Very low calorie diets and metabolic damage

stroutman81

Oh, and your point about men vs. women is very valid. I train a lot of women at my gym and the vast majority of them are almost neurotic about "clean' eating, dietary compliance, etc. And I've said this elsewhere on this forum, but that sort of intense stress about things that likely don't matter all that much can cause more harm than good. Here's what I had to say in another thread:

Great post - as always! Thank you for taking the time to address it.

As for the point made about many women seeing their success/failure in absolutes. It is all about control. So many of us wear multiple hats - working all day, then managing the household and the family, feeling responsible also for our family's nutrition, and many going to school on top of that. We are so used to "managing" everything that we think we can control our diets just as rigidly - and then when we "cave" and eat something off plan, then we have failed miserably.

You and I and the whole world knows that such a small thing isn't really a failure - but to a control freak, it is, LOL! Bah, I don't even know the point I was trying to make - I guess just now admitting to myself that I am one of those women castigating herself over slight dietary indiscretions! The first step is admitting it right? (From the podium in the front of the room.) Hi, My name is Resalyn, and I am a control freak!

Regardless - GREAT POST and thank you for the further information regarding this topic.

Hahahaha, love this post. Thanks for chiming in. And that's the thing... rigidity is fine for those who can handle it. But the type A, control freak, neurotic people I encounter don't handle it well. They may not admit it... but from the outside looking in, it's a simple fact. Because everything's viewed in polarized terms... either good or bad, right or wrong, on or off... they blow up their rationality when they "slip."

They expect perfection. Perfection isn't possible... hell, it's not even real when it comes to nutrition. But because of the maze of hurdles and traps they've devised in their minds, the moment they slip, it's massive failure. They take it personally, and it demoralizes them to a point where, again, this is from my experience working with a lot of women... by no means universal... but to a point where they give up temporarily.

They go from being "perfect" to behaving in ways that ruin their progress.

More often than not, this is where I'm finding most "plateaus" stemming from. What's even more complicated is some people have this fancy way of only remembering the times they're "on" and forgetting about or minimizing the times they're "off."

It's tough.

rcwible83

thanks for the info.

jwallace84

Thank you for your post. I am very interested in learning more. I have been at a plateau for a few months now. But I'm scared to go below the 1200 mark but maybe I should try. Any thoughts? Oh and I am not new to dieting...I've been at this for 27 years (I will be 28 in April LOL)...

mrsjacksn

bump

MoooveOverFluffy

And you bring up an excellent point about added stress. I'm sure this will come across as overly blunt but it seems many dieters today go bat crap crazy about this stuff. They only see things in binary terms - particular foods are either healthy or horrible, their behavior is either good or bad, they're either successful or they failed, etc, etc. And all this sort of reasoning and perspective does is ramp up anxiety like crazy.

People are flipping out over 10 calories. And ya know what? I think it hurts them.

The stress response they're generating by being as anal retentive and psychotic as they are bites them in the *kitten*. Which is why I always recommend people read the book written by Robert Sapolsky called "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers." He's a great author and a genius when it comes to the stress response of the body. Humans unfortunately can work themselves up into such a psychological mess about the future by thinking about catastrophic thoughts and building psychological hurdles that are simply impossible to clear and thus, our biology that's really in place to keep us alive winds up going in overdrive in chronic terms.

Like I've said in numerous places on this forum now - our ability to manage stress is finite. In our body's mind, stress is stress have it be psychological, physical, real, imagined, etc. And when you've relatively small people eating like birds, doing copious amounts of exercise, stressing about work and family which is typical in this culture, and then topping it off with psychotic analysis and concern over diet and exercise - well - things tend to get messed up.

It's no wonder people are constantly stalling out, really. Granted, I believe more often than not it's a miscalculation on energy intake and expenditure, but still, this is very real.

Fat loss, sex drive, immune function, you name it and chronic stress will affect it, usually negatively.

People just need to relax, set realistic expectations, avoid perfectionism, and be patient.

[/quote]


^^READ THIS.... and agree.

anulle2009

Very good Post! I feel a lot of people on here just repeat what they heard on google or whatever which we all know the internet gives us all types of information

stroutman81

I must admit I'm just a little surprised to read an informed post.

The issue I've noticed here (MFP) is a VLCD lacking in nutrients, combined with intense excersize. The diet, excersize, and recovery must be balanced. I think a VLCD will rarely be sufficient to sustain crossfit, a job, and a social life.. for example.

This is an EXCELLENT post. Hopefully people read and appreciate it.

Food is fuel.

Activity needs fuel.

If you're a desk jockey who's not very active, you can get away with eating like a bird.

If you're a freak athlete who trains like it's your job, you can't get away with eating like a bird.

Stress is cumulative and systemic. Meaning our bodies view stress... all kinds of it (physical, psychological, make believe) pretty much the same. Calorie deprivation represents a stress. Bigger deficit = more stress. So if you try pairing a low calorie diet with ridiculous volumes and intensities of exercise on top of everything else you have going on in life... guess what?

You fail.

And perpetuate the myth that all low calorie diets fail.

In fact though, it was you failing the diet. Not the diet failing you.

Read that five times.

deninevi

Thanks for the great, well informed post! Always nice to read your posts and find them very, very informative and helpful! Thanks again!

stroutman81

Thank you for your post. I am very interested in learning more. I have been at a plateau for a few months now. But I'm scared to go below the 1200 mark but maybe I should try. Any thoughts? Oh and I am not new to dieting...I've been at this for 27 years (I will be 28 in April LOL)...

This is almost impossible to answer. Let's start with this:

1. What's your weight?

2. What was your highest weight?

3. How many grams of protein, carbs, and fat do you consume on average, per day?

4. You say you consume 1200 calories per day. How accurate do you believe you are in that assessment? What makes you so sure of that accuracy?

5. How much exercise are you doing per week and what kinds?

6. When's the last time you took a break, meaning reduced or nixed exercise and brought calories up towards maintenance for a period of time?

amyy902

i get what you’re saying, and i think that it’s really good that your taking the time out of your day to try guide others, i really do, and i agree that people who don’t really understand do take it on face value..... but i can see from the other side, as a recovering anorexic myself i can see that people reading that with a pre disposed mind set could misinterpret the information to mean it’s okay to starve yourself, because its not. but i think that what you wrote was very good, and i do (not that the last bit i wrote would suggest) agree exactly with what you are saying.... not that you’ll care about what i think but that doesn’t really matter

stroutman81

i get what you’re saying, and i think that it’s really good that your taking the time out of your day to try guide others, i really do, and i agree that people who don’t really understand do take it on face value..... but i can see from the other side, as a recovering anorexic myself i can see that people reading that with a pre disposed mind set could misinterpret the information to mean it’s okay to starve yourself, because its not. but i think that what you wrote was very good, and i do (not that the last bit i wrote would suggest) agree exactly with what you are saying.... not that you’ll care about what i think but that doesn’t really matter

I think people are more likely to make informed decisions when they're armed with all of the facts. Granted, that's a stretch. I don't have a lot of faith in the human race anymore. I think, more often than not, people are going to act in ways that counter their health or whatever, regardless of how much they know.

But it's better than the alternative in my opinion. That being where someone says they're trying a very low calorie diet and this is followed by endless alarmist rants about stuff that's not even necessarily true. My grandmother used to tell me over and over again that if I play with fire, I'll wet the bed. Well she was telling me that long after the fact I figured out that it wasn't true, and I kept right on playing with it.

Moral of the story...

I'm going to objectively educate people on this topic... as it's what I know best. If I left it up to the status quot, based on what happened in the thread yesterday, I think we'd see a lot of people screaming a bunch of nonsense at someone who's going to do what they intended to do in the first place regardless.

So it's likely best to put the right information out there and that way, even screw ups don't need to be as severe as they otherwise would have been.

I'm not sure if that makes sense... but I certainly value your input. And I respect where you're coming from... EDs do not necessarily go hand in hand with VLCD, but I truly respect how someone with an ED background would sway with all their might someone from eating very low calories.

Sublog

Great, great post Steve. I grow so tired of reading some of the stuff posted as gospel around here when obviously people really don't know what they are talking about.

You are a much more patient and eloquent writer than I, so kudos.

I always tell people that their deficits should be proportionate to their fat mass. The fatter they are, the greater the deficit can be (assuming both macro and micro nutrient sufficiency is provided to the body)

I ate under my BMR for at least 9 months straight (when I was morbidly obese) without any metabolic slowdown noticed. I did eat a a high protein diet, consumed vitamins and minerals to supplement my diet and did resistance training as well. I lost on average 3 lbs per week doing this and ended up having to bump UP my calories toward the end because I didn't have the fat mass to sustain my weight loss.

How's that for a starvation response?

Labcoathipster

Thanks for posting.

Labcoathipster

Great, great post Steve. I grow so tired of reading some of the stuff posted as gospel around here when obviously people really don't know what they are talking about.

You are a much more patient and eloquent writer than I, so kudos.

Agreed.

amyy902

no i completely agree and what your doing is excellent! i think what i was trying to say and didn’t do it very well is just that its when the education isnt there people will often automatically assume and often they are getting the wrong end of this stick.

i think its fantastic that someone’s laying it out sensibly, more of it needs to be done!!!!!

caveats

And this post is the biggest reason why you can't leave MFP. Your information is too good. WE WON'T LET YOU GO. :laugh:

Thanks for taking the time to summarize your points from the deleted thread. Personally, I LOVE the fact that not only are you well versed in nutrition research and studies, you bring us an informed opinion instead of just barfing up said research for mass consumption. Thank you.

CallMeCupcakeDammit

Thank you so much for this post! I've been so confused by everything I've been reading, and what you wrote makes total sense. I just came off of a 1,000 cal diet where I ate 5 packaged meals and one of my own. I was doing the Biggest Loser Last Chance Workout, and by the 5th week I was feeling crummy all the time. I knew even with eating back most of my exercise cals that it wasn't enough to sustain that workout. I've since dumped that diet and am using MFP the way it was meant to be used. Started out with what MFP gave me, 1,200 cals, but I lost 3, then gained 4.5! I changed it to a 1.5 lb loss instead, and I've lost 2 lbs this week (WI is Sunday). I'm hoping this is what will work for me, but I know a VLCD is not going to get me through my workouts, so I won't be going there again.

Question: I had read that the less weight you had to lose, the less you should try to lose per week. I can't find the thread where I read it, but that was the reason why I thought I should change my weekly WL goal. So someone who needs to lose 100 lbs should go with 2 lbs/wk, 50 lbs to lose should lose 1.5/wk... Is this true?

Captain_Tightpants

I don't think there's research specifically looking at this... at least none that I've seen. (quote abbreviated for convenience...)

Thank you SO much for the in depth response. It's really rare to be able to tap such a comprehensive knowledge base!

So in summary then, if I'm understanding your response correctly, there's a good chance that people who have been overweight for most of their lives (like me) may have a long-term lower (by percentage) BMR and TDEE than people who have been closer to a normal weight for life, and therefore may have to either eat a little lower intake or workout a little longer than the normal weight folks to achieve comparable results?

Does this point to the possibility of non-reversible metabolic damage done by being overweight or sedentary for the long term?

(Sorry if these are dumb questions, I'm fascinated by the weight loss equation but nowhere near as well researched on it as you are.)

kathyc609

great post

stroutman81

I always tell people that their deficits should be proportionate to their fat mass. The fatter they are, the greater the deficit can be (assuming both macro and micro nutrient sufficiency is provided to the body)

I'd generally agree with this rule too.