Crash Diets May Be Most Effective Weight Loss Technique

Options
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
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.
«134567

Replies

  • bigsistruck
    bigsistruck Posts: 125 Member
    Options
    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.
  • xcalygrl
    xcalygrl Posts: 1,897 Member
    Options
    In to read later, after the conversation gets started.
  • DjinnMarie
    DjinnMarie Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Chantonescu
    Chantonescu Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    Whats an MFP?
  • Strange_magic
    Strange_magic Posts: 370 Member
    Options
    Chantonescu wrote: »
    Whats an MFP?

    MFP is Myfitnesspal. The website/app you are currently on. :smiley:
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    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.

  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I've posted studies that say that for a long time. Many people are hesitant to believe that it's not less healthy.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    Options
    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.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    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.
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    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.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    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?
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Rmntrose
    Rmntrose Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    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.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    BinkyBonk wrote: »
    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.
    True. 12.5% in 12 weeks doesn't actually sound too unreasonable.
    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.
  • 0somuchbetter0
    0somuchbetter0 Posts: 1,335 Member
    Options
    "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.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    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.

Categories