Why do VLCD's fail?

VLCD for an extended period of time damage the body, reduce lean body mass and affect brain and body function.

This statement is far too broad. I feel like someone who weighs 500lbs could go on a year long VLCD and see FAR more health benefits occur than health problems. There is a time and place for a VLCD, and they will work better for some people then a slow and steady weight loss.

Your statement is also far to broad, that same person weighing 500lbs could also see FAR more harm and think everything is fine, yet suddenly die on his year long VLCD, as has been recorded happening quite a few times before, mostly due to heart issues/ ventricular arrhythmia. Any nutrient shortage much more easily causes medical problems on VLCDs, and doing them more than a few days should really only be done highly controlled under medical supervision.

Vlcd is not so much focusrd on calories but harmones. Low carb intake help to control the spike in insulin. A dominant fat storing harmoe. When going back to carbs insulin begins to spike and fat is stored. Its about controlling insulin overptoduction. Low carbon has to be a lifestyle. If you just want to eat caribs still id advise to try another diet. By the way it is very possible to get in all tie nutrients on vlcd if you make wise choices. Google Stephanie Person.

Probably one of the best counter arguments out there:

http://gregnuckols.com/2013/06/04/slow-and-steady-weight-loss-i-think-not/

No necessarily addressing VLCD, but faster weight loss in general.

Well thats fine for some people, especially if you are talking about the author, me or probably you: a highly muscled male with high relative starting weight. I'm similar in strength to that guy who's page you referenced, so I can say yeah for people like us its not so big of a deal to lose (or gain) at that speed of 15 lbs in a month. And in fact to clarify its *NOT* even a VLCD to do it! The problem is when you say things like this in general, people apply it to their own widely varying circumstances, and -15lbs/mo is not the same for him, as it is for the 5'1" girl.

It isn't so bad if someone like him (or myself) cuts 1,500 cals a day because we are big, have a lot of muscle and then adding exercise: 3,500cal/day - 1,500= 2,000 cals/day. So I (and I assume the link author's calorie levels are similar) can do a 1,500/day diet and lose 4lbs/week and get enough nutrients in, no problems (except for my appetite). It is still not even a VLCD according to many until I'm trying to drop closer to 5lbs/week!! But when you get into smaller people, women, those with less muscle mass, and people who ignore other parts of the diet (like eating high protein), -3lbs/week is a massive VLCD, 1,750 -1,500 cals/day= 250 cals/day...which can get you into trouble fast. And there is no way you will get sufficient protein or fats, which means your muscles get torn down.

And also, I say "fine" for someone like me to do it, but I know that I still get tempted to "pork out" if I try to cut so much, and tend to regain fast lost weight back faster. So yeah, I can do it, and be unhappy with my food levels, and be at risk of regaining it faster. Sometimes though gathering your will for a week on a 4lb loss is easier than trying to restrict for a month at -1lb/wk.

The biggest problem with a fast weight loss is you go in and out of a diet, and when you come out you are "starved" for certain foods or quantities and go "ahhh, I can finally eat again!" and go right back to your old habits. You learned no new way of eating that you will do on your own (unless you periodically go through dieting again), so the weight returns easily. If you try for a slow loss, you can "practice" modifying your food intake to a level that is sustainable forever, and never be in massive hunger, so eventually you can just do what you are doing and stay at the weight you wanted, that's the beauty of a slow loss program.

Personally, I go through periods of faster and slower loss, but I never go into VLCD levels anymore. Faster loss usually involves a rebound up after. Slower loss (but not too slow) tends to result in a new range that I fluctuate above and below.

because we're descended from millions of survivors of food shortages, and the changes that our bodies make in response to a severe or prolonged food shortage are exactly the things that we *don't* want happening when we're trying to diet.... like burning muscle to reduce the body's daily energy demand and make fat stores last as long as possible...... like binge eating (imagine a half starved Homo erectus when they finally get a decent amount of food... he or she will survive best if he or she eats the whole lot as quickly as possible)..... like obsessing about food (again, imagine a Homo erectus in a food shortage... the more mental energy they devote to finding food the more likely they are to actually find some and survive the food shortage);;;; we've inherited these characterisics so that.s how our bodies respond to a big calorie deficit. And it's not what you want to be battling with while dieting.

Instead, it's better to emulate a mild and short lived food shortage, where you're successfully hunting to get more food, i.e. do strenuous exercise to maintain your muscle mass (used muscle doesn't get burned off in a mild food shortage because used muscle is needed to hunt/gather food, at least in our evolutionary ancestors whose genes we've inherited) while eating just a little less, for slow and steady fat loss, because this increases the likelihood that what you lose will be pure fat...

that's pretty much why... I'm sure some people will go into the biochemistry of it in a bit more detail, but the bottom line is that our bodies are adapted for surviving food shortages, not for having ripped abs while surrounded by an excess of food in a society where you can telephone for pizza and have it delivered through the living room window directly to your sofa.

Fat storage is not a vestigial thing, some leftover function from times when going hungry was common.

People continue to starve to death today because there is no food.

Here on this board, we are lucky enough to have the opposite problem, but it is happening right now. No need to think about ancestors.

They don't always fail. When they do it's because people are either unable to comply with the very low calorie regimen to actually achieve results, or they are unable to transition out of the diet to a maintenance state. Both reasons are directly related to people eating too much.

So like I said before, it sounds like (okay besides the binge/restrict cycle) that it fails mostly just like any other "diet", because there was no permanent change in eating habits.

because we're descended from millions of survivors of food shortages, and the changes that our bodies make in response to a severe or prolonged food shortage are exactly the things that we *don't* want happening when we're trying to diet.... like burning muscle to reduce the body's daily energy demand and make fat stores last as long as possible...... like binge eating (imagine a half starved Homo erectus when they finally get a decent amount of food... he or she will survive best if he or she eats the whole lot as quickly as possible)..... like obsessing about food (again, imagine a Homo erectus in a food shortage... the more mental energy they devote to finding food the more likely they are to actually find some and survive the food shortage);;;; we've inherited these characterisics so that.s how our bodies respond to a big calorie deficit. And it's not what you want to be battling with while dieting.

Instead, it's better to emulate a mild and short lived food shortage, where you're successfully hunting to get more food, i.e. do strenuous exercise to maintain your muscle mass (used muscle doesn't get burned off in a mild food shortage because used muscle is needed to hunt/gather food, at least in our evolutionary ancestors whose genes we've inherited) while eating just a little less, for slow and steady fat loss, because this increases the likelihood that what you lose will be pure fat...

that's pretty much why... I'm sure some people will go into the biochemistry of it in a bit more detail, but the bottom line is that our bodies are adapted for surviving food shortages, not for having ripped abs while surrounded by an excess of food in a society where you can telephone for pizza and have it delivered through the living room window directly to your sofa.

Fat storage is not a vestigial thing, some leftover function from times when going hungry was common.

People continue to starve to death today because there is no food.

Here on this board, we are lucky enough to have the opposite problem, but it is happening right now. No need to think about ancestors.

I didn't say that fat storage was vestigial. Our bodies work the same way our hunter-gatherer ancestors' bodies work, by and large, and all of what any organism inherits are the traits that helped their ancestors survive. People seem to expect their bodies to work in ways that would result in rapidly dying in an actual food shortage, i.e. that they can go on a starvation diet and do x minutes a day workouts and rapidly burn off all their fat while their muscles get bigger.

But yeah, you're right, for many parts of the world, surviving food shortages is still an issue, so I take your point on that, which is your general point I believe.