Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

124678

Replies

  • levitateme
    levitateme Posts: 999 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    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.

    Remember: THINK!!!
  • Sharon_C
    Sharon_C Posts: 2,132 Member
    If my car needs a tank of gas to get to a certain destination why would I only put a half a tank of gas in it? Doesn't make sense.
  • darkguardian419
    darkguardian419 Posts: 1,302 Member
    Because most people tend to be against stupid ideas.
  • Jacwhite22
    Jacwhite22 Posts: 7,010 Member
    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:

    http://www.win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm

    In my opinion, an obese person eating far below what someone else thinks they need to eat to lose weight - and to be honest, no one can be sure what someone else's caloric threshold for weight loss will be - should be: 1) encouraged to obtain the help of a weight loss program, and for VLC, proper medical surveillance; 2) advised that rapid weight loss may not be the best long term approach for everyone; but certainly not scolded or told that this approach is unequivocally wrong.

    The reason bariatric surgery helps so many people is that it makes it easier for them to do a VLC diet and diminishes the likelihood of early and substantial weight gain. With proper education and support, some people have success with a VLC or LC diet without doing surgery. It is not the right approach for everyone, but then what is?

    Strong first post.....:noway: :yawn: Did you create a new account just for this thread?
  • Jacwhite22
    Jacwhite22 Posts: 7,010 Member
    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.

    Remember: THINK!!!


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsL9UL9qbv8
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    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.

    While I would tend to agree with you personally, people have different goals and tolerances for reaching goals. I know when I was set on losing weight I had days I would barely eat 1000 calories and I was rarely 'starving' or felt hungry. I could do that over short periods, but when i workout or train my body craves intake, so not happening then.

    I just wouldn't project what works for me on others in that sense.

    I've said, the best plan to lose weight is the one you can stick to. I also say, you took years of neglect and denial to get to where you are, it is ridiculous to think you can go backwards in just months.

    C'est la vie!
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    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.

    While I would tend to agree with you personally, people have different goals and tolerances for reaching goals. I know when I was set on losing weight I had days I would barely eat 1000 calories and I was rarely 'starving' or felt hungry. I could do that over short periods, but when i workout or train my body craves intake, so not happening then.

    I just wouldn't project what works for me on others in that sense.

    I've said, the best plan to lose weight is the one you can stick to. I also say, you took years of neglect and denial to get to where you are, it is ridiculous to think you can go backwards in just months.

    C'est la vie!

    Yeah. Days. I've had days like that. The 5:2 diet programmatically has people eating 500 calories/day.

    It's sustaining it over weeks that is questionable.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    If my car needs a tank of gas to get to a certain destination why would I only put a half a tank of gas in it? Doesn't make sense.
    Because your goal is to reduce your gas/fat level, and your car runs fine on gas you put in last Tues.? In fact, it's all mixed together in the tank, just like the calories in your body, with no dated compartments?
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    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.
    The conclusion seems to say the change in RMR was explained 50% by change in fat mass and lean mass, and 60% if you include organ mass.

    I think it's normal to have your organs shrink along with the rest of your body during weight loss. An obese person's heart and liver will be enlarged, I think. It doesn't mean you want them to remain enlarged.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Did anyone else think that the title was a Freudian slip? That so many agains (yo-yo dieters) do low calorie and VLC dieting?
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Did anyone else think that the title was a Freudian slip? That so many agains (yo-yo dieters) do low calorie and VLC dieting?

    Nice catch.

    :drinker:
  • segovm
    segovm Posts: 512 Member
    I'm still waiting for all the negative issues to manifest from eating 1700-1900 calories a day but "netting" zero because of exercise. According to many:

    I should not be losing weight because I am not eating enough...

    I should be lethargic due to lack of net calories...

    My hair should be falling out...

    My organs shutting down...

    Instead I get up in the morning, hop on the bike and go for a fifty mile ride that is more often than not longer or faster than the day before. I sleep better. Have more energy. Feel great.

    I know at some point it's all going to come crashing down... that's what everyone says...

    If it doesn't and by chance eating well and getting lots of exercise is a good way for me personally to lose weight I guess I will just have to accept that I am an exception to the rule.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    I'm still waiting for all the negative issues to manifest from eating 1700-1900 calories a day but "netting" zero because of exercise. According to many:

    I should not be losing weight because I am not eating enough...

    I should be lethargic due to lack of net calories...

    My hair should be falling out...

    My organs shutting down...

    Instead I get up in the morning, hop on the bike and go for a fifty mile ride that is more often than not longer or faster than the day before. I sleep better. Have more energy. Feel great.

    I know at some point it's all going to come crashing down... that's what everyone says...

    If it doesn't and by chance eating well and getting lots of exercise is a good way for me personally to lose weight I guess I will just have to accept that I am an exception to the rule.

    The simplest explanation is that your math is wrong.
  • aedreana
    aedreana Posts: 979 Member
    Most people seem to find it easier to adhere to only a moderately-reduced-calorie diet and have to diet longer. Not me. I am a results-oriented person and HAVE TO see the numbers on the scale change quick! I would never be able to stick with a one pound per week diet, or having to diet for months instead of weeks!
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    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.

    Here's the study I was referring to.
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.abstract

    I agree that context matters a crapload and VLCDs shouldn't be promoted here, especially VLCD as in sub-1000 calorie diets. And the girls at 115 trying to get to 110 should be discouraged. And the first-time dieter who thinks if 1600 is good, 800 is twice as good.

    But I think there are a lot of people here who responsibly eat at 1200 and with good reason, so these sort of knee-jerk responses are offensive:

    "1200??? WHAT??? I eat that for BREAKFAST!!! I crap 1200! No one can survive on 1200!! You are uninformed and not fueling your body, you LIE that you're not hungry! Stuff in peanut butter! How'd you get fat in the first place? Why the hurry!?! You're ruining your LBM! You will gain it all back!" :laugh:

    And I think there are possibly a lot of WLS patients medically supervised who eat less and don't need to read here that their doctors are idiots, they're ruining their bodies, etc.
  • Meerataila
    Meerataila Posts: 1,885 Member
    Most people seem to find it easier to adhere to only a moderately-reduced-calorie diet and have to diet longer. Not me. I am a results-oriented person and HAVE TO see the numbers on the scale change quick! I would never be able to stick with a one pound per week diet, or having to diet for months instead of weeks!

    I fight with this mindset as well. I try to be patient, but it takes too long!

    So I set smaller goals, grit my teeth, and remind myself how horrible my moods get when my deficit is high for any length of time. But one pound a week? Four pounds a month? Yeah, that isn't working for me either. Maybe if I start hitting weights and the pool so hard I can see a difference aside from the scale, but otherwise, no way.
  • wonderwoman234
    wonderwoman234 Posts: 551 Member
    Statistically speaking, low calorie and VLC "diets" are not sustainable and I've seen figures showing that 80-90% of people who lose weight that way eventually regain it and then some.

    If you haven't noticed, some people who have bariatric surgery GO BACK TO BEING OBESE. My friend is one such person and there is a celebrity (from Wilson Phillips) who also comes to mind. My friend is heavier now that she's ever been even though she had bariatric surgery. That is because she never learned how to have a normal relationship with food. She eats for emotional reasons.

    Learning how to eat normally gives you a better shot, statistically speaking, of keeping the weight off.
  • segovm
    segovm Posts: 512 Member
    I'm still waiting for all the negative issues to manifest from eating 1700-1900 calories a day but "netting" zero because of exercise. According to many:

    I should not be losing weight because I am not eating enough...

    I should be lethargic due to lack of net calories...

    My hair should be falling out...

    My organs shutting down...

    Instead I get up in the morning, hop on the bike and go for a fifty mile ride that is more often than not longer or faster than the day before. I sleep better. Have more energy. Feel great.

    I know at some point it's all going to come crashing down... that's what everyone says...

    If it doesn't and by chance eating well and getting lots of exercise is a good way for me personally to lose weight I guess I will just have to accept that I am an exception to the rule.

    The simplest explanation is that your math is wrong.

    That's what I figured too. Maybe you could help. How many calories does a 235 lbs guy burn riding a bike for 4 hours at an average pace of 13 mph? MFP seems to think it is about 3500, I end up putting in about a 1000 less than that. I guess you think it's lower? Maybe like 200-300 calories for the day?
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    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.

    Here's the study I was referring to.
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.abstract

    I agree that context matters a crapload and VLCDs shouldn't be promoted here, especially VLCD as in sub-1000 calorie diets. And the girls at 115 trying to get to 110 should be discouraged. And the first-time dieter who thinks if 1600 is good, 800 is twice as good.

    But I think there are a lot of people here who responsibly eat at 1200 and with good reason, so these sort of knee-jerk responses are offensive:

    "1200??? WHAT??? I eat that for BREAKFAST!!! I crap 1200! No one can survive on 1200!! You are uninformed and not fueling your body, you LIE that you're not hungry! Stuff in peanut butter! How'd you get fat in the first place? Why the hurry!?! You're ruining your LBM! You will gain it all back!" :laugh:

    And I think there are possibly a lot of WLS patients medically supervised who eat less and don't need to read here that their doctors are idiots, they're ruining their bodies, etc.

    Thanks, the paper I had in my head was this one:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

    I mostly agree with the above although one thing I would add is that there are also many people (and I do think this is a high %) here who are given 1200 calories by MFP, and don't understand that you are intended to eat back exercise calories, but they don't do it which puts them at a static 1200 calories which is likely not a good idea.

    This again is just for contextual purposes. Most of the people eating 1200 calories do not know any better. They do it because they don't understand. But not ALL people.
  • _Resolve_
    _Resolve_ Posts: 735 Member
    I'm still waiting for all the negative issues to manifest from eating 1700-1900 calories a day but "netting" zero because of exercise. According to many:

    I should not be losing weight because I am not eating enough...

    I should be lethargic due to lack of net calories...

    My hair should be falling out...

    My organs shutting down...

    Instead I get up in the morning, hop on the bike and go for a fifty mile ride that is more often than not longer or faster than the day before. I sleep better. Have more energy. Feel great.

    I know at some point it's all going to come crashing down... that's what everyone says...

    If it doesn't and by chance eating well and getting lots of exercise is a good way for me personally to lose weight I guess I will just have to accept that I am an exception to the rule.

    The simplest explanation is that your math is wrong.

    That's what I figured too. Maybe you could help. How many calories does a 235 lbs guy burn riding a bike for 4 hours at an average pace of 13 mph? MFP seems to think it is about 3500, I end up putting in about a 1000 less than that. I guess you think it's lower? Maybe like 200-300 calories for the day?

    For what its worth Im 215 and ride quite a bit, per my HRM I burn 2700 calories per metric century (62 miles) 4 hours of riding at 15.5 mph pace.

Categories