Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

Options
12357…11

Replies

  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    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).
    Thank ye. I wonder to what degree the range is influenced by LBM, HGH, testosterone, insulin and so forth. For myself that would be between 1500~ and 2200~ deficit a day, tops. I'm currently working on an estimated 1.5k a day deficit (to later be assessed by weightloss versus calorie intake) and I've seen good results in the last 3 weeks.
  • greengoddess0123
    greengoddess0123 Posts: 417 Member
    Options
    4 pages and no one has mentioned that MyFitnessPal's community guidelines are against very low calorie diets. The "Why" is right in the guidelines. I have bolded it.
    b) Profiles, groups, messages, posts, or wall comments that encourage anorexia, bulimia, or very low calorie diets of any kind will be removed, and may be grounds for account deletion. This includes positive references to ana/mia, purging, or self-starving. Our goal is to provide users with the tools to achieve their weight management goals at a steady, sustainable rate. Use of the site to promote, glamorize, or achieve dangerously low levels of eating is not permitted.

    Likitisplit mentioned it. I came in to say the same thing.

    Also, OP, the thread you referenced in your post is one where the poster admitted that she was lowering her calorie intake below her BMR and what MFP suggested on a whim, just to see how many days she could do it. That doesn't sound very healthy or sustainable, which is why people were quick to point out what was "off" about her plan.

    MFP isn't the place to glorify LC or VLC diets. For those kinds of diets, people should take their questions and concerns to their health care practitioner, not strangers on the internet.

    But stick around here, lurk on the forums, and learn. You'll lose weight, and you get to have ice cream.

    :drinker:
  • roanokejoe49
    roanokejoe49 Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    I started reading this thread, but instead of pulling out my hair, I'm gonna go find some cleavage to look at.
  • FIT_Goat
    FIT_Goat Posts: 4,224 Member
    Options
    Do you agree with him that 'sometimes it's necessary or beneficial? Because the outcry here is that it is never necessary or beneficial. I agree with him.

    I never said anything about extended periods of time. Arguing that it's not ok for extended periods of time does not mean it's never ok for any periods of time.

    Necessary? That would be an extremely rare exception. For example, it may be necessary if your career/income absolutely depend on you being a certain weight on a certain date. Of course, this could have been avoided if you had planned properly in advance. If you're in one of those categories, you probably knew well in advance what weight you needed to be and could have avoided putting yourself in a bad spot.

    Those people may include: members of the military who are at their last step before being discharged for being overweight, professional athletes, professional body builders, models, actors/actresses, etc. This would not be someone looking to lose weight for a wedding. These are people where there are serious financial consequences for not meeting a specific weight and who also have messed up by getting behind in their progress.

    Beneficial? I would argue that it's rarely beneficial. You may argue that the psychological boost from jump-starting a diet outweighs the physical risks. Or that looking good at a wedding/reunion is worth the risk and effort. I would say these are not good reasons and you usually know these things are coming well in advance. They don't just pop up out of nowhere. If you decided to put off self-improvement until the last minute, that's a personal issue that probably needs to be dealt with along with weight loss.

    As for my comment about time-frames. You stated that Lyle "recognizes that for a few months, it's not dangerous". This is not at all what he states in his book. That is what I was responding to. He even states that if can cause problems no matter how safe you make it. It can even cause problems within the limited time-frames he outlines (he just tries to minimize the effects of those problems with his guidelines, especially for refeeds and free meals). Further, the vast majority of his time-frames are less than two months (hardly what most would consider "a few months"). To go for the full 12 weeks (which is less than 3 months), you would need to be well into the third category (not even close to being a category 2... if you were on the cusp, you would only do the 6 weeks not the full 12) and you would be eating close to a normal amount of calories almost 30% of those days.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Sometimes it’s necessary or beneficial,

    It would be false to state that he believes people should eat <800 calories a day for extended periods of time.
    Do you agree with him that 'sometimes it's necessary or beneficial? Because the outcry here is that it IS never necessary or beneficial. I agree with him.

    I never said anything about extended periods of time. Arguing that it's not ok for extended periods of time does not mean it's never ok for any periods of time.

    I think it's never necessary. If an obese person is eating 3500 calories a day to sustain their weight, why have them cut down to 800 calories when they could lose eating 2000? So they can say "Omg I'm STARVING dieting is so hard!!" and when they eventually quit, they'll say "I've tried everything and nothing works!"

    Just eat slightly less than you require for an extended period of time, find an activity you enjoy and you will eventually be very happy with your body. It's not a race.
    I think many diet methods are never necessary but I don't condemn their use for all or imply their adherents are stupid and misinformed for choosing it for themselves.

    To some people, there is urgency to it for health reasons so it is a bit of a race. Often their doctors put them on these diets, so who are we to say, "It's not right for me so it's also not right for you?"

    It's not even just VLCD that is vilified here. It's MFP's own 1200 plan. You can't even admit to following that without being frowned upon, usually by people twice your size and half your age who have vastly different caloric needs and a skewed view of what is safe dieting and isn't.
  • VGomez22
    VGomez22 Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    Because for people who love food, 1200 calories is NOTHING. And that leads to binging. I've struggled with the yo yo dieting when I did 1200. I wasn't losing anything because my binges offset all the hard work I put in. Slow and steady wins the race. Always. Besides, 1200 hardly gives you enough energy to live your life, I could never workout while eating 1200 because I was always so tired!
  • allylbrown67
    allylbrown67 Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    You will end up binge eating if you eat a low calorie diet and gain all your weight back...there should be a lifestyle change not an quick fix diet plan.
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,650 Member
    Options
    nv
  • gussied_up_girl
    gussied_up_girl Posts: 39 Member
    Options
    It has never been sustainable for me
  • MegE_N
    MegE_N Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    In for some great knowledge dropping, some silly VLC diet cheerleaders, and ducks.
  • levitateme
    levitateme Posts: 999 Member
    Options
    Sometimes it’s necessary or beneficial,

    It would be false to state that he believes people should eat <800 calories a day for extended periods of time.
    Do you agree with him that 'sometimes it's necessary or beneficial? Because the outcry here is that it IS never necessary or beneficial. I agree with him.

    I never said anything about extended periods of time. Arguing that it's not ok for extended periods of time does not mean it's never ok for any periods of time.

    I think it's never necessary. If an obese person is eating 3500 calories a day to sustain their weight, why have them cut down to 800 calories when they could lose eating 2000? So they can say "Omg I'm STARVING dieting is so hard!!" and when they eventually quit, they'll say "I've tried everything and nothing works!"

    Just eat slightly less than you require for an extended period of time, find an activity you enjoy and you will eventually be very happy with your body. It's not a race.
    I think many diet methods are never necessary but I don't condemn their use for all or imply their adherents are stupid and misinformed for choosing it for themselves.

    To some people, there is urgency to it for health reasons so it is a bit of a race. Often their doctors put them on these diets, so who are we to say, "It's not right for me so it's also not right for you?"

    It's not even just VLCD that is vilified here. It's MFP's own 1200 plan. You can't even admit to following that without being frowned upon, usually by people twice your size and half your age who have vastly different caloric needs and a skewed view of what is safe dieting and isn't.

    I don't think those people are "stupid" but they definitely are misinformed. People who are obese were on a path to that weight for years, so there's no reason it would be "urgent" that they lose it. That's the problem with weight loss, in my opinion. I've seen it so many times, and this is just based on looking at these forums every day for 7 months. The vast majority of new people here have decided that it's finally time for a change. They usually want the weight off as fast as they can get it off. Then when they don't lose it fast enough, they "quit" and end up gaining more weight. Why is that the alternative?

    We need to stop with the all or nothing mentality. If you can lose on 2000 why would you eat 800? To torture yourself? To make it more difficult than it has to be? To justify yourself to other people when you eventually fail? "Well, I told you, I just can't do it." Those same people would lose weight if they got gastric bypass, which is just a surgical procedure that forces you to eat a VLCD.

    For the record: I am 5'4", 31 - I lose weight eating 2000, currently eating 2500, trying to do body recomp.
  • konpeki
    konpeki Posts: 5
    Options
    4 pages and no one has mentioned that MyFitnessPal's community guidelines are against very low calorie diets. The "Why" is right in the guidelines. I have bolded it.

    Thanks for the information. Sorry for violating the guidelines. I read the guidelines but missed the fact that VLC diet discussion is not allowed. There will be no more from me on that.

    LC diets though, eg 1200 kcal/d, are not against the guidelines, yet I see everyone just piling on when an obese person decides to eat 1200 kcal/d. I think people here should try to be more open-minded and supportive when someone is choosing an approach that varies from their own.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    This is a fascinating thread.

    I have some opinions having read everything (all the replies). Since I'm posting from my phone I won't be very coherent.

    Ironanimal: I've seen one theoretical paper on maximal fat loss. It's been a while but I think it's this one:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15615615/

    Regarding the VLCD, the bigger issue in my opinion is that most of the people who would gravitate towards this solution are looking for a quick fix more than they are looking to establish better habits and this also makes it increasingly likely that they additionally won't diligently learn the right way to attempt it. Please note that I'm not saying this is the case with all people.

    Regarding research, I'm only aware of one study that actually showed that rapid initial weight loss lead to greater success rates long term. This doesn't necessarily mean that these were VLCDs, but it does lend some merit to the idea that initial rapid weight loss may have benefits. I certainly wouldn't argue that there's a cost associated with it as well.

    Context matters a crapload. I wouldn't say that VLCDs should never be used. But I wouldn't promote them on these forums for reasons I previously stated and for reasons stated already in this thread.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    4 pages and no one has mentioned that MyFitnessPal's community guidelines are against very low calorie diets. The "Why" is right in the guidelines. I have bolded it.

    Thanks for the information. Sorry for violating the guidelines. I read the guidelines but missed the fact that VLC diet discussion is not allowed. There will be no more from me on that.

    LC diets though, eg 1200 kcal/d, are not against the guidelines, yet I see everyone just piling on when an obese person decides to eat 1200 kcal/d. I think people here should try to be more open-minded and supportive when someone is choosing an approach that varies from their own.

    what you need to remember is that most people on this site are obese people who are successfully on their way to being not obese any more, and also a good many ex-obese people who have successfully become non-obese people... most of the people who are outspoken in advising people that VLCDs are not necessary and cause a lot of potential issues have been there, done that, got the t-shirt with VLCDs and other faddy diets and are just passing on the knowledge they've gained over the years.

    Also, you may percieve it as people "piling on" someone and not being supportive.... actually they're advising people about an alternative way to lose fat that's easier, less torturous and better for health, where you're less likely to fall off the wagon therefore more likely to succeed long term... what's so bad about that?

    I honestly don't understand why this topic is even so controvertial. I don't get what's so wonderful and amazing about VLCDs that make people defend them so vehemently and get all uptight when people advise others that there are easier and safer ways to lose fat....
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    Options
    4 pages and no one has mentioned that MyFitnessPal's community guidelines are against very low calorie diets. The "Why" is right in the guidelines. I have bolded it.

    Thanks for the information. Sorry for violating the guidelines. I read the guidelines but missed the fact that VLC diet discussion is not allowed. There will be no more from me on that.

    LC diets though, eg 1200 kcal/d, are not against the guidelines, yet I see everyone just piling on when an obese person decides to eat 1200 kcal/d. I think people here should try to be more open-minded and supportive when someone is choosing an approach that varies from their own.

    When I respond to a thread like that, I'm trying to make sure that the OP (and all the lurkers) doesn't assume that's the only way to diet - popular media has promoted LC/Heavy exercise as "getting in shape" that most people don't know any differently. Right now, I'm seeing a banner ad: "Lose up to 15 pounds in 21 days." Seriously? 5 pounds a week? That's not really safe or sustainable - but it's the 21 day fix by beachbody.

    The majority of the people who have successfully lost weight and maintained their losses on this site have made more incremental changes.

    I lost most of my weight eating over 2000 calories a day and exercising 4-5 days a week.

    Most of the threads that mention 1200 calorie diets aren't threads that say "Hey, I successfully lost 150 pounds using this method." I've seen exactly one of those, and the responses were "Good Job."

    They are "I can't eat 1200 calories a day" or "I'm eating 1200 calories and can't lose weight" or "I'm eating 1200 calories and am dizzy and cold all the time." And, yeah, I'm going to look at their age and height and weight on the SCOOBY calculator.

    If they have a medical problem that's driving low eating, that's between them and their doctor - they shouldn't be asking for uninformed internet advice anyway.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    In for some great knowledge dropping, some silly VLC diet cheerleaders, and ducks.
    I'm not VLC cheerleading. I'm just advocating a little tolerance. Not everyone who eats at 1200 or even 800 is misinformed or anorexic. (Which is not saying no one is.)

    I'd bet money half the people reading this thread are eating at 1200 and are not saying **** because they get this sort of reaction-- being called silly and misinformed and pro-ana and all else.
  • Verdenal
    Verdenal Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    I see a lot of threads like this one: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1342871-lowered-calorie-goal-and-need-help-staying-full

    Someone posts saying they are eating 1200 kcal/d, and a bunch of folks jump in saying not to do that. Why? Low calorie (LC) dieting and very low calorie (VLC) dieting are completely legitimate approaches to fighting obesity:


    They lack information. I have another account and used to defend low calorie regimes. It's a waste of my time.
  • MegE_N
    MegE_N Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    In for some great knowledge dropping, some silly VLC diet cheerleaders, and ducks.
    I'm not VLC cheerleading. I'm just advocating a little tolerance. Not everyone who eats at 1200 or even 800 is misinformed or anorexic. (Which is not saying no one is.)

    I'd bet money half the people reading this thread are eating at 1200 and are not saying **** because they get this sort of reaction-- being called silly and misinformed and pro-ana and all else.

    I didn't say you were. I said I was in for some silly cheerleading. And for the record, I'm on 1260 - which I find is too low for me. So I make a point of walking at least 3 miles every day to bump it up to about 1500, which is where I feel good. Some days it's a struggle - like today when I don't have time for a walk. But I just cut back on what I eat that day and stay busy. And it's worth it for the days I walk 8-9 miles and am able to enjoy eating the big portions I like without worrying.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    Oh good. Someone with all the answers. I thought you'd never get here.

    And now that you're here, we can finally stop trying to help people over the bogus belief that it is necessary or ideal to jump right into a 1200 calorie diet for optimal results because you're going to help them through the ordeal.



    Now I can move on to other more pressing matters...

    ...like using the proper tone in all of my forum posts.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    Options
    Hunh: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19710198/?i=2&from=/15615615/related

    I'm reading this to say that the body reduces organ mass well before all body fat is used.
    Contribution of individual organ mass loss to weight loss-associated decline in resting energy expenditure.

    BACKGROUND: Weight loss leads to reduced resting energy expenditure (REE) independent of fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) loss, but the effect of changes in FFM composition is unclear.

    OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that a decrease in REE adjusted for FFM with weight loss would be partly explained by a disproportionate loss in the high metabolic activity component of FFM.

    DESIGN: Forty-five overweight and obese women [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 28.7-46.8] aged 22-46 y followed a low-calorie diet for 12.7 +/- 2.2 wk. Body composition was measured by magnetic resonance imaging, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and a 4-compartment model. REE measured by indirect calorimetry (REEm) was compared with REE calculated from detailed body-composition analysis (REEc) by using specific organ metabolic rates (ie, organ REE/mass).

    RESULTS: Weight loss was 9.5 +/- 3.4 kg (8.0 +/- 2.9 kg FM and 1.5 +/- 3.1 kg FFM). Decreases in REE (-8%), free triiodothyronine concentrations (-8%), muscle (-3%), heart (-5%), liver (-4%), and kidney mass (-6%) were observed (all P < 0.05). Relative loss in organ mass was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than was the change in low metabolically active FFM components (muscle, bone, and residual mass). After weight loss, REEm - REEc decreased from 0.24 +/- 0.58 to 0.01 +/- 0.44 MJ/d (P = 0.01) and correlated with the decrease in free triiodothyronine concentrations (r = 0.33, P < 0.05). Women with high adaptive thermogenesis (defined as REEm - REEc < -0.17 MJ/d) had less weight loss and conserved FFM, liver, and kidney mass.

    CONCLUSIONS: After weight loss, almost 50% of the decrease in REEm was explained by losses in FFM and FM. The variability in REEm explained by body composition increased to 60% by also considering the weight of individual organs.

Categories