/bad because it disproves theories... I don't know where to start explaining what science is. Science *IS* disproving theories. There is NOTHING else to it.

If the null hypothesis is so terrible, please prove to me that there isn't a giant teapot in the sky about to pour scalding tea upon us all. If you say "well, that is preposterous", then you're obviously assuming the null hypothesis to be true, and don't mind it after all.

I have also learned through years of internet arguments that neither of us are going to change our mind and we're going to be doing the typing equivalent of wasting a lot of breath. I probably won't check this thread again.

I agree completely hun...but I'm probably going to check back...I can't seem to not watch a train wreck =/.

Cris

registers

Cris here is your "Scientific evidence" of low caloric diets being beneficial to weight loss, at 1000 calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571

Here are the "other scientific studies" that talk about intermittent fasting. Eating low calories for one day, and higher calories the next. Which i have been doing, but in the same day. The results are surprisingly amazing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046

I talked to some people on my wall i guess. Some of my friends who have followed the subject. I do understand this information can be interpreted incorrectly. I know there are some people who don't listen and will probably try it anyways. This subject I am talking about is a very advanced body building method. As someone told me "these people aren't body builders" they're right. It was also mentioned, "if you're working hard, and applying a certain method, and someone comes along and tells you it's wrong, you'd be pretty upset" Yes i would. I never said that the standard rule of thumb doesn't work. It does work for weight loss. It's simple, just eat right and exercise, not hard. What i am talking about is about manipulating your biochemicals for specific result. Which is an advanced subject in biochemistry.

In closing, it boils down to respect. If someone said "sorry i disagree with what you're saying." That's fine no problem there, but when someone starts to bash you, that would offend most people. If I offended anyone that wasn't my intention. It was to shed a new perspective on things. That are perfectly logical that do go against the grain, challenging and questioning what you have been taught to grow as a better person. Sitting here and bickering isn't helping anyone. If you see things from a limited perspective you will have a limited life. Like the oak and the willow. On the windy day, the oak will break, as the willow will remain intact due to it's flexibility. This is an analogy for thinking more flexibly. From my NLP background (Neuro Linguistics Programming). A common phrase heard throughout is "the system that is most flexible will dominate the situation." If you think "this is the only way" or "that is the only way" you're the oak, not willing to see things from a different perspective. Not once have i said other methods don't work. Low carb, high carb, high fats, low fats... They all work, you just have to do it.

ladyhawk00

Let's face it. Noone is ever going to be able to 'prove' or have sufficient evidence for this. Everyones body works differently and everyone has a different way of loosing weight that works for them. Leave them to it I say!

Wrong.

Everyone's body doesn't work differently. Within the three main body types...they ALL work precisely...the same, within a very small margin. This whole 'everyone's body works differently' thing is kind of an excuse for covering ones ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!!'. It's also just as effective. The truth is everyone is inputting things into their body differently, using their energy differently, and the result is...their bodies are reacting differently. What may seem similar on the top, may be TOTALLY different underneath. A young lady the other day said 'I am over and under my calorie goal all the time, so I'm zig zagging calories right?'. Umm...no, you're just under and over your calorie goal...zig zagging is something else entirely...with a very specific purpose and very specific triggers that you're trying to meet. Randomly eating too much or too little is often what got us here in the first place. The point is, she thought she was doing something specific (she wasn't!), and since it didn't work for her...many people's responses were 'All of our bodies are different!'.

Get my point??

One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?

So lets see...go to a website where people are literally DYING to lose weight...where (particularly in women) chronic undereating is rampant...and tell them (with no proof to back it up) that all the SAFE, PROVEN information they've received that's in direct opposition to how they're eating now, is bunk.

Great.

I don't care how many times you've said 'I don't recommend you try this!' all those people are going to hear is 'I'm doing it right, some dumb *kitten* (not being specific here) on the internet said so!'. Yoru information is very potentially unsafe. Go get a damn grant, do some REAL, SCIENTIFIC studies (maybe you should contact the woman I quote below...she clearly has a handle on what that entails), THEN get back to us. Until then you're simply endangering people who don't have the emotional ability to differentiate between good information and bad...due to and incredible desire to improve themselves regardless of the cost.

I'm not going to continue arguing because I believe it is pointless and I have better things to do. This will be my last point. If you think that science is useless/bad because it disproves theories... I don't know where to start explaining what science is. Science *IS* disproving theories. There is NOTHING else to it.

If the null hypothesis is so terrible, please prove to me that there isn't a giant teapot in the sky about to pour scalding tea upon us all. If you say "well, that is preposterous", then you're obviously assuming the null hypothesis to be true, and don't mind it after all.

I have also learned through years of internet arguments that neither of us are going to change our mind and we're going to be doing the typing equivalent of wasting a lot of breath. I probably won't check this thread again.

I agree completely hun...but I'm probably going to check back...I can't seem to not watch a train wreck =/.

Cris

Amen.

ladyhawk00

Cris here is your "Scientific evidence" of low caloric diets being beneficial to weight loss, at 1000 calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571

Sorry, but a horribly designed study (with almost no information regarding what the diet consisted of), and notably has not been cited by any other researchers.

VLCDs (Very Low Calorie Diets - typically between 500-1000 cals) are proven to have many health risks. In some people who are obese or morbidly obese, who have immediate risks from obesity-related conditions, a VLCD may be necessary to reduce weight quickly. That does not mean the risks are not there, just that in some individuals in very specific situations, the benefits may outweigh the risks. Also, a person placed on a VLCD by their physician is provided a VERY specific meal plan that ensures that their nutritional needs are met. The overwhelming majority of people not in that situation (ie here on MFP) do not have that advantage and are VERY unlikely to be able to create a VLCD meal plan that has the necessary quality to prevent malnutrition.

There is a reason experts recommend that people (especially if not under the care of a doctor/dietitian) should not lose more than 2-3 lbs per week. Even if you have a lot to lose, lose quickly and aren't risking starvation mode - you're risking a LOT of other things.

Rapid weight loss carries many risks, including but not limited to: gallstones, arrhythmias, diabetes, hair/skin issues, menstruation issues, excess loose skin, liver/kidney issues, fatigue and depression, weight regain and death. People who lose the weight slowly and learn healthy eating habits (which includes eating enough) are MUCH more likely to keep the weight off and will be much healthier overall.

Here are just some of the scientific studies that discuss the wide variety of health risks of VLCDs (mainly in obese individuals, the risks for people nearer a healthy BMI are much higher.) These are PROVEN risks. Not everyone will experience these health issues, but it is NOT a subject to randomly suggest is "ok to try" for the average individual.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=04000&article=00007&type=abstract
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full
http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1029.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2051001&dopt=Citation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/

registers

Cris here is your "Scientific evidence" of low caloric diets being beneficial to weight loss, at 1000 calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571

Sorry, but a horribly designed study (with almost no information regarding what the diet consisted of), and notably has not been cited by any other researchers.

VLCDs (Very Low Calorie Diets - typically between 500-1000 cals) are proven to have many health risks. In some people who are obese or morbidly obese, who have immediate risks from obesity-related conditions, a VLCD may be necessary to reduce weight quickly. That does not mean the risks are not there, just that in some individuals in very specific situations, the benefits may outweigh the risks. Also, a person placed on a VLCD by their physician is provided a VERY specific meal plan that ensures that their nutritional needs are met. The overwhelming majority of people not in that situation (ie here on MFP) do not have that advantage and are VERY unlikely to be able to create a VLCD meal plan that has the necessary quality to prevent malnutrition.

There is a reason experts recommend that people (especially if not under the care of a doctor/dietitian) should not lose more than 2-3 lbs per week. Even if you have a lot to lose, lose quickly and aren't risking starvation mode - you're risking a LOT of other things.

Rapid weight loss carries many risks, including but not limited to: gallstones, arrhythmias, diabetes, hair/skin issues, menstruation issues, excess loose skin, liver/kidney issues, fatigue and depression, weight regain and death. People who lose the weight slowly and learn healthy eating habits (which includes eating enough) are MUCH more likely to keep the weight off and will be much healthier overall.

Here are just some of the scientific studies that discuss the wide variety of health risks of VLCDs (mainly in obese individuals, the risks for people nearer a healthy BMI are much higher.) These are PROVEN risks. Not everyone will experience these health issues, but it is NOT a subject to randomly suggest is "ok to try" for the average individual.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=04000&article=00007&type=abstract
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full
http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1029.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2051001&dopt=Citation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/

Many health risks? Some Drs recommend fasting to get rid of certain cancers....

registers

Lets just do this, you do what you're going to do, i'll do what I am going to do. I am going to get the results I am going to get, you get the results you're going to get. lets just leave it at that...

registers

Before anyone says "where are the studies" here they are.... calorie restriction (CR) is an effective and reproducible intervention for increasing life span, reducing oxidative damage, enhancing stress resistance and delaying/preventing aging and age-associated diseases such as cancer in various species, including mammals (mice, rats, and non- human primates)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/

registers

Like someone said in a email to me, "a lot of the people on here are looking for a way out instead of a way in." I am finding my way in to outof here.. haha take care people.

crisanderson27

I talked to some people on my wall i guess. Some of my friends who have followed the subject. I do understand this information can be interpreted incorrectly. I know there are some people who don't listen and will probably try it anyways. This subject I am talking about is a very advanced body building method. As someone told me "these people aren't body builders" they're right. It was also mentioned, "if you're working hard, and applying a certain method, and someone comes along and tells you it's wrong, you'd be pretty upset" Yes i would. I never said that the standard rule of thumb doesn't work. It does work for weight loss. It's simple, just eat right and exercise, not hard. What i am talking about is about manipulating your biochemicals for specific result. Which is an advanced subject in biochemistry.

This is THE most reasonable statement you've made yet. Too bad it wasn't your entire first post...because all those people who have been overweight their entire lives, and are starving themselves to death trying to cure it...aren't reasonable. From an emotional standpoint, they're not even CAPABLE of reason!!

I have a VERY beautiful young lady friend I met on the internet awhile back. She feels she's overweight (I don't know if this is the case...I've never seen anything but her face and she won't disclose anything else). She eats like a bird (800 calories a day tops from my understanding), then slips and binges...then goes into depression...then binges some more...then begins eating like a bird again. She fully admits she's not rational when it comes to her weight loss. She doesn't care HOW she loses the weight, as long as every time she steps on the scale it's lower than the last time. A couple weeks ago, I got her semi on board with eating MORE food (usually the food she eats is semi healthy btw). She gained 3lbs that week (as her body tried to adjust to the new intake), flipped out, and now is binging again.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to see a wonderful, incredible, otherwise completely intelligent and stable person go through this? Do you have ANY idea what kind of impact your INCREDIBLY irresponsible first post has on their mental state? How far it sets them back from ANY sort of a healthy lifestyle, much less diet plan?

Honestly...if it were up to me, this whole thread would be deleted...not because of the information it gives, but because of how it is given, and the lack of disregard for others, and for science and nutrition in general with which the original poster gave it.

Cris

crisanderson27

Like someone said in a email to me, "a lot of the people on here are looking for a way out instead of a way in." I am finding my way in to outof here.. haha take care people.

Yep, plant the bomb and run.

Nice.

Additionally, I see all these posts grabbing at straws with anecdotal evidence. Fasting helps with cancer for example. LIMITED fasting, with sketchy...possibly completely unprovable results.

Wtfe man...irresponsible doesn't even cover it.