New direction diet exercise?
Replies
-
I'm sorry I call BS on getting all the nutrients you need on VLCD - medically supervised or not4
-
deannalfisher wrote: »I'm sorry I call BS on getting all the nutrients you need on VLCD - medically supervised or not
You can do the nutritional math all the products are on MFP2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »I'm sorry I call BS on getting all the nutrients you need on VLCD - medically supervised or not
It doesn’t hurt to take a vitamin also but I’d do that anyway with a “food” plan also. Just because a meal comes in liquid form doesn’t mean it isn’t nutrient filled it is just human created with the New Direction meal replacements
0 -
I'd like to know what happened to the people who started this thread last March. Burn out or success? I can't imagine eating such a ridiculously low calorie limited food diet. I've lost 14 lbs. in a month and a half eating around 1300 calories of real food a day and that is tough enough for me. At least when I hit maintenance I'll know how to eat.4
-
@spottedpony- Any update you want to share its been a few months now.1
-
gebeziseva wrote: »spottedpony1 wrote: »It is the dietitian at the hospital, and I stay in touch with my reg. doctor. I am trying to loose about 60 lbs. it is the VLCD, New Direction products, through the hospital. Each replacement ( pudding, beverage,soup) is 200 cal. X4 a day with 1 cup raw veg. Reg food will be added and a couple weeks- bmi36.6
I see. Still, I'm wondering why your doctor put you on a VLCD with only 60 pounds to lose.
That said, I have never tried this one, but I did try VLCD fad diets in the past. They made me grumpy, hungry, deprived and a pain to be around.
P.S. I just noticed you added your avatar photo! Very cute!
I have to agree - with only 60 pounds to lose, I would have a talk with your doctor about whether such a low calorie diet is needed or appropriate.
OP's bmi is 36.6 This is morbidly obese. Probably they have more than 60lbs to lose in total. But just 60 on this diet.
Morbid obesity starts at a BMI of 40. But otherwise, yes, at 36.6 OP could easily be more than 60 lbs from even the top end of a healthy BMI range, depending on height. That was my starting BMI, I'm a little under the average height for a woman in the U.S., and I was nearly 70 lbs above the top end of my healthy BMI range.3 -
Lesscookies1 wrote: »@spottedpony- Any update you want to share its been a few months now.
Sadly, they don't seem to have checked in since March.0 -
All this argument grounded in emotion-only of who the diet is/is not appropriate for without bothering to check in with the creators of the diet: http://www.robard.com/programs/for-medical-providers/#!/vlcd2
-
Nice thread.1
-
dwilliamca wrote: »I'd like to know what happened to the people who started this thread last March. Burn out or success? I can't imagine eating such a ridiculously low calorie limited food diet. I've lost 14 lbs. in a month and a half eating around 1300 calories of real food a day and that is tough enough for me. At least when I hit maintenance I'll know how to eat.
Speaking to the hunger issue I don’t find myself hungry and that is explained by the doctors in tgat on a ketosis diet your body uses your fat stores for energy so you aren’t hungry the body regulates this somehow. I’m not a scientist but being hungry isn’t ine thing I have found. The maintenance is another issue but you use your time getting to your goal wait to prepare for that. I have been in WW so I’m hoping that will help after I’m at my goal. The fact is with getting older & metabolism slowing I have always eaten heathy but it is really easy to gain 4 lbs a year & then have that add up after the years. This program just jump starts that. If I’m not militant at 1200 calories I will gain weight that is just the math of it & now I know my math having gotten my BMR
1 -
Note- eateing VLCD is different than New Directions which makes you go into ketosis. You can get to ketosis without New Directions and have the same effect. New Directions is hust one easy method.3
-
no anything that is below 1000 is VLCD - going into ketosis or not isn't a discriminator of what a VLCD is5
-
deannalfisher wrote: »no anything that is below 1000 is VLCD - going into ketosis or not isn't a discriminator of what a VLCD is
As I said VLCD is different than New Directions. You can have both but as you do with New Directions but one difference with a VLCD that does not promote ketosis is that your body may get hungrier and then a VLCD becomes unsustainable. Somehow the beauty of ketosis is that you are less hungry (at least I am) and can thus maintain the diet.6 -
extreme low calorie diets - NO MATTER the type - are long term dangerous to your health - being in ketosis or not - just because you aren't hungry doesn't mean you aren't doing long term damage to your body4
-
So far everything I'm reading says that VLCDs often bring on a mild form of ketosis, which would make sense given the nature of VLCDs. And New Direction is described as a VLCD, so I don't understand why you're saying VLCD is different from New Direction, when it says itself that it's a VLCD...3
-
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »So far everything I'm reading says that VLCDs often bring on a mild form of ketosis, which would make sense given the nature of VLCDs. And New Direction is described as a VLCD, so I don't understand why you're saying VLCD is different from New Direction, when it says itself that it's a VLCD...
If VLCD is defined as below 1,000 calories New Directions is not VLCD you eat more than 1,000
It is the ketosis combined with low calorie not very low calories that does it
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Learning63 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »So far everything I'm reading says that VLCDs often bring on a mild form of ketosis, which would make sense given the nature of VLCDs. And New Direction is described as a VLCD, so I don't understand why you're saying VLCD is different from New Direction, when it says itself that it's a VLCD...
If VLCD is defined as below 1,000 calories New Directions is not VLCD you eat more than 1,000
It is the ketosis combined with low calorie not very low calories that does it
you YOURSELF said you can't lose weight eating more than 1000cal a day - so how is that NOT a VLCD....3 -
Just trying to clarify with your definition of VLCD as at below 1000. My diet now is 3 shakes at 200 calories + 1 bar that is about 160 + 1 protein & vegetable meal with the protein not going over 350 calories (I'm usually under that). So the New Directions program if I use your VLCD as 1,000 is not a VLCD since the aim is around 1,100. Because my BMR is around 1,200 - I have to go under 1,200 with either calories and or exercise. Because the New Directions program forces you into ketosis your body uses your fat stores & I am able to lose more weight than if I just at 1,100 calories a day which would likely make me hungry & binge at some point.
What I have to do is exercise more & stay militant with the calorie numbers.
You can do the math - If I eat 1,200 calories & burn 1,200 calories a day I'm not going to lose w/o going under 1,200 with calories or burn with exercise. I have to go under 1,200 to lose weight if it is pure calories.
Yes - if I eat more than 1000 calories my weight loss will be super slow to non-existent.
If I eat 1,200 calories a day (no heavy exercise) & only BMR burn 1,200 calories a day I will not lose weight.
BMR calories 1,200 x 7 = 8,400
Eat 1,200 x 7 = 8,400 no net loss
3,500 (1lb) / 7 days = 500 deficit needed to lose 1 lb = very hard on 1,200 calories
You can call my diet VLCD or not but I think it is the ketosis that makes the process easier. It isn't a lot of calories for sure but to stave off hunger & be able to maintain it to get to the weight loss goal is the hope.
You seem to be concerned with if I'm calling it VLCD and medical supervision. I'm under medical supervision. New Directions isn't a fad protein powder picked up at the drug store. Call it what you want but I am losing more weight than the caloric + BMR number & I think it is due to increased exercise & militant meal plan.
Could I lose the same amount of weight with foods found in nature capped at 1,100 + more exercise probably but this is the process I have chosen, I don't feel hungry & I'm confident I can transition to maintenance with nature's food.
I just have had no success losing large chunks of weight at this age & I actually feel better knowing that my BMR is 1,200 it helps you plan and understand.
2 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Learning63 wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »So far everything I'm reading says that VLCDs often bring on a mild form of ketosis, which would make sense given the nature of VLCDs. And New Direction is described as a VLCD, so I don't understand why you're saying VLCD is different from New Direction, when it says itself that it's a VLCD...
If VLCD is defined as below 1,000 calories New Directions is not VLCD you eat more than 1,000
It is the ketosis combined with low calorie not very low calories that does it
YOU *can* lose weight just eating lower calorie......ketosis isn't magic
-Of course you can - but my point is ketosis doesn't make me hungry which being hungry can sabotage a VLCD. Simply going into a VLCD doesn't put you into ketosis they are 2 different things as far as I know - it's the lack of carb numbers that help here.1 -
Learning63 wrote: »Just trying to clarify with your definition of VLCD as at below 1000. My diet now is 3 shakes at 200 calories + 1 bar that is about 160 + 1 protein & vegetable meal with the protein not going over 350 calories (I'm usually under that). So the New Directions program if I use your VLCD as 1,000 is not a VLCD since the aim is around 1,100. Because my BMR is around 1,200 - I have to go under 1,200 with either calories and or exercise. Because the New Directions program forces you into ketosis your body uses your fat stores & I am able to lose more weight than if I just at 1,100 calories a day which would likely make me hungry & binge at some point.
What I have to do is exercise more & stay militant with the calorie numbers.
You can do the math - If I eat 1,200 calories & burn 1,200 calories a day I'm not going to lose w/o going under 1,200 with calories or burn with exercise. I have to go under 1,200 to lose weight if it is pure calories.
Yes - if I eat more than 1000 calories my weight loss will be super slow to non-existent.
If I eat 1,200 calories a day (no heavy exercise) & only BMR burn 1,200 calories a day I will not lose weight.
BMR calories 1,200 x 7 = 8,400
Eat 1,200 x 7 = 8,400 no net loss
3,500 (1lb) / 7 days = 500 deficit needed to lose 1 lb = very hard on 1,200 calories
You can call my diet VLCD or not but I think it is the ketosis that makes the process easier. It isn't a lot of calories for sure but to stave off hunger & be able to maintain it to get to the weight loss goal is the hope.
You seem to be concerned with if I'm calling it VLCD and medical supervision. I'm under medical supervision. New Directions isn't a fad protein powder picked up at the drug store. Call it what you want but I am losing more weight than the caloric + BMR number & I think it is due to increased exercise & militant meal plan.
Could I lose the same amount of weight with foods found in nature capped at 1,100 + more exercise probably but this is the process I have chosen, I don't feel hungry & I'm confident I can transition to maintenance with nature's food.
I just have had no success losing large chunks of weight at this age & I actually feel better knowing that my BMR is 1,200 it helps you plan and understand.
You know your BMR is the calories you burn if you are bed ridden doing nothing so if you eat 1200 you will lose weight just existing above a coma state3 -
Again, it is described by every medical website that comes up when googling "New Direction" as a medically supervised VLCD. VLCDs are under 1000 calories. So yes, you are on a VLCD. If you were above it, it would likely be more of a LCD. Regardless, if you're being medically supervised and you manage to be successful with the integration process afterward, all the more power to you.2
-
Learning63 wrote: »
BMR calories 1,200 x 7 = 8,400
Eat 1,200 x 7 = 8,400 no net loss
3,500 (1lb) / 7 days = 500 deficit needed to lose 1 lb = very hard on 1,200 calories
I'm confused. Where is your NEAT or activity level figured in here? You can't just go on BMR. How did you calculate BMR? I don't see your statistics but 1200 is a very low BMR unless you are a very small or elderly female. My BMR is lower than many at 1400*1.25 for sedentary lifestyle=1750 plus 250 calories in modest exercise=2000 calories a day. I eat 1200-1300 and still lose 1.5-2 lbs. per week.
Here is the info on how to calculate.
https://us.v-cdn.net/5021879/uploads/editor/76/8kn2ubmrqx6s.jpg
1 -
You know your BMR is the calories you burn if you are bed ridden doing nothing so if you eat 1200 you will lose weight just existing above a coma state[/quote]
Yes - I do know what the BMR is I clearly live in a coma state.
This is the first MFP conversation I have joined - & I have to say I wish it was more supportive. I know my body & know that as a moderately active person + a healthy vegetarian I just wasn't seeing weight loss when I thought I should have and that was discouraging.
I don't really care what you call the diet LCD / VLCD - I have lost 10lbs, fit in suits I haven't in years and am feeling good about it.
I'm going to take Michelle's comment above "all the more power to you" as a positive & continue to lose my weight.
I hesitate to even tell you guys that I wouldn't even be considered overweight at the numbers I am but I know what number I feel best at and am going to use new tools available to me to get there.
If the same thing doesn't work & you do it over and over something has to change. I initially felt hesitant to start the New Directions program because all the critiques (some above) ran through my head but it is working for me & for that I"m thankful and will plug on.
I wish you all health.3 -
dwilliamca wrote: »Learning63 wrote: »
BMR calories 1,200 x 7 = 8,400
Eat 1,200 x 7 = 8,400 no net loss
3,500 (1lb) / 7 days = 500 deficit needed to lose 1 lb = very hard on 1,200 calories
I'm confused. Where is your NEAT or activity level figured in here? You can't just go on BMR. How did you calculate BMR? I don't see your statistics but 1200 is a very low BMR unless you are a very small or elderly female. My BMR is lower than many at 1400*1.25 for sedentary lifestyle=1750 plus 250 calories in modest exercise=2000 calories a day. I eat 1200-1300 and still lose 1.5-2 lbs. per week.
Here is the info on how to calculate.
https://us.v-cdn.net/5021879/uploads/editor/76/8kn2ubmrqx6s.jpg
I have been told my BMR is on the low end but still normal it may cut off as being normal below 1,200. My BMR was measured at a hospital on a machine that figures out your muscle, water etc (very fun). I don't exercise much it just doesn't fit in my life & frankly other than walking it has been hard to sustain an exercise program for myself. My steps range from 4,000 - 11,000 (other than when I did the El Camino walk in Spain & got 44,000 one day!). From what my docs tell me the steps range aren't really included in what "exercise" is considered it has to be 45 minutes sweaty heart pumping exercise on top of an expected average 10,000 steps a day. I will look at your link, thanks!0 -
So you are eating a bariatric vlcd and aren't even overweight?! Your doctor is ok with this?3
-
This content has been removed.
-
singingflutelady wrote: »So you are eating a bariatric vlcd and aren't even overweight?! Your doctor is ok with this?
ha! I knew this was going to bring up more comments - I think based on a distinction made by a comment above it would be considered a LCD not VLCD. If you total it = around 1,100. Not "bariatric" related that word never came up with doctors. I feel totally fine in my medical hands = major medical institution. When I was 10lbs heavier I would have been considered slightly overweight. It's a 12 week program.4 -
A major medical institution allows slightly overweight people into their weight lose program? You should be eating at least 1200 as you said yourself your bmr is 1200 so if you measure and log correctly you will lose weight. Shocked at doctors who would approve of non obese people being in a program for obese and morbidly obese people.1
-
http://nyulangone.org/locations/weight-management-program/nutrition-meal-replacement-programs
Overweight people are accepted you don't have to be obese. The point is I didn't want to get obese that was why I was seeking help now. Why encourage people to put off weight loss when they are ready for change? The thing that is perhaps confusing is you are just substituting nature food for the meal replacements which are REAL meals / REAL food. Nutritionally I'm fine. Trust me if I could have done this on my own I would have. I went to the doctor because I wasn't seeing results. Should of lost weight does not equate to losing weight & the slow pace is to discouraging to maintain. For myself - having this imposed structure for a bit is what I need. Going off the meal replacements is what I have to focus on now. What happens then is the question that like others would have liked the people who started this tread to let us know. Because I'm not obese I don't lose as much weight as others on the plan but I'm losing and I am happy with myself for trying something new.1
This discussion has been closed.
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