The 600 kcl diet

Options
135

Replies

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,397 MFP Moderator
    Options
    I fast one day a week (eat and drink nothing) but that has more to do with religious reasons than anything else and it has never done me any harm. I was offered to go on the plan that you are talking about from my doctor when I was diagnosed as having diabetes 2, it is also know as the diabetes reversal diet here in UK and GP's recommend it in all surgeries. Good luck to you hun if you intend to do it! Currently I am eating 1200 calories a day (6 days a week as I fast on one day) and I exercise but do not eat back my exercise calories and its what is working for me.

    The issue with this approach, at no point, are you adequately fueling your body. Unless you have a metabolic dysfunction, you aren't even fueling your body to operate your body. IF is fine and completely healthy if you follow it by design. Fast 1-2 days a week and then Eat at maintenance/above the others. Over week, you still have a deficit. The approach you are taking, or at least from my experience leads to people losing a lot of lean body mass. Many think it is working because they are losing weight, but over time, you will increase the chances of weight gain due to your metabolism adapting to run at a slower rate. Also, if you don't add enough calories, your are hurting your workouts. Increasing calories will help you push harder, lift more and improve overall calorie burn.

    If you really want to see if it's working, track your body fat and weight concurrently and you will see how much of your weight loss is muscle.
  • Miiimii
    Miiimii Posts: 279 Member
    Options
    Define eating normally. If the rest of your week cancels out the deficit on the two 600 days, it will be pointless.

    normal eating is for me:

    Lunch: Salad
    Dinner: for example Veggies with rice or Veggies with potatos, etc.




    and she wants to go down to 600 kcl on 2 days? I don't see 600 in her "normal" eating.

    this was just an example. I also eat tofu, soya products, milk, fruits, cheese, lentillesm beans, oat, pasts, avocados, etc.

    You gave an example of your "normal" eating in a day. Something tells me, that everything else you mentioned, probably isn't included, or you would have mentioned some real food, instead of some leaves and a potato. I'd love to see your daily diary tho, because otherwise, no one can suggest anything for you, because we have no idea what you eat on a normal day.

    I'm a vegetarian and veggies and potataos is real food for me. Belive it or not. And Veggies with rice can mean anything from Palak Paneer to a nice vegetable curry. And salad doesn't mean just green leaves - today for example it was lettuce, pepper-couscous, tomatos, cucumber and lemon-joghurt.

    Don't know what else you could mean with "real food", but for me this is real food.
  • lorib75
    lorib75 Posts: 490 Member
    Options
    Define eating normally. If the rest of your week cancels out the deficit on the two 600 days, it will be pointless.

    normal eating is for me:

    Lunch: Salad
    Dinner: for example Veggies with rice or Veggies with potatos, etc.

    If that is eating normally for you, why would you need to lower your caloric intake at all? Sounds like if you are really eating only a salad for lunch and veggies with rice or potatoes, that would be very low calorie. So what are you eating for breakfast? POUNDS of greasy meat? Donuts filled with bacon grease? Just wondering. I'm all for anything that will help you lose weight, but at what cost? Is this really something you plan to do for the rest of your life?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,397 MFP Moderator
    Options
    So lets make this simple.

    2 days of 600 cal + 5 days of maintennce = healthy
    2 days of 600 cal + 5 days of low calorie diet = unhealthy


    Op, which are we promoting?
  • wfte
    wfte Posts: 195 Member
    Options
    As I stated above, 12lbs of fat loss with 1lbs gain of LBM. I put the 1lbs gain in the percent error, so I just say "I maintained LBM"
    It's not "how many calories you eat" it's how efficiently you utilize them. Dr.Barry Sears PhD(biochemistry) has produced over 25 olympic gold medal winners. He states, "none of the athletes I trained ever consumed more than 2,500 calories a day." If you have to stuff you face with calories for energy and performance, that just shows how inefficient you're utilizing the fuel.

    Tell that to Michael Phelps, his 10,000+ calorie a day diet and his 18 Gold Olympic medals!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    Even if you are going to do this forever (which to me doesn't sound like a great idea), why not stick to a balanced diet and physical activity, forever? Why should you go near starving, even if "only" for 2 days a week?
    Some people find intermittent calorie (or carb) reduction more sustainable than continuous reduction, and clinical trials suggest that it is at least as effective. So why not. Maybe these people can control their eating and don't feel that they're starving on their reduced days.
  • wfte
    wfte Posts: 195 Member
    Options
    As I stated above, 12lbs of fat loss with 1lbs gain of LBM. I put the 1lbs gain in the percent error, so I just say "I maintained LBM"
    It's not "how many calories you eat" it's how efficiently you utilize them. Dr.Barry Sears PhD(biochemistry) has produced over 25 olympic gold medal winners. He states, "none of the athletes I trained ever consumed more than 2,500 calories a day." If you have to stuff you face with calories for energy and performance, that just shows how inefficient you're utilizing the fuel.

    Tell that to Michael Phelps, his 10,000+ calorie a day diet and his 18 Gold Olympic medals!


    Consuming a crap load of calories with an inefficient metabolism.

    Well I'd take 18 Olympic Gold medals and a crap metabolism over a better one any day!
  • Cese27
    Cese27 Posts: 626 Member
    Options
    I'm no expert on any of this,I'm guessing neither is anybody else,do whatever suits and can't we all just get along !
  • Yogi_Carl
    Yogi_Carl Posts: 1,906 Member
    Options
    I'm with Cese27 on this one.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    The issue with this approach, at no point, are you adequately fueling your body.
    Not sure what that even means (don't forget the Gigacalories in fat reserves) but anyway, a review paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865 concluded that "Results reveal similar weight loss and fat mass loss with 3 to 12 weeks' intermittent CR (4-8%, 11-16%, respectively) and daily CR (5-8%, 10-20%, respectively). In contrast, less fat free mass was lost in response to intermittent CR versus daily CR. These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass."

    Full paper at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

    Some cancer researchers are keen on intermittent energy reduction, posibly leading to 2 days a week of reduction and 5 days above maintenance in order to net out at maintenance for the week while gaining benefits from reductions on the two days. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017674/ is by one such worker, though in this case she was looking at weight loss too.
  • dalgirly
    dalgirly Posts: 280 Member
    Options
    I don't really like this idea. Only because of how it affects your body long term.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not shocked you'd lose weight on it. But why not lose weight the good old fashioned way? Things have become so over complicated and everyone wants to quick fix. And really, we don't have a clue on what it does to our bodies long term. But we have been finding things out about certain diets and how they can cause heart disease, kidney issues and all that jazz.

    I just don't get why people want to quick fix all the time. Because of all these quick fixes, we are starting to see issues down the road and changes in things like your heart.

    If people just ate in moderation, exercised and bought fresh and healthy foods they would lose weight. It really is that simple. And yeah, you may not lose weight instantly or as quickly as other diets, but you stick with it, and you will lose weight.

    Sorry for rant, but we seem to just over complicate everything we do in our lives (I'm guilty of it too), when why can't we just simplify things?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,397 MFP Moderator
    Options
    I don't really like this idea. Only because of how it affects your body long term.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not shocked you'd lose weight on it. But why not lose weight the good old fashioned way? Things have become so over complicated and everyone wants to quick fix. And really, we don't have a clue on what it does to our bodies long term. But we have been finding things out about certain diets and how they can cause heart disease, kidney issues and all that jazz.

    I just don't get why people want to quick fix all the time. Because of all these quick fixes, we are starting to see issues down the road and changes in things like your heart.

    If people just ate in moderation, exercised and bought fresh and healthy foods they would lose weight. It really is that simple. And yeah, you may not lose weight instantly or as quickly as other diets, but you stick with it, and you will lose weight.

    Sorry for rant, but we seem to just over complicate everything we do in our lives (I'm guilty of it too), when why can't we just simplify things?

    In most case, if you look at IF vs basic CR, the calorie deficit over a week can be equal or close. So it's not a fad diet nor is it a quick fix.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,397 MFP Moderator
    Options
    The issue with this approach, at no point, are you adequately fueling your body.
    Not sure what that even means (don't forget the Gigacalories in fat reserves) but anyway, a review paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865 concluded that "Results reveal similar weight loss and fat mass loss with 3 to 12 weeks' intermittent CR (4-8%, 11-16%, respectively) and daily CR (5-8%, 10-20%, respectively). In contrast, less fat free mass was lost in response to intermittent CR versus daily CR. These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass."

    Full paper at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

    Some cancer researchers are keen on intermittent energy reduction, posibly leading to 2 days a week of reduction and 5 days above maintenance in order to net out at maintenance for the week while gaining benefits from reductions on the two days. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017674/ is by one such worker, though in this case she was looking at weight loss too.
    Awesome post!
  • crimson_seven
    crimson_seven Posts: 42
    Options
    As I stated above, 12lbs of fat loss with 1lbs gain of LBM. I put the 1lbs gain in the percent error, so I just say "I maintained LBM"
    It's not "how many calories you eat" it's how efficiently you utilize them. Dr.Barry Sears PhD(biochemistry) has produced over 25 olympic gold medal winners. He states, "none of the athletes I trained ever consumed more than 2,500 calories a day." If you have to stuff you face with calories for energy and performance, that just shows how inefficient you're utilizing the fuel.

    Tell that to Michael Phelps, his 10,000+ calorie a day diet and his 18 Gold Olympic medals!

    He doesn't do that anymore. He admitted that it was horribly unhealthy and he was just eating high-calorie low-nutrient foods. He even admitted in another interview that the 12,000 calorie diet was more of a publicity myth than reality.

    http://news.menshealth.com/michael-phelps-diet/2012/08/01/
  • Miiimii
    Miiimii Posts: 279 Member
    Options
    Define eating normally. If the rest of your week cancels out the deficit on the two 600 days, it will be pointless.

    normal eating is for me:

    Lunch: Salad
    Dinner: for example Veggies with rice or Veggies with potatos, etc.

    If that is eating normally for you, why would you need to lower your caloric intake at all? Sounds like if you are really eating only a salad for lunch and veggies with rice or potatoes, that would be very low calorie. So what are you eating for breakfast? POUNDS of greasy meat? Donuts filled with bacon grease? Just wondering. I'm all for anything that will help you lose weight, but at what cost? Is this really something you plan to do for the rest of your life?

    I'm a vegetarian and veggies and potataos is real food for me. Belive it or not. And Veggies with rice can mean anything from Palak Paneer to a nice vegetable curry. And salad doesn't mean just green leaves - today for example it was lettuce, pepper-couscous, tomatos, cucumber and lemon-joghurt.
  • KT022
    KT022 Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    I think it depends on you, your body type and your lifestyle - for example I know that my body cannot go without breakfast or I will gain weight, whereas my sister-in-law can happily go without breakfast; perhaps fasting suits some people better than others and who are we to judge? I couldn't force myself to eat ~600cals because of the amount of exercise I tend to do...

    Each to their own aye? :)

    And I agree, everyone needs to chill, if this person wants to do it, let them, it's their life and they're not pressuring it upon you :)
  • dansls1
    dansls1 Posts: 309 Member
    Options
    Personally I feel absolutely crappy if I fast for 12 hours for a blood test- and it lasts over a day. Being nauseous and having headaches for the next 24 hrs is my bodies way of telling me IF is not right for me. If it is for you, great.
  • Miiimii
    Miiimii Posts: 279 Member
    Options
    I didn't bring up this topic with the goal of a quick weight loss. I brought it up because of the other health benefits which are mentioned in the articles (the links I posted).

    I also got some private messages from people here, telling me, say do or did it and it worked well for them. They also wrote they didn't want to post in the forum because of all the useless discussions here (because people don't really read the post, they just give their opinion without any knowledge) - I can understand this a bit.

    Best
    Miiimii
  • CindyCountingCalories
    CindyCountingCalories Posts: 321 Member
    Options
    I've lost 15kg in half a year with MFP, gained again in winter but I'm almost there again...

    I've tried a lot of things, for example drinking slimming capsules while on MFP, I still loose the same amount as weight with or without slimming capsules...

    People who eat 600 cal will probably lose fast and gain fast again.

    I rather stick with MFP and gain 5kg each winter instead of gaining back 15kg in a short amount of time...

    Just my opinion...
  • Miiimii
    Miiimii Posts: 279 Member
    Options
    Personally I feel absolutely crappy if I fast for 12 hours for a blood test- and it lasts over a day. Being nauseous and having headaches for the next 24 hrs is my bodies way of telling me IF is not right for me. If it is for you, great.

    That's probably not because you are hungry, but it may be a side effect of fasting. Your body starts to clean up and "burns" all the ****y stuff you saved in your cells. This process my cause some not so nice side effects (like headaches, etc.), but it's at all a good sign (normally).

    But probably you are right and it's not the way for you. everybody is differen, also I think it's not normal to have such heavy problems after only one day of "fasting". But I'm not an expert.

Categories