Starvation Diets - Questioning that psychological not metabolic damage the reason they fail?
Replies
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
Let's say there are no comorbidities going on. How is it healthier?
High levels of excess fat store in the body. Visceral fat the worst fat in the body. Larger your are and quicker you lose some of that excess fat= getting healthier for long term and short term.
And pointing out, the the intent of LCD/VLCD is generally to get people out of danger zones and only supposed to be use for a few months.
What would you call these danger zones for men and women?
Danger zones would be based on ones medical history, blood work and their doctors desire to lower certain factors (whether it's high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc...) or other medical conditions caused by obesity. By no means, am I actually defining what a danger zone is.
0 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
Let's say there are no comorbidities going on. How is it healthier?
To answer this, you have to consider why it's unhealthy at lower weights.
One reason is that if your body doesn't have so much fat it is more likely to use other things (like muscle) in greater amounts to provide the fuel it needs. Another is that you should have minimum micronutrients, protein, so on, and could more likely get this at 1200 than at 600, regardless of weight (presumably how much you need does vary by weight somewhat, though).
I'd certainly defer to an experienced doctor on this topic (or a registered dietician I trusted), but it's also consistent with my own experience -- 1200 was pretty easy for me when I had a LOT of weight to lose, but I'd struggle to eat that now even eating the same foods, although it's much less of a deficit (I could probably do it if I weren't active, but I was probably burning a similar number of calories from exercise when I was eating 1200 at first, as I was heavier so burnt more with less activity). I am sure a lot of this is psychological, but I think there's a physical component too.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Very low calorie diets are perfectly appropriate for some people. They are recommended (in certain formats) by the UK National Health Service (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/very-low-calorie-diets.aspx) and there is compelling evidence that a VLCD (very low calorie diet) can 'cure' diabetes within one week. This claim is now being tested by a £2.4 million research project. (http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20110624/very-low-calorie-diet-may-reverse-diabetes) https://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/News_Landing_Page/Low-calorie-liquid-diet-study-launched/
I so often hear that VLCD will put your body into 'starvation mode' and that rapid weight loss 'causes loose skin'. As far as I know there is little, if any, evidence for either case. As you say, it is not the gastric sleeve that causes the weight loss but the calorie deficiency following it. As far as I know, there is no harm at all in enforcing that calorie deficiency without the gastric sleeve operation, and it avoids a great many side effects of the op. After following it for a few weeks, I can say that the hunger is annoying, but tolerable. I thought I would be light-headed, unable to concentrate but actually that hasn't happened at all.
My only concern on a VLCD is whether I am getting enough protein and whether I am getting the correct nutrients. Meal replacement shakes often take care of this as they give a percentage of your recommended daily nutrients / protein, and I also have some lean meat and vegetables just to keep it interesting.
0 -
Yes they make you lose weight, but at what cost? You lose muscle mass, in addition to vital nutrients your body needs. Not to mention what has the person really learned? What about sustainability?0
-
That is because the bigger you are the healthier it is to do a larger calorie deficit.
A large calorie deficit is never " healthier " for anyone. But for very obese people it is not as unhealthy than for less heavy people.
I know that this sounds like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between something being " healthier " and something being less bad.
0 -
I'm not sure what the OP is trying to ask. There are sometimes differences at the biochemical level in weight gain after excess weight loss compared to weight gain in people who haven't experienced extreme weight loss, but you seem to be asking about people who gain too much weight.
VLCDs "work". But there's a reason they require medical supervision and monitoring. For bariatric patients, that includes regular bloodwork and monitoring of hydration levels. Things like electrolyte balance and liver enzyme levels are ongoing concerns. Even with monitoring, nutritional deficiencies are not uncommon. For someone recovering from starvation, the initial physiological and psychological changes that happen after beginning to eat more normally can be frightening, uncomfortable, and sometimes even dangerous - even if they ultimately lead to improved health.
I disagree with trying to define whether psychological or physiological aftereffects of VLCD are more significant. You're trying too hard to separate mind and body here - it's not that simple.
People regain excess weight after monitored VLCD for the same reasons anyone else regains weight: simple ignorance of nutrition, habits and family norms, disordered thinking about food, using food to meet emotional needs, you name it. And any form of restriction, whether it's extreme as in a VLCD or simply saying "I'll never eat sugar again" puts someone at greater risk for binges later. Sugar-free folks, don't jump down my throat here - I'm saying it's a risk, not that it'll happen for everyone.
I'm not a physician. I'm a mental health professional who's worked as part of a medical team on an eating disorder unit, and I've had ED clients in my private practice. I started writing in more detail about the effects of starvation on eating patterns in recovery but deleted it, as it doesn't feel right to have that discussion on these boards.
I'm not really comfortable that you feel the need to ask about this. I'll just put that out there.
**like**0 -
BTW, as a post-bariatric patient, I was only on VLCD for a couple weeks before and a few weeks after surgery. Losses continued after I was able to meet my 1200 calorie a day target.
I don't see how the results of the Minnesota Starvation experiment can be interpreted that the desire to eat more after starvation is "psychological" rather than metabolic.
BTW, three of the Minnesota volunteers went on to become chefs.
Food is lovely.0 -
Can you explain it isn't healthy for someone with enough body fat to provide 3000 calories a day, even apart from food, to have a large calorie deficit?
A large calorie deficit is never " healthier " for anyone. But for very obese people it is not as unhealthy than for less heavy people.
I know that this sounds like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between something being " healthier " and something being less bad.
0 -
LaraMorgan90 wrote: »Ok here goes (Im by no means trying to promote a Low Calorie Diet just trying to understand wether its is metabolic damage or the psychological damage of hunger that causes weight gain after)
Firstly if LCD don't work why do gastric sleeves work? I know multiple people who have had a gastric sleeve reduce calories to <800 calories loose extreme amounts of weight and now maintain on 1800-2500 (multiple people of different ages, weights, genders activity levels. This to me does not suggest huge metabolic damage and all are maintaining at healthy weights on the lower side of their bmi and have been for 5+ years
secondly everyone quotes the Minnesota study for the effects of starvation diets and metabolic damages but people all seem to miss the part:
"Although they were now in the rehabilitation phase, Keys didn't significantly increase their food levels. Instead, he divided them into four subgroups, which received 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 more calories than they had in starvation. He did this in order to investigate the optimum amount of calories for rehabilitation. But to the men — especially the men in the lowest calorie group — it seemed as if they were barely getting any more food than before. They still felt hungry all the time.
Keys simultaneously gave some of them vitamin and protein supplements, to see if these would aid their recovery. After a few weeks it became apparent to Keys that the supplements were doing nothing to help the men. In fact, the men in the lowest calorie group weren't recovering at all. The only thing that seemed to help was more food. So Keys boosted the food intake of each group by 800 calories, and this had a quick and positive effect. He eventually concluded that in order to recover from starvation, a person needs around 4000 calories a day to rebuild their strength."
Which seems to go against everything people say about LCD, all I'm wondering is it not so much metabolic damage the reason LCD fail so often but more to do with the psychological effect i.e. because we have starved our body, our body wants to protect us therefore we are hungrier and driven to eat more high calorie foods therefore taking in more calories than we need thus gaining weight??
all opinions welcome
link to site were I got the passage -http://www.madsciencemuseum.com/msm/pl/great_starvation_experiment
■■■ likely a little of all things. But fasting itself is very beneficial to our health especially for overweight or obese people. The longest clinical fast was 383 days and the patient only hot better day by dsy, week by week month by month until he broke his fast. The man lost 276lbs, and 5 years later is still a healthy 190lbs.
I belive tell biggest reasons people get overweight is due to metabolic syndrome. It's common it seems that most people simply secrete to much insulin in the presence of carbohydrates or sugars. Over secretion of insulin results in insulin resistance or diabetes.
Insulin lower blood sugar
insulin in excess blocks leptin which tells you to stop eatLaraMorgan90 wrote: »Ok here goes (Im by no means trying to promote a Low Calorie Diet just trying to understand wether its is metabolic damage or the psychological damage of hunger that causes weight gain after)
Firstly if LCD don't work why do gastric sleeves work? I know multiple people who have had a gastric sleeve reduce calories to <800 calories loose extreme amounts of weight and now maintain on 1800-2500 (multiple people of different ages, weights, genders activity levels. This to me does not suggest huge metabolic damage and all are maintaining at healthy weights on the lower side of their bmi and have been for 5+ years
secondly everyone quotes the Minnesota study for the effects of starvation diets and metabolic damages but people all seem to miss the part:
"Although they were now in the rehabilitation phase, Keys didn't significantly increase their food levels. Instead, he divided them into four subgroups, which received 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 more calories than they had in starvation. He did this in order to investigate the optimum amount of calories for rehabilitation. But to the men — especially the men in the lowest calorie group — it seemed as if they were barely getting any more food than before. They still felt hungry all the time.
Keys simultaneously gave some of them vitamin and protein supplements, to see if these would aid their recovery. After a few weeks it became apparent to Keys that the supplements were doing nothing to help the men. In fact, the men in the lowest calorie group weren't recovering at all. The only thing that seemed to help was more food. So Keys boosted the food intake of each group by 800 calories, and this had a quick and positive effect. He eventually concluded that in order to recover from starvation, a person needs around 4000 calories a day to rebuild their strength."
Which seems to go against everything people say about LCD, all I'm wondering is it not so much metabolic damage the reason LCD fail so often but more to do with the psychological effect i.e. because we have starved our body, our body wants to protect us therefore we are hungrier and driven to eat more high calorie foods therefore taking in more calories than we need thus gaining weight??
all opinions welcome
link to site were I got the passage -http://www.madsciencemuseum.com/msm/pl/great_starvation_experiment
■■■ MAYBE for some but not most. Mostly it's what they eat that causes them to secrete too much insulin. Most people are prone to ever secreting insulin in response to Sugars and carbohydrates. Too much insulin keeps you hungry because in excess insulin blocks the hormone leptin which tells you to stop eating. It also tells your body to store everything you eat into body fat and it lowers blood sugar effectively if you're not suffering from metabolic disorder. So if you eat the wrong foods high in carbohydrate or sugars you're going to provoke insulin secretion and you're probably going to over secrete insulin and block hormones that tell you your full. this means you will be hungry all the time no matter how little or how much you eat. so I believe it's mostly a metabolic disorder with insulin.0 -
from my understanding, metabolic damage is a short run kind of thing...it isn't long term. the bigger issues with VLCDs is a lack of proper nutrition...that, combined with inadequate energy will result in all kinds of wonky *kitten* happening with your hormones as well as loss of lean tissue (organs, muscles, etc) and bone mass. this is also when people start losing hair, nails go brittle, periods cease, etc.
i think those things are far worse than any short term metabolic damage.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you explain it isn't healthy for someone with enough body fat to provide 3000 calories a day, even apart from food, to have a large calorie deficit?
A large calorie deficit is never " healthier " for anyone. But for very obese people it is not as unhealthy than for less heavy people.
I know that this sounds like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between something being " healthier " and something being less bad.
I disagree. fasting is healthy for almost everybody even if you have 7 to 10 percent body fat. let's say you weigh 200 pounds and are 10 percent body fat that means you have 20 pounds of body fat from an energy perspective 3500 calories is an estimated value of one pound of body fat. so if you burn 2000 calories a day as your metabolic resting rate you can see that even a lame person with only 20 pounds of body fat at 10% of the total weight is carrying 70,000 + calories in reserve. if you stop eating your body what happened to the 70 thousand plus calories to feed you because your brain will not allow you do not feed your vital organs and body. so with 70,000 calories in reserve in theory you could go 35 days without food and your body would still get its 2000 calories a day right from your own body fat.. clinical test have proven fasting is actually healthy for our bodies as it improves blood lipids & our auto immune functions.
FASTING however is not highly popular because people want to eat. There are other ways to fast while you eat and that is to deprive your body of carbohydrates and sugars which is as effective as true fasting.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you explain it isn't healthy for someone with enough body fat to provide 3000 calories a day, even apart from food, to have a large calorie deficit?
A large calorie deficit is never " healthier " for anyone. But for very obese people it is not as unhealthy than for less heavy people.
I know that this sounds like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between something being " healthier " and something being less bad.
I disagree. fasting is healthy for almost everybody even if you have 7 to 10 percent body fat. let's say you weigh 200 pounds and are 10 percent body fat that means you have 20 pounds of body fat from an energy perspective 3500 calories is an estimated value of one pound of body fat. so if you burn 2000 calories a day as your metabolic resting rate you can see that even a lame person with only 20 pounds of body fat at 10% of the total weight is carrying 70,000 + calories in reserve. if you stop eating your body what happened to the 70 thousand plus calories to feed you because your brain will not allow you do not feed your vital organs and body. so with 70,000 calories in reserve in theory you could go 35 days without food and your body would still get its 2000 calories a day right from your own body fat.. clinical test have proven fasting is actually healthy for our bodies as it improves blood lipids & our auto immune functions.
FASTING however is not highly popular because people want to eat. There are other ways to fast while you eat and that is to deprive your body of carbohydrates and sugars which is as effective as true fasting.
Lol lol lol
Because your body would get 100% of its needed energy from the fat alone. It wouldn't use muscle or bone mass?0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Yes they make you lose weight, but at what cost? You lose muscle mass, in addition to vital nutrients your body needs. Not to mention what has the person really learned? What about sustainability?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
0 -
Your body can't metabolize fat that quickly. Twenty pounds of fat might get you 600 calories a day. The rest of your deficit is going to come from burning something else in your body.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Can you explain it isn't healthy for someone with enough body fat to provide 3000 calories a day, even apart from food, to have a large calorie deficit?
A large calorie deficit is never " healthier " for anyone. But for very obese people it is not as unhealthy than for less heavy people.
I know that this sounds like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between something being " healthier " and something being less bad.
I disagree. fasting is healthy for almost everybody even if you have 7 to 10 percent body fat. let's say you weigh 200 pounds and are 10 percent body fat that means you have 20 pounds of body fat from an energy perspective 3500 calories is an estimated value of one pound of body fat. so if you burn 2000 calories a day as your metabolic resting rate you can see that even a lame person with only 20 pounds of body fat at 10% of the total weight is carrying 70,000 + calories in reserve. if you stop eating your body what happened to the 70 thousand plus calories to feed you because your brain will not allow you do not feed your vital organs and body. so with 70,000 calories in reserve in theory you could go 35 days without food and your body would still get its 2000 calories a day right from your own body fat.. clinical test have proven fasting is actually healthy for our bodies as it improves blood lipids & our auto immune functions.
FASTING however is not highly popular because people want to eat. There are other ways to fast while you eat and that is to deprive your body of carbohydrates and sugars which is as effective as true fasting.
0 -
IMHO it is a combination of psychological and physiological torture. Most of my experience in weight loss, due to very low calorie intake, came from pregnancies. I had Hyperemesis gravidarum, I began vomiting before I missed a period and continued until 24 hours after delivery. I always ended up weighing less after delivery than prior to conception. While pregnant, I dreamed about food, I craved food, but the moment I tried to eat the nausea would over power the desire. I had to force myself to eat. 24 hours after delivery, I could eat again, and I did! I gained weight faster than ever before. I felt run down, weak and tired. This was apart from the rigors associated with caring for a newborn. 7 pregnancies and only 3 live births gave me ample opportunity to compare. When I have chosen to eat a VLCD I am extremely uncomfortable physically and emotionally after a few days. Why would anyone volunteer for such self torture as a VLCD when sustainable changes in CICO result in successful weight loss as well as an enhanced sense of health and well being?0
-
daniwilford wrote: »Why would anyone volunteer for such self torture as a VLCD when sustainable changes in CICO result in successful weight loss as well as an enhanced sense of health and well being?
Speed. If your BMI is over 40 and your looking at fixing it then faster loss rate has its appeal. Actual VLCDs don't involve high levels of hunger or discomfort, any more than fasting does.
0 -
daniwilford wrote: »Why would anyone volunteer for such self torture as a VLCD when sustainable changes in CICO result in successful weight loss as well as an enhanced sense of health and well being?
Speed. If your BMI is over 40 and your looking at fixing it then faster loss rate has its appeal. Actual VLCDs don't involve high levels of hunger or discomfort, any more than fasting does.
Yes, but in these cases they should be doctor monitored.0 -
My BMI was over 40, March 8, 2015, I have since lost over 40 pounds. I have never lost that much that fast before. All without the torture of fasting or feeling hungry.
Speed. If your BMI is over 40 and your looking at fixing it then faster loss rate has its appeal. Actual VLCDs don't involve high levels of hunger or discomfort, any more than fasting does.
0 -
The "torture" is in your head.0
-
-
" In comparison with baseline ratings obtained on a 1000-1200 kcal balanced-calorie diet, PSMF subjects reported significantly less hunger and preoccupation with food during 2 of the 4 weeks on very-low-calorie diet " http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/41/3/533.full.pdf0
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Yes they make you lose weight, but at what cost? You lose muscle mass, in addition to vital nutrients your body needs. Not to mention what has the person really learned? What about sustainability?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
Where exactly do you see the OP stating anything about this diet? She said VLCD. You're talking about a very specific diet that is high in protein, low in carbs. Regardless, this has nothing to do with my statement.0 -
I, too, am trying to understand the parallel. I dont think anyone would dispute that protein is sparing, even while on a lcd. There are plenty of resistance training studies that show maintenance of lean body mass over short term.Liftng4Lis wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »Yes they make you lose weight, but at what cost? You lose muscle mass, in addition to vital nutrients your body needs. Not to mention what has the person really learned? What about sustainability?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
Where exactly do you see the OP stating anything about this diet? She said VLCD. You're talking about a very specific diet that is high in protein, low in carbs. Regardless, this has nothing to do with my statement.
In fact, it would be my opinion that if you were under a supervised vlcd then low carb would be ideal to ensure you get vital nutrients and it will keep you full.0 -
LaraMorgan90 wrote: »Firstly if LCD don't work..
Who said they don't work?
LCDs have the same success rate as go-slower calorie-counting methods.
0 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Here's a question. Would a young, 5'10, 350 lb woman who exercises mildly (20 mins of aerobics 2x per week) and also has a job with a physical component (say, 8 hours per week of manual work activity) consuming (not netting) 1,200 - 1,500 calories per day be the equivalent of someone under 200 lbs eating one of these VLCD?
That individual could eat literally nothing but supplements for six months and come out of it completely fine.
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »Yes they make you lose weight, but at what cost? You lose muscle mass, in addition to vital nutrients your body needs. Not to mention what has the person really learned? What about sustainability?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
Where exactly do you see the OP stating anything about this diet? She said VLCD. You're talking about a very specific diet that is high in protein, low in carbs. Regardless, this has nothing to do with my statement.
PSMF is an example of a VLCD. Since it is well established that PSMFs work extremely well at both dropping weight and preserving lean body mass, any blanket statement about VLCDs claiming VLCDs don't work is automatically wrong.
THAT is the connection.
0 -
I have yet to hear a testimonial of an individual for whom a VLCD yielded a sustainable and maintainable weight loss. How happy were they with their sense of well being and health during the process? I plan on a level of CICO for my lifetime to be similar to now, because it feels so great.0
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »Yes they make you lose weight, but at what cost? You lose muscle mass, in addition to vital nutrients your body needs. Not to mention what has the person really learned? What about sustainability?
The evidence is to the contrary, Protein Sparing Modified Fasts to not involve substantial muscle loss.
Where exactly do you see the OP stating anything about this diet? She said VLCD. You're talking about a very specific diet that is high in protein, low in carbs. Regardless, this has nothing to do with my statement.
PSMF is an example of a VLCD. Since it is well established that PSMFs work extremely well at both dropping weight and preserving lean body mass, any blanket statement about VLCDs claiming VLCDs don't work is automatically wrong.
THAT is the connection.
So what he was trying to say was that "ON SOME OCCASIONS, with this EXCEPTION"......
I reiterate, it had nothing to do with OP's post.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Your body can't metabolize fat that quickly. Twenty pounds of fat might get you 600 calories a day. The rest of your deficit is going to come from burning something else in your body.
That "31 calories/pound/day" went away a long time ago.
And the number isn't even static - it changes significantly in response the external pressures. Going into an 18 hour fast is, by itself, good for a 20%+ boost.
0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 426 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