Crash Diets May Be Most Effective Weight Loss Technique
Options
Replies
-
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 -
In for later when I get home.0
-
I'm curious as to if these people were restricted to certain exercises. That's a big factor. Were their calorie goals just straight calories or net?
I mean...all I really get from the article is that it's supposedly easier to stick with a diet for a short period of time when you see faster results (which makes sense), but that essentially you're greatly restricting yourself for something you aren't even going to maintain.
If the majority of them failed to maintain equally in both groups, the "crash diet group" went through serious restrictions for the exact same results in the end. All they really got was momentary results. Seems more like an advertisement for "restrict yourself quickly for fast results you'll keep for a short period of time." I think we all know that is possible but we don't desire it.
I also wonder how they were monitored to ensure they were only eating that amount. Mentally, it's much easier to cheat when you think you have an extended period of time to achieve your diet goals. Both groups boil down to people aiming to lose over a certain period rather than aiming to make a lifestyle change.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »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.
For those that are obese, losing weight is probably the most important thing though.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »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.
For those that are obese, losing weight is probably the most important thing though.
Obesity isn't a good thing but it's not necessarily deadly. Some people are naturally more overweight/obese, it all depends on where their fat is (ie. less around the belly.) The argument could be that people who are overeating are also generally eating bad foods in larger quantities than a thin person eating the same foods, but these foods are still likely to cause diabetes, stroke, etc etc for both. Instead of making it about losing BF, I wonder how likely making healthy lifestyle choices would stick around in a study with the same parameters... although that's harder to measure I'm sure.0 -
If the majority of them failed to maintain equally in both groups, the "crash diet group" went through serious restrictions for the exact same results in the end. All they really got was momentary results. Seems more like an advertisement for "restrict yourself quickly for fast results you'll keep for a short period of time." I think we all know that is possible but we don't desire it.
I also wonder how they were monitored to ensure they were only eating that amount. Mentally, it's much easier to cheat when you think you have an extended period of time to achieve your diet goals. Both groups boil down to people aiming to lose over a certain period rather than aiming to make a lifestyle change.
Statistically, the vast majority of people who lose a significant amount of weight will fail miserably in the long-term. That doesn't mean any particular individual will fail, nor does it mean people shouldn't try, but it does mean most people will ultimately fail to maintain their losses.
I think the takeaway from this article though is that it doesn't particularly matter how you lose the weight, aside from some extreme scenarios where you actually damage your body during the weight loss (which is harder to do than most people think), but rather what matters in terms of long-term success is whether you stay focused and continue working just has hard during maintenance. Put another way, just because someone decides to lose weight slowly, while refusing to acknowledge they follow some form of structured diet (even if it's just a calorie target) and getting all cranky if you don't refer to it as a "lifestyle change", they still don't increase their chances of maintaining their success in the long-term than someone who follows a structured and perhaps more restrictive diet plan while losing weight.
And logically, that's the only conclusion that makes sense, because maintenance is determined by how you eat and exercise during maintenance, not how you lost weight in the first place. To think that you'll somehow be more or less likely to exercise and to hit your calorie target during maintenance based on how you dropped weight is just nonsense. What you did last year or what you called your diet last year is not going to affect what you do or don't do today - how could it?
At the end of the day, it's all pretty simple to me. Figure out what works best for you to lose weight, lose the weight, and then figure out what works best for you to maintain the losses or otherwise make progress towards your long-term goals.0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »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.
For those that are obese, losing weight is probably the most important thing though.
Obesity isn't a good thing but it's not necessarily deadly. Some people are naturally more overweight/obese, it all depends on where their fat is (ie. less around the belly.) The argument could be that people who are overeating are also generally eating bad foods in larger quantities than a thin person eating the same foods, but these foods are still likely to cause diabetes, stroke, etc etc for both. Instead of making it about losing BF, I wonder how likely making healthy lifestyle choices would stick around in a study with the same parameters... although that's harder to measure I'm sure.
I don't think anyone is naturally obese.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »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.
For those that are obese, losing weight is probably the most important thing though.
Obesity isn't a good thing but it's not necessarily deadly. Some people are naturally more overweight/obese, it all depends on where their fat is (ie. less around the belly.) The argument could be that people who are overeating are also generally eating bad foods in larger quantities than a thin person eating the same foods, but these foods are still likely to cause diabetes, stroke, etc etc for both. Instead of making it about losing BF, I wonder how likely making healthy lifestyle choices would stick around in a study with the same parameters... although that's harder to measure I'm sure.
Reaching a healthy body composition is probably the best thing you can do for your health, aside from some fringe scenarios like breaking an addiction to heroin shot up with used needles and the like. A lot of people make excuses for staying overfat by saying they're healthy because they eat healthy foods and exercise, but that's generally nonsense. Healthier than being that same body composition and sedentary perhaps, but that's not really the proper benchmark to measure against. Simply put, being severely overfat by far outweighs the health benefits of eating "clean food" and the like.
And it's not about being "necessarily deadly" - it's about risk. Smoking is not "necessarily deadly." Hell, shooting up heroin with used needles is not "necessarily deadly." But are you at an increased risk of dying or developing a medical condition as a result of doing it? Yes. And it's the same with people that remain at an unhealthy body composition. They may have good blood work today, but they're still at an increased risk in the big picture.0 -
And logically, that's the only conclusion that makes sense, because maintenance is determined by how you eat and exercise during maintenance, not how you lost weight in the first place. To think that you'll somehow be more or less likely to exercise and to hit your calorie target during maintenance based on how you dropped weight is just nonsense. What you did last year or what you called your diet last year is not going to affect what you do or don't do today - how could it?
At the end of the day, it's all pretty simple to me. Figure out what works best for you to lose weight, lose the weight, and then figure out what works best for you to maintain the losses or otherwise make progress towards your long-term goals.
Well, actually I would say that if one develops healthy habits during weight loss then one is more likely to follow those same habits (with slight tweaks) during maintenance. I know that I basically eat the same foods as I did; but I learnt to manage portions, add veggies, move more etc which I have continued for 2 + years of maintenance.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions