peachesuk3
Full Member
Last edited:
Link to VLCD article - interesting stuff
- Thread starter peachesuk3
- Start date
Fat-Boy-Slimmin
On a mission
Whilst the article does contain some interesting facts, it also has some information that really does not make any sense at all.
If a 400-600 calorie per day VLCD offered no benefit over an 800 calorie per day LCD, then there would be no need for VLCD’s. If this was officially proven to be fact, then all VLCD's below 800 calories would have been stopped by now, especially because of the risk of the side effects. Even more so in the UK, as we seem to be the most strict country of all when it comes to health.
The claim that people generally tend to put the weight on is another one that doesn't make sense. The examples of the studies are flawed, as they are taking a very small group of people and assuming a hell of a lot from the results. The one study only involved 2 people!! That is hardly much of a study at all if you think about it logically. There are so many variables, not just between different VLCD's, but also from one person to the next.
Another bizarre claim is that having 5 or 6 replacement meals per day would give the same result as the standard 3 or 4. If this really was true, then I'm sure all the companies that offer VLCD's would insist on 5 or 6 meals per day, as they would be making a hell of a lot more money. It doesn’t take a genius to work that one out.
They also claim that the nutrition in meal replacements is useless. If this was true, then meal replacements would have been banned many years ago, as many people would have suffered serious illness or even died while following a VLCD. They then go on to say that having 3 180 calorie meals of healthy food (540 calories per day) would be better than having meal replacements. But it has been proven in the past that you cannot get the full amount of nutrients from such a low amount of food. If it was possible, then there would be organisations running such diets for us to follow.
Basically it is a very flawed article that is clearly against VLCD's, most likely in an attempt to scare people into looking elsewhere.
If a 400-600 calorie per day VLCD offered no benefit over an 800 calorie per day LCD, then there would be no need for VLCD’s. If this was officially proven to be fact, then all VLCD's below 800 calories would have been stopped by now, especially because of the risk of the side effects. Even more so in the UK, as we seem to be the most strict country of all when it comes to health.
The claim that people generally tend to put the weight on is another one that doesn't make sense. The examples of the studies are flawed, as they are taking a very small group of people and assuming a hell of a lot from the results. The one study only involved 2 people!! That is hardly much of a study at all if you think about it logically. There are so many variables, not just between different VLCD's, but also from one person to the next.
Another bizarre claim is that having 5 or 6 replacement meals per day would give the same result as the standard 3 or 4. If this really was true, then I'm sure all the companies that offer VLCD's would insist on 5 or 6 meals per day, as they would be making a hell of a lot more money. It doesn’t take a genius to work that one out.
They also claim that the nutrition in meal replacements is useless. If this was true, then meal replacements would have been banned many years ago, as many people would have suffered serious illness or even died while following a VLCD. They then go on to say that having 3 180 calorie meals of healthy food (540 calories per day) would be better than having meal replacements. But it has been proven in the past that you cannot get the full amount of nutrients from such a low amount of food. If it was possible, then there would be organisations running such diets for us to follow.
Basically it is a very flawed article that is clearly against VLCD's, most likely in an attempt to scare people into looking elsewhere.
slimmer bridezilla
Full Member
Hi Peaches- thanks for posting this - as you say food for thought
AmandaJayne
Trainee Maintainer
"Basically it is a very flawed article that is clearly against VLCD's, most likely in an attempt to scare people into looking elsewhere."
You are absolutely right, FatBoySlimmin, I was not at all impressed with the writers' reasoning.
It was obvious that he has little knoweldge about VLCDs, he just made assumptions based on his own personal prejudices. He displayed ignorance too when describing peoples' struggles with eating, and was insulting in labeling dieters 'lazy'. It is hard to believe that this appears to be a chapter from a book.
You are absolutely right, FatBoySlimmin, I was not at all impressed with the writers' reasoning.
It was obvious that he has little knoweldge about VLCDs, he just made assumptions based on his own personal prejudices. He displayed ignorance too when describing peoples' struggles with eating, and was insulting in labeling dieters 'lazy'. It is hard to believe that this appears to be a chapter from a book.
