I lost 55.5 lbs in 54 days...My secret revealed!

Nothing like losing a ton of water weight and muscle!

I'm effin out of here. It's not that the OP is obviously a troll, its the sad people genuinely congratulating this nonesense. So many people on here ruining themselves to lose some weight. Encouraging each other and fighting hard to legitimize disordered eating. Its freaking depressing. Doesnt help mfp has this obnoxious 1200 calorie limit it seems to apply across the board. i

I'm effin out of here. It's not that the OP is obviously a troll, its the sad people genuinely congratulating this nonesense. So many people on here ruining themselves to lose some weight. Encouraging each other and fighting hard to legitimize disordered eating. Its freaking depressing. Doesnt help mfp has this obnoxious 1200 calorie limit it seems to apply across the board.

^^^^ THIS

If you want to troll or ruin your own health thas your choice. But you're influencing newbies or desperate people that don't know better to follow that example and that is sad as well as wrong.

I urge you to read this:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/710742--starvation-mode-exercise-calories-dillema

"Real" medical research has already been done on this subject..."STARVATION MODE" is about LOW BODY FAT and not LOW CALORIES!

I urge you to read this:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/710742--starvation-mode-exercise-calories-dillema

"Real" medical research has already been done on this subject..."STARVATION MODE" is about LOW BODY FAT and not LOW CALORIES!

Could you refer us to this 'real' medical research that shows a higher % of LBM is not lost on a VLCD as compared to ones with a reasonable deficit in people who are not obese. I have looked and cannot find one so am very interested.

I just love how you have now modified your stance to mean only those people who ARE NOT OBESE in the first place...Everybody knows that nine times out of ten on MFP it is usually somebody who is already obese that starts running around screaming about being in "starvation mode" and therefore having to up their calories. TELL THESE PEOPLE THE TRUTH!

If you want studies on this subject...then see The Minnesota Starvation Study (1950)....and more recently The Karl Friedl Army Study (1992). At no time in either of these studies did any individual with substantial body fat ever go into "starvation mode".

I urge you to read this:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/710742--starvation-mode-exercise-calories-dillema

"Real" medical research has already been done on this subject..."STARVATION MODE" is about LOW BODY FAT and not LOW CALORIES!

Could you refer us to this 'real' medical research that shows a higher % of LBM is not lost on a VLCD as compared to ones with a reasonable deficit in people who are not obese. I have looked and cannot find one so am very interested.

I just love how you have now modified your stance to mean only those people who ARE NOT OBESE in the first place...Everybody knows that nine times out of ten on MFP it is usually somebody who is already obese that starts running around screaming about being in "starvation mode" and therefore having to up their calories. TELL THESE PEOPLE THE TRUTH!

If you want studies on this subject...then see The Minnesota Starvation Study (1950)....and more recently The Karl Friedl Army Study (1992). At no time in either of these studies did any individual with substantial body fat ever go into "starvation mode".

I made the specific exclusion for obese individuals because I personally believe that a VLCD is actually not that bad for a very obese person due to the fact that muscle loss is not as extreme and they will have a higher LBM by virtue of being obese in the first place.

However, as you insist, please check out this study:
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
This study is not exactly on point as it was conducted to determine the impact of resistance training v no resistance training on a VLCD, however it does show that both groups lost some LBM, but to a much lesser degree in the group that included resistance training. The individuals in the study had a high body fat % (over 40%).

In response to the Minnesota Study, firstly it was done over 60 years ago (in 1945) and there was no BF% tested (as far as I can tell, and even if it was, techniques nearly 70 years ago were not accurate, heck, they are not totally accurate now), so, no testing of LBM loss. Secondly, the average intake was over 1,500 calories which is debatable as to whether that is a VLCD.
I would also like to point out that most of the people who participated experienced severe emotional distress and depression (including self-mutilation in some of the subjects), decreases in libido, concentration and mental capacity. There were also sigificant declines in their BMR. So, I am not exactly sure what reference to this study is supposed to do in this context, except confirm that VLCDs are a really bad idea.

So, in response to the study by Friedl. Are you referring to this is the one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10797147
From that study, I point you to : <snip> After 8 wk, most of group 1 achieved a minimum body fat, serum 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (T(3)) was below normal (78 +/- 20 ng/dl), testosterone (T) approached castrate levels (4.5 +/- 3.9 nmol/l), insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) declined by one-half (75 +/- 25 microg/l), and cholesterol rose from 158 +/- 31 to 217 +/- 39 mg/dl<snip>
I particularly like the castrate levels of testosterone!

So, I bring your attention to:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1068.full which is another study conducted by Freidl et al. What the study actually shows is that you will lose LBM.


So, in summary, and ignoring the hyperbole in the post, please could you direct me to a study that shows no LBM loss on a VLCD.

ETA: I am not sure where you have got that I have modified my stance - I would love you to point out where I have done this.

I urge you to read this:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/710742--starvation-mode-exercise-calories-dillema

"Real" medical research has already been done on this subject..."STARVATION MODE" is about LOW BODY FAT and not LOW CALORIES!

Could you refer us to this 'real' medical research that shows a higher % of LBM is not lost on a VLCD as compared to ones with a reasonable deficit in people who are not obese. I have looked and cannot find one so am very interested.

I just love how you have now modified your stance to mean only those people who ARE NOT OBESE in the first place...Everybody knows that nine times out of ten on MFP it is usually somebody who is already obese that starts running around screaming about being in "starvation mode" and therefore having to up their calories. TELL THESE PEOPLE THE TRUTH!

If you want studies on this subject...then see The Minnesota Starvation Study (1950)....and more recently The Karl Friedl Army Study (1992). At no time in either of these studies did any individual with substantial body fat ever go into "starvation mode".

I made the specific exclusion for obese individuals because I personally believe that a VLCD is actually not that bad for a very obese person due to the fact that muscle loss is not as extreme and they will have a higher LBM by virtue of being obese in the first place.

However, as you insist, please check out this study:
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
This study is not exactly on point as it was conducted to determine the impact of resistance training v no resistance training on a VLCD, however it does show that both groups lost some LBM, but to a much lesser degree in the group that included resistance training. The individuals in the study had a high body fat % (over 40%).

In response to the Minnesota Study, firstly it was done over 60 years ago (in 1945) and there was no BF% tested (as far as I can tell, and even if it was, techniques nearly 70 years ago were not accurate, heck, they are not totally accurate now), so, no testing of LBM loss. Secondly, the average intake was over 1,500 calories which is debatable as to whether that is a VLCD.
I would also like to point out that most of the people who participated experienced severe emotional distress and depression (including self-mutilation in some of the subjects), decreases in libido, concentration and mental capacity. There were also sigificant declines in their BMR. So, I am not exactly sure what reference to this study is supposed to do in this context, except confirm that VLCDs are a really bad idea.

So, in response to the study by Friedl. Are you referring to this is the one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10797147
From that study, I point you to : <snip> After 8 wk, most of group 1 achieved a minimum body fat, serum 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (T(3)) was below normal (78 +/- 20 ng/dl), testosterone (T) approached castrate levels (4.5 +/- 3.9 nmol/l), insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) declined by one-half (75 +/- 25 microg/l), and cholesterol rose from 158 +/- 31 to 217 +/- 39 mg/dl<snip>
I particularly like the castrate levels of testosterone!

So, I bring your attention to:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1068.full which is another study conducted by Freidl et al. What the study actually shows is that you will lose LBM.


So, in summary, and ignoring the hyperbole in the post, please could you direct me to a study that shows no LBM loss on a VLCD.

Listen..If you are still in doubt then feel free to use this as a reference to what these studies actually mean...

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5827&page=81.

I read the actual studies, but thanks. If you have something specific you would like to refute with regard to my interpetation, I would be very happy as I am all for gaining knowledge.

ETA: it is nice to have all these discussed in one place however - so thanks

I jumped to the summary:

"The evaluation of intervention strategies to prevent the loss of FFM during physically demanding military operations is dependent on a valid measurement of FFM (which must work in the face of other potential confounders). It also demands a better understanding of the biochemical correlates of overtraining, including markers of the breakdown of specific tissues such as collagen, bone, and muscle and a better understanding of cytokine regulation of the balance of muscle and fat tissues. Hydration status may be useful in monitoring of related aspects of nutritional status (e.g., as part of an automated soldier status monitoring system)."

I don't understand why most of you are so negative with this guy. He eats a lot, its just not a lot of calories.

There are plenty of people in this world who would love all this food in a day.

Why can't it be healthy for him?

He achieved his goals and he's not starving himself.

Way too much is put into calories when nutrition, one would think, would be most important.

There are diary's full of store bought packaged, processed, chemical laden food... yet, its is "under goal" so it's good? and "better" than this one?

I really don't understand that.

"Everyone" pointing fingers... "you didn't do this RIGHT"... "we don't like you cause you didn't lose weight, RIGHT"... "we don't believe you show us your fat picture and your now picture"... that's all I'm HEARING.

To the OP... good for you and thanks for sharing. :drinker:

Completely agree about the nutrition! Is it what is most important and what our bodies need! Alot of junk processed food has no nutritional value which is pretty much empty calories! U can have a 300 calirie lean cuisine which is tiny or you could have a huge plate of healthy whole foods for the same amount. When you no longer eat processed food and eat clean, cravings go away for the bad stuff and u do start to crave the healthy stuff. Best thing i ever did was changing to a clean, whole food diet. I still falter and have bad days, and thats when i crave crap. Goes away once im back on track. Good luck everyone on ur journey, i know this didnt have much about the poster, but this comment was spot on