Crash Diets May Be Most Effective Weight Loss Technique
Replies
-
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 -
I hate to say it, but I would say this is a good argument, even if it's just to kick start weight loss and increase motivation. That's what did it for me when I was on Isa.0
-
richardheath wrote: »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.
The thing is, the habits you listed off have nothing to do with how aggressive your calorie deficit is. You still manage portions on an aggressive diet - actually, it's quite a bit more difficult to manage portions on an aggressive diet than on one where you cut over the span of years. I don't see how less aggressive calorie targets somehow teach you to add more vegetables to your diet, relative to more aggressive calorie target diets. Exercise... the same. In short, I'm not really seeing seeing a relationship between any of those factors and how aggressively someone sets out to lose weight.
At least for me, I would not want to eat the same foods when cutting as when bulking, because I purposefully eat a lot of very satiating foods when losing weight and I have way more calories to play with during other times. Nor would it make a lot of sense for my exercise routine to be exactly the same. Yes, there may be some basic habits that carry over, but the overall routines are very different. Which is why to me, you want to figure out what's best for losing weight... and then separately figure out what's best for maintaining weight. Trying to pick a way of losing that helps you maintain is just illogical and confusing the issues.0 -
I'd maybe say especially if you weigh. Yes, weighing, measuring, counting can be HUGELY educational, but no, to me that's not a lifestyle change. That's scales in piano practice, that's ski lessons. It's educational. It's training wheels. And then you move on. But that's just me.0 -
ALL? No.Of course. It makes perfect sense. The process of losing weight is one of motivation and psychological discipline. It's much much easier to remain focused for 18 weeks compared to 36 weeks. That's why all diets fail after 5 years, people lose their mental discipline.
And your suggestion would be.... don't diet, just skip breakfast, yes?0 -
No, his suggestion will be to buy his book on Amazon. Pretty sure it's that guy...Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
ALL? No.Of course. It makes perfect sense. The process of losing weight is one of motivation and psychological discipline. It's much much easier to remain focused for 18 weeks compared to 36 weeks. That's why all diets fail after 5 years, people lose their mental discipline.
And your suggestion would be.... don't diet, just skip breakfast, yes?
0 -
It is the guy who plugs the no breakfast book on amazon, yes.
No, his suggestion will be to buy his book on Amazon. Pretty sure it's that guy...Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
ALL? No.Of course. It makes perfect sense. The process of losing weight is one of motivation and psychological discipline. It's much much easier to remain focused for 18 weeks compared to 36 weeks. That's why all diets fail after 5 years, people lose their mental discipline.
And your suggestion would be.... don't diet, just skip breakfast, yes?
0 -
Ah gotcha.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
It is the guy who plugs the no breakfast book on amazon, yes.
No, his suggestion will be to buy his book on Amazon. Pretty sure it's that guy...Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
ALL? No.Of course. It makes perfect sense. The process of losing weight is one of motivation and psychological discipline. It's much much easier to remain focused for 18 weeks compared to 36 weeks. That's why all diets fail after 5 years, people lose their mental discipline.
And your suggestion would be.... don't diet, just skip breakfast, yes?
0 -
I trust this study.
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm0 -
I trust this study.
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
Would you trust them less to know this?
NWCR participants maintain at 1400 average (1300 for women, 1700 for men, with daily exercise, no eating back).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550162?dopt=Abstract
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
Same here. If I am being honest, I would crash diet if I could. I've lost 26 pounds in about 5 months. It's excruciatingly slow and I would probably be at my goal by now if I could eat less. But I can't do it. I'd be absolutely miserable.
0 -
They provided Optifast to the crash dieters. That probably made it easier to comply. I'm guessing that stuff isn't cheap.
You would think if LBM% was such an issue the researchers would measure it but they usually don't, which leads me to believe it's not that big a factor.0 -
-
For most people losing the weight is the main difficulty. It's maintaining the loss that is.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Ah salute to anybody who sheds the weight and keeps it off.
As for me, crash dieting is a no go. If mere weight loss is the only concern, go ahead.
I lost a bunch of weight but wanted peak fitness and optimal health, and that meant I needed to eat big, train smart and maintain a reasonable deficit.
I did not want to go from being a fat guy to some skinny , little guy.
I wanted more muscle and to maintain weight while losing fat.
^^^^^^^^^
This is me after 3 years of maintaining weight...0 -
-
@WalkingAlong, I eat about that now, so I'm fine with it. To others, to prepare for surgery, I was on a liquid diet for two weeks and lost ten pounds just from that. I hated it. I was weak, and it was unsustainable. I lost another ten pounds right after surgery, also on a liquid diet and recovery. If it had maintained it much longer I am sure my hair would have fallen out. For the great majority of my weight loss journey in the past year, it was a pound a week. Much more achievable, sustainable.0
-
Of course. It makes perfect sense. The process of losing weight is one of motivation and psychological discipline. It's much much easier to remain focused for 18 weeks compared to 36 weeks. That's why all diets fail after 5 years, people lose their mental discipline.
Really? All diets fail?
I would say the diet succeeded. The weight came off and stayed off long enough to know it's not just water weight or similar. It's the maintenance strategy (or the fact that there was none) that is the failure.
Besides. There are people who manage to keep weight off for 5 years and more. They're a minority, but they do exist.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I trust this study.
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
Would you trust them less to know this?
NWCR participants maintain at 1400 average (1300 for women, 1700 for men, with daily exercise, no eating back).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550162?dopt=Abstract
Self-reported intakes. Bet that's accurate.
0 -
I was told that only about 10% of the participants were able to maintain over the long term, which sounds about right to me.0
-
The implication that crash dieting will turn you into an anorexic little twig is a bit of a misconception. If we're talking about a green tea fast or some other nonsense, then sure I agree 100%. But there are mass-sparing diets that are still considered "crash diets" and yet have been proven effective by many physique competitors. You could probably classify most contest prep. work as a "crash diet" for that matter. Just because your plan worked well for you, that doesn't mean it's the only way to do it or even the optimal way.Ah salute to anybody who sheds the weight and keeps it off.
As for me, crash dieting is a no go. If mere weight loss is the only concern, go ahead.
I lost a bunch of weight but wanted peak fitness and optimal health, and that meant I needed to eat big, train smart and maintain a reasonable deficit.
I did not want to go from being a fat guy to some skinny , little guy.
I wanted more...
As for health, it really depends on where you're at. Given that you didn't have much to lose, a small deficit makes a lot more sense. For someone with a lot more to lose (say a newbie at 40% body fat), what constitutes the optimal decision for their health looks a bit different than it does for you at 22% body fat.
It really just comes down to the individual.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions