1200, VLCD, and EM2WL

MoreBean13

I'm a little confused as to why you're posting the results of very low CARB short term diets to support your stance on very low CAL long term diets.

my stance was not about low cal anything, not in the definition of the word low, as measured by MFP. I do advocate for a reasonable caloric deficit, at levels which MFP deems safe - in order to help people get to a healthy weight as quickly as they can. The studies tracked both carbs and calories, and showed that eating less than 2000 calories per day while eating properly and getting sufficient protein can maintain and even gain muscle mass.

I feel like a broken record.

Here's the problem. "to help people get to a healthy weight as quickly as they can" does not take in to consideration maintenance. There are LOTS of ways to be successful if your goal is to drop weight as quickly as possible. That part is EASY. The problem is that in doing that, you're practically guaranteeing long-term failure at maintenance. Quick weight loss is unsustainable. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the failure rate is really, really high. You will find thousands of personal stories here of people who have done that. Most people that end up here would like to lose the weight in a sustainable manner, and keep it off.

Pretending that you can be the statistical anomaly and lose weight quickly and keep it off is foolish, and you're advising others to join you on your foolish quest. Just do whatever you want and stop trying to coerce other people to spend the next few months of their lives starving themselves so they can regain weight and start over again.

Siege_Tank

You're suggesting, that by losing weight quickly, and sticking to calorie calculators, that simply by cutting calories too much will cause the bodys metabolic rate to slow.. and never go back to normal? This is not supported by research.

What's more likely is that those hundreds of people low cal it on healthy food, and once they reach their goals they go RIGHT back into the old way of thinking, that now they can eat 2000 calories (or whatever their maintenance is) of fried food, junk, a little chocolate here and there, all the foods that got them into the overweight category to begin with.

Maintaining is hard. The real battle in weight loss IS keeping it off, because it requires eternal vigilance, and a devotion to your new body and new lifestyle.

My goal with these posts is to resist all the posts above and in other threads that eating at a decent calorie cut is not dangerous, and perhaps get the eat more camp to stop with their veiled insults and too mighty assertions that you have to take 20 weeks to lose the last ten pounds. That kind of thinking is just rediculous.

If you end a cut with a gradual return to maintenance, then there should be no reason why people have difficulty with maintaining. It's when people get to their goal weight, do a dance, and eat two dozen chicken wings or some ice cream in celebration. None of those foods are bad, but there are no way to end a cut, and I find fault with the blind assumption that if you don't go slow, it's impossible to maintain.

riboid

Too many acronyms for me

Siege_Tank

and you're advising others to join you on your foolish quest.

Well, in reality most of the advice I give runs along the lines of "don't eat if you aren't hungry" and "eat healthy, clean, nutritious foods, and avoid processed junk and high fat meals as often as possible"

Not many people can cut like me, but I am a special case, not to call myself great, just different. BUT, telling people who aren't hungry to eat more isn't the right thing to say, they should lift more, and lift heavier, then they'll be ravenous and have no choice mwwahaha

It's what happens to me

evanesco

You missed some important points. Dan advocates a loss of about 1/2lb a week. He emphasises loss of body fat, not lean body mass. You need to consume that amount of calories because Dan assumes that following the road map you will also be following the other important points: lifting weights to retain lean body mass.

Don't jump all over someone's hard work because you missed the points.

Cait_Sidhe

Do whatever you want. Just don't encourage others to follow you.

Natihilator

mustgetmuscles1

I think you should look up "metabolic damage". Very real with lasting effects.

Siege_Tank

You missed some important points. Dan advocates a loss of about 1/2lb a week. He emphasises loss of body fat, not lean body mass. You need to consume that amount of calories because Dan assumes that following the road map you will also be following the other important points: lifting weights to retain lean body mass.

Don't jump all over someone's hard work because you missed the points.

and honestly, through all the studies I have read, think that his assumptions are incorrect. You don't have to eat a certain number of CALORIES to maintain lean body mass, you just have to eat enough protein so that your muscles won't be used for gluconeogenesis.. it's like, when you eat a fat, your body breaks it down into fatty acids, which doesn't take much work. fats can be chained with amino acids to create glucose in you liver, glucose is what our cells love to run on.

but we can't burn fat directly. We CAN eat a lot of protein and keep our stores of protein from being used in that process though, which is exactly what those studies above are trying to lay out.. calories don't count when you are trying to maintain lean body mass, only protein and strength training.

My last sentence uses a little bit of inference there, because I can't believe that the participants of the study were fed pure fat, and the only way to make up for the loss in calories from low carbs and NOT replace them with fat is from protein.

MoreBean13

You're suggesting, that by losing weight quickly, and sticking to calorie calculators, that simply by cutting calories too much will cause the bodys metabolic rate to slow.. and never go back to normal? This is not supported by research.

What's more likely is that those hundreds of people low cal it on healthy food, and once they reach their goals they go RIGHT back into the old way of thinking, that now they can eat 2000 calories (or whatever their maintenance is) of fried food, junk, a little chocolate here and there, all the foods that got them into the overweight category to begin with.

Maintaining is hard. The real battle in weight loss IS keeping it off, because it requires eternal vigilance, and a devotion to your new body and new lifestyle.

My goal with these posts is to resist all the posts above and in other threads that eating at a decent calorie cut is not dangerous, and perhaps get the eat more camp to stop with their veiled insults and too mighty assertions that you have to take 20 weeks to lose the last ten pounds. That kind of thinking is just rediculous.

If you end a cut with a gradual return to maintenance, then there should be no reason why people have difficulty with maintaining. It's when people get to their goal weight, do a dance, and eat two dozen chicken wings or some ice cream in celebration. None of those foods are bad, but there are no way to end a cut, and I find fault with the blind assumption that if you don't go slow, it's impossible to maintain.

Try researching "Adaptive Thermogenesis"

Then, consider what exactly it takes to repair slowed metabolism. Might it be the weight gain that you ran away from crying from the EM2WL group? What you are advocating is intentionally slowing your metabolism, then using magic to repair it without weight regain. Your maintenance results speak for themselves. Oh wait, you weren't able to maintain on a normal calorie amount. That's right, you gained weight. So you have zero personal experience with successful maintenance, which is what you've posted in this thread. RIght.

Sarauk2sf

Of the 5 studies, 4 were on obese people - a very different situation than with non-obese. The samples were incredibly small. The first study lasted for 10 days and the longest for only three months. The only study done on non-obese people was the last one and that was not even calorie restricted, so I am not sure where the VLCD came from. Where did the chart come from?

Siege_Tank

I think you should look up "metabolic damage". Very real with lasting effects.

If by very real you mean bro hype, and a decent shield to hide behind when you explain why your results are taking ages to achieve.

A quick google search shows several pages that dispel that myth, and only a few seedy pages about how it's a very real danger, and how people who are eating well below BMR are actually gaining weight.

Sarauk2sf

You missed some important points. Dan advocates a loss of about 1/2lb a week. He emphasises loss of body fat, not lean body mass. You need to consume that amount of calories because Dan assumes that following the road map you will also be following the other important points: lifting weights to retain lean body mass.

Don't jump all over someone's hard work because you missed the points.

and honestly, through all the studies I have read, think that his assumptions are incorrect. You don't have to eat a certain number of CALORIES to maintain lean body mass, you just have to eat enough protein so that your muscles won't be used for gluconeogenesis.. it's like, when you eat a fat, your body breaks it down into fatty acids, which doesn't take much work. fats can be chained with amino acids to create glucose in you liver, glucose is what our cells love to run on.

but we can't burn fat directly. We CAN eat a lot of protein and keep our stores of protein from being used in that process though, which is exactly what those studies above are trying to lay out.. calories don't count when you are trying to maintain lean body mass, only protein and strength training.

My last sentence uses a little bit of inference there, because I can't believe that the participants of the study were fed pure fat, and the only way to make up for the loss in calories from low carbs and NOT replace them with fat is from protein.

Wrong.

First of all, you need to strength train as well as getting enough protein.

Also, the larger the deficit, the more protein is required. If you do not get enough carbs, you will use protein, yes, but guess what that means? You need even more protein. Plus you need enough fats for healthy body functions as well as not messing hormones up. All of this means, you need enough calories to be able to 'afford' these macros.


As an FYI, one of the side effects of a VLCD in guys is falling T-levels.

Sarauk2sf

I think you should look up "metabolic damage". Very real with lasting effects.

If by very real you mean bro hype, and a decent shield to hide behind when you explain why your results are taking ages to achieve.

A quick google search shows several pages that dispel that myth, and only a few seedy pages about how it's a very real danger, and how people who are eating well below BMR are actually gaining weight.

How about linking some of those 'studies'

neandermagnon

And I ask, what is wrong with eating under my BMR, if what I am eating is nutritious and I have vitamins and supplements in my diet?

Eating under BMR for prolonged periods can, and usually does, result in slow build up of cortisol hormone. As this hormone builds up, your organs operate slower than normal, this reduces the amount of energy you expend in a day. It is part of the fight or flight response in which your body determines that certain activities should be temporarily suspended in order to ensure you can survive an immediate threat. It is not a system that we are meant to remain in for prolonged periods.

This is what ultimately causes people to plateau that have been eating under BMR for too long. Note that a few days or a week or two of this is fine. After a few months is when things start slowing down.

The way MFP itself works is it goes SOLELY by numbers. It ignores ALL hormones. The 1200 bottom is hard coded in. It is a "dumb tool". It is useful yes and a great starting point for many, but it is only as smart as the person using it.

Dan typically argues that you should eat UNDER TDEE and OVER BMR. This ensures you'll always be losing weight and also ensures your body's hormone levels do not freak out over excessive stress and too fast of weight loss. It is indeed slower than what most people want, but it is safe, sane, doable, and offers better long term success than crash diets.

EVERYONE here wants everyone else to succeed.

You are free to do whatever you want. Heck, you can stop eating forever and run 23 hours a day at 12mph on the treadmill if you want to. All I ask is that when someone gives you advice, reasonable advice, that you don't make threads basically to declare how stupid, dumb, rude, etc. you think they are.

^^^^^^^^^^ this!!

The method works too, I used to be obese, I now have a healthy body fat percentage and I'm maintaining without effort. I don't even track my calories when I'm just maintaining. I only track them when I'm doing a bulk or a cut.

I used a very similar method to the one that helloit'sdan is advocating, i.e. eating under TDEE, but enough calories to sustain the body and exercise levels. IT WORKS. Not only does it work, it makes maintenance so much easier. So telling obese people to lose fat in a way that means they can stay healthy, preserve lean body mass and which makes long term maintenance so much easier is a crime now?? SMH
'
Seriously OP, everyone including helloit'sdan is trying to help you and actually to make fat loss easier and more sustainable for you. You can carry on treating all of it like a personal attack and carrying dieting in ways that will cause you a lot of problems in the long term if you want to. However if you stop treating this like a debate or a competition and understand people are just giving you advice that might benefit you, it might make your life easier.

corneredbycorn

Of the 5 studies, 4 were on obese people - a very different situation than with non-obese. The samples were incredibly small. The first study lasted for 10 days and the longest for only three months. The only study done on non-obese people was the last one and that was not even calorie restricted, so I am not sure where the VLCD came from. Where did the chart come from?

Not even three. The longest was two months and a day at 31 days per month.

Elleinnz

I recon you are just a tad rude attacking Dan for trying to help ......and your argument does not quite stack up...

Dan's numbers includes your exercise calories
MFP numbers as calculated does not include exercise calories - and they very clearly calculate your daily net by adding your exercise - so in fact you will find your daily number is not 1350 - but 1350 PLUS your exercise calories - which gets you much closer to Dan's number.....
As others have said Dan would also not have calculated a 1.5lb a week loss - he would have based it on a 1 lb a week loss at minimum, so instead of bashing the man why dont you recalculate the numbers once more with a one pound loss - and ADD BACK exercise calories to the MFP base calories and you might find the numbers are pretty even...

But you know what - you do it your way - good luck - I suspect we might see you join the trillions of other 1200 gang that does not eat back their exercise calories.......how many times do we see those posts "I am not losing anything" " I am so frustrated...."

OK - back to what I was doing when I got so rudely interrupted - making sure I eat my 2100 calories for the day - as I have been doing for the past 8 months :-) :-) :-)

Siege_Tank

Try researching "Adaptive Thermogenesis"

Then, consider what exactly it takes to repair slowed metabolism. Might it be the weight gain that you ran away from crying from the EM2WL group? What you are advocating is intentionally slowing your metabolism, then using magic to repair it without weight regain. Your maintenance results speak for themselves. Oh wait, you weren't able to maintain on a normal calorie amount. That's right, you gained weight. So you have zero personal experience with successful maintenance, which is what you've posted in this thread. RIght.

While you are correct, I have not had any personal experience with maintaining weight, and I will be the first person to admit that I have probably experienced some metabolic rate slowdown as a result of my diet. I've done it wrong, I'll admit, by not starting with a higher calorie cut, and taking it down to see more results.

In my own defense I am an all or nothing kind of person, I have to press ALL the buttons! and try everything I can to see results. But the end of the minnesota semi-starvation study about how to refeed starving people in war torn europe clearly shows how to return to maintenance. I've only been cutting calories since September, and I only have 20 pounds left to go.

But my overall point in all of this was.. why do you guys say that 1/2 a pound a week is the only way to Jesus? it's mollases slow.

And Sau -

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-qa.html

http://www.scottabel.com/store/product.php?productid=16172

http://www.fitwatch.com/weight-loss/how-to-repair-a-damaged-metabolism-456.html

http://www.jencomaskeck.com/2011/01/metabolic-damage.html

None of those apply to me, I have been strength training and seeing increases in performance and ability. 2 months ago I could barely lift 105 pounds on a bench press, and last week I was able to lift 145x6. All that metabolic damage talks about a loss in performance due to lean body loss. I don't know how I could be getting stronger when I am cutting this much at such a risk to my BMR...


UNLESS I am eating an obscene amount of protein! Which is also part of the advice I give to people, they shoul dbe eating at the very least their weight's worth per gram in protein, if not double that.

neanderthin

Of the 5 studies, 4 were on obese people - a very different situation than with non-obese. The samples were incredibly small. The first study lasted for 10 days and the longest for only three months. The only study done on non-obese people was the last one and that was not even calorie restricted, so I am not sure where the VLCD came from. Where did the chart come from?

Not even three. The longest was two months and a day at 31 days per month.

Eureka starving works.

Siege_Tank

I think you should look up "metabolic damage". Very real with lasting effects.

If by very real you mean bro hype, and a decent shield to hide behind when you explain why your results are taking ages to achieve.

A quick google search shows several pages that dispel that myth, and only a few seedy pages about how it's a very real danger, and how people who are eating well below BMR are actually gaining weight.

How about linking some of those 'studies'

I said pages. But I linked them anyways for ya

Love the bro hype!