Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

Other than the health implications of non Clinician monitored VLC diets as mentioned above. The majority of people that do them are likely to gain the weight plus more back. Also there is a thing why make yourself miserable while losing weight that's why most people fail. If you hate doing something you are not going to keep at it.

I'm not sure statistics would back up these statements. I don't know about VLCD in general, but the latest statistics I've seen is that those would lose weight via surgery tend to keep the weight off longer than those who lose by diet and exercise without surgery.

Anorexic...there are **** tons of these pro-anorexic threads on MFP...tons.

Well this isn't one of them. I am talking about obesity management.

Here is an interesting article that answers your question as to why eating a VLCD is a bad idea. You are not giving your body the fuel it needs to function properly.

Based on that, bariatric surgery is a bad idea. Yet some people benefit from bariatric surgery.

Different approaches to weight loss may work for different people. One obese person may need to see more rapid initial weight loss in order to get into stride and start feeling better about exercise, etc. For another person, slow and steady may be the best approach.

But there are no high quality scientific data to support this notion that slow weight loss is the best approach for everyone.

It's all about medical cost benefit and risks.

Bariatric surgery, like all surgery is a "bad" idea in that it will result in a number of deaths each year (1% to 3%...are the US numbers). However, sometimes it makes sense.

There is strong medical information and scientific evidence that certain risks are increased with rapid weight loss - these may be balanced out by other risks of living with obesity - so while slow weight loss isn't the best approach for everyone, it is the reference approach to discuss on a board without clinical support - if you want to try VLCDs, use medical supervision, and this is not the place to promote them.

Depends on what you understand under "massive". Two people of average height at the same (about average) weight (specifically 5'10'' and 165 is what I took) , one with 20% bf and one with 10% bf, the one with 10% bf will have a higher RMR by about 160 calories, which is 10% more.

I keep seeing that now they're saying it's more like 6 calorie per pound per day, so the extra 10% LBM there would be around 16*6=96 calories a day. Going from 20% BF to 10% is a huge change.

I didn't make the connection with the Lyle reference, I cant comment on his eating habits. Again, what I do know is eating less calories than your body needs to function is a bad idea.


Also I understand the point of that article has nothing to do with VLCD i was trying to be HELPFUL and demonstrate what calories your body needs to function.

Why are you trying to troll?

Why is my opinion a troll? We're all trying to be helpful. A discussion where only one viewpoint is presented isn't very helpful.

Eating less than your body needs is how weight loss occurs, so it's not a bad idea for overweight people.

I pretty sure I understand how weight loss occurs.

I locked by diary for this very reason. I am almost at my pre-c-section#3 body however, I am barely 5’1 and about 108lbs and 19% body fat. If I didn’t work out at my sitting job I only burn 1450-1550 calories a day meaning a 1200 calorie diet with a -250 to -350 deficit would take forever to get there. I usually take in around 1k calories a day (-500/-600 deficit) give or take as I fight off that last little bit of my stubborn lower belly to earn my 8pk back again. Every time I pump out a kid and have my diet open I get crap from everyone saying, I can’t possibly be healthy eating under 1200 calories. No one takes into account height, weight with current calorical burns in a day they just see someone eating under 1200 and go crazy on them. Kinda got tired of it and stopped coming to these forums because I was tired of arguing with stupid.

Here is an interesting article that answers your question as to why eating a VLCD is a bad idea. You are not giving your body the fuel it needs to function properly.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html


As you can see in the chart organs needs a minimum to function properly, in the "average" human the following figures are used:

Liver 200
Brain 240
Heart 400
Kidneys 400

As you can see in just these 4 organs the average person needs to consume 1240 calories a day to allow normal organ function. Its up to you whether or not to believe it, or even care; this was just to answer your questions.

TL;DR - Because its not necessary and can be dangerous.

I actually wonder about this when I read it. Why isn't my body, a survival beast, at least in evolutionary terms, happily gobbling down my excess fat every day to provide the calories my vital organs need regardless of how much I eat that day?

because fat is what's going to make you survive a food shortage - your body wants to make your fat last as long as possible. This is why your body will catabolise skeletal muscle to make fat last longer in a food shortage. Also, your BMR is reduced by more than what you'd expect from the catabolism of lean mass alone (this is called adaptive thermogenesis) because it's diverting energy away from non-essential purposes (such as your reproductive system, brain, skin, nails and hair) to make your fat stores last even longer. These changes increase your chances of surviving a food shortage but it's at a cost to general health and wellbeing - less energy going to non-essential functions makes you more prone to being ill, it makes you look ill, it makes you feel tired and run down, and the loss of lean body mass (especially if it's combined with a cessation in menstruation (for women) or falling sperm count (for men)) increases the risk of osteoporosis, and loss of muscle tissue and bone density makes the whole body weaker.

The above won't happen straight away in a food shortage (aggressive calorie deficit) - but there are several behavioural responses that kick in pretty early on, that evolved to stop people or animals from accidentally starving to death, such as increased hunger and binge eating... so many people who do aggressive calorie deficits succumb to binge eating, then blame themselves for their lack of willpower and often get stuck in a cycle of excessive restriction and binge eating... this results in the body composition worsening (loss of lean mass in the restriction phase and fat storage post-binge)... for a Homo erectus enduring a food shortage this is good news as the fat ensures they'll survive longer and the loss of lean mass makes their whole body able to run on fewer calories....... but for a Homo sapiens who's trying to diet down to get a flat stomach and look lean and toned, it's very bad news. It means they'll maintain their body weight at a lower calorie intake and will be hungry and miserable and beating themselves up over binge eating, and their body fat will increase as a result of binge eating.

So basically, the human body is actually extremely good at surviving on too little food... but the changes in the body that enable it to do this result in sub-optimal health and worsening of body composition, and also make people freaking miserable. I'm sure Homo erectus people were extremely miserable while enduring food shortages... but for most Homo sapiens people nowadays it's self-induced..... and it's not at all necessary to succeed at fat loss.

A conservative calorie deficit is best, in order to avoid all the above problems (especially the excessive hunger and binge eating which kicks in long before any physical health issues happen), plus strength training and adequate protein intake, in order to protect the lean mass and only lose fat. in evolutionary terms, this is emulating what life would have been like during the harsher seasons in the year, when people got nearly enough to eat but not quite, but had to carry on hunting and gathering... in fact the cutting and bulking cycles of bodybuilders and strength athletes mimic this the best, i.e. cutting cycles = the harsher seasons of the year, fat is lost but muscle is maintained in order to keep on hunting successfully (because the muscles are being used, they're protected to some extent from catabolism, but it needs to be fairly strenuous exercise, because unused muscle fibres are likely to be catabolised).... bulking cycles = more plentiful time of the year where you still need to keep on hunting, but the more plentiful food means your muscles can grow a little bigger and you can lay down a little fat that's going to see you through the harsher times of the year.

1200 calories is not considered VLC.

You must be talking about the real world, the world outside MFP.

Here is an interesting article that answers your question as to why eating a VLCD is a bad idea. You are not giving your body the fuel it needs to function properly.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html


As you can see in the chart organs needs a minimum to function properly, in the "average" human the following figures are used:

Liver 200
Brain 240
Heart 400
Kidneys 400

As you can see in just these 4 organs the average person needs to consume 1240 calories a day to allow normal organ function. Its up to you whether or not to believe it, or even care; this was just to answer your questions.

TL;DR - Because its not necessary and can be dangerous.

I actually wonder about this when I read it. Why isn't my body, a survival beast, at least in evolutionary terms, happily gobbling down my excess fat every day to provide the calories my vital organs need regardless of how much I eat that day?

Because fat metabolism only happens so quickly. If you exceed your body's ability to metabolise fat, the deficit has to be taken from other sources of energy; muscle, bone, connective tissues etc.

I'm not sure of the actual maximal rate of fat metabolism, and haven't found any literature on the numbers, though.

Here is an interesting article that answers your question as to why eating a VLCD is a bad idea. You are not giving your body the fuel it needs to function properly.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html


As you can see in the chart organs needs a minimum to function properly, in the "average" human the following figures are used:

Liver 200
Brain 240
Heart 400
Kidneys 400

As you can see in just these 4 organs the average person needs to consume 1240 calories a day to allow normal organ function. Its up to you whether or not to believe it, or even care; this was just to answer your questions.

TL;DR - Because its not necessary and can be dangerous.

I actually wonder about this when I read it. Why isn't my body, a survival beast, at least in evolutionary terms, happily gobbling down my excess fat every day to provide the calories my vital organs need regardless of how much I eat that day?

Because fat metabolism only happens so quickly. If you exceed your body's ability to metabolise fat, the deficit has to be taken from other sources of energy; muscle, bone, connective tissues etc.

I'm not sure of the actual maximal rate of fat metabolism, and haven't found any literature on the numbers, though.

That makes sense. Thanks!

Because fat metabolism only happens so quickly. If you exceed your body's ability to metabolise fat, the deficit has to be taken from other sources of energy; muscle, bone, connective tissues etc.

I'm not sure of the actual maximal rate of fat metabolism, and haven't found any literature on the numbers, though.

The quoted numbers typically range from 22 Cal - 32 Cal per pound of body fat per day.

So, if you weigh 200 pounds and have 55 pounds of fat, your max deficit would be between 1,210 and 1,815 calories a day. There are studies on this, but there is also some debate about whether or not this would apply to people getting sufficient protein (the criticisms generally are around the fact that the studies use typical levels of protein and not high protein).