Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

scaremongering

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Paul Edwards - 08 Mar 2004 04:33 GMT
Hello folks.  In late 2001 I went on a VLCD.  I basically
ate chicken fillet and diet coke and a vitamin tablet as
the basis of my diet.  Each chicken fillet has 31g of
protein and is 200 calories.  It is packaged food.

Specific numbers of interest:

2001-07-01 103.5kg (start weight)
2001-10-11 79.9kg (goal)
2003-09-26 82.1kg (approx 2 years)
2004-02-24 83.5kg (decided to restart diet)
2004-03-08 80.8kg (now)

My VLCD had me losing 1.5kg/week.  During that time I
didn't experience any side-effects.  I didn't have more
energy, I didn't have less.  I didn't feel happier, I didn't
feel sadder.  The only thing that changed was my weight.
I was doing weights at the time.  Since a few months after
reaching my goal I stopped doing weights (and exercise).

I have decided to go on a diet again, because I want to
see what my stomach looks like when I'm at very low
weights, ie under 70kg, maybe 65kg.  I am 36 years old
and 185cm tall.  Also, my wife is dieting now, also
using calorie counting/watching, so it will give her
some inspiration.

This time I am eating chicken fingers and fish fingers
instead of crappy chicken fillet.  I just cook them in
the microwave on high.  I'm too lazy to cook (same as
too lazy to exercise) so I just stick one or two on a
plate and microwave them, rather than go through the
laborious process of cooking them in a frying pan or
grilling them.

In case "fish fingers" is not universal, it is fish in batter
and breadcrumbs.  The ratio of protein to calories is not
as good as chicken fillet, but nevermind.  I doubt that I
will be carking it any time soon.

I am mainly posting this as an answer to the scaremongering
that I received when doing my VLCD, some were convinced
that I would put back the weight in short order:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm=_u3s7.87517%24sM1.22830103%40news3.rdc1.on.
home.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain


Basically, it's crap.  Go on a VLCD, get your protein and
vitamins, and let the laws of physics take care of the rest.

What you do after you've reached your goal weight is up
to you.  If you stick by the laws of physics, they will stick
by you too.  In short - calorie counting works like clockwork.
Don't fall for the scaremongering.  It doesn't get much better
than steady 1.5kg/week loss.

Oh, one other thing.  Once you start your diet, your appetite
goes away after a few days.  Then it is easy.  I could just
drink diet coke (0 calories nearly) all day and not be
hungry.  However, when you stop the diet, the appetite
comes back.  To overcome that, you either need to have
cycles of dieting, or you need to have a steady diet.

I tend to do both, but in the last 2.5 years it has been mild
dieting, not VLCD.  I like junk food, especially lollies
(candy), and that is the thing that puts my weight on,
requiring a fresh round of abstinence.  :-)  I don't find that
I am capable of eating a moderate number of lollies, it's
either all or nothing.  At the moment it is nothing.  :-)

BFN.  Paul.
Patricia Heil - 08 Mar 2004 13:37 GMT
This is foolish.  There are other nutrients besides protein
and vitamins and some of them work better when obtained
through food than through supplements, according to clinical
studies over the last 10 to 15 years.  Anti-oxidants are
one and fiber is another.  Weight does not determine health.
You have to exercise to be healthy.  If you are getting the
recommended 60 minutes of moderate exercise a day, you are
preventing cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and dementia,
lowering your BP and cholesterol, and improving heart, lung,
and vascular conditioning, as well as burning calories and
building muscle.

> Hello folks.  In late 2001 I went on a VLCD.  I basically
> ate chicken fillet and diet coke and a vitamin tablet as
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
> BFN.  Paul.
Paul Edwards - 08 Mar 2004 18:52 GMT
> This is foolish.  There are other nutrients besides protein
> and vitamins and some of them work better when obtained
> through food than through supplements, according to clinical
> studies over the last 10 to 15 years.  Anti-oxidants are
> one and fiber is another.

Sorry.  I do eat breakfast cereal (Nutri Grain) usually too.
With skim milk.  That is another thing that doesn't require
cooking.  There was a period where I ate chicken breast
for breakfast as well, but that was not very long.  Variety
is the spice of life, after all.  Except for short periods of
intensive diet, I have eaten Nutri Grain for breakfast for
the last 3 years.

As for vitamins "working better", is the "better" so
important that you actually see something (like death)
in 4 months of dieting?  I'm just reporting that I didn't
notice anything, regardless of the scaremongering.
Not death, not illness, nothing except 1.5kg/week
lighter every week.

> Weight does not determine health.
> You have to exercise to be healthy.  If you are getting the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> and vascular conditioning, as well as burning calories and
> building muscle.

Yeah, I didn't say I was healthy.  The only thing I did was
go from a 103.5kg unfit and presumed-unhealthy person to
a 80kg unfit and presumed-unhealthy person.  At a rate of
1.5kg/week.

Some people are quite happy to have the fat removed
near-instantly (a few months), with no intention of changing
their lifestyle.

I'm one of them.

The only thing I really changed was to substitute drinking
orange juice with drinking diet coke.  And if I am buying
ice cream, instead of buying whatever is on special, I
will make the effort to read the labels and get the one
with the lowest calories.

BFN.  Paul.
Jayjay - 09 Mar 2004 15:19 GMT
>Yeah, I didn't say I was healthy.  The only thing I did was
>go from a 103.5kg unfit and presumed-unhealthy person to
>a 80kg unfit and presumed-unhealthy person.  At a rate of
>1.5kg/week.

Here's where you went wrong.

You may weigh less - but you are not healthier.   You are "skinny
fat"...  you aren't stronger, you aren't more fit, and you probably
have not extended your life.  

The reason we do not promote VLCD around here without medical
supervision, is because they are NOT HEALTHY.    

We would rather teach people how to lose weight and gain health and
keep it off.   Not just lose weight.    If it were only about losing
weight then all the fad diets would be wonderful.   All the pills and
potions would be supported.
Paul Edwards - 09 Mar 2004 18:58 GMT
> >Yeah, I didn't say I was healthy.  The only thing I did was
> >go from a 103.5kg unfit and presumed-unhealthy person to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> fat"...  you aren't stronger, you aren't more fit, and you probably
> have not extended your life.

So?  Some people couldn't give a rat's arse about that.

> The reason we do not promote VLCD around here without medical
> supervision, is because they are NOT HEALTHY.

"not healthy" as in what?  Drop dead after 1 month?
2 months?  I didn't notice a damn thing except 1.5kg/week
continuous loss.  What symptoms did you expect me to see
in a 4 month period?  Nothing?  Because if so, that matches
my personal observations.  No long term problem either.
No return to starting weight either.

> We would rather teach people how to lose weight and gain health and
> keep it off.   Not just lose weight.    If it were only about losing
> weight then all the fad diets would be wonderful.   All the pills and
> potions would be supported.

The pills and potions don't actually allow you to lose
1.5kg/week, or do anything at all in fact.  VLCD does.
Immediate results.  As for health, if you can get people
to exercise, good luck.  But either way, that can be done
before, after, independent of, or in conjunction with
VLCD.

BFN.  Paul.
Carol Frilegh - 09 Mar 2004 23:01 GMT
> > >Yeah, I didn't say I was healthy.  The only thing I did was
> > >go from a 103.5kg unfit and presumed-unhealthy person to
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> BFN.  Paul.

Super low calorie diets can have bad effects down the road even if you
get off free for the moment. In the big picture you will have to
maintain a form of control for the rest of your life. The jump start
can screw up your metabolism and nutrients.

My daughter has done Dr. berbnsetins VLCD three times and regained more
than her starting weight each time. She hasn't learned a thing
especially that you can eat well while you're losing weight. So what if
it takes longer.

I started at age 67 and got it right and am now 73.

I've been at dieting since the early 1940's, been on them all. But
nearly five years ago i lost over eight pounds and it's staying off. I
didn't do it by "crash and Burn' and if i regained any now i would not
do VLCD even for a week.

Signature

Diva
*****
The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman

Paul Edwards - 10 Mar 2004 03:03 GMT
> Super low calorie diets can have bad effects down the road even if you
> get off free for the moment.

This is the scaremongering I was referring to.

> In the big picture you will have to
> maintain a form of control for the rest of your life.

This is true regardless.

> The jump start
> can screw up your metabolism and nutrients.

Says who?

> My daughter has done Dr. berbnsetins VLCD three times and regained more
> than her starting weight each time.

So?  Other people go on other diets and achieve exactly
the same thing.  Most people on ANY diet end up regaining
more than they lost.  It isn't specific to VLCD.  There's no
reason to scaremonger about this particular diet.

> She hasn't learned a thing
> especially that you can eat well while you're losing weight. So what if
> it takes longer.

The thing to learn is that at the end of the diet, you must
have a plan to avoid going back to square one.  And that
plan can only be:

1. Continuous cycle of mini-diets
2. Consistent lower level of calorie intake

Tell your daughter to choose one of these BEFORE going
on a VLCD, so she knows what to do AFTER the VLCD
has had its effect.

> I started at age 67 and got it right and am now 73.
>
> I've been at dieting since the early 1940's, been on them all. But
> nearly five years ago i lost over eight pounds and it's staying off. I
> didn't do it by "crash and Burn' and if i regained any now i would not
> do VLCD even for a week.

And nearly 3 years ago I lost 23.5kg, never mind 8 lbs, and
it stays off too.

Just how many years will satisfy you?  The figure normally
quoted is 2 years.  I hope you're not going to set the standard
as 5 years, and then as we both get 1 year older, you move
the goal post to ensure that only your example is relevant.
This really is scaremongering.

BFN.  Paul.
Carol Frilegh - 10 Mar 2004 10:30 GMT
> > Super low calorie diets can have bad effects down the road even if you
> > get off free for the moment.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> > The jump start
> > can screw up your metabolism and nutrients.

Well I did a VLCD under medical supervision at age 16,  taking thyroid
and benzedrine. I lost 25 pounds in six weeks and got bronchial
pneumonia. probably just a coincidence.

> Says who?
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> BFN.  Paul.

Signature

Diva
******
There is no substitute for the right food

Paul Edwards - 10 Mar 2004 12:05 GMT
> > > The jump start
> > > can screw up your metabolism and nutrients.
>
> Well I did a VLCD under medical supervision at age 16,  taking thyroid
> and benzedrine. I lost 25 pounds in six weeks and got bronchial
> pneumonia. probably just a coincidence.

That is exactly correct.  Your doctor would have told
you that too.

You can test this by getting 10 *random* people who
have done VLCDs and see how many of them got
pneumonia.  And then compare that to 10 *random*
people who did some other diet *for the same period
of time*.

It's probably a bit difficult to organize an experiment
as such, so I'll just ask you about your daughter.  You
said she did VLCD 3 times from memory.  How many
of the 3 times did she get pneumonia as a side-effect?
You already know my result.

BFN.  Paul.
Chrys - 10 Mar 2004 15:54 GMT
> > > > The jump start
> > > > can screw up your metabolism and nutrients.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> BFN.  Paul.

Ten people is hardly enough of a sample size to show anything at all.
Paul Edwards - 10 Mar 2004 20:50 GMT
> > You can test this by getting 10 *random* people who
> > have done VLCDs and see how many of them got
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Ten people is hardly enough of a sample size to show anything at all.

Correct.  :-)

So ridiculous scaremongering like the pneumonia claim
can not be made.

However, it is so ridiculous that I was pretty confident
she couldn't even name 1 other person who got pneumonia.
But I wanted to point out part of the scientific process
that allows such claims to be tested.

BFN.  Paul.
Carol Frilegh - 10 Mar 2004 23:11 GMT
> > > You can test this by getting 10 *random* people who
> > > have done VLCDs and see how many of them got
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> BFN.  Paul.

Hello agin.

Contact Caleb Burns who was the ASD VLCD serial maven and see how he's
doing. I'm sure he has interesting things to say but no pneumonia :-)

You'll find his addy on a web search or perhaps you were here  for the
annual Running of the Turkeys through the boulevards of bariatrics. He
did a pre Thanksgiving blitz for 100 consecutive days , two or three
years in succession  on the group and once in a private email project
which I believe aborted because of a non diet related problem. Julienne
may know more.

Good luck with whatever you are doing and hopefully no bad consequences
of any kind. Going on five years keeping off over 80 pounds, age 73,
lifting, stair climbing, pilates and really great meals.

I'll continue to be the tortoise!

Signature

Diva
*****
The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman

Paul Edwards - 10 Mar 2004 23:29 GMT
> Contact Caleb Burns who was the ASD VLCD serial maven and see how he's
> doing. I'm sure he has interesting things to say but no pneumonia :-)

Can I assume from this that you know one person who
happened to get pneumonia at the same time as he was
dieting?  While taking a vitamin pill?  And he didn't
have pneumonia in the other 265 days of the year?

> I'll continue to be the tortoise!

I don't have a problem with this.  There's no problem at
all, and in some ways it is preferable, because it means
you have a consistent lifestyle which you can hopefully
maintain forever.

However, for other personalities, interested in "instant
gratification", VLCD is legitimate too.  There's no reason
to do any scaremongering above and beyond:

Well, what food to you plan eating at the end of the VLCD,
because you can't keep doing that.  And failure to make a
change at the end will see you regain all the weight you
lost.  This is what happens to most people, so your odds
are not looking good, before you've even started.
(Admittedly this applies to other diets besides VLCD too).

BFN.  Paul.
Carol Frilegh - 10 Mar 2004 17:58 GMT
> > > > The jump start
> > > > can screw up your metabolism and nutrients.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> BFN.  Paul.

No pneumonia just massive regain of weight plus some. Hey babe, do your
thing and I'll do mine!

Signature

Diva
*****
The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman

Paul Edwards - 10 Mar 2004 20:46 GMT
> No pneumonia just massive regain of weight plus some. Hey babe, do your
> thing and I'll do mine!

That's fine.  Just don't scaremonger about mine.
It isn't true.

BFN.  Paul.
Carol Frilegh - 10 Mar 2004 10:28 GMT
And I haven't learned to spell "Dr. Bernstein! LOL

> My daughter has done Dr. berbnsetins VLCD three times and regained more
> than her starting weight each time. She hasn't learned a thing
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> didn't do it by "crash and Burn' and if i regained any now i would not
> do VLCD even for a week.

Signature

Diva
*****
The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman

Doug Freyburger - 10 Mar 2004 21:53 GMT
> Some people are quite happy to have the fat removed
> near-instantly (a few months), with no intention of changing
> their lifestyle.
>
> I'm one of them.

So it is absolutely certain that you won't keep it off.  Previous
time you've regained at teh rate of 1 kg per year.  Subsequent
times you will again regain at least at that rate.

Since you've been regaining at only 1 kg per year, your regular
lifestyle isn't that far off from a plan that would keep it off.
Think aobut that.  Not much of a change and your regular lifestyle
would keep it off and you wouldn't have to yoyo.

You know that each time someone yoyo's their body build a
resistance to what they do to lose, and they regain more quickly
on the rebound, right?  So after you've done several cycles each
time it will work less and less.

Your regular lifestyle can get changed a bit and you wouldn't need
to yoyoy.
Paul Edwards - 10 Mar 2004 23:22 GMT
> > Some people are quite happy to have the fat removed
> > near-instantly (a few months), with no intention of changing
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> So it is absolutely certain that you won't keep it off.  Previous

Sorry, by "lifestyle" I meant exercise.  After having been
pointed (in this newsgroup) towards a book detailing all
the different foods in my country and their calories, I did
make some adjustments, specifically replacing orange
juice with diet coke.

> time you've regained at teh rate of 1 kg per year.  Subsequent
> times you will again regain at least at that rate.

1kg per year is a piece of piss.  Diet every 5 years, for
a period of 3 weeks.

> Since you've been regaining at only 1 kg per year, your regular
> lifestyle isn't that far off from a plan that would keep it off.
> Think aobut that.  Not much of a change and your regular lifestyle
> would keep it off and you wouldn't have to yoyo.

What you're saying is correct.  However, I can tell you
that I grossly pig myself out on lollies.  During normal
living, I can't help myself.  I feel hungry, open the bag,
and can't stop scoffing the whole lot down.  I have a
large and insatiable appetite for lollies.

However, as I said, after a few days of dieting, the
appetite disappears (like right now).  And then I can
reposition myself for "return to normal".  This time I'm
planning on creating an excruciatingly low starting
point.

> You know that each time someone yoyo's their body build a
> resistance to what they do to lose, and they regain more quickly
> on the rebound, right?

No.  There's no such thing.

> So after you've done several cycles each
> time it will work less and less.

Wrong, it obeys the laws of physics, like everything else
in our universe.  Scaremongering again.

> Your regular lifestyle can get changed a bit and you wouldn't need
> to yoyoy.

I agree.  But it is easier said than done.  As I said, I'm only
ever in two different moods, insatiable appetite, or no
appetite.

However, I do agree with the general principle.  Once you
are familiar with the calories for each thing, there are some
very simple changes possible.

E.g. I wouldn't have been caught dead drinking diet coke
previously.  I always wanted "the real thing".  However,
after finding out what the calorie difference was, the real
thing could go and get knotted.  The taste difference
between "home brand diet coke" and "the real thing" is
nothing that I can remember anymore, even if I once
imagined I could.

BFN.  Paul.
Doug Freyburger - 11 Mar 2004 15:42 GMT
Paul Edwards wrote :

> > Since you've been regaining at only 1 kg per year, your regular
> > lifestyle isn't that far off from a plan that would keep it off.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and can't stop scoffing the whole lot down.  I have a
> large and insatiable appetite for lollies.

Classic trigger food.  Once you know your trigger foods you can avoid
them by never touching them in the first place.  Out of sight, out of
mind.  Think of yourself as being on a lollypop 12-step program.  Hi
I'm Paul and I've been lollypop free for 142 days, but I only count
them one at a time ;^)  Seriously, if you binge on lollypops and only
regain 1 kg per year, keeping them completely out of your sight should
be all you need to do to keep it off.  Then you wouldn't even need the
extreme diet every 5 years.

> > Your regular lifestyle can get changed a bit and you wouldn't need
> > to yoyoy.
>
> I agree.  But it is easier said than done.  As I said, I'm only
> ever in two different moods, insatiable appetite, or no
> appetite.

There are dieting systems that repair that problem permanently without
hunger.  Atkins through the entire 4 phases, PaleoThin, several others.
Since you only regain at 1 kg per week such systems are likely more
work for you than they are worth, but they really do solve that problem.
One very easy one is CAD, Carbohydrate Addict Diet by Drs Heller.  A
few simple rules on what to have at meals with a certain time limit.

> E.g. I wouldn't have been caught dead drinking diet coke
> previously.  I always wanted "the real thing".  However,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> nothing that I can remember anymore, even if I once
> imagined I could.

With a regain rate of 1 kg per year, this is another change that all by
itself could be enough.  Regain is based on caloric intake to some
extent.  It's more complex than that since "a colorie is a calorie is
a calorie" is a false statement, but at 1 kg per year it's an
approximation that's close enough for your purposes.

Scaremonging, eh?  At 1 kg per year, in a century you'll be
enormous!  Quick, panic!  You only have a handfull of decades to
repent!  Rush, rush, rush ...
Paul Edwards - 11 Mar 2004 21:46 GMT
> > > Since you've been regaining at only 1 kg per year, your regular
> > > lifestyle isn't that far off from a plan that would keep it off.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> be all you need to do to keep it off.  Then you wouldn't even need the
> extreme diet every 5 years.

Sorry, in Australia, "lollies = sweets = candy", it doesn't mean
lollipops, which is just one small subset of lollies.  I translated
in the original message, but got slack after a while.  :-)

Anyway, giving up all forms of "candy" and chocolate
and chips (crisps) is like, no life.

> > E.g. I wouldn't have been caught dead drinking diet coke
> > previously.  I always wanted "the real thing".  However,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> With a regain rate of 1 kg per year, this is another change that all by
> itself could be enough.

I'm not sure where the 1kg/year came from, but it is not
really accurate.  It is probably just based on a snapshot.
1 year prior to me being 83.5 I was 80.  And I would
not classify my lolly-eating as consistent.  There is nothing
scientific about how I eat normally, except that I know
which things are calorie-specific.

> Regain is based on caloric intake to some
> extent.

Nothing disobeys the laws of physics.

> Scaremonging, eh?  At 1 kg per year, in a century you'll be
> enormous!  Quick, panic!  You only have a handfull of decades to
> repent!  Rush, rush, rush ...

I don't mind people scaremongering about by diet over the
last year, since I was not counting calories and I was not
consistent or controlled, which would normally be a recipe
for disaster.

And I don't mind people scaremongering about the lack
of exercise.

It is only the scaremongering about the initial VLCD that I
think is inaccurate and inappropriate.

BFN.  Paul.
Doug Freyburger - 12 Mar 2004 14:53 GMT
> Sorry, in Australia, "lollies = sweets = candy", it doesn't mean
> lollipops, which is just one small subset of lollies.  I translated
> in the original message, but got slack after a while.  :-)
>
> Anyway, giving up all forms of "candy" and chocolate
> and chips (crisps) is like, no life.

I'll see your handfull of candy, and I'll raise you a nice big steamed
lobster and a dessert of strawberries and some cubes of the finest
Kambura cheese.  And a snifter of brandy to sip slowly.  Sweet isn't
the only form of good ;^)
Paul Edwards - 12 Mar 2004 22:17 GMT
> > Sorry, in Australia, "lollies = sweets = candy", it doesn't mean
> > lollipops, which is just one small subset of lollies.  I translated
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Kambura cheese.  And a snifter of brandy to sip slowly.  Sweet isn't
> the only form of good ;^)

Yes, I agree that that's exactly what should be done for
most people.  If people complain that they're only allowed
such a small number of calories per day, then they should
try to use them all up in lobster, and see how much it costs
to buy that supposedly small number of calories!

However, I personally don't really appreciate the food you
listed.  I don't even drink alcohol, I'd rather have a chocolate
thickshake any day of the week.  There's no contest.

In a way, I never really finished my childhood, never finished
eating all the lollies I wanted to etc etc, and until that is
finished I'm not ready for this adulthood lark.  :-)

BFN.  Paul.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.