Starvation mode is a myth
Options
Replies
-
Here is some real information on low calories diets. They used them all the time in the medical field. Pre- surgery for people. They are called very low calorie diets or VLCD. There really are a lot of medical studies on this very subject. I listed two of them below.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613403
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9226488
During the first two-month period, the mean body weight loss in the VLCD group was 18.9 +/- 7.1 kg compared to 7.2 +/- 4.8 kg in the diet treated group, with a similar relative fat loss assessed by bioimpedance of 68% and 76% respectively. The maintained weight loss in all groups after 28 months of treatment was 10.9 +/- 10.2 kg in the 52% who completed the programme. Weight losses and drop-out rates were similar in all three groups.0 -
On all these studies I would ask what are the Body Fat percentages at the beginning vs the end of the study and the ages and how much physical activity the test subjects were. You give none of that information.
The commentary in the text provided shows for two of the studies either obese patients or patients who had experienced significant weight loss...
I have looked at the original studies some time ago now. Off the top of my head I am pretty sure they weren't conducted on participants with low BF% (say sub 10%) or particularly high levels of exercise. At least one of them is a meta analysis as I recall.0 -
Yes people should really stop expressing concern for others and let them continue with self-destructive behaviours that will lead to permenant, irreversible damage further down the road.How about this for an idea......why can't everyone just do what works best for them. If I can sustain on 1000 calories a day and feel fine, no problems, doctor actually says my health is better right now than she has ever seen it, then I will do that. If you feel that 1000 calories isn't sustainable for you, then you eat more and feel better. Everyone is a winner. I wont' judge you for eating more and you don't judge me for eating less.
Damn people and all their caring and facts.
I seriously doubt you care about me and I seriously doubt I care about you. Might sound rude, but it is true. If you haven't realized it yet, "facts" are nonsense unless they prove to be true for you. Are you personally suffering from starvation mode? From what I can tell, you aren't and I'm not either. But not that I care about you.0 -
I've seen countless threads on various sites of folks that say they are at ≈1000 cals and not losing weight. They increase their calories and finally the weight starts coming off.
I've also seen countless threads where people talk about sustainability of the super low cal diet. I've yet to see anyone remark that they are on a super low cal diet and have been on that diet for, oh lets say, forever. It is VERY common to hear tales of great weight loss, but once complete they go right back to where they were (pretty sure there is a post above this one stating this)
anecdotal? Yes, for sure. But after a while, when you see the same thing over and over again, you start to accept the reports as reliable evidence.
So, the real question is this (in my opinion) - why subject yourself to a super low calorie diet when there are thousands of people that are losing weight and never hungry? (I am perfect proof of eating well, never being hungry, and losing 14lbs so far in the past seven weeks).
So, why? Why do it if there is so much anecdotal evidence showing it isn't necessary? Why starve (as in be hungry all the time) when there are so many people that have proven that you don't need to do that to lose weight?
How many of us got fat over night? None of us. Most of us did it over time through years or decades of poor food choices and laziness. Why are there so many people that think the losing process needs to be so quick? To the point where they think 500 calories a day and being hungry constantly is such a good idea?Seems to be everyone would be a lot better off getting focused on the long game and learning how to eat all the things they like and still be healthy and fit. Going to extremes just doesn't seem to be effective, at least not most of the time.
^^THIS!!!0 -
As a recovering anorexic with years of experience eating 0-400 cals a day, I can confirm that starvation mode is ABSOLUTELY a my thy. You don't stop losing weight when you eat so little
This is true but this...So yeah, there's no such thing as "starvation mode"--your metabolism will keep on trucking just fine even if you quit eating entirely.
Is nonsense. Your metabolic rate will not keep on trucking "just fine" in the face of prolonged or overly steep calorie deprivation. That's rather the point. It doesn't stop fat loss but makes the process more inefficient and harder then it has to be.0 -
Starvation mode is a myth, but adaptive thermogenesis is not.
The larger point to be made is why would anyone want to sacrifice their muscles, organs, and bone density just to bring their total body weight down as quickly as possible? Burn fat, maintain LBM, be healthy.0 -
On all these studies I would ask what are the Body Fat percentages at the beginning vs the end of the study and the ages and how much physical activity the test subjects were. You give none of that information.
The commentary in the text provided shows for two of the studies either obese patients or patients who had experienced significant weight loss...
I have looked at the original studies some time ago now. Off the top of my head I am pretty sure they weren't conducted on participants with low BF% (say sub 10%) or particularly high levels of exercise. At least one of them is a meta analysis as I recall.
Who in their right mind would eat 500 or less calories a day at 10% BF? Unless you were on a cycle or doing the muscle sparing modified fast of some sort. Your body would eat the protein first then a little fat (muscle first fat second). I know with all the work I put into building that muscle I wouldn't take the chance of doing that myself.0 -
If you chose to lose '2 lbs/week' on MFP, It gives EVERYONE 1200 calories (almost). For 90% of people this is NOT enough but for some people IT IS.
When you go for long periods not eating enough then your body eventually 'adjusts' and compensates for the lack of energy it is being fed by instigating a metabolic slow down. The slower your metabolism is the longer it takes to lose weight. The more time you hit plateaus the more you try to exercise then eat even less. If you are not feeling hungry eating less than your BMR it is because your body has slowed your metabolism and NOT because you are actually eating enough.
Your BMR is the very FEWEST calories you should ever eat if you were laying in bed all day doing absolutely nothing. SOME people have VERY LOW BMR's but most people do NOT. Most people who have been successful in losing weight here and most importantly KEEPING IT OFF will tell you that eating at a small cut (10 - 20% depending on how much you have to lose) below your TDEE is what will work and not just eating 1200 or whatever MFP tells you.
If you eat less than your BMR for prolonged periods your metabolism WILL eventually slow down and weight loss also slows down..Then the threads start... Why can't I lose weight..what's wrong..look at the top 10 threads right now.. almost every one of them is someone who is NOT eating enough and crying because they have stalled...0 -
I actually do. Not in a very personal sense, but I try to ensure people see the flip side of what they're doing so they don't harm themselves. I hate to be a bystander and not at least try to make people aware of the risks of what they're doing. It's the same for a lot of the people that post regularly here that are anti-low low calories.
Yes people should really stop expressing concern for others and let them continue with self-destructive behaviours that will lead to permenant, irreversible damage further down the road.How about this for an idea......why can't everyone just do what works best for them. If I can sustain on 1000 calories a day and feel fine, no problems, doctor actually says my health is better right now than she has ever seen it, then I will do that. If you feel that 1000 calories isn't sustainable for you, then you eat more and feel better. Everyone is a winner. I wont' judge you for eating more and you don't judge me for eating less.
Damn people and all their caring and facts.
I seriously doubt you care about me and I seriously doubt I care about you. Might sound rude, but it is true. If you haven't realized it yet, "facts" are nonsense unless they prove to be true for you. Are you personally suffering from starvation mode? From what I can tell, you aren't and I'm not either. But not that I care about you.
To clarify, 'starvation mode' is a term applied to many different things here and in of itself, is meaningless. Your metabolism slows down more the less you eat, and so does your weightloss as a result - up to the point where you're eating below what your body needs for basic functions and begins to take energy from muscle and organ tissue to compensate. Only so much fat can be metabolised. This can lead to long term degenerative diseases like osteoperosis. Something a lot of the eldery deal with now, having dealt with long periods of low food availability.
The facts are not nonsense at all, just because you don't THINK they apply to you. Unless you come from Planet Zarg, you're a human with a human body just like anyone else. While the specific numbers may vary from person to person, the maths, the science is consistent for us all. Some people have disorders that alter metabolic function. That just changes the numbers.0 -
You are dead on here. In order for ME to get PERMANENT weight loss, it needs to be sustainable. Why go super low when I'm losing a healthy pound a week? I did find less than 1300 kind of slowed down my loss (not sure if it was "starvation" or not), and I did feel a lot hungrier, so I couldn't sustain it.
Go by what your body tells you, and what you can honestly LIVE with. If I can occasionally have a glass of wine and small amount of chocolate, I can do this FOREVER!! And that's what I want to do! Not a "diet" where I'll gain it all back like I've done SO many times.
Find your sweet spot of small indulgences and healthy weight loss rate, and you're golden. Sustainability is the key.0 -
Here is some real information on low calories diets. They used them all the time in the medical field. Pre- surgery for people. They are called very low calorie diets or VLCD. There really are a lot of medical studies on this very subject. I listed two of them below.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613403
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9226488
During the first two-month period, the mean body weight loss in the VLCD group was 18.9 +/- 7.1 kg compared to 7.2 +/- 4.8 kg in the diet treated group, with a similar relative fat loss assessed by bioimpedance of 68% and 76% respectively. The maintained weight loss in all groups after 28 months of treatment was 10.9 +/- 10.2 kg in the 52% who completed the programme. Weight losses and drop-out rates were similar in all three groups.
Both studies were on obese peeps - they have a significat amount of fat stores and will react much more favorably to a VLCD. Also, in the second study, and according to the extract you have quoted and unless I am reading this wrong, fat loss was higher in the non-VLCD. As total weight loss was was higher in the VLCD group, this indicated a much higher loss of LBM.0 -
Yes, you are correct these studies were on obese people I think greater then 30% BMI. I was looking for the study I read a while back about a VLCD using 100g of protein a day. So 400 out of 500 calories where from protein. Doing this reduced the muscle loss from the VLCD. With the same fat loss, but again most of these studies are done on obese people.0
-
Registered Texas Dietitian in quotes below on starvation mode. In case you don't know, a Registered Texas Dietitian carries a license that allows him to work and regulate what people eat inside of a prison, hospital, elementary school, retirement home, and other such settings.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"
Yes. I am a Masters level Registered, Licensed, Dietitian/Nutritionist and I concur. The idea that going below 1200 cals (or whatever someone suspects is their BMR) will cause them to go into "starvation mode" and stop losing and/or gain weight is not true. The reason super low calorie diets don't work for most people long term is that they cannot sustain the low intake and end up eating much more and essentially gaining back whatever they lost. Also, quick weight loss lends itself to loss of lean body mass along with fat, which in turn leads to a lower overall BMR. However the change in BMR is quite small as 1 lb. of muscle burns about 6 cals per day vs 2 for 1 lb. of fat. When the person inevitably returns to higher calorie eating, they tend to gain back fat and not the lost lean body mass (ie: muscle). However, taking in fewer calories significantly from what you burn over a period of time is what leads to desired weight loss.
I'm a family physician and I also agree.
I have been eating around 1200 calories a day or just under (roughly) since Jun 2012 when I was diagnosed with diabetes and have lost 25kg (55lbs) so far. No slowing down, no plateaus, no starvation mode. I havent even added much exercise yet - I have lupus and my endocrinologist was keen for me to get some weight off before hammering my joints with running or gym work. I am finding it remarkably easy because I have removed starchy high processed carbohydrates from my diet. If you are eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, whole grains, dairy, good fats and lean protein you can actually fit a LOT of food and snacks into 1200 calories. Now I am no expert and I bow to the dietitians on the boards here as far as their specialist knowledge, but I agree- if you eat well you can get enough nutrition in your diet. If you eat crap and processed food you can't.
So I agree - if you are actually STARVING your weight loss will slow as your body adapts, but for most of us here that isnt the case and 1200 is not a magic number at which you starve. BUT if you try and eat under 1200 or 1000 calories a day and you dont know what you are doing, you run the risk of nutritional defiiciency or just getting frustrated and pigging out. I am doing this for the rest of my life and have not cheated - so am seeing slow progressive steady weight loss. This is a lifestyle not a diet and if 1000-1200 works for me I (and my endocrinologist) are more than happy for me to be there.
You might want to make sure that you are eating full fat dairy. A new study out of Harvard Med, looks at the effect of trans-palmitoleic acid (contained in full-fat dairy but not in no-fat dairy). Here's the link if you want to read about it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
I never understood why the emphasis on very low fat diets for diabetics when they allow simple carbs and sugar. It is moderate fat in the diet that evens out blood sugar swings.
Absolutely agree. I am not a lover of milk, never have been, so tend to have skim - but only in coffee maybe once a day. My main dairy is yoghurt which I love and cottage cheese which I have full fat for exactly the reasons you mention. And I don't have simple carbs and sugar in my diet if I can help it. I think the ADA (US and Australian) are a bit behind the times as far as evidence for diabteic diets are concerned .. the latest evidence from the Lancet and a lot of the work of Sydney University supports the avoidance of processed sugars and starchy carbs and lots of good fats (full fat dairy, oily fish, nuts, avocadoes etc) along with lean protein, some fruit and lots of veg along with smaller portion sizes and some caloric restriction. I also avoid additives and artifical sweeteners where possible. I have been following this approach with the support of my endocrinologist and have noticed enormous improvements in blood sugar and significant weight loss. So while I am not everybody, it is certainly working well for me
THAT IS GREAT! I assume you are getting the word out to your pre-diabetic and diabetic patients? I'm sure you know about all the pre-diabetic and diabetic patients that are being put on "no-fat" diets. After he was diagnosed with Type II, my brother was placed on a no-fat diet and, while he lost weight, his blood sugar numbers continued to climb to the point where he was placed on insulin injections. Of course, it didn't help that he would sit down to a "snack" of a whole package of Snackwell cookies (fat-free) and two glasses of skim milk. :noway: 0 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
Please go and read this - and then search the seven million times this topic has been beaten to death on the site......:sick: :noway:
Every one on here has been here different amounts of time. By acting like this post is an inconvenience is rude. The link alone would have been handy but the "then Search the seven million times this topic has been beaten to death on this site" is uncalled for. The OP could very well be in their firt days on MFP and is entitled to start a new thread regarding their question. Maybe presentation should be something YOU work on. Suggesting the OP to search other threads that may be helpful would have been nice. Your approach was rude and discouraging. If you feel the topic is something that has been beaten to death on here, then SKIP IT and don't post. This is supposed to help not belittle people into feeling they asked something "stupid".0 -
It is not life sustainable to eat under 1200 calories. I saw a couple of posts people made and said they were on a DIET which is terrible in the first place, eating less than 1200 calories. It is crazy!! Your body is most definitely going to store fat because it needs to save energy! Think about it, it only makes sense. Make your "diet" a healthy lifestyle change, by eating clean and healthy foods and controlling your portions. When it comes to calories, I suggest that you do not eat under 1200 calories because after (or even if, since your body will store some fat) you lose that weight from starving yourself, your going to eat more, gaining it back. Do it the healthy way.
-I am a personal trainer and went to school for this, I know that there are lots of debates and everyone has their own theories but i definitely stand by this. Plus i lovee talking about fitness and nutrition 0 -
There is one famous Russian ballerina, a legend of Russian ballet - Maya Plisetskaya. When she was asked how to lose weight, she answered "Simply shut your mouth". She and other Russian ballet professionals "simply keep their mouth shut" while extreme physical activities. They have maybe 1200 cal, but I'm pretty sure they have less. And when they need to lose weight, they eat much less.
According to the "starvation mode" ideas, they'd be fatties.0 -
Pretty sure its a real thing considering how many experts, doctors, etcetera have been involved in the study of this. Thats my only piece of advice. Just shut up and do what you want.0
-
Registered Texas Dietitian in quotes below on starvation mode. In case you don't know, a Registered Texas Dietitian carries a license that allows him to work and regulate what people eat inside of a prison, hospital, elementary school, retirement home, and other such settings.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"
Yes. I am a Masters level Registered, Licensed, Dietitian/Nutritionist and I concur. The idea that going below 1200 cals (or whatever someone suspects is their BMR) will cause them to go into "starvation mode" and stop losing and/or gain weight is not true. The reason super low calorie diets don't work for most people long term is that they cannot sustain the low intake and end up eating much more and essentially gaining back whatever they lost. Also, quick weight loss lends itself to loss of lean body mass along with fat, which in turn leads to a lower overall BMR. However the change in BMR is quite small as 1 lb. of muscle burns about 6 cals per day vs 2 for 1 lb. of fat. When the person inevitably returns to higher calorie eating, they tend to gain back fat and not the lost lean body mass (ie: muscle). However, taking in fewer calories significantly from what you burn over a period of time is what leads to desired weight loss.
I'm a family physician and I also agree.
I have been eating around 1200 calories a day or just under (roughly) since Jun 2012 when I was diagnosed with diabetes and have lost 25kg (55lbs) so far. No slowing down, no plateaus, no starvation mode. I havent even added much exercise yet - I have lupus and my endocrinologist was keen for me to get some weight off before hammering my joints with running or gym work. I am finding it remarkably easy because I have removed starchy high processed carbohydrates from my diet. If you are eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, whole grains, dairy, good fats and lean protein you can actually fit a LOT of food and snacks into 1200 calories. Now I am no expert and I bow to the dietitians on the boards here as far as their specialist knowledge, but I agree- if you eat well you can get enough nutrition in your diet. If you eat crap and processed food you can't.
So I agree - if you are actually STARVING your weight loss will slow as your body adapts, but for most of us here that isnt the case and 1200 is not a magic number at which you starve. BUT if you try and eat under 1200 or 1000 calories a day and you dont know what you are doing, you run the risk of nutritional defiiciency or just getting frustrated and pigging out. I am doing this for the rest of my life and have not cheated - so am seeing slow progressive steady weight loss. This is a lifestyle not a diet and if 1000-1200 works for me I (and my endocrinologist) are more than happy for me to be there.
You might want to make sure that you are eating full fat dairy. A new study out of Harvard Med, looks at the effect of trans-palmitoleic acid (contained in full-fat dairy but not in no-fat dairy). Here's the link if you want to read about it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
I never understood why the emphasis on very low fat diets for diabetics when they allow simple carbs and sugar. It is moderate fat in the diet that evens out blood sugar swings.
Absolutely agree. I am not a lover of milk, never have been, so tend to have skim - but only in coffee maybe once a day. My main dairy is yoghurt which I love and cottage cheese which I have full fat for exactly the reasons you mention. And I don't have simple carbs and sugar in my diet if I can help it. I think the ADA (US and Australian) are a bit behind the times as far as evidence for diabteic diets are concerned .. the latest evidence from the Lancet and a lot of the work of Sydney University supports the avoidance of processed sugars and starchy carbs and lots of good fats (full fat dairy, oily fish, nuts, avocadoes etc) along with lean protein, some fruit and lots of veg along with smaller portion sizes and some caloric restriction. I also avoid additives and artifical sweeteners where possible. I have been following this approach with the support of my endocrinologist and have noticed enormous improvements in blood sugar and significant weight loss. So while I am not everybody, it is certainly working well for me
THAT IS GREAT! I assume you are getting the word out to your pre-diabetic and diabetic patients? I'm sure you know about all the pre-diabetic and diabetic patients that are being put on "no-fat" diets. After he was diagnosed with Type II, my brother was placed on a no-fat diet and, while he lost weight, his blood sugar numbers continued to climb to the point where he was placed on insulin injections. Of course, it didn't help that he would sit down to a "snack" of a whole package of Snackwell cookies (fat-free) and two glasses of skim milk. :noway:
I don't know where you live or where your brother recieved medical treatment and education regarding managing his diabetes, but no Registered Dietitian (or any other decent healthcare professional working with diabetics) would recommend a "No-Fat" diet. The current standards for medical nutrition therapy with diabetes is between 25-35% of calories coming from fat (in some cases up to 40%) with a focus on increasing monounsaturated and omega-3 and decreasing Trans fats. Might want to consider who told him that and question their ability to manage his health with regard to the diabetes.0 -
Someone actually said this: "I agree. It is possible to take in a full days food 3 meals and 2 snacks and be under 1200 and have gotten all your nutrients... People do it all the time. If you plateau then switch it up a little. "
I say- Sure, if you're taking vitamins and supplements.0 -
Registered Texas Dietitian in quotes below on starvation mode. In case you don't know, a Registered Texas Dietitian carries a license that allows him to work and regulate what people eat inside of a prison, hospital, elementary school, retirement home, and other such settings.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"
Yes. I am a Masters level Registered, Licensed, Dietitian/Nutritionist and I concur. The idea that going below 1200 cals (or whatever someone suspects is their BMR) will cause them to go into "starvation mode" and stop losing and/or gain weight is not true. The reason super low calorie diets don't work for most people long term is that they cannot sustain the low intake and end up eating much more and essentially gaining back whatever they lost. Also, quick weight loss lends itself to loss of lean body mass along with fat, which in turn leads to a lower overall BMR. However the change in BMR is quite small as 1 lb. of muscle burns about 6 cals per day vs 2 for 1 lb. of fat. When the person inevitably returns to higher calorie eating, they tend to gain back fat and not the lost lean body mass (ie: muscle). However, taking in fewer calories significantly from what you burn over a period of time is what leads to desired weight loss.
I'm a family physician and I also agree.
I have been eating around 1200 calories a day or just under (roughly) since Jun 2012 when I was diagnosed with diabetes and have lost 25kg (55lbs) so far. No slowing down, no plateaus, no starvation mode. I havent even added much exercise yet - I have lupus and my endocrinologist was keen for me to get some weight off before hammering my joints with running or gym work. I am finding it remarkably easy because I have removed starchy high processed carbohydrates from my diet. If you are eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, whole grains, dairy, good fats and lean protein you can actually fit a LOT of food and snacks into 1200 calories. Now I am no expert and I bow to the dietitians on the boards here as far as their specialist knowledge, but I agree- if you eat well you can get enough nutrition in your diet. If you eat crap and processed food you can't.
So I agree - if you are actually STARVING your weight loss will slow as your body adapts, but for most of us here that isnt the case and 1200 is not a magic number at which you starve. BUT if you try and eat under 1200 or 1000 calories a day and you dont know what you are doing, you run the risk of nutritional defiiciency or just getting frustrated and pigging out. I am doing this for the rest of my life and have not cheated - so am seeing slow progressive steady weight loss. This is a lifestyle not a diet and if 1000-1200 works for me I (and my endocrinologist) are more than happy for me to be there.
You might want to make sure that you are eating full fat dairy. A new study out of Harvard Med, looks at the effect of trans-palmitoleic acid (contained in full-fat dairy but not in no-fat dairy). Here's the link if you want to read about it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
I never understood why the emphasis on very low fat diets for diabetics when they allow simple carbs and sugar. It is moderate fat in the diet that evens out blood sugar swings.
Absolutely agree. I am not a lover of milk, never have been, so tend to have skim - but only in coffee maybe once a day. My main dairy is yoghurt which I love and cottage cheese which I have full fat for exactly the reasons you mention. And I don't have simple carbs and sugar in my diet if I can help it. I think the ADA (US and Australian) are a bit behind the times as far as evidence for diabteic diets are concerned .. the latest evidence from the Lancet and a lot of the work of Sydney University supports the avoidance of processed sugars and starchy carbs and lots of good fats (full fat dairy, oily fish, nuts, avocadoes etc) along with lean protein, some fruit and lots of veg along with smaller portion sizes and some caloric restriction. I also avoid additives and artifical sweeteners where possible. I have been following this approach with the support of my endocrinologist and have noticed enormous improvements in blood sugar and significant weight loss. So while I am not everybody, it is certainly working well for me
THAT IS GREAT! I assume you are getting the word out to your pre-diabetic and diabetic patients? I'm sure you know about all the pre-diabetic and diabetic patients that are being put on "no-fat" diets. After he was diagnosed with Type II, my brother was placed on a no-fat diet and, while he lost weight, his blood sugar numbers continued to climb to the point where he was placed on insulin injections. Of course, it didn't help that he would sit down to a "snack" of a whole package of Snackwell cookies (fat-free) and two glasses of skim milk. :noway:
I don't know where you live or where your brother recieved medical treatment and education regarding managing his diabetes, but no Registered Dietitian (or any other decent healthcare professional working with diabetics) would recommend a "No-Fat" diet. The current standards for medical nutrition therapy with diabetes is between 25-35% of calories coming from fat (in some cases up to 40%) with a focus on increasing monounsaturated and omega-3 and decreasing Trans fats. Might want to consider who told him that and question their ability to manage his health with regard to the diabetes.
He was diagnosed about 15 years ago (and was put on a very low-fat diet---he bought as many "fat-free" foods as he could. He still does and he eats Honey Nut Cheerios (or some other low-fiber/high carb cereal) with skim milk every morning for breakfast along with two pieces of white bread toast and "fat-free" margarine. Similar choices for the rest of the day. He usually finishes the day with "fat-free" ice cream. This is the diet his G.P. put him on---and still recommends apparently. I have tried to convince him that he should follow a different diet but no sale. I think this dietary misadventure is fairly common. I was just speaking with a woman last week whose diabetic husband was placed on a similar diet. She said that he has lost a fair amount of weight---that's all his doctor has focused on. Apparently, their thinking is that obesity causes Type II diabetes and if you get rid of the obesity you will presumably get rid of the diabetes. The newer thinking of blood sugar problems causing both obesity and diabetes has not reached them as of yet.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions