Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

I agree that it's normally men or 20-something women trying to educate me about my energy needs. Likitisplit, you are one exception, though to be honest you lost credibility with me with the "I lost it all on 2000+ and would have lost nothing on 1200-1400." Because that is impossible.

Why is that impossible? If you get so hungry on 1200-1400 that you just have to eat something, and blow your diet, you won't lose weight. Of course a big guy can lose weight on 1200-1400, in theory, but that is very difficult to do in practice. And not necessary. And not healthy. I'm 43 by the way.

People get so hung up about what the minimum needed for mere survival is, they forget that quality of life and optimal health are the goal, not mere survival. And there's no virtue in doing things the hard way when the easy way works.

People get so hung up about what the minimum needed for mere survival is, they forget that quality of life and optimal health are the goal, not mere survival. And there's no virtue in doing things the hard way when the easy way works.

“You have to like the life you’re living if you’re going to keep living that way.” ~ Dr Yoni Freedhoff

We've had low cal dieting for a number of decades now in reality. It's the basis of most commercial weight loss plans no matter how they are dressed. For most people it hasn't worked terribly well. For a minority of people it has.

I have no doubt that some people can thrive on low cal dieting. More power to their arm. It should not be the starting position for most people in my opinion. Have as many calories as you can get away with whilst still prompting weight loss but still remain happy.

Happy is a healthy place to be.

I agree with this mostly. But it does seem to imply that eating is the key to happiness.

For people you are morbidly obese, I would imagine finally losing weight and breaking the cycle of food = happiness may, in fact, increase their happiness. Reversing diabetes, which VLCD have been shown to do, may increase their happiness. Just finally being able to sit in an airplane seat, or to walk across their own home without becoming short of breath, or to be able to buy clothes off the rack, or any of the myriad of other things those not in their shoes take for granted, may increase their happiness. And sometimes losing the weight quickly can be lifesaving.

Hunger is never pleasant. But quality of life may depend on more than just hunger and satiety for some. I don't think we could accurately state that VLCD leads to decreased qualtity of life for everyone.

I agree with this mostly. But it does seem to imply that eating is the key to happiness.

For people you are morbidly obese, I would imagine finally losing weight and breaking the cycle of food = happiness may, in fact, increase their happiness. Reversing diabetes, which VLCD have been shown to do, may increase their happiness. Just finally being able to sit in an airplane seat, or to walk across their own home without becoming short of breath, or to be able to buy clothes off the rack, or any of the myriad of other things those not in their shoes take for granted, may increase their happiness. And sometimes losing the weight quickly can be lifesaving.

Hunger is never pleasant. But quality of life may depend on more than just hunger and satiety for some. I don't think we could accurately state that VLCD leads to decreased qualtity of life for everyone.

So the main argument still is 'what's best/easiest for me and suits my caloric needs and weight loss goals and compliance issues is what's best for everyone. In fact, anyone who feels differently is misinformed and doing it wrong and bound to failure.'

:sad:

So the main argument still is 'what's best/easiest for me and suits my caloric needs and weight loss goals and compliance issues is what's best for everyone. In fact, anyone who feels differently is misinformed and doing it wrong and bound to failure.'

:sad:

I don't think that's the main argument. I think it's more connected to the evidence that LC and VLC diets don't work long term for the majority. If they did, the diet industry wouldn't exist as it does today, yo-yo dieters wouldn't exist and people who advice against them wouldn't exist since the vast majority of diet programs sold throughout the world are based on LC schemes. They definitely work for a select few. I've seen a few success stories on here where 1200 was their net goal each day. Some people can lose all their weight by eating 1200 calories and even maintain that weight loss for years after. However, when a person comes to a site like this, should the people giving advice suggest what works for the very few or what can work for the majority?

I think that's why so many don't automatically accept a person's 1200 choice as a good one because they understand that the likelihood of it working for that person is rather low. They realize that the person asking the question in the public forum isn't likely to be one of the few that a LC diet works for. Could those advice givers be wrong? Certainly. They could be unwittingly steering a person away from an approach that will work for them. Unfortunately, there's not an easy way to determine that. Someone who has lost and gained the same 20-50 or more lbs is probably one indicator of steering a person away from that approach being a good idea but that information isn't always available.

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 -- Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy 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.

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.

Because a minimum number of calories are part of your nutritional needs. And that goes double for protein and fat. Not getting enough fat is like not getting enough iron.

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.

2000 cals/day is not a low calorie diet - this may even be too many calories for smaller people and sedentary people. The exact amount of calories needed varies depending on size and activity levels. Your approach sounds very sensible, i.e. ensuring adequate calorie intake plus paying attention to the other nutrients.

regarding your question - protein-energy malnutrition is a lot more severe and will make you ill and kill you much more quickly than any vitamin or mineral deficiency. That fact is overlooked by pretty much everyone on ultra-restrictive diets (which goes for diets like fruitarian and the like too). They overfocus on vitamins, minerals and fibre at the expense of other nutrients. It really does not matter if someone is getting all the vitamins and minerals they need, if they're not getting enough protein and energy to support basic survival. It's like if you want to build a house and you have no bricks and no builders, but someone says "but we've got lots of wall paper and curtains" - the wallpaper and curtains are no use without the bricks and builders. Protein is like the bricks, and energy is like the builders - this is what's needed to grow new cells and repair old ones... vitamins and minerals help out with a lot of functions around the body (including some minor aspects of growing and repairing cells), but without protein (including all 8 essential amino acids) and sufficient energy, your body can't repair or regenerate its own tissues, or keep the existing cells alive and no amount of vitamins and minerals can make up for this. Protein and energy are essential and cells need a constant supply of them. People can survive a long time on insufficient calories and protein by drawing on its own resources (fat stores, skeletal muscle), but there's a big cost in terms of health when the body has to catabolise skeletal muscle in order to make up a shortfall of either protein or energy or both. A fat loss diet needs to give the person all the nutrients they need, and just the right amount of energy, so the body draws only from the fat stores in order to make up the energy shortfall. This results in slow fat loss - because the body can't use all that much fat at one time - and it requires patience.

VLCDs are fine for certain people in certain circumstances under medical supervision, when the benefits outweigh the risks and problems (e.g. if someone's likely to die of obesity related illness unless they drop the weight quickly - the risk of the body drawing on lean tissue to supply an energy shortfall is minimal in people who are severely obese, and so long as protein intake is adequate there's no need to draw on skeletal muscle for amino acids either so not only are the benefits greater for these people, the risks are smaller too).... but for most people the risks far outweigh the benefits, and most people on here doing VLCDs are not super-morbidly obese, they're people who really don't have that much weight to lose, but they're looking for a quick fix, because they want to fit into a nice bikini on their summer holiday in 6 weeks and aren't going to have time to lose the weight the healthy way. And they're also the kinds of people for whom the risks of VLCDs are that much greater, because they don't have that much fat to lose. Which is why people promoting them on here are generally not well received. Most people on here promoting them are the very people who are most likely to be harmed by them.