Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?
Replies
-
You still see BMR posted as the 'coma limit', so of course we still see 1200 as it. Though at least it's going down over the years! :laugh:
Even in the last few posts, there is '1200 shaming'. "Few people know what they're doing at it", "the risks, the dangers", "few people succeed at it", etc. Do you think that maybe the people who succeed at it don't post that because they get their **** jumped from the people who assume they don't know what they're doing and need educating and saving?
Do you think if it's dangerous MFP would use it? I think they'd have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if 1200 was dangerous.0 -
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.
In the 2 years I have been on this site, I have known numerous people who have succeeded on 1200, and have not regained their weight, nor had any serious complications due to that calorie level. For some it is appropriate.
There have also been numerous 'Success Stories' from these people on the forums. The problem is, if they state what calorie level they were on, it turns into a shouting match between those who are determined that NO ONE should be on that level, and those that are fine on that level, and soon the thread gets locked and deleted.
This is why you can't find any success stories in the forums.:flowerforyou:0 -
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.
Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:
Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?
I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?
The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.
ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.
Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.
The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.
Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?
It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.
I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.
The only support my doctor had was a 1200 calorie a day plan. My BMR is 1750. I tried portion control and failed and failed and failed.
It wasn't until I came to MFP and found that I could lose at 2300 calories a day that I felt like I had any control, that it wasn't going to be impossible. And I wouldn't have believed it except for all the regulars on the forums. I don't know where else I was supposed to "learn about my body" outside of here? Shape magazine?
My best friend has a thyroid disorder, is 5"3' and 41. She eats 1400 before exercise.
There are a LOT more of her and me in the population than there are of the 60 year old 5' obese women.
I was obese. I lost weight just fine at 2000+ I wouldn't have lost any weight at all if I'd tried to stick to the 1200 - 1400 diets.0 -
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.
Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:
Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?
I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?
The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.
ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.
Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.
The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.
Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?
It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.
I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.
Well said!
0 -
1200 calories isn't a VLC diet. Typical VLC diets are below 1000. I've done those in the past, and the real problem is they are generally not sustainable. Nor do they help you plan for how to eat after the weight is lost. Most people return to the same eating patterns that caused them to gain weight in the first place. Then they act surprised that they regained the weight they had lost.
I believe the less restrictive methods advocated here on MFP are more sustainable. Also, I've learned that there is very little difference between weight loss mode and maintenance once I reach my goal. I should be able to add a couple of hundred calories per day, but I need to eat the same types of foods and continue to exercise. In other words for weight loss to be permanent, the eating patterns that helped lose the weight need to be sustained.
1200 calories might be appropriate for some depending on their age, height, weight and activity level. For others like myself, it is too little. When I tried 1200 calories, I was tired and didn't recover from my workouts very well. I am much better at 1700 calories per day. I would not automatically tell someone eating 1200 calories they need to eat more. I do suggest they understand their TDEE and deficit so they are sure they are eating at an appropriate level.0 -
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.
Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:
Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?
I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?
The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.
ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.
Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.
The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.
Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?
It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.
I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.
The only support my doctor had was a 1200 calorie a day plan. My BMR is 1750. I tried portion control and failed and failed and failed.
It wasn't until I came to MFP and found that I could lose at 2300 calories a day that I felt like I had any control, that it wasn't going to be impossible. And I wouldn't have believed it except for all the regulars on the forums. I don't know where else I was supposed to "learn about my body" outside of here? Shape magazine?
My best friend has a thyroid disorder, is 5"3' and 41. She eats 1400 before exercise.
There are a LOT more of her and me in the population than there are of the 60 year old 5' obese women.
I was obese. I lost weight just fine at 2000+ I wouldn't have lost any weight at all if I'd tried to stick to the 1200 - 1400 diets.
I don't understand the point of this reponse? What is "a LOT"? What is the percentage of early 40's obese women who are able to lose on more than 1200 calories compared to 60 yo 5' obese women who can not? And how is it applicable to the post that quoted, re: not saying 1200 is not appropriate for anyone?0 -
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.0
-
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.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.0 -
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.
Eh? No it isn't because cals in as an effect on cals out which has an effect on the deficit you are running or its magnitude.
Say, for the sake of argument my current TDEE is 1,500 cals (yes, I know I don't look like a short, attractive woman but hear me out sister.) This is based on the amount of activity, both planned and unconscious, I do during the day currently.
I decide to drop to drop the cals I eat to 1,000 calories per day to lose 1lbs of fat per week. Groovy. This presumes however that my activity levels stay constant, particularly my spontaneous physical activity (so not planned exercise). However, it doesn't because, unless well planned, the 1,000 calories leaves me sluggish. I end up doing far less. Rather than have my evening walk I prefer to sit on the couch of an evening. I don't stand as much during the day as I am frequently tired. I do far less unconsciously. What was a 1,500 calorie TDEE now drifts down to a 1,200 calorie TDEE or lower. Weight slows slow to the point it is imperceptible or non existent.
Now let's say I raise cals to 1,800 per day (what heresy is this I hear you ask, I am trying to lose weight?) However, because of the additional food I feel energised and invigorated. I move more generally. I find that instead of exercise being a chore, I freakin' love the stuff. I do much more of it. Even hill repeats* (*lies). My TDEE rockets up to 2,300 a day. This leaves me a deficit of 500 cals per day and weight loss.
Scenario 1: less cals and no or very small deficit
Scenario 2: more cals and a deficit
Ok, this is a highly hypothetical scenario and I have fudged the numbers somewhat to make my point but I hope I did have a point. Somewhere. Maybe. I forget what it is now.
There is a bigger reason why I think that low cal may result in no weight loss when higher cal will but that is psychological (how logging accuracy can be compromised / unconscious bingeing) but it seems most people are much more hung up with physiology around these parts so no doubt it will be pooh poohed.
And I don't like being pooh poohed.0 -
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.
Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:
Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?
I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?
The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.
ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.
Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.
The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.
Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?
It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.
I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.
Oh, no, I'm not so far from that 5'0" 60 year old woman who walks her dog for 10 minutes and only needs around 1000 calories! And the scary thing is that I'm only 5'1.5" so I might be only 5'0" at 60. Scary, scary, scary....0 -
If the point was that she can't COMPLY with 1200-1400, that's a different issue and you can't really generalize it-- "I can't comply with 1200-1400 therefore YOU can't comply with it and would lose better at 2000..."
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.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.
Or to the next argument, if the issue is her NEAT/exercise burn decreases by the entire 600-800 calorie increase in deficit, that's (1) not that realistic and (2) also partly a personal issue. Not all of us lie on the couch at 1200-1400. NEAT may decrease some but not 600-800 calories a day and there are many of us who use activity monitors and can see it happening and intervene.0 -
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.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.
If you "blow your diet" and eat more than 1200-1400, then you aren't eating 1200-1400. If a person loses on 2000 per day, then it would be impossible for that same person not to lose on 1200-1400.
While I do agree that an additional 800 calorie deficit per day would likely not be ideal for most who can lose on 2000 per day, there really is no reason to believe it would be unhealthy for everyone who can lose on 2000 per day, or that everyone who tried it would "blow their diet".
People are different. Different needs, different desires, different levels of will power.0 -
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.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.
^^^^ this
I'd never succeed at losing weight eating 1500 cals/day or less.... but lose weight fine on 1800 cals/day ....why?
1. I'd be so freaking hungry I'd end up raiding the fridge and cupboards for chocolates and sugary snacks and end up consuming more calories than I would have if I'd just set my calorie goal to a number that's easier to stick to to begin with
2. I'd be so miserable I'd probably end up deciding I'd rather be fat and give up
3. I'd find it impossible to do all the physical activities I enjoy like lifting heavy weights or playing in the park with my kids or hiking or other sporty and outdoorsy things....... I'd be very tired and hangry if I tried and 1 and 2 will be even worse (and note that if I'm much more physically active than usual - I do the TDEE - 10% method - then I'll eat extra calories to compensate, as my calorie goal is based on a particular amount of activity, so if I do significantly more than this then I eat significantly more than 1800cals in a day.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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:0 -
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.0 -
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:
Don't cry!
I just think that nobody should have to go hungry to lose weight. If you can deal with a low calorie diet and not be hungry, good for you, you'll lose weight faster! If you can go on a low calorie diet, be hungry, and manage it, that's okay too! But if you do low calorie, go hungry, and are miserable, that's really really bad. And not necessary.0 -
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.
Sure, I take your point. It maybe that in a minority of cases that low calorie dieting as a jump off point may be a viable option. However, we don't extrapolate out from the specific to the general when considering what advice probably fits most people.
I think that denying food equates with pleasure / happiness or seeing it as something which has to be "overcome" is a bad idea. Good food and wine (as the case may be
in the company of the people you care about is one of life's absolutely greatest experiences. It is, in fact, joyous. And who wants a life where you continually have to deny yourself joy?
The problem comes when this source of joy morphs into something else - overcoming pain, a coping mechanism for emotional distress and so on. Food, when it becomes medication, isn't about happiness at all but rather something less healthy.0 -
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.
Sure, I take your point. It maybe that in a minority of cases that low calorie dieting as a jump off point may be a viable option. However, we don't extrapolate out from the specific to the general when considering what advice probably fits most people.
I think that denying food equates with pleasure / happiness or seeing it as something which has to be "overcome" is a bad idea. Good food and wine (as the case may be in the company of the people you care about is one of life's absolutely greatest experiences. It is, in fact, joyous. And who wants a life where you continually have to deny yourself joy?
The problem comes when this source of joy morphs into something else - overcoming pain, a coping mechanism for emotional distress and so on. Food, when it becomes medication, isn't about happiness at all but rather something less healthy.
Agreed.
I don't think anyone would advocate a VLCD as something anyone should follow forever. People are correct when they say it's not sustainable. But it's not supposed to be. That doesn't make it always wrong. Getting to the point where food and wine with friends can be a pleasurable experience is a battle for some.
I wasn't saying it should be general recommendation, nor do I think anyone else on this thread, including the OP was suggesting that. Unless I misunderstood, the question was why do so many insist that VLC or 1200 calorie diets are never the right solution.0 -
I totally agree.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.
Do others notice that nearly all published diet books and organized plans start with an initial aggressive phase? The psychology behind that is that people are motivated by seeing the scale move and they feel empowered and excited and like they have some control. Success breeds success.
When people come here they get conflicting info (the app tells them 1200 and the forums scream NO), wrong info (starvation mode!) and told they have to find some tiny calorie target that is barely a deficit and be content with snail-pace losses. While tediously tracking every bite. Forever. And they can't even speed things up with exercise because of 'eating back'.
If this site was my first foray into the diet world, I would decide it's hopeless and give up, I think.
People don't track well. So when they say they're eating 1400, the science shows they're probably eating at least 1800. But they think owning a food scale means their tracking is perfect. So they post, "I'm eating 1400 and not losing!" And people tell them, 'Eat more!' So they lose less. And fail and leave and gain 30 more lbs. Eventually they might pick up some diet books or join WW or try any other plan and learn that it doesn't have to be this slow, tiny target window with precision tracking and constant fear of undereating.0 -
. Unless I misunderstood, the question was why do so many insist that VLC or 1200 calorie diets are never the right solution.
Dunno.
That baffles me as well to be fair...0 -
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.
This is a forum mostly made up of lay people who are trying to lose weight/increase fitness levels. People who pose questions here should know that (it's stated at the bottom of most pages). They are going to get a variety of answers. Most people will be more swayed by those that have been successful and especially by those that have maintained that success. People that tried the LC method and failed for years will use that personal experience in the advice they give. Is it biased? Of course but luckily there are viewpoints on both sides and a person can make their decision based partly on those differing perspectives.
And I'll end it there since I think I got a bit rambly and I can't even come up with a concise TLDR statement.0 -
There are two links in this thread to studies that say otherwise, one a meta-analysis of around 30 disconnected weight loss studies. The conclusions were that VLCD worked better over the long term. No one has yet posted any that support the opposite. In my years here, I think I've seen two-- one from the 80s, one from Japan.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.
If one believes low calorie diets don't work, this is an odd plan for them to follow since it's based on caloric deficit. I think it's a foregone conclusion that low calorie diets work.0 -
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.
Why give advice at all if you have no idea if the advice is correct for the person to whom it's being given?
And what evidence is there that 1200 is only a good choice for the "very few"?
What evidence is there that losing at a higher calorie rate has a better chance of being maintained? All weight loss methods have a slim chance of long term success. ALL of them.
From what I've seen on the forums very few of the advice givers have successfully lost a significant amount of weight and kept it off long term. Many are still losing. They think they will maintain that loss, but so do most people who are losing. Most of them are wrong.0 -
I don't like being hungry. It doesn't make me feel good. Just angry. And hungry. **HANGRRRRYYYY**0
-
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.
Yes PEG feeds are for people who cannot swallow long term..
For those reading at home the initials stand for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy - ie the person has a tube going directly into their stomach and is fed a liquid diet through that.
Not all people were in a coma - they were mostly stroke victims, some could still stand transfer, speak, have limited activity in chair. Some could even still swallow small amounts.
But by MFP standards, super sedentary - comatose.
I agree and have said so many times in these threads - 1200 is a suitable NET weight loss amount for some people - usually shorter older less active women.
Shorter older less active women are obviously not the majority of the population so this amount wont be suitable for many people - but shorter older less active women are a significant percentage of the population so it wont be that unusual as an appropriate amount either.
Re success stories - me! :bigsmile:
Well, not quite as low as 1200 but my net amount for losing was 1460, not much more than 1200, and that was sustainable over the long term ie the time it took me to reach my goal weight (10 months)
I am 50 years old and nearly 5 ft 4 in and put myself as lightly active.
There are many women 10+ years older than me, 5 inches or more shorter and less active - seems quite feasible to me that their amount would be 260 less than mine.0 -
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.
Great job on the weight loss. :drinker:
Glad that you found a formula that worked for you. That said, you are a 33 yo male, who is probably around 6ft? and is very active.
I will assume that your recommended plan is intended for those that are around your stats?
I mean, surely you wouldn't think that a 60 yo, 5' tall female, whose activity consists of walking her dog for 10 mins a day, would not be be ok eating 1200 cals of appropriate amounts of Protein and healthy fats, with enough fruits and veggies to meet her nutritional needs, right?
Especially if her TDEE was only 1200-1300 to begin with?
The problem I have with most of the anti-1200 posters, is that they assume that everyone on here is just like them. They do not understand that there are many people on here who do NOT have a 2000 or higher TDEE, due to their age, height, BF%, medical conditions i.e. insulin resistance, Diabetes, PCOS, etc, and varying activity levels.
ARE there people on here who try to lose on 1200 when it is not sustainable for them? Yes. There are. And what happens is that they eventually get frustrated and realize they can't function on that level, and start eating more. You will see these people on every one of these threads. They say "I tried the 1200 plan and it didn't work for me. I upped it to 1400 and am doing fine." "1200 worked for me for awhile and then it quit working, so I upped my calories and started losing again", etc. etc.
Most people are not idiots. If they try something and it doesn't work for them, then they will eventually try something different. Perhaps I am giving the general population too much credit, but I would like to think that people who are serious about losing weight, will eventually, thru trial and error, find what works for them.
The ones who just want a quick easy fix, and are not prepared to make permanent life changes, are not going to stick to a diet long term, no matter how many calories they are given.
The bottom line is that people need to learn how their own bodies function. Educate yourself on proper nutrition. Figure out how many calories you maintain your weight on, and choose a deficit that works FOR YOU.
Someone whose TDEE is only 1600, will get roasted on here if they admit they eat 1200. That is only a 400 cal deficit. Yet a 6+ ft tall, 30 yo male, weighing 400 lbs and maintaining on 8-10K a day, can choose to eat at 2000, drop 200 lbs in a year, and everyone cheers him on?
It is all relative. Too many blanket statements being thrown around by people who think they have all the answers for everyone.
I'm not directing this only to the guy I quoted, he is just the latest of many posts from people who think that because 1200 is no where near appropriate for THEIR situation, then it is not appropriate for ANYONE.
The only support my doctor had was a 1200 calorie a day plan. My BMR is 1750. I tried portion control and failed and failed and failed.
It wasn't until I came to MFP and found that I could lose at 2300 calories a day that I felt like I had any control, that it wasn't going to be impossible. And I wouldn't have believed it except for all the regulars on the forums. I don't know where else I was supposed to "learn about my body" outside of here? Shape magazine?
My best friend has a thyroid disorder, is 5"3' and 41. She eats 1400 before exercise.
There are a LOT more of her and me in the population than there are of the 60 year old 5' obese women.
I was obese. I lost weight just fine at 2000+ I wouldn't have lost any weight at all if I'd tried to stick to the 1200 - 1400 diets.
But you don't have to be obese for 1200 to be an appropriate net level - your friend is 5 ft 3 and 41 years old - add another 20 years and subtract 5 inches - very feasible that 1400 will come down to 1200.
As stated above, I also lost on net of 1460 - I was not obese. I was overweight by about 10 kg, yes - but by no means obese.
I am not sure that there are that many more women at 41 and 5ft 4in than women of 60 and 5 ft 0 - would estimate there to be aprox same numbers of each in the population myself.
At any rate, the point is that there are a significant number of people for whom 1200 is appropriate - and yes, many for whom it is not.
So the 1200 is just wrong for everyone is as invalid as 1200 is right for everyone.0 -
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.
I do worry about protein, but I eat Greek yogurt and nuts almost every day, and I eat eggs, cheeses and beans several times a week. I'm trying to cut meat out, so I would not be getting lots of protein from meat. I was trying to avoid saturated fats, but since my diet is already low in saturated fat, I haven't been as strict. So confusing - why didn't they teach us this in school??0 -
Nutritional science is still in its infancy, and the information available is heavily influenced by personal and corporate agendas. I do hope it improves in future though. I was taught literally nothing about Nutrition in school (finished in 2006). I didn't even know what a calorie was.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.
I do worry about protein, but I eat Greek yogurt and nuts almost every day, and I eat eggs, cheeses and beans several times a week. I'm trying to cut meat out, so I would not be getting lots of protein from meat. I was trying to avoid saturated fats, but since my diet is already low in saturated fat, I haven't been as strict. So confusing - why didn't they teach us this in school??0 -
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.
Thank you. I do worry about protein, but I eat Greek yogurt and nuts almost every day, and I eat eggs, cheeses and beans several times a week. I'm trying to cut meat out, so I would not be getting lots of protein from meat. Maybe other sources, but those are the ones I'm most familiar with. I was trying to avoid saturated fats, but since my diet is already low in saturated fat, I haven't been as strict. I think I'm getting enough protein and good fats, but honestly, who knows? I feel like I know so much more about healthy eating than I used to, but I feel like you have to be a scientist to really know.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions