Very low calorie diets and metabolic damage

1ynne1a1a

There are very few absolutes in the game of life.. black and white is stunning but there is comfort in the many shades of grey - and no, I am not talking 50 shades of

womac23

A good post! Science is constantly discovering new things about our bodies. Fasting is and has been for centuries a way of life for many people of all religions. What scientists are now discovering is if you keep eating your 5 or 6 or 7 small regular meals a day you never give your body a rest - you simply keep it topped up with fresh supplies of glucose (unless you are on a pure protein diet) and if you are not burning that glucose off within 2 hours of eating it then your body says "let's keep that last bit for later and pack it away in a fat cell" so your fat cells keep on multiplying and getting bigger. A little bit of starvation is Good For You. Not only is it good for you, you have less chance of diabetes, stroke, cancer - and there is a good chance you will live a healthy life for longer - You also get to be more beautiful inside and out . Read the science. And this isn't new - this information has been in the public domain for years.

http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2013/03/01/daily-intermittent-fasting.aspx

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19112549

chttp://www.usc.edu/programs/neuroscience/faculty/profile.php?fid=51

bbg67

I skimmed most of the responses but I have to point out that, since the OP brought up the Minnesota Starvation Experiment as defense of VLCD (in the arguement that it shows our metabolism doesn't drop THAT much), the NEGATIVE effects of the experiment should also be pointed out.

Yes - their metabolisms might not have slowed down "that much". BUT - they found with semi-starvation, there were "significant increases in depression, hysteria, and hypochondriasis". Also - most of the subjects "experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depressions". They also found there were "extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject AMPUTATED three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally)." There was also a "preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation". There were repots of "decline in concentration, comprehension, and judgement capabilites". There were also "marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate, reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration, and heart rate". Also - "some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment#Results

Most nutritionists use the MSE as proof that VLCD can create mental and phyiscal effects similar to eating disorders. The men had a high deficit and, in turn, started obsessing over food, weight, image, and a few even self-mutilated. Their self-reported cognition decreased and their depression and hysteria increased signifcantly. These are important things to point out - the study was more indicative of the negative effects of VLCD than supporting it. Maybe the metabolism "only" reduced 15%, but the psychological and physical effects are something that seriously need to be pointed out. The fact they so closely mimic the symptoms of an eating disorder really should not be skimmed over.

stroutman81

I skimmed most of the responses but I have to point out that, since the OP brought up the Minnesota Starvation Experiment as defense of VLCD (in the arguement that it shows our metabolism doesn't drop THAT much), the NEGATIVE effects of the experiment should also be pointed out.

Yes - their metabolisms might not have slowed down "that much". BUT - they found with semi-starvation, there were "significant increases in depression, hysteria, and hypochondriasis". Also - most of the subjects "experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depressions". They also found there were "extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject AMPUTATED three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally)." There was also a "preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation". There were repots of "decline in concentration, comprehension, and judgement capabilites". There were also "marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate, reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration, and heart rate". Also - "some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment#Results

Most nutritionists use the MSE as proof that VLCD can create mental and phyiscal effects similar to eating disorders. The men had a high deficit and, in turn, started obsessing over food, weight, image, and a few even self-mutilated. Their self-reported cognition decreased and their depression and hysteria increased signifcantly. These are important things to point out - the study was more indicative of the negative effects of VLCD than supporting it. Maybe the metabolism "only" reduced 15%, but the psychological and physical effects are something that seriously need to be pointed out. The fact they so closely mimic the symptoms of an eating disorder really should not be skimmed over.

Great, objective post. If you reread my OP, you'll see this sentence. These words mean something:

"Once you factor in the psychology aspects of them, they're just not right for most long term fat loss plans."

You realize how long the subjects were on the MSE, right? I would never suggest someone go on a long term vlcd.

At the end of the day, any diet needs to be matched to the individual and the circumstances. It's that simple. Which is what the original post was about... it was about fending off the generalist attitude that tends to lump everything into neat little categories of being "right" or "wrong," "good" or "bad."

I do respect that you posted what you did though as it helps drive home the point that I made in the OP... these sorts of diets aren't for long term use and better yet, these sorts of diets aren't things most people should be considering.

jetsetmaven

Thanks for such a well written post. I tried to respond to the female in the 800 cal post, but I think MFP may have deleted her as the page bounced back. As someone who has successfully done a VLCD *and* kept the weight off, I found it quite offensive that many comments were rude and demeaning to the poster. Weight loss is a personal journey. What works for one person may not work for another. So people should stop and think before hurling cookie cutter advice to some seeking direction. Consider VLCD a form of fasting which many have been doing for cultural and religious reasons. I'm pretty sure they are not dying from it and neither would the general population.

Angiehankins77

Great information, I love educated people

CallMeCupcakeDammit

Bumping, because this will never get old

YourLotusFlower11

Bump

stroutman81

Thanks for keeping the thread alive guys.

giveMEbeauty

Bump

JennetteMac

I think this is the most useful post and followup I have come across. Really appreciate the info and balanced replies.

I lost my original weight by eating almost nothing through emotional stresses. I upped to 1200 after finding mfp and try to stay there or thereabouts.
Unfortunately I do tend to have odd binges when on holiday or celebrating, and I now find it really hard to drop back to my preferred weight. I dont have trouble staying at 1200 cals, but I don't seem to be able to lose weight again.

What I mean is, I went on holiday last summer and put on 8lb in a week. I spent the Autumn trying to lose those pounds but by Christmas had still kept about 4lb too many. Over Christmas I put on about 3lbs and tried to lose them before this year's summer holiday, but still feel about 7lb overweight.

As I said I stay around 1200 cals, often a fair bit below, rarely a bit over (1250/1300).

Any thoughts on how to shift half a stone? And why I am struggling so much?

I am basically vegetarian but when I am struggling to get protein I will try tuna or chicken, though I don't like this.
I eat veg, salads, some fruit, hardly any processed foods, not much bread (I'm cutting this almost completely at the moment) and my special treat sweets might be a piece of chocolate or marshmallow (I know, daft aren't I?)
When I have a stupid day I eat cake (usually at work) but always try really hard to keep that day under calories as compensation.

Sorry if there is a ramble here, or too much information, but I do feel a need for some balanced advice, and I think I would get it from you.
Thanks

thankyou4thevenom

bump

jen_zz

I'm not out there advocating VLCDs. Not at all... heck, I wrote the Nutrition 101 article, which everyone should have read by now, and nowhere in it did I advocate VLCD. I'm simply trying to maintain the integrity of information while steering people in an optimal direction. It seems like too many people around here are stuck on absolutes. They believe there is 100% right ways of doing things and 100% wrong ways of doing things. There's no in between. In reality, there are very few absolutes in the game of fat loss.

Cheers :drinker:

majiklydelicious

Ok I have a specific question about my life long eating habits, and you seem to be able to answer it. I have always had terrible habits, eating only one time a day and usually eating around 1000-1500 calories, comprised of an even distribution of fat carbs and protien (with probably a little more fat than the other two). I am very active and sometimes l exert myself with little to no food. I'm wondering what kind of long term effects this can have on my body? I've been trying to make better eating choices, including eating more times a day, but it really just simply comes down to not being very hungry, allowing me to forget to eat until the end of the day.

SCARLETTEatCleanTrainDirty

Bump

judilockwood

bump - to hang onto a great thread

eazy_

.

SapiensPisces

Interesting read. Tagging to read through original post and responses later.

Ideabaker

This is the most interesting discussion of the "1,200 calorie" topic I've read here so far... thanks for posting, everyone.

Whereismycoffee

Good read, thank you.

mmapags

In to read later.

Iwishyouwell

One of, of not the single best thread I've ever read on here.

It should be stickied at the top of this board and required reading before anybody can post.

It goes a very long way toward dispelling a lot of the myths about energy expenditure, "starvation" mode, calories, and metabolism commonly (and alarmingly) regurgitated around here.

stroutman81

Ok I have a specific question about my life long eating habits, and you seem to be able to answer it. I have always had terrible habits, eating only one time a day and usually eating around 1000-1500 calories, comprised of an even distribution of fat carbs and protien (with probably a little more fat than the other two). I am very active and sometimes l exert myself with little to no food. I'm wondering what kind of long term effects this can have on my body? I've been trying to make better eating choices, including eating more times a day, but it really just simply comes down to not being very hungry, allowing me to forget to eat until the end of the day.

Meal frequency isn't as important as many make it out to be. That being said, my personal opinion would be it's likely better to space out your nutrition consumption at least a bit more than one giant meal per day. In the end, it might not matter as long as you're getting sufficient amounts of the essentials in. But I still think it'd be easier on your body and digestions to balance it out a little. Which is why I typically haven't cared if you're eating 3 or 6 meals per day.

Has your weight and body composition fared well over the time you've eaten like this? What about health?

stroutman81

Thanks everyone else for the kind words... glad you enjoyed the thread. Feels like forever ago that this was started.

anita4869

Great post!

thecheesybrie

Great post, thank you! I struggled with extreme dieting in high school, and kept myself at below 800 calories for about 2 years. Good to know that I didn't entirely screw myself over!
Cheers!

marciebrian

saving to read later

_db_

Good information.

Mr_Knight

Sure, most people will screw up VLCDs, as I mention in the original post.

Most people will screw up everything and anything, including the paint-by-numbers MFP approach, as evidenced by the endless parade of posts on these forums.

The dirty little secret in all of this is that anyone with the discipline and self control to succeed using the MFP method will be able to succeed using virtually *any* method. If you look at the MFP champs here, dollars to donuts you could force them to go VLCD and they would find a way to make it work in a nutritionally sound manner.

It's never about the specifics of the diet - it is *always* about the dieter.

PS To be clear, I am NOT advocating VLCD in any way shape or form.

maybyn

Bump!

Yeah, it's pretty much about the dieter.

I think though that through education, many, many more folks will get it right eventually. Knowledge is power after all. The internet (and sites like this one) helps with the information stream. Of course, it's a cesspit of good, bad and average information out there but still... it counts.

Not only the fact that success rate is increasing because of folks knowing more, but it is also the fact that obesity is so abhorred in society nowadays that obesity rates are now declining. In contrast, the rate of those diagnosed with eating disorders causing extreme thinness is on the increase. Wonder when we humans can ever find a balance in all that we do??