RANT: VLCD and Lean mass!!!

Siege_Tank

There was a post on here who kept telling everyone who might have their own way of reducing calories that they were all "DOING IT WRONG"

I find so much fault with how he presented his hypothesis. Instead of rant and tell everyone who doesn't do it my way that they are a big ball of fail, I am going to offer evidenced based theories about weight loss, and how to accomplish FAT reduction.

If you look at the chart, it shows you the effects of a Very Low Carb/Calorie Diet vs other diets. The bottom 3 of that chart are of particular interest. Very Low Calorie/Carb Diets CAN work, and if they are performed with adequate protein intake and weight training, the human body CAN retain lean body mass while on them.

And those are the references that show you where to find those studies.

It should be noted that those measurements were calculated with either Dual energy X-Ray Absorbitometry, Potassium-40, or Underwater Weighing - All of which are incredibly more accurate than anyone's "experience" or calculated with an internet calculator.

The bottom line is this, If you eat enough protein, through gluconeogenesis, you will lose fat mass and maintain lean body mass. Even the 56 day study where the participants were fed only 650-725 calories per day kept their lean body mass. While that kind of drastic cut is dangerous, and should be monitored by doctors, this study was, and There's nothing wrong with eating at a drastic cut (up to -800 calories) from your TDEE. Most professionals agree that cycling on days where you reduce your caloric intake, with a carb refeed day for muscle glycogen replenishment, is a perfectly acceptable way to lose fat mass.

I'M DOING IT RIGHT!

DrBroPHD

You'll go in starvation mode

Siege_Tank

Just hit right click and hit view image for the full chart

lacurandera1

let me start with the disclaimer of, idgaf how you do what you do.

That said, these studies are on obese people...who have significant amounts of LBM to begin with. As a person approaches their goal, idk about the validity/applicability of these studies.

As I said, idgaf. Do what makes ya happy. Eating 3000 calories a day makes me happy, so I think I'll stick with it. : )

neandermagnon

why go on a VLCD in the first place though, if you can get to a healthy weight and have a much easier time maintaining in the long term by eating a lot more? VLCD you get fast weight loss, loss of lean body mass, slowing of the metabolism and a much greater chance of putting all the weight back on again as pure fat (you lose LBM and fat, but put back on only fat, not LBM). All that deprivation for a much lower chance of long term success.... what's the benefit of that? Especially when you can eat more and get better long term success....

maybe people just enjoy torturing themselves and feeling deprived...?

djames92

let me start with the disclaimer of, idgaf how you do what you do.

That said, all these studies are on obese people...who have significant amounts of LBM to begin with. As a person approaches their goal, idk about the validity/applicability of these studies.

As I said, idgaf. Do what makes ya happy. Eating 3000 calories a day makes me happy, so I think I'll stick with it. : )

love it!
different things work for different people! gotta find your own way

Siege_Tank

Are you even looking at the study? lean body mass in KG, for the bottom 3 studies cited showed a GAIN in lean body mass. You don't HAVE to VLCD, but I'm saying that all the people out there who espouse the "DON'T DO IT YOU"LL EFFING DIE AND LOSE MUSCLE" are so wrong...

Read the studies. number of days, calories eaten, Carbs eaten, TOTAL body mass change in KG, Fat mass change in KG, and Lean body mass in KG, and how they calculated those body mass changes.

The bottom two studies done by Volek are of particular interest, as they used lean males in their studies, and had higher caloric values, but played with the carbs eaten.

lacurandera1

Are you even looking at the study?

That's what I wondered. Least I read the dang picture. :grumble:

x_pix_x

I could not low carb it, no way, I would never sustain it and would just end up bingeing. I know myself to well, I enjoy foods that have carbs in them and I would feel like I was on a diet. I'm trying to change my eating habits to something that I can sustain for life. Yes I'll have to make adjustments and cut down on things and as I go I will make better choices. At the moment I am concentrating solely on calorie intake which in itself is forcing me to make better choices. More fruit and veg, less crap basically. Eventually the aim is to have a completely balanced diet with little to no processed stuff but I'm doing it in baby steps as that's what works for me, slow steady changes are easy to handle and are more likely to be maintained. Having said that my husband could low carb for the rest of his life because foods that are generally low in carbs are the foods he loves, it's definitely not something for everyone though.

jsuaccounting

Good luck to you and take heart in your own results. You will not change many people's mind on this.

Siege_Tank

Are you even looking at the study?

That's what I wondered. Least I read the dang picture. :grumble:

You DO rock my socks

neandermagnon

Are you even looking at the study? lean body mass in KG, for the bottom 3 studies cited showed a GAIN in lean body mass. You don't HAVE to VLCD, but I'm saying that all the people out there who espouse the "DON'T DO IT YOU"LL EFFING DIE AND LOSE MUSCLE" are so wrong...

Read the studies. number of days, calories eaten, Carbs eaten, TOTAL body mass change in KG, Fat mass change in KG, and Lean body mass in KG, and how they calculated those body mass changes.

The bottom two studies done by Volek are of particular interest, as they used lean males in their studies, and had higher caloric values, but played with the carbs eaten.

very low CALORIE diet and very low CARB diet are not the same thing. Which is it that the researchers are advocating? very low carb or very low calorie?

VLCD usually stands for very low calorie diet.

Thomasm198

Are you even looking at the study? lean body mass in KG, for the bottom 3 studies cited showed a GAIN in lean body mass. You don't HAVE to VLCD, but I'm saying that all the people out there who espouse the "DON'T DO IT YOU"LL EFFING DIE AND LOSE MUSCLE" are so wrong...

Read the studies. number of days, calories eaten, Carbs eaten, TOTAL body mass change in KG, Fat mass change in KG, and Lean body mass in KG, and how they calculated those body mass changes.

The bottom two studies done by Volek are of particular interest, as they used lean males in their studies, and had higher caloric values, but played with the carbs eaten.

I looked at the picture you posted.

In 5 of the 9 studies VLCD refers to Very Low Carb.

There's a difference between Very Low Carb and Very Low Calorie.

Siege_Tank

very low CALORIE diet and very low CARB diet are not the same thing. Which is it that the researchers are advocating? very low carb or very low calorie?

VLCD usually stands for very low calorie diet.

Actually they did both both, they cite studies that did both, and they show you how many calories the participants were given, and how many carbs they were given in each study The bottom study was the control group. They gained no fat, and a little muscle in the study. The one above that had a comparable calorie value lost fat mass, and gained muscle mass.

When people are lean, or close to lean, extreme calorie cutting is NOT an answer, but exercise and a mild cut are the way to go.

ETA: When people are Obese, and far far away from their goal, I think it is more helpful for them to see progress, something to cling onto like a small prize, like "I've lost 20 pounds so far, I can't go back"

With some people's ways of losing weight, 1 pound a week - would take 20 flippin weeks who does that for 20 weeks without great results? Most Heavy people would quit without some kind of constant reinforcement, some kind of positive "yay go you!"

neandermagnon

very low CALORIE diet and very low CARB diet are not the same thing. Which is it that the researchers are advocating? very low carb or very low calorie?

VLCD usually stands for very low calorie diet.

Actually they did both both, they cite studies that did both, and they show you how many calories the participants were given, and how many carbs they were given in each study The bottom study was the control group. They gained no fat, and a little muscle in the study. The one above that had a comparable calorie value lost fat mass, and gained muscle mass.

When people are lean, or close to lean, extreme calorie cutting is NOT an answer, but exercise and a mild cut are the way to go.

But they are two completely different things, yet you're grouping them in all together, and citing the results of very low CARB studies and using them to say that very low CALORIE diets are safe and won't cause a decrease in lean body mass.

Very low carb diets can work for some people (especially if they have insulin resistance type problems) and a very low carb diet that's otherwise high in calories, i.e. providing a decent amount of protein and fat, will not usually cause loss of lean body mass. The problem with low carb diets is that you can't fuel a decent workout without the carbs, which then limits how much you can actually gain in terms of lean body mass. Also, some individuals have additional problems on very low carbs, such as worsening of mental health issues, because the brain needs carbs to function well. But they do work for some people.

Very low CALORiE diets on the other hand.... they cause loss of lean body mass, and the leaner you are to begin with the worse damage they will do, which is why doctors only prescribe them for extremely obese people and who will face worse health problems if they don't drastically reduce their body fat.

You really need to understand that the two are very different things and using them interchangably shows a complete lack of understanding of human physiology and nutrition....

EvgeniZyntx

Cherry picking.
Most of the diets in that graph show that VLCD (calorie) resulted in significant loss of LBM - only in a smaller group was an LBM increase shown.
And in those with low carbs that showed ncrease they were at high calories and work out. Newbie gains anyone?

Meh.

etoiles_argentees

very low CALORIE diet and very low CARB diet are not the same thing. Which is it that the researchers are advocating? very low carb or very low calorie?

VLCD usually stands for very low calorie diet.

Actually they did both both, they cite studies that did both, and they show you how many calories the participants were given, and how many carbs they were given in each study The bottom study was the control group. They gained no fat, and a little muscle in the study. The one above that had a comparable calorie value lost fat mass, and gained muscle mass.

When people are lean, or close to lean, extreme calorie cutting is NOT an answer, but exercise and a mild cut are the way to go.

But they are two completely different things, yet you're grouping them in all together, and citing the results of very low CARB studies and using them to say that very low CALORIE diets are safe and won't cause a decrease in lean body mass.

Very low carb diets can work for some people (especially if they have insulin resistance type problems) and a very low carb diet that's otherwise high in calories, i.e. providing a decent amount of protein and fat, will not usually cause loss of lean body mass. The problem with low carb diets is that you can't fuel a decent workout without the carbs, which then limits how much you can actually gain in terms of lean body mass. Also, some individuals have additional problems on very low carbs, such as worsening of mental health issues, because the brain needs carbs to function well. But they do work for some people.

Very low CALORiE diets on the other hand.... they cause loss of lean body mass, and the leaner you are to begin with the worse damage they will do, which is why doctors only prescribe them for extremely obese people and who will face worse health problems if they don't drastically reduce their body fat.

You really need to understand that the two are very different things and using them interchangably shows a complete lack of understanding of human physiology and nutrition....

This....

_granola

1. As mentioned, this is done with obese people. VLCDs work, in the short-term, for very obese people.

2. Note the duration of the VLCDs. People aren't doing these diets in these studies (usually) for months and months.

3. Note the dates that these articles were published. Old studies are old. If you know anything about research, you know that matters.

4. Note the number of subject in these studies. Not a lot of them. That's important.

5. Only one of these studies include women. ONE. This is relevant because good studies include a decent amount of research subjects and are inclusive of both genders and consider race, at the very least. This is also relevant because most of the time... *MOST* of the time... those doing very low calorie diets, are women.

6. There is no long-term data out there to show that VLCDs are sustainable for people, nor are they are a sustainable way to keep weight off, which is more important than the ability to lose 20 lbs in 10 days (or whatever the crazy number).

7. You are not obese, so I'm not sure why you think this relates to you anyway.

Your chart is invalid.

pastryari

Even the 56 day study where the participants were fed only 650-725 calories per day kept their lean body mass. While that kind of drastic cut is dangerous, and should be monitored by doctors

How many people on MFP are being monitored by doctors?

What happens after the 56 days? Do they continue to eat at such a low calorie diet or do they go back to eating a "normal" amount of calories?

, this study was, and There's nothing wrong with eating at a drastic cut (up to -800 calories) from your TDEE.

What people have such a low TDEE that 650 calories is the amount given with an acceptable "cut"? That would make their TDEE 1450 if I'm understanding this correctly.

While that kind of drastic cut is dangerous,

That kind of says a lot right there, doesn't it?


ETA: Obese people can afford a much larger deficit than those who are simply "overweight."

pastryari

I'M DOING IT RIGHT!

Also, I'm confused. Your diary says your goal is around 1900, but you're not logging so I don't know what you're actually eating.

Crankstr

This is sad.