Today's Daily Mail

[getting there!]

oh god i wish i hadn't followed that link because i've just been reading the comments on some of the other stories and the people were soooooooooo bit**y....especially about fern britton saying why do people who've been fat think they can get away with tight clothes when they are still big!!!!!! oooooooh i could really swear!!!! and the story on VLCD is as everyone has said lacking any balance it's hilarious how they casually comment that being obese carries some health risks too.........really??? This is why i don't buy newspapers!!!!!!

 

[angie-bum]

I think it is a real shame, so many people can be helped by VLCDs and this kind of bad press will likely to put some people off, discourage those on it or mislead the wider population who then make unhelpful comments when they see I am having a shake, not a sandwich. If I hear once more 'why dont you just eat less and move more?' I will bl**dy scream!

 

[leeds123]

i agree with wombat. only read it online cos of the link but its a very right wing paper which stirs up public emotion (sometimes unnecessarily) on fragile issues like race, immigration etc. i don't think its ever covered a story well - all one sided like the one about LL.

 

[Gloria19]

You know.... I really think that people are always quick to blame something else, or something new, or something different.

truth is, they could have had these illneses even if they hadn't started LL, and for the ones (like myself) at 23stone starting and then getting ill... if we don't do anything about our weight then we'd more than likely get more health worries and die before our time anyway...

too many, 'where there's blame, there's a claim' minded people out there.

You're right about bad advertising, people are ignorant enough to VLCD's anyway... this doesn't help us.

 

[miss_unknown]

Dying to be Thin, article on Lighter Life see link

Dying to be thin: The diet craze sweeping Britain that allows you just 500 calories a day | Mail Online

I dont agree with what the paper has had to say on vlcd's and it has been over exaggerated and its obvious its so one sided, nothing about the other people who have lost weight and how they are feeling as well? However anyone to go on vlcd surely has thought about all the health risks if any before they would take on such a regime? I am also 10 stone over weight as well and if I stay the weight I am, well then I am at a healthrisk so therefore would rather go on a vlcd to better myself however in saying this being in the medical profession myself I wouldnt recommend anyone or even myself staying on a vlcd long term unless they introduced a small amount of food as well which is what I intend to do every 3 months. However I am sure each and everyone of us has thought about the pro's and con's otherwise we wouldnt be doing it. I personally wouldn't have lost this much on doing any other diet so for now I am sticking with it even though I have been puking my guts up the day. There are health risks with everything but unfortunately newspapers are there just to make money and not to tell the truth.

 

[Helsy]

Some great responses on here, thank you for some really great information. I love the diet and feel great.

 

[Kangy]

Going to jump in with my twopence.
First thing - I stopped CD when I noticed that my palpitations only happened when I was sole sourcing. It took me two or three goes on CD to realise this - I'd had blood tests and ECG's and all sorts by this point. I have not had one palpitation since. I may have them in the future, but without a doubt in this instance they were brought on by my being on CD.
Also - this IS a starvation diet. Starvation isn't about just the nutrients it's also about energy, and on this diet you are not getting enough from diet alone - you are getting 1500 or more calories a day from burning fat. This argument was burning on here ages ago. You cannot have a 500 calorie a day diet and try and say it's not starvation. The only reason we can manage on this diet is because we have excess weight that the body can turn to for energy.
I also developed an unhealthy attitude to not eating. The argument here is that the girl who developed anorexia already had an unhealthy relationship with food, because she was overweight. Surely that's all of us then? Or we wouldn't be here. Yes she probably had more susceptibility to developing anorexia, but that's not to say we know if she would or wouldn't have done if she had tried other diets - when we do know is that in this instance she did because she learned, through LL, that by not eating she could lose and control her weight.
I suppose what I want to say is - yeah, losing weight as fast as I was was amazing - once in ketosis I had more energy. But if anything stressful happened in my day I was so incredibly awful, moody, tearful, I couldn't handle any of it. And I struggled to walk up the hill to collect my children from school some days as my legs felt so terribly weak.
I have been following a sensible, healthy eating plan now since september. I have lost 1 and a half stone. I have a long way to go, but I am relaly happy that I made the decision never to try any sort of VLCD again. In my mind they are wrong.
That's not to say they don't work for some people. Of course they do there are so many people on this forum who are proof of that. Not everyone is going to be ill from it. Most people will be so relieved that they are no longer dangerously overweight.
I know you will all use this argument against what I have said - better a VLCD then being morbidly obese - and yeah, you could be right. This is just my experience. But I do know how ill I felt on the diet, how I had the palpitations which I have not experinced before or since, and just how awful I felt most days. It took me months to get back to a place where I could put food into my mouth and not feel guilty.
I know what the Daily Mail is like. They love a good story like this where they can stir up the media and public opinion. But I don't think in this instance they are so entirely wrong. I think that in the future there will be more stories like this and I also think that in the future these diets will become more strictly regulated. They certainly have their place, but they're not for everyone.
Sorry I don't want to cause a big row but I did want to put my pov accross, because my experience on CDSS was far from positive.

 

[icemoose]

Kangy I don't think you will cause a big row at all and everyone is allowed their opinion and that is why I like Minimins as usually you can have discussions and feedback as opposed to rows and criticisms.

For me personally VLCD changed my life, it allowed me to go from a very very big guy who was incredibly unhealthy down to a much slimmer healthier body, and for that I will always be grateful.

I have to say I got very few side affects (the odd bout of the runs!) but apart from that I felt pretty good and always looked for the positives in the diet and hence I found them.

After I lost weight I have to say I really did struggle because I no longer had the food to turn to when I needed help and that is why I had a breakdown but I still only see doing a VLCD as a super positive step in my life and the day I took control of myself.

I agree VLCD isn't for everyone and remember that a lot of the Cambridge plans involve food and I myself am a big fan of putting people on the 810 programme as I think it offers fantastic results without total abstination.

Cambridge will be 25 years old next year and hence the diet is THE most researched diet in the world (apparently!) and isn't a new kid on the block that will turn out next week to be dangerous, in my mind comparing it to starvation is unfair as then you are nutrient deficient whereas you may only be ingesting 500 calories with this diet BUT you are using your fat reserves so you are still giving your body the energy it needs.

Over the argument of "healthy eating" then for me that didn't work, I know the reasons why it didn't work but I knew I had some 150 pounds to lose in weight and I couldn't even start to get my head round that if I wasn't doing it quickly.

So all in all I think the Daily Mail article was very very very one sided, I think you will always find cases to criticise anything and that is what they did. If they published a story tomorrow saying VLCD is the best diet ever with a few stories from success stories from here then everyone would be praising it.

Whichever diet you choose then as long as it is safe then I say go for it, everyone is their own expert and knows what is right for them, VLCD diets are currently recommended safe by the medical profession and hence I intend to keep promoting them as life enhancing way of reducing health risks.

For me if I hadn't found Cambridge then I was a ticking time bomb whereas now I am much much much healthier but that isn't an exciting story that a newspaper wants to print.

 

[Angela1]

Well said

 

[mikey]

Going to jump in with my twopence.
First thing - I stopped CD when I noticed that my palpitations only happened when I was sole sourcing. It took me two or three goes on CD to realise this - I'd had blood tests and ECG's and all sorts by this point. I have not had one palpitation since. I may have them in the future, but without a doubt in this instance they were brought on by my being on CD.
Also - this IS a starvation diet. Starvation isn't about just the nutrients it's also about energy, and on this diet you are not getting enough from diet alone - you are getting 1500 or more calories a day from burning fat. This argument was burning on here ages ago. You cannot have a 500 calorie a day diet and try and say it's not starvation. The only reason we can manage on this diet is because we have excess weight that the body can turn to for energy.
I also developed an unhealthy attitude to not eating. The argument here is that the girl who developed anorexia already had an unhealthy relationship with food, because she was overweight. Surely that's all of us then? Or we wouldn't be here. Yes she probably had more susceptibility to developing anorexia, but that's not to say we know if she would or wouldn't have done if she had tried other diets - when we do know is that in this instance she did because she learned, through LL, that by not eating she could lose and control her weight.
I suppose what I want to say is - yeah, losing weight as fast as I was was amazing - once in ketosis I had more energy. But if anything stressful happened in my day I was so incredibly awful, moody, tearful, I couldn't handle any of it. And I struggled to walk up the hill to collect my children from school some days as my legs felt so terribly weak.
I have been following a sensible, healthy eating plan now since september. I have lost 1 and a half stone. I have a long way to go, but I am relaly happy that I made the decision never to try any sort of VLCD again. In my mind they are wrong.
That's not to say they don't work for some people. Of course they do there are so many people on this forum who are proof of that. Not everyone is going to be ill from it. Most people will be so relieved that they are no longer dangerously overweight.
I know you will all use this argument against what I have said - better a VLCD then being morbidly obese - and yeah, you could be right. This is just my experience. But I do know how ill I felt on the diet, how I had the palpitations which I have not experinced before or since, and just how awful I felt most days. It took me months to get back to a place where I could put food into my mouth and not feel guilty.
I know what the Daily Mail is like. They love a good story like this where they can stir up the media and public opinion. But I don't think in this instance they are so entirely wrong. I think that in the future there will be more stories like this and I also think that in the future these diets will become more strictly regulated. They certainly have their place, but they're not for everyone.
Sorry I don't want to cause a big row but I did want to put my pov accross, because my experience on CDSS was far from positive.

starve


• verb 1 suffer or die from hunger. 2 cause to starve. 3 (be starving or starved) [SIZE=-1]informal[/SIZE] feel very hungry. 4 (be starved of or [SIZE=-1]US[/SIZE] for) be deprived of. [SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] starvation [SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE].



Which meaning do you think it is?

I have to say that I am not dying of hunger, or even feeling it. I am however depriving myself of eating calories which I am providing by my body fat.

VLCD's IMO are aboslutely NOT a starvation diet. They are 100% nutritionally complete. Most people on them will be having a better diet (although less calorific) than they would normally have.

I am not a doctor, but I imagine that your palpitations could be caused by a lack of salts in the diet - many people experience cramps too and this is easily remedied by adding some lo-salt to soups or to bouillon.

 

[mikey]

Raeding waht you say icemoose, it makes me think that my cramps are directly related to the runs! - When people have the runs in the 3rd world they die of dehydration and tend to lose a lot of the salts out of their body. I will monitor it now I am back on LL and see what happens in relation to the "motion"!

 

[leeds123]

i take on board what kangy has said and what ice moose says, must say i am dreading going back to eating food every day cos i don't know how i'll cope!!!

interesting debate

 

[sharonB]

Raeding waht you say icemoose, it makes me think that my cramps are directly related to the runs! - When people have the runs in the 3rd world they die of dehydration and tend to lose a lot of the salts out of their body. I will monitor it now I am back on LL and see what happens in relation to the "motion"!

When people have runs in the 'third world' is is usually because they have no access to clean safe drinking water so they drink the polluted water which contains dangers such Dysentery, salmonellosis, cryptosporidium, and hepatitis and THIS is why they die.

 

[Dragonfly]

Thanks IceMoose very good reply

 

[Kangy]

Icemoose - you said much clearer than I that my experiences with the diet are not typical and also the diet really is ideal for some.

Mikey - the definition I mean is quite obviously number 4 in that everybody doing a VLCD is depriving themselves of calories. Calories are needed for energy. When we burn fat on a diet, it is because the body is converting its fat to calories in the form of glucose. The body is hungry because it wouldn't do this if it wasn't. The fact is it has a defense mechanism in the form of ketosis which means that you just don't feel hungry in the sense that we are used to. That doesn't mean it isn't hungry, just that we feel it differently. So in that sense, you could say it's definition 3 as well. And also, you are causing your starvation by witholding food from your diet. This is not natural. Yes you are getting essential nutrients, but you are not getting them all - calories are an essential part of a diet your body needs them to exists. this is why it converts the fat. So that's definition 4 covered.

This doesn't mean that VLCD's are bad, despite my experiences, just as Icemoose said they have their place in very many people's lives. But it is a form of controlled starvation.

And if it was lack of salt that caused my palpitations, doesn't that mean the diet is lacking in some nutrients? I wasn't drinking too much water, so it certainly wasn't too dilute. So if it was this the diet is faulty. I don't think it was, I think it was my bodies way of reacting to a stressful situation - I am a mother of 3 small children, and am on the go constantly, and i think it was my bodies way of saying it needed more sustinance then I was giving it. Who knows?

 

[mikey]

As you pee you lose salts - the more you pee the more salts you need so whilst the diet is 100% nutritionally complete, I reckon that at times the body needs a bit more of some things.

I absoultely disagree that it is a starvation diet in the real sense of the word though. It would be starvation if we were skin and bones, but it is just a diet when we are still fat!

 

[Serena A]

And also, you are causing your starvation by witholding food from your diet. This is not natural.

Surely that applies to any weight-reducing diet? You can't lose weight without witholding food - it's just a question of how much you can get away with witholding before you deprive yourself of the nutrients you need - structured vlcds take care of that for you.

It's also not natural to be several stones overweight.

I respect your opinion that it wasn't right for you but then Cambridge don't claim that it's right for everyone hence contraindicated conditions. That doesn't mean to say it's not a safe diet - exercise is unsafe for some people but no one would argue that it's not beneficial to many.

Good debate though

 

[cherry15]

I do think there are alot of vunerable overweight people, and the promise of quick weightloss is very appealing as ell as the thought of not worrying about what to eat as it is all done for you. I can see the appeal of vlcds. Even tho there are different plans, on cambridge especially, with higher cals, people who have alot to lose are tempted by the SS, who wouldnt be, the weightlosses are incredibe. Well I started to lose weight on 16th august at 20stone 11, and now 15th november three months later I weight 17stone 11, I have lost three stones in 3 months, thats with eating 1500cals a day roguhly and walking alot. Which just goes to prove you can have good weightloss with healthy eating and exercise, I have tho felt my resolve and motivation weaken and have joined slimming world for support and thought a different plan would spice things up for me, in three months time i may even join weightwatchers, who knows. I was asked at the slimming world, that if i was doing so good on my own, why would i pay to join a slimming club, well it was or the motivation and talkign to others who are in the same mindset. The advantages of losing weight in this way, I lose about 2lbs a week, and even if i have a night out, my weight dos not fluctuate, on vlcd if you eat a meal its not unheard of to put on 5lbs, yikes. Your stomach shrinks, and you find that you are more in tune with whether you feel hungry or thirsty. I believe that its all in the mindset. If your happy to do a vlcd, with all the concerns out there, fine afterall we are all about choices, but I feel that for me anyway, eating is important, which reminds me, I'm going to go and make my porridge with chocolate soya milk, yum taste like a chocolate dessert!

 

[mikey]

Surely that applies to any weight-reducing diet? You can't lose weight without witholding food - it's just a question of how much you can get away with witholding before you deprive yourself of the nutrients you need - structured vlcds take care of that for you.

It's also not natural to be several stones overweight.

I respect your opinion that it wasn't right for you but then Cambridge don't claim that it's right for everyone hence contraindicated conditions. That doesn't mean to say it's not a safe diet - exercise is unsafe for some people but no one would argue that it's not beneficial to many.

Good debate though

Doing soups and shakes is not witholding food. I do LL and although they call it abstinence, it is not abstinence from food, just abstinence from the soups shakes and bars.

 

[IMac]

Ok I've read what's been said and - as someone medically obese as far as I'm aware (certainly LL and CD) you have to get approval from the GP and in the press article no-one could have predicted what happened. Unfortunatly we live in a blame culture and any change in lifestyle,diet,culture will become the scapegoat. In this case it happens to be VLCD.

In reality no-one is pretending that a VLCD is a diet for life - it is a diet to lose weight. It is as someone said a short term solution to assist with a long term issue.

I would say read the article,be aware of it and then make your choice.

My final comment is that in any decision making process I do not seek the view of the popular press - who's only purpose is to sell newspapers not to educate, inform and offer me unbiased advice !!