VCLD - Pros & Cons

[Bobbi]

VLCDs are a great method of weight loss.
Sometimes people who are not read up on the subject get a little confused (and who can blame them) and they recant a story of a friend of a friend. Or they lay have tried VLCD and not followed the directions. There are a few of contra indications so it's important you read up on them first.

Anyway there's no starvation mode when it comes to VLCD, that's a fallacy. You probably have never been more nourished in your entire life as for the first time you will receive 100% RDA of every vitamin and mineral as well as being able to lose weight at the same time.

Yes you do feel 'cold' in the first few days/weeks but it's not really a biggie considering you don't feel hunger. You do have cravings in the first few days but they soon disappear and you feel liberated and strong.

VLCD also gives you time to evaluate and read up on good food and nutrition, making plans for the future when you decide to start eating again.

Any diet has a number of restarters, just look at all the forums - food diets and TFR diets alike. It's up to you if you want to change your eating habits.

As for me .... Phase two of my weight loss. I needed to lose somewhere between 80 & 100 lbs. I've been able to do that on a VLCD. I have more energy than my husband who eats food. I run three days a week and on top of that look after all my children and keep house. That's not bad for someone who doesn't eat!! .

 

[Last_Attempt]

In clinical terms, VLCD's do not have to use meal replacements; it is simply a term to describe a diet which typically provides between 400 to 800 Calories per day, whereas those classified as Low Calorie Diets (LCD's) provide between 800-1200 Calories per day or thereabouts. The interesting thing which studies have found however (as reviewed in the November 2001 supplement issue of Obesity Research [1] ) is that after several months, people on VLCD's 400 Calories daily lose no more weight than those on the 800 Calorie per day diets. In other words, even if you were intent on following a VLCD, there would be no point in following one that provided less than 800 Calories per day, especially as the lower Calorie diets have more uncomfortable side effects. Additionally, whilst VLCD's might result in a greater weight loss in the first couple of weeks (due to fluid loss, not fat loss) people who begin a VLCD for several weeks and who then shift to a LCD for maintenance (which even the commercial meal replacement schemes advise) do not seem to lose any more weight after several months than those who followed a LCD the whole time.
VLCD's & Meal Replacements - A critical look

Surely there must be some side effects?

Yes! Very low calorie diets (VLCDs) cause fat to be broken down rapidly, producing a by-product called ketones. These can result in tiredness, weakness, dizziness, insomnia and nausea. However, these effects should be short lived and there’s even some evidence that ketones help to suppress appetite and actually promote a feeling of wellbeing.
Meanwhile, constipation, diarrhoea, dry skin, hair loss, menstrual changes and intolerance to the cold can also occur.
Losing weight rapidly also means you’ll be more likely to be left with – quite simply, your skin doesn’t have time to shrink to your new body shape. Usually, the only effective treatment for this is surgery to remove the excess skin.
Also according to the National Obesity Forum, there are some more serious side effects of VLCDs, including the development of gout, gallstones and cardiac disturbances. In particular, the risk of gallstones increases when people lose more than 1.5kg (3.3lb) a week.


The above are not falsehoods or fallacies. I'm doing WW and if I had a bad effect from anything I'd be talking about them too. Having done the Cambridge Diet, I know my weight loss is pound for pound what I'm doing on WW so the article above is true.

 

[Chunkeymonkey]

In clinical terms, VLCD's do not have to use meal replacements; it is simply a term to describe a diet which typically provides between 400 to 800 Calories per day, whereas those classified as Low Calorie Diets (LCD's) provide between 800-1200 Calories per day or thereabouts. The interesting thing which studies have found however (as reviewed in the November 2001 supplement issue of Obesity Research [1] ) is that after several months, people on VLCD's 400 Calories daily lose no more weight than those on the 800 Calorie per day diets. In other words, even if you were intent on following a VLCD, there would be no point in following one that provided less than 800 Calories per day, especially as the lower Calorie diets have more uncomfortable side effects. Additionally, whilst VLCD's might result in a greater weight loss in the first couple of weeks (due to fluid loss, not fat loss) people who begin a VLCD for several weeks and who then shift to a LCD for maintenance (which even the commercial meal replacement schemes advise) do not seem to lose any more weight after several months than those who followed a LCD the whole time.
VLCD's & Meal Replacements - A critical look

Surely there must be some side effects?

Yes! Very low calorie diets (VLCDs) cause fat to be broken down rapidly, producing a by-product called ketones. These can result in tiredness, weakness, dizziness, insomnia and nausea. However, these effects should be short lived and there’s even some evidence that ketones help to suppress appetite and actually promote a feeling of wellbeing.
Meanwhile, constipation, diarrhoea, dry skin, hair loss, menstrual changes and intolerance to the cold can also occur.
Losing weight rapidly also means you’ll be more likely to be left with – quite simply, your skin doesn’t have time to shrink to your new body shape. Usually, the only effective treatment for this is surgery to remove the excess skin.
Also according to the National Obesity Forum, there are some more serious side effects of VLCDs, including the development of gout, gallstones and cardiac disturbances. In particular, the risk of gallstones increases when people lose more than 1.5kg (3.3lb) a week.


The above are not falsehoods or fallacies. I'm doing WW and if I had a bad effect from anything I'd be talking about them too. Having done the Cambridge Diet, I know my weight loss is pound for pound what I'm doing on WW so the article above is true.

Yes saggy skin is a side effect, but it is possible you will have saggy skin.


If you lose 100lbs in 500 days, it will be less likely you will have saggy skin but, If you lose 100lbs in 100 days you will be thin and have saggy skin and over those other 400 days your skin will shrink.

In terms of the VLCD's people are talking about here are medically recognized ones, e.g Cambridge diet or exante etc, not willy, nilly eating 1 meal a day of food. It is all nutritionally balanced.

Also, if your obese, your risk of gall stones will still be there on a VLCD.

Finally, if you lose weight, you lose weight. If you go back to your eating habits, you'll be fat again. People who follow VLCD's can get help and learn about food and perhaps rid themselves of their emotional eating etc. If you come off WW and go back to how you eat before, surely you'll regain all your weight?

It seems you enjoy and stick to WW, while others seem to enjoy the benefits of VLCD's, can't we leave it that way?

 

[possum]

Saggy skin can occur after slow weight loss too - it very much depends on an individual's skin elasticity and how long/how much they were overweight. Bear in mind that people embarking on a VLCD are likely to be a) very overweight and b) overweight for many years so the fact that some are left with saggy skin after a VLCD does not necessarily mean they wouldn't have it after losing weight more slowly. Skin continues to shrink for a year afterwards so it's quite likely that someone who took 6 months to lose weight will end up a year later with similar results to someone who took 18 months.

I was very concerned about reports of cardiac problems before I started Lighter Life. I knew about the very small risks of gallstones and gout (as well as the other possible side effects), but felt they were worth it. Potential cardiac problems were, however, most definitely not a risk I was willing to take and I therefore spent a lot of time researching the evidence - and I mean trawling through pubmed rather then reports of the evidence online. I could not find any research in recent years that supported the idea that modern VLCDs (with meal replacements) caused heart problems. There was stuff from the 80's and before, but they were not the same diets. I think attempting to do a VLCD without using formulated meal replacements is asking for trouble.

In ketosis, your body isn't only getting 400 (or whatever it is) calories a day. That's the whole point: your body can make use of as many calories as it needs. Also 'starvation mode', which doesn't even apply to ketogenic diets, is a myth. This article explains it very well.

 

[Starlight]

Last attempt. I think you've made your Point. You're very clearly anti VLCD which is your right. Whilst I appreciate you feel strongly about VLCDs your posts are bordering on scaremongering I don't think it would be appreciated if people went to the ww section posting so negatively about it.

Gallstones aren't exclusive to VLCDs People on WW get them too same as saggy skin. Many people find their skin does tighten up after a time WITHOUT surgery as their body adjusts. People on WW also at times require surgery.



I think this thread has run it's course now however. People can make their own choices about which diet to do.