Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

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?

Speaking as someone who was married to a bariatric surgery patient, just because she lost a bunch of weight after the surgery, it didn't mean she was healthier. She suffers to this day from vitamin deficiencies, mineral deficiencies, and anemia, all of which have been traced back to her surgery and her body's inability to absorb enough nutrients. The same thing can be said of people who are eating very low calorie diets. It's not worth it in the long run. Just eat a sensible number of calories, exercise as best you can, and let the weight come off at a reasonable rate.

This is a little off-topic, but I'm curious....why can't you eat a low calorie diet and still get enough vitamins? For instance, if you eat fruits, vegetables, and nuts every day, as part of a low-calorie diet, why wouldn't you get enough vitamins and nutrients? I don't believe I practice a low-calorie diet (2000/day isn't low?), but I do watch calorie intake and focus primarily on nutritious foods. I prefer not to take vitamin supplements, but since my goal is health, I don't want to sabotage myself either.

its the fact that for MOST people, VLC diets are dangerous since there is such a low energy intake. also these diets tend to be alot less sustainable and often lead to binges

for someone who is extremely obese and unactive, a VLC diet may be in order. but for someone who is <50 lbs overweight its unhealthy and will often lead to them gaining back the weight they lost

This is not rocket science, I have lost over 100 lbs since last June, yes my profile pic is from before I started dieting and training daily. The bottom line is, start at a relatively decent amount of calories, adjust your macros to best fit your needs, generally 1 gram of protein per lean body mass (no your are not 225lbs shredded) 55-65 grams of fat is pretty stable for most people, the rest will be carbs. Do it for 3 weeks and adjust it accordingly so you are losing no more than 2 lbs a week to help maintain lean mass and keep your energy levels up. Have a refeed day once a week(double carb intake, forget that the calories exist), I do mine on leg or back day to offset the extra carbs. Doing this I eat 6 times a day and never starve, doing 1200 calories a day is just ridiculous and flat out dangerous for your mental and physical health. You are more likely to shut your body down to the point it refuses to burn fat in an effort to keep you alive as long as it can.

What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.

This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.

Seriously???

I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.

The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)

If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.

It's king of ridiculous to compare a PEG feed to a minimum ambulatory recommendation.
Red herring post is red herring.

While medical care might recommend a low calorie diet, I've yet to see PEG as a reasonable weight loss strategy.

Oh I agree up it is a ridiculous comparison, was just amazed at the idea everyone on PEG feeds would get a standard set amount.

Was just responding to that, just couldn't let it go uncontested, I know this doesn't really have any relevance to thread :blushing:

I think it was a valid argument. My lay-understanding is that "BMR" is the "amount to maintain your weight in a coma". I've also heard the 1200 is the minimum amount doctors will feed even the smallest adult in a coma. If that is a myth, then this is a good thread to address.

What amazes me is the amount of people who say that doctors will give you 1200 calories a day to survive if you are unable to feed yourself.

This is completely untrue, I have a peg feeding certificate and regardless of shape or size, everyone gets the same 1000 calorie peg feed over a 24 hours period.

Seriously???

I worked for many years in Aged Care and we had people on PEG feeds - everyone certainly wasn't given 1000 calories per day or any other set amount.

The usual practice was that they be weighed weekly and their weight reviewed by a dietician monthly - 3 monthly. (depending how stable they were)

If they had lost or gained a significant amount, their calorie intake would be adjusted accordingly.

It's king of ridiculous to compare a PEG feed to a minimum ambulatory recommendation.
Red herring post is red herring.

While medical care might recommend a low calorie diet, I've yet to see PEG as a reasonable weight loss strategy.

Oh I agree up it is a ridiculous comparison, was just amazed at the idea everyone on PEG feeds would get a standard set amount.

Was just responding to that, just couldn't let it go uncontested, I know this doesn't really have any relevance to thread :blushing:

I think it was a valid argument. My lay-understanding is that "BMR" is the "amount to maintain your weight in a coma". I've also heard the 1200 is the minimum amount doctors will feed even the smallest adult in a coma. If that is a myth, then this is a good thread to address.

Oh, my comment was addressed to the original PEG post. Not the rebuttal.

BMR is a theoretical consideration as to what might be a minimum based on zero activity. It has often been confused in the research with RMR (resting metabolic rate).

I consider it a red herring because no one is recommending PEG feeding nor does it really relate to normal diet or a VLC. In a PEG, the liquid nutrients provided directly to the stomach have a low calorie "cost" of digestion and are easily available to the body. Furthermore, as has been noted, PEG feeding can vary from sub-800 cals to up to 2400 cals per day based on weight loss monitoring.

The intent of PEG isn't weight loss but functional organ maintenance, so even if it was 1200 as some minimum, there is no real reason to consider this as the "absolute minimum" for VLCs under proper medical supervision. The idea of a VLC is to maximize weight loss and might make sense for some people, under proper medical supervision, for a limited period of time and not as a MFP diet of the week thing.

A different example, again medical, it might be to good to suggest to people to avoid electric shocks given that burns and death might occur however there is a place for defibrillators. The fact that people have died on 20 volt and 100 J shocks doesn't negate the usefulness of 200-1000V and 100-200J AEDs under certain medical conditions. Context matters.

Having said that - I recognize that if people somehow believe 1200 is some sort of minimum "coma" limit and that gets addressed, then it might serve an info purpose. Are there really that many people saying that? Didn't see one in this thread until the PEG post.

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.

I would say that for some people, 1200 calories is not a VLCD. I'm 5'2" and 55, that's my daily intake, eating back exercise calories, with one cheat day a week. I'm 120 lbs. and basically plateauing at that. I also have to choose foods wisely because most of the time, I won't make my protein macros on so few calories unless I'm really mindful about it. For a younger, larger, more active person, however, 1200 would not be enough. I think going 1000 or below is probably only for the obese under medical supervision. Comparing PEG to a 1200 calorie diet is irrelevant -- isn't that for people who are basically bedridden or elderly? That's not for a normal active person, or even a somewhat sedentary healthy adult.

Well, I think we've established 1200 as not a VLCD. And it's the people like you who are the reason for the thread. You really shouldn't have to argue your choices every time you post in the forums.

It's that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors in younger, larger, more active people unfairly triggers many of the regulars on here. It's the Bayes error rate

I agree with you and love the Bayesian reference.
Even not so young people jump on the low calorie bandwagon without consideration to the risks and effects and I think that is where some of the blanket responses come from.

Eating at 1200 might be a sign of making poor nutritional choices. It might not. More often than not, it *seems* to be a poor choice but that is a perceptual issue - we see more questions from people not knowing what they are doing than from people cruising along with a well structured plan at those numbers. There is an *announcement* bias.

A huge one. And look at ALL the people who post success stories at 2000+ calories a day. I can find one (1) at 1200.

And I think that is the other element - we want people to succeed long term - I think it is easier to be content and reach your goals when you haven't limited the "field of play" with calories to the minimums... staying very active, having the maximum LBM (or the minimum loss) and the minimum risk of adverse effects of dieting is what people should, in my opinion, recommend...