Crash Diets May Be Most Effective Weight Loss Technique
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
Posts: 2,668 Member
news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/16/crash-diets-may-be-most-effective-weight-loss-technique-u-k-study-suggests/
Because it's Thursday, I'm in a mood, and I haven't seen a good MFP debate in a while.
Because it's Thursday, I'm in a mood, and I haven't seen a good MFP debate in a while.
-1
Replies
-
Lol I read this earlier on the Daily Mail...and I have to tell you the first thing I thought of was MFP...but I have to agree with the article because after both of my pregnancies I lost weight this way and maintained it for years.0
-
In to read later, after the conversation gets started.0
-
Makes sense, the quicker you see results, the more motivated you are likely to be. I didn't read the entire article, but what do they consider a "crash diet"? I'm pretty sure many of us do this and call it a cut.0
-
Whats an MFP?0
-
0
-
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in something with a sample size of 200. A statistically significant sample and replicating the results would go a lot farther in convincing me.0
-
DjinnMarie wrote: »Makes sense, the quicker you see results, the more motivated you are likely to be. I didn't read the entire article, but what do they consider a "crash diet"? I'm pretty sure many of us do this and call it a cut.
It did say a VLCD which shows quicker results equal motivating more. The question is never unhealthy quick weight loss. It say that at the end of the article to. IS the question a long term lifestyle change or a quick fix. I vote for longer term because I know what happens with short term quick fix. I stopped at 205 which is my lowest weight in over a decade. I had muscle to use as back up energy though.
0 -
I've posted studies that say that for a long time. Many people are hesitant to believe that it's not less healthy.0
-
I would be interested to see some of the hard data and methodology from this study. It would have also been nice if they had measured body composition, as that is one of the criticisms against losing too quickly.0
-
DjinnMarie wrote: »Makes sense, the quicker you see results, the more motivated you are likely to be. I didn't read the entire article, but what do they consider a "crash diet"? I'm pretty sure many of us do this and call it a cut.
They asked half the participants to lose 12.5% of their body weight in 12 weeks and the other half to lose the same amount in 36 weeks.
0 -
It also says that the rate at which both groups regained weight after three years was roughly the same at 71%, suggesting that crash dieting is no worse in the long term.0
-
Chiming in to (probably unpopularly) say: the article point out that most folks (7/10) gained it back. MAINTAINING seems to be the more difficult proposition. And why I get frustrated here at times. Everyone is sure that "this time" is the forever weight loss. "This time" it's sustainable. "This time" I'm "just counting, weighing, measuring, but I'm not restricting myself". "This time it's not a diet....
And for all of us, time will tell if "this time" truly is the last time. And that depends entirely on having a workable longterm plan that you follow. Whatever that is.0 -
I wonder how obese the subjects were. Since they were told to lose a % of body weight, it's hard to determine how much exactly they lost.
12.5% of 200 lbs in 12 weeks is only slightly more than 2 lbs per week. I wouldn't call that a crash diet.0 -
Not enough stats to go off of. Can discern a few things though.
Love how the failure rate for maintaining is 71% either way. Edit - gained back 71% of weight lost.
Obese, so must be using the BMI ranges.
12.5% of total body weight in 12 instead of 36 weeks.
Is that what we would consider "crash" diet?
Or is the 12 week group still reasonable for amount to be lost, but 36 wk group just slower?
Here is more stats.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8PQN1JlSgJwJ:www.medscape.com/viewarticle/833346+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Aimed for 15% weight loss.
Fast group ate 450-800 cal/day, slow group ate deficit of 400-500 cal/day.
Wonder who lost the most muscle mass?
To finish phase 1 had to reach 12.5% weight loss within that time period.
Only 50% of slow and 81% of fast finished phase 1 to go in to maintenance phase 2.
Considering the failure to maintain in both cases - I suggest what is the real issue here?
Yes the rapid folks were probably more encouraged to see the weight drop fast, and therefore kept to it better to keep seeing the results they did.
But was the mental makeup of either group changed really, such that they relearned HOW to eat to maintain.
Sure, your success seeing it come off could keep you in the rapid weight loss diet. But so could being in a camp being forced to walk every day and eat 50% of TDEE by means of the whip for encouragement.
And it appears that in either case - once out of whatever encouraged you to get the weight loss was gone - you ate "normal" again and gained it back.
So fast or slow - is that really the question? Or making the mind over with new habits - which really allows that to happen if the desire is really there?
Obviously in this case the desire wasn't there for either group, but considering only 50% of the slow group made it for phase 2, be interesting how many of them kept up healthy eating.
Though they all did meal replacement drinks. How many flavors of them?0 -
Doctors often put morbidly obese people on a VLCD as the benefits of simply losing weight greatly outweigh the risks of rapid weight loss in this group of people. Rapid weight loss can also in some cases help with insulin resistance issues (see the Newcastle Diet).
That isn't to say that everyone should be on a VLCD crash diet though. And if you are, it should be monitored by a medical professional.0 -
12.5% in 12 weeks of my body weight would put me in a pretty close to 2 pounds per week loss which is not that fast but it is. There will be abundance of muscle loss. I would have to drop my weight goal down even more than before to get my body fat where I want it to be.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I wonder how obese the subjects were. Since they were told to lose a % of body weight, it's hard to determine how much exactly they lost.
12.5% of 200 lbs in 12 weeks is only slightly more than 2 lbs per week. I wouldn't call that a crash diet.
You've got a point there.
0 -
True. 12.5% in 12 weeks doesn't actually sound too unreasonable.It also says that the rate at which both groups regained weight after three years was roughly the same at 71%, suggesting that crash dieting is no worse in the long term.
For a 200lb person, that would be just over 2lbs per week.
At my current weight that would be about 22lbs (a little less than 2lbs per week).
When I think crash diet, I think of the people who are less than 200lbs and want to lose 3-4lbs per week or more.
0 -
"An Australian trial followed 200 obese adults, half of whom were encouraged to lose 12.5% of body weight within 12 weeks, and half who were allowed 36 weeks. The researchers found that eight out of 10 people assigned to the rapid weight loss program achieved their goal compared with just 50% of the steady dieters."
This is an important point, IMO. First of all, 12 weeks and 36 weeks is not long term. In fact, the article goes on to state that 71% of both groups had regained the weight three years later, so in the end in order to maintain a healthy weight for the rest of your life, it really doesn't matter what method you use in the first few months. The key, as I think most of us agree, is to make changes to your lifestyle that you can live with for the rest of your life.
Also, the sample is only obese people. It's relatively easier for an obese person to lose a lot of weight quickly. Obese person here, so please don't flame me for that. I know that when I was dropping 3-4 lbs a week at the beginning I was extremely motivated to keep going. After 4-5 months my weight loss slowed down and I started to get bored and rest on my laurels. Result: weight went up by about 15 lbs. I rebooted and took a slow and steady approach. I'm now -74 lbs and I still have about 45 to go. It's gotten harder to lose but I'm not giving up -- and I'm certainly not going to do any crash dieting.0 -
My very first weight loss attempt was 25 pounds lost in 5 weeks. I will not give details to how just know that it was a crash diet compare to whatever this study did.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I wonder how obese the subjects were. Since they were told to lose a % of body weight, it's hard to determine how much exactly they lost.
12.5% of 200 lbs in 12 weeks is only slightly more than 2 lbs per week. I wouldn't call that a crash diet.
That's what I thought too, so I looked for more information.
From http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/833346
The participants were between 30 and 45 BMI. The crash diet was 400-800 calories (so I think that counts) and the weight loss aimed at was 3.3 lbs (1.5 kg) per week. The gradual weight loss people did a 400-500 calorie deficit and aimed at 1.1 lbs/week.
50% of those in the gradual plan and 81% of those in the crash plan finished phase one (losing 12.5% of their starting weights) and entered phase 2, which was about keeping it off.
Interesting, although it doesn't change my mind as to the best strategy for me.
(Oops. Cross posted with someone else pulling the same information. Oh, well.)
0 -
12.5% body weight for me is about 14 lbs. while only a little over 1 lb a week, this would require a VLCD, as I'm already pretty lean.My husband could certainly lose the 2 lbs a week needed on about 2000 calories. I wouldn't consider that crash dieting or VLCD.
0 -
"The number of people who regained weight after three years was also the same in both groups"0
-
The trick is to call your crash diet a lifestyle change. Then it's completely different.0
-
-
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I wonder how obese the subjects were. Since they were told to lose a % of body weight, it's hard to determine how much exactly they lost.
12.5% of 200 lbs in 12 weeks is only slightly more than 2 lbs per week. I wouldn't call that a crash diet.
That's what I thought too, so I looked for more information.
From http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/833346
The participants were between 30 and 45 BMI. The crash diet was 400-800 calories (so I think that counts) and the weight loss aimed at was 3.3 lbs (1.5 kg) per week. The gradual weight loss people did a 400-500 calorie deficit and aimed at 1.1 lbs/week.
50% of those in the gradual plan and 81% of those in the crash plan finished phase one (losing 12.5% of their starting weights) and entered phase 2, which was about keeping it off.
Interesting, although it doesn't change my mind as to the best strategy for me.
(Oops. Cross posted with someone else pulling the same information. Oh, well.)
400 - 800 calories per day would be hard. I could do it for probably 3-4 weeks, but 3 months? I don't think I could, even on a bet.0 -
For this study, it needs to be change with using body fat % and lean body mass. Compare those with the study. Weight and BMI only tell so much.0
-
To determine what is "healthier" you would need to measure other things as well, like muscle loss, change in health markers, incidence of health problems, etc.
Frankly, maintenance is very hard and most people struggle with it whether weight loss is fast or slow.
For me, what makes sense is to practice making changes that I can and intend to keep up for the rest of my life. If I can lose weight more quickly doing while that all the better, but I'm not on a time-frame (plus I want to preserve all those wonderful muscles that must be under there somewhere after hoisting 100 excess pounds for many years :P).0 -
“The challenge is not losing weight but sustaining weight loss,” said Sanders.
That's the key quote in this article.
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