Very low calorie diets and metabolic damage
Replies
-
I have to object to the 'only' part in the following:
But even with the test subjects in this experiment being lean to start, after the 6 month period, they only experienced a slowdown in RMR of 15% or so.
%15 less calories every day takes my maintenance calories down from around 1500 to less than 1300. Meaning that if my metabolism has or does slow down that much (and it may well be doing so) instead of losing weight on the recommended minimum calorie intake of 1200, I would pretty much be maintaining.
That is a big deal and a big difference. Because I have yo-yo dieted off and on since I was a teenager, I don't ever expect to be able to consume as much food as a woman my age, height, and weight who has never dieted.0 -
I have to object to the 'only' part in the following:
But even with the test subjects in this experiment being lean to start, after the 6 month period, they only experienced a slowdown in RMR of 15% or so.
%15 less calories every day takes my maintenance calories down from around 1500 to less than 1300. Meaning that if my metabolism has or does slow down that much (and it may well be doing so) instead of losing weight on the recommended minimum calorie intake of 1200, I would pretty much be maintaining.
That is a big deal and a big difference. Because I have yo-yo dieted off and on since I was a teenager, I don't ever expect to be able to consume as much food as a woman my age, height, and weight who has never dieted.
The context here is the norm of most people assuming metabolism gets slashed in half or nearly shuts completely off. In that context, 'only' suffices. That's not meant to downplay the relevance and meaningfulness on an individual level. But metabolic slowdown is a part of many peoples' weight loss experience... big or small deficits.0 -
I have to object to the 'only' part in the following:
But even with the test subjects in this experiment being lean to start, after the 6 month period, they only experienced a slowdown in RMR of 15% or so.
%15 less calories every day takes my maintenance calories down from around 1500 to less than 1300. Meaning that if my metabolism has or does slow down that much (and it may well be doing so) instead of losing weight on the recommended minimum calorie intake of 1200, I would pretty much be maintaining.
That is a big deal and a big difference. Because I have yo-yo dieted off and on since I was a teenager, I don't ever expect to be able to consume as much food as a woman my age, height, and weight who has never dieted.
The context here is the norm of most people assuming metabolism gets slashed in half or nearly shuts completely off. In that context, 'only' suffices. That's not meant to downplay the relevance and meaningfulness on an individual level. But metabolic slowdown is a part of many peoples' weight loss experience... big or small deficits.
I understand, but many people on this site are also chronic yo-yo dieters, and it's good to be aware that a little bit of slowdown can really matter. Also, there needs to be more research with people who have dieted often in the past and who are overweight and trying to lose or are trying to maintain. It may well be that we are worse off metabolically than a fit, thin person after a six month deficit.0 -
really interesting, thank you0
-
I have to object to the 'only' part in the following:
But even with the test subjects in this experiment being lean to start, after the 6 month period, they only experienced a slowdown in RMR of 15% or so.
%15 less calories every day takes my maintenance calories down from around 1500 to less than 1300. Meaning that if my metabolism has or does slow down that much (and it may well be doing so) instead of losing weight on the recommended minimum calorie intake of 1200, I would pretty much be maintaining.
That is a big deal and a big difference. Because I have yo-yo dieted off and on since I was a teenager, I don't ever expect to be able to consume as much food as a woman my age, height, and weight who has never dieted.
The context here is the norm of most people assuming metabolism gets slashed in half or nearly shuts completely off. In that context, 'only' suffices. That's not meant to downplay the relevance and meaningfulness on an individual level. But metabolic slowdown is a part of many peoples' weight loss experience... big or small deficits.
I understand, but many people on this site are also chronic yo-yo dieters, and it's good to be aware that a little bit of slowdown can really matter. Also, there needs to be more research with people who have dieted often in the past and who are overweight and trying to lose or are trying to maintain. It may well be that we are worse off metabolically than a fit, thin person after a six month deficit.
I can't say that I disagree at all. I wrote this in my Nutrition 101 Manual:
"Let’s apply some numbers to this. Granted, we’re going to be making some massive assumptions here but it should help you understand things better.
We have a 160 lb woman named Jane. She’s moderately active and has a maintenance intake of 2,200 calories. She diets down to 125 lbs. Jane has a good friend, Lisa, who’s also 125 lb. Lisa has weighed 125 lbs her entire adult life. Surprisingly they both have identical body composition measurements.
Lisa recently had her BMR tested and it came in at 1,250 calories, which is normal. Once Lisa factors in activity, she determines that her maintenance intake is 1,750 calories per day.
When Jane hears this, she decides that 1,750 calories should be her maintenance as well since they’re built so similar and they work and exercise together. Frustratingly she finds that she gains weight at this intake.
Why?
Well, for starters and as noted in the metabolic rate section, there is some variances in metabolism across populations that are matched for weight… so she might have been dealt the slow genetic card. But let’s assume that’s not the case here. Remember, Jane lost 35 lbs recently, so there’s likely some starvation response at play. Assuming it’s as bad as the worst noted in research (which is highly unlikely), her BMR is running 15% slower than Lisa’s which puts it at 1,062 and her maintenance at 1,562.
Her previously assumed maintenance of 1,750 calories was actually a ~ 190 cal/ day surplus. In Jane’s case, she’d have to adjust her calories slightly lower or bump her expenditure slightly higher than Lisa if she was going to maintain her weight."0 -
I have to object to the 'only' part in the following:
But even with the test subjects in this experiment being lean to start, after the 6 month period, they only experienced a slowdown in RMR of 15% or so.
%15 less calories every day takes my maintenance calories down from around 1500 to less than 1300. Meaning that if my metabolism has or does slow down that much (and it may well be doing so) instead of losing weight on the recommended minimum calorie intake of 1200, I would pretty much be maintaining.
That is a big deal and a big difference. Because I have yo-yo dieted off and on since I was a teenager, I don't ever expect to be able to consume as much food as a woman my age, height, and weight who has never dieted.
The context here is the norm of most people assuming metabolism gets slashed in half or nearly shuts completely off. In that context, 'only' suffices. That's not meant to downplay the relevance and meaningfulness on an individual level. But metabolic slowdown is a part of many peoples' weight loss experience... big or small deficits.
I understand, but many people on this site are also chronic yo-yo dieters, and it's good to be aware that a little bit of slowdown can really matter. Also, there needs to be more research with people who have dieted often in the past and who are overweight and trying to lose or are trying to maintain. It may well be that we are worse off metabolically than a fit, thin person after a six month deficit.
I can't say that I disagree at all. I wrote this in my Nutrition 101 Manual:
"Let’s apply some numbers to this. Granted, we’re going to be making some massive assumptions here but it should help you understand things better.
We have a 160 lb woman named Jane. She’s moderately active and has a maintenance intake of 2,200 calories. She diets down to 125 lbs. Jane has a good friend, Lisa, who’s also 125 lb. Lisa has weighed 125 lbs her entire adult life. Surprisingly they both have identical body composition measurements.
Lisa recently had her BMR tested and it came in at 1,250 calories, which is normal. Once Lisa factors in activity, she determines that her maintenance intake is 1,750 calories per day.
When Jane hears this, she decides that 1,750 calories should be her maintenance as well since they’re built so similar and they work and exercise together. Frustratingly she finds that she gains weight at this intake.
Why?
Well, for starters and as noted in the metabolic rate section, there is some variances in metabolism across populations that are matched for weight… so she might have been dealt the slow genetic card. But let’s assume that’s not the case here. Remember, Jane lost 35 lbs recently, so there’s likely some starvation response at play. Assuming it’s as bad as the worst noted in research (which is highly unlikely), her BMR is running 15% slower than Lisa’s which puts it at 1,062 and her maintenance at 1,562.
Her previously assumed maintenance of 1,750 calories was actually a ~ 190 cal/ day surplus. In Jane’s case, she’d have to adjust her calories slightly lower or bump her expenditure slightly higher than Lisa if she was going to maintain her weight."
Definitely supports an argument for supervised VLCD for some people, unfortunately.
But also an argument against inflicting it on oneself without a doctor's supervision and as a means to lose 'quickly' when an otherwise healthy person (such as I was in my teens and twenties) could have just lost more slowly (though I believe even slow loss has been shown to affect metabolism, sadly).
It really should be a last resort and very carefully monitored. People with eating disorders actually have the highest mortality rate of all mentally ill people, in part because of what they do to their bodies. Which is why VLCD threads tend to get shut down so often.
Source:
http://www.umm.edu/patiented/articles/how_serious_anorexia_nervosa_000049_5.htm0 -
It's because yo-yo dieters do not provide their endocrine system sufficient time to fully recover between interventions - mainly in regards to RMR and leptin levels/resistance. As the OP mentioned, leptin is truly the driving force in energy expenditure and leptin resistance is not easy to fix for a chronic yo-yo dieter and often times comes with insulin resistance and other conditions. Someone with a diminished RMR and impaired leptin signaling will no doubt be at a disadvantage compared to another who has recovered optimal endocrine health in regards to both fat loss and body weight/composition maintenance.I understand, but many people on this site are also chronic yo-yo dieters, and it's good to be aware that a little bit of slowdown can really matter. Also, there needs to be more research with people who have dieted often in the past and who are overweight and trying to lose or are trying to maintain. It may well be that we are worse off metabolically than a fit, thin person after a six month deficit.0 -
What I am essentially saying - you over estimate the level of knowledge that most people understand about diet and nutrition. Speaking to people day to day shows me this and no doubt yourself. Most people will get it wrong.
Without a doubt. I've learned long ago that you can't help 'them all.' There's simply no chance of it. Too many people reasoning purely on emotion. Too many people out there simply looking for validation and justification for their screwed up perceptions and ideas.
I get it. I really do.
But I care about the people I can reach. The people who are interested in learning the facts. And in order to do that, while still helping the others, is to present the facts along with solid warnings... like I did here. If people choose to gloss over the warning... there's not much else I can do.
The alternative is to keep the facts to myself, when there was, at the time of writing this post, a ton of people who were very interested in learning the facts... and that doesn't seem fair either. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Responding to the general idea that this post somehow legalizes or validates VLCDs and hurts more than it helps... I believe that the (non-doctor oriented) Vlcdieters will do this any way. Also I believe that information, real information, is always a better tool than broscience. Granted maybe someone will decide a post with 5 or 6 versions of "Dont do this" in the text body" in some manner validates doing an unsupervised VLCD.. However a much larger percentage will understand that while it is an alternative (cutting parts of your belly fat off with a knife is also one) it might not necessarily be the optimal one. I am thankful for this information.
Information can never be contained just because someone might deliberately misinterpret it as they desire.
Also I'm not advocating you cut belly fat off with a knife...Hopefully all those planning on doing this will not use my comment as a validation to do it?0 -
bump. Great post!0
-
Learning something new everyday, Thanks!0
-
Bump0
-
Best post on this site!!!! Well said!0
-
Thank you! As a very obese woman who is on a supervised VLCD (700-800 cals) I have to say, It's nice to read a rational and researched post on the subject.0
-
MFP it´s not a diet, It´s about learning how to control your weight and improve your health. This post is very helpful, thank you !0
-
I am glad this thread got bumped to the present as well, since I wasn't here when it first appeared.
Thank you Steve, for a very informative post, written with an educated voice of reason and moderation. I do not read it as condoning VLCDs, rather than some medical facts as to the real consequences of VLCDs if they are done inappropriately, or used by people who should not be using them. I also like that you defined VLCD as under 800 calories, which is the true definition, rather than the common misconception that 1200 is the determining point.
Bottom line is that no matter how large or small your deficit is, your metabolism IS going to slow down some, but the only alternative to that is to stay overweight.
And people who have large amounts of extra fat weight can safely have larger deficits than those who are closer to goal weight.
People with EDs will eat the way they are determined to, no matter what they read on the threads, but I for one, am glad to have some real, factual information presented.0 -
bump0
-
good information..its nice to see something that counters some of the "you need to eat more" posts that are always thrown out....
will book mare this to refer back to ...0 -
This is by far one of the best posts I've read on this site. Everything in here is informative, bumping to find it later.0
-
Very sensible and informative.0
-
One of the best, if not the best, thread I have read on here. I need to stop listening to morons who parrot things they know nothing about.0
-
One of the best, if not the best, thread I have read on here. I need to stop listening to morons who parrot things they know nothing about.
So instead you parrot something you know nothing about and use it back your argument you understand nothing about?0 -
While I see what you are trying to do there is an abundance of disorder eaters on MFP that will only use your post as validation to keep "feeding" the disorder. I also believe people won't change unless they absolutely hit rock bottom which is sad because it doesn't always take hitting rock bottom to do permanent damage. I did 800 cals for a long time and now have permanent heart damage and hormone imbalances because of it. At the time though I would have used this post as validation. I think you have to remember your audience.0
-
While I see what you are trying to do there is an abundance of disorder eaters on MFP that will only use your post as validation to keep "feeding" the disorder. I also believe people won't change unless they absolutely hit rock bottom which is sad because it doesn't always take hitting rock bottom to do permanent damage. I did 800 cals for a long time and now have permanent heart damage and hormone imbalances because of it. At the time though I would have used this post as validation. I think you have to remember your audience.
I've said everything I have to say to remarks such as yours earlier on in this thread. Thanks for sharing your opinion.0 -
Bumping0
-
Thank you for your post. I am very interested in learning more. I have been at a plateau for a few months now. But I'm scared to go below the 1200 mark but maybe I should try. Any thoughts? Oh and I am not new to dieting...I've been at this for 27 years (I will be 28 in April LOL)...
This is almost impossible to answer. Let's start with this:
1. What's your weight?
2. What was your highest weight?
3. How many grams of protein, carbs, and fat do you consume on average, per day?
4. You say you consume 1200 calories per day. How accurate do you believe you are in that assessment? What makes you so sure of that accuracy?
5. How much exercise are you doing per week and what kinds?
6. When's the last time you took a break, meaning reduced or nixed exercise and brought calories up towards maintenance for a period of time?
Good questions. You might add:
What is your lowest weight?
Have you ever been diagnosed with an Eating Disorder?
What is your body fat percentage?
What method do you use to determine or estimate it?
How long have you been using this method?
Do you wear a heart rate monitor during cardio to check the intensity of your workout?
What are your weight loss, health, and fitness goals?0 -
Bump for reading later when I get home. Sounds like a very interesting discussion
0 -
Bump0
-
Bump0
-
Very interesting read and I actually did not know that about VLCD.
However, next time I do see another OP on these forums advocating eating under 800 cals a day (medically supervised or not) I will tell them that slow and steady is a much better option. Unless they plan on having doctors make their meals for the rest of their lives.
Still though very interesting post. Thanks for this.0 -
Bump0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions