VLCD menu based diet

[minilady]

My comments on this thread may have been interpreted as negative, but I have only stated my personal experiences maintaining my own goal weight and offered my opinions.

I think that Mikey realises that we are only trying to help and not just diss his ideas.

I know that when I was approaching maintenance I definately appreciated the opinions of those who were maintaining themselves. We don't know what it will be like to maintain until we get there and like everything, one persons way will be different to someone elses. I would read the threads, take on board everyone's opinions and advise but ultimately I had to find my own way and what suited me. I tried cutting right down if I gained a dreaded lb but for me this didn't work I ended up feeling deprived and the binge cycle returned. In the end I realised I'd yoyo dieted for over 25 years and never kept the weight off, so if I yoyo maintained the chances were I wouldn't keep the weight off either.

Mikey is doing wonderfully with his weight loss, I also want him to maintain successfully too.

One thing I've noticed is that every successful maintainer that's posted on this thread has warned against the pitfalls. There hasn't been anyone successfully maintaining that have stated this is how they have done it. Perhaps someone will read this and say otherwise.

Tracey
x

 

[jane]

My LLC has pointed out several times that people without weight problems have a weight that fluctuates naturally, and that they put on weight (for example on holiday) and then lose it by cutting back.


But...many people without weight problems DO Not fluctuate. Their weight remains steady within a very narrow range day by day for year after year .
Poeple do it all the time in dangerous ways - slimfast,
Please: slimfast is not dangerous.

so surely a real-food VLCD would be better for the odd week or two than going back onto chemical mixes??
the whole point of a VLCD is that it cannot be assembled safely from normal food as under 1000 cals you are likely to be deficient in something. Hence the creation of Nutritionally complete formula foods.
So, vitamins minerals & trace elements are 'chemicals' if used to supplement milk but are 'nutrients' if taken in food ?
which are they when taken in vitamin pills or herbal supplements?

Whether that will be 800 kcals or 1000/1200/1500 I will have to try and see.

I'm confused now.
It is only a VLCD if its less than 800 cals.
That is the definiton

If you have evidence of ketosis being dangerous when used for a couple of weeks in people with a BMI of 25 or below, I'd really like to see it please as it would affect my plans. Is there anything like this?
Absolutely there is. Cambridge have all the data. sorry I can't give you a quick reference to a graph or similar. It's something I've been meaning to get hold of for my own clients.
I did note your caveat of 'a couple of weeks' & accept that you can't do that much harm in that time, but, ketosis under a bmi of 25 puts all other tissues at risk.
I for one am happier if the protein & calcium in my bones stays there.


quote]

Insulin converts the blood sugar to fat
No it does NOT.
Insulin is involved in the transfer of sugar into cells amongst other actions.
Sugars are small mono or di-cyclic molecules.
Fatty acids are long hydro carbon chains.

To get from one to the other is a massively complex series of processes starting with dismantling the sugar moiety
So insulin takes excess blood sugar and turns it to fat when eating a lot of carbs, and glycagon takes excess fat and converts it to blood sugar in times of no carbs (and in ketosis).

again NO!
this is a bit like saying that the national transport system is administed by the lillipop lady at the school crossing.

Also there is nothing magic about Carbs. The body can & does turn almost anything in to fat, even protein.
As the brain runs on glucose - blood sugar, you do not need any carbs to keep your brain going as it will function perfectly using the glucose made from your own fat!

This is dangerously false.
Yes we can produce some glucose 'de novo' via the gluconeogenic pathway, but it has v limited capacity. with no supplementary carb source some people will fairly rapidly get into difficulties with insufficient blood glucose for proper brain function.

quote]

Sorry Mikey.

 

[mikey]

One thing I've noticed is that every successful maintainer that's posted on this thread has warned against the pitfalls. There hasn't been anyone successfully maintaining that have stated this is how they have done it. Perhaps someone will read this and say otherwise.

Tracey
x

Thanks for your comments Tracey - I agree - it would be great to know how those that have maintained have done so - and what experiences they have had.

 

[mikey]

OK, My original points are in black, Janes are in brown, and my reposts;-) are in blue.


But...many people without weight problems DO Not fluctuate. Their weight remains steady within a very narrow range day by day for year after year .
But many do - that is the point

Poeple do it all the time in dangerous ways - slimfast,
Please: slimfast is not dangerous.

RE slimfast, what I meant was that eating just slimfast would be bad news - I am sure you would agree with this as that is not how it is intended to be used

so surely a real-food VLCD would be better for the odd week or two than going back onto chemical mixes??
the whole point of a VLCD is that it cannot be assembled safely from normal food as under 1000 cals you are likely to be deficient in something. Hence the creation of Nutritionally complete formula foods.
So, vitamins minerals & trace elements are 'chemicals' if used to supplement milk but are 'nutrients' if taken in food ?
which are they when taken in vitamin pills or herbal supplements?

Right so it is better to eat a bunch of powders that is nutritionally complete (and pay through the nose for it too) than to eat a diet that is healthy and also is suplemented to ensure it is nutritionally complete ?

Whether that will be 800 kcals or 1000/1200/1500 I will have to try and see.

I'm confused now.
It is only a VLCD if its less than 800 cals.
That is the definiton

You are quite correct - The medical definition of a VLCD is a calorie controlled diet with below 800kcals - but even you talk about 1000 kcalds being a cut off.

I guess therefore that what I am suggesting should therefore be a Low Calorie Diet (801 kcals or more). I would still call this a very low calorie diet whether or not that is the correct medical nomenclature. People are not all the same anyway and go into ketosis at different levels - As I stated in an earlier post people can go into ketosis with a much greater calorie intake than 800kcals

If you have evidence of ketosis being dangerous when used for a couple of weeks in people with a BMI of 25 or below, I'd really like to see it please as it would affect my plans. Is there anything like this?
Absolutely there is. Cambridge have all the data. sorry I can't give you a quick reference to a graph or similar. It's something I've been meaning to get hold of for my own clients.
I did note your caveat of 'a couple of weeks' & accept that you can't do that much harm in that time, but, ketosis under a bmi of 25 puts all other tissues at risk.
I for one am happier if the protein & calcium in my bones stays there.

Please do provide the info when you can.

By combining the atkins/protein power/carb addict diet/holford/low GI/Low GL approaches, mean that you will get adequate protein and no leaching of calcium. On the subject of calcium leaching, I would be very interested to see the research as to how the calcium supplements in CD and LL foodpacks are formulated to ensure that they can be used by the body as just adding calcium is not usually enough.


Insulin converts the blood sugar to fat

No it does NOT.
Insulin is involved in the transfer of sugar into cells amongst other actions.
Sugars are small mono or di-cyclic molecules.
Fatty acids are long hydro carbon chains.

To get from one to the other is a massively complex series of processes starting with dismantling the sugar moiety


I think that you have tried to confuse the issue here. I simplified, of course there is a huge chain of events that goes on, but one of the main roles of insulin is to get excess glucose out of the blood. The end result is that it is turned to fat. The evidence is readily available - just google insulin sugar fat. I have to say that if you are saying that insulin does not make sure that excess sugar turns to fat then you are very wrong.

So insulin takes excess blood sugar and turns it to fat when eating a lot of carbs, and glycagon takes excess fat and converts it to blood sugar in times of no carbs (and in ketosis).

again NO!
this is a bit like saying that the national transport system is administed by the lillipop lady at the school crossing.

Also there is nothing magic about Carbs. The body can & does turn almost anything in to fat, even protein.

Again, you are trying to make things more complex than they need to be - I did simplify so that the main premise couild be understood. There is nothing "magic" about carbs apart from the fact that we humans have managed to process them to change them form a natural and safe foodstuff into processed power foods that absolutely are a problem and are causing the obesity epidemic we have in the western world. In a diet high in processed carbs (and sometimes defficient in protein/fat as a consequence) the body spends its time proucing massive amounts of insulin. This is why people become type 2 diabetic - either through poor insulin sensitivity (insulin resistance) in the cells, or to lower insulin production by the pancreas. I have to say that you are so very wrong on this point.

As the brain runs on glucose - blood sugar, you do not need any carbs to keep your brain going as it will function perfectly using the glucose made from your own fat!

This is dangerously false.
Yes we can produce some glucose 'de novo' via the gluconeogenic pathway, but it has v limited capacity. with no supplementary carb source some people will fairly rapidly get into difficulties with insufficient blood glucose for proper brain function.

And I have to say that you are absolutely wrong - we will have to agree to differ. I lived well for 2 years on Atkins and for a major part of that was consuming less than 20 gms carbs per day with NO side effects. You seem to be coming up with a load of pro low-cal anti protein claptrap!



Sorry Mikey.

I'm sorry too - but a great discussion anyway which will open people's minds and cause them to do their own research.

A few closing points.

Sugar intake seems to have gone up from a few pounds a year to upwards of 80 pounds per year in the last 100 years - most of this due to added sugar and hidden sugar added to processed foods. Sugar - fructose, sucrose, lactose etc. is one of the most refined carbohydrates.

A good article about carbohydrates Glycaemic index, the role of insulin is at Glycemic Index This is why my plan will focus on low GL (GI) carbs alongside proetin and important fats.

For thiose wanting a more detailed understanding of carbohydrate, blood sugar, insulin etc - I found http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN83_S1%2FS0007114500001021a.pdf&code=7a9f2cc4576185ae0e7fa9d615b280fd which provides much food for thought.

 

[mikey]

Actually I wasn't being negative about the idea at all, I was commenting on Mikey's position rather than his diet plan.
I used a VLCD to lose a lot of weight and think they are great, in their place.
I don't think what Mikey is doing is bad at all, if done properly, a VLCD based on food rather than food replacement has it's place too and if I needed it would be glad it was there.
I just don't think it is right for losing a few pounds.
I am sure Mikey will see my point about most of what I said.

I agree that it would be good to have a VLCD based on proper food (and suplements as needed).

 

[mikey]

I think you are panicking here Mikey.
You still have a way to go yet, you haven't even finished abstinence, let alone RTM, you still have at least 3 months of counselling to go and you have pretty much already decided you are going to fail at maintenance!
It does seem a bit extreme to do a VLCD or even an LCD just because you put on a couple of pounds on holiday.
I can see why you are worried, none of us want to get fat again, but keeping an eye on yourself and eating a balanced diet should keep you right, then if you do put on over a holiday it is quite easy to cut back to 1500 to lose a bit (or beforehand), even if you put on a stone (which is rather a lot, you would have to had to have had a bingefest, which would suggest you have more head issues to sort out)
you could lose that in a month, isn't that quite quick enough in reality?
Example: I went away for 10 days and put on 2lbs, that included eating out a fair bit, I did 1500-1550 cals for a week (without feeling hungry at all) and lost 3.6lbs.
Isn't that enough?
I find the idea a bit extreme for such a small problem, I have to say. (Using a hammer to crack a nut springs to mind)

Just because there are fat laden foods on the menu it doesn't mean you have to eat them for every meal or at all, all hotels/pubs/restaurants have healthier options these days, it is down to you to choose them rather than your old choices.

Hi Ali,

I'm not panicking at all, I just want to make sure that I am fully prepared. If I do not gain any weight at all, then that is great, but I think the vast evidence is that people do have points when they might over-indulge a bit, or where they do not exercise enough through ill-health or whatever.

I see a lot of people resort to using the packs for a few days, and given that it does happen, I thought a better approach would be for us to have a plan that we could use instead. A plan whereby we were eating healthily but with reduced calories. Maybe I should have not have suggested it as a VLCD, but I think one of the good things about CD is that there are different calorific intakes in different plans and I'd like to construct something similar based on real nutrient-rich foods.

 

[jane]

OK, My original points are in black, Janes are in brown, and my reposts;-) are in blue.

I guess I'd better be green for this post then Mike

Poeple do it all the time in dangerous ways - slimfast,
Please: slimfast is not dangerous.

RE slimfast, what I meant was that eating just slimfast would be bad news - I am sure you would agree with this as that is not how it is intended to be used
ah! yes, of course, mis understood you.

Right so it is better to eat a bunch of powders that is nutritionally complete (and pay through the nose for it too) than to eat a diet that is healthy and also is suplemented to ensure it is nutritionally complete ?
3 comments here.
1. Paying through the nose? Absolutly not. £35 for a whole week's nosh. I grow my own eggs & veg & even so struggle to feed us for less. you are a LLchap so upfront costs are double but you should be getting a counsellor with more specialised training. Putting sole source aside, £1.65 for a nutritionally complete meal is a bargain in my book.
2. I'm not sure I'd know how to go about constructing my own supplements to create this perfect diet. CD spent a long time creating the recipe we have today, including I understand, borrowing from NASA things learned from the space race. In the unlikely event of a single person being able to inprove on this, you have 2 options:
a) copy the Cambridge recipe.
b) use their products. The first is more work. Is it possible to do it on a small scale at less cost?
I have no actual knowledgeof the make up of the LL packs, but am assuming that the recipe is as close to CD as makes no odds. Might even be identical.
3. I'm totally with you in the matter of striving to eat a healthy diet. I'd actually prefer one with as wide a variety of foods as poss & requiring no supplements. The packs should be a means to an end, BUT, in an imperfect world full of people with imperfect lives & habits, having a pack once, twice or ten times a week as a weight control tool seems to me to be a straightforward pragmatic approach to maintenance.

As I stated in an earlier post people can go into ketosis with a much greater calorie intake than 800kcals.
Quite right. Ketosis is carbohydrate dependant not calorie dependant eg Atkins Diet

If you have evidence of ketosis being dangerous when used for a couple of weeks in people with a BMI of 25 or below, I'd really like to see it please as it would affect my plans. Is there anything like this?
Please do provide the info when you can.

I know I've got a nice little bar chart somewhere of Body lean mass vs BMI whilst on VlCD, but when I had a quick scout for it y'day couldn't find it = typical.
However, may I recommend you read 'the Cambridge Diet' 20th anniversary edition by Dr Alan Howard. 2004.
Available from bookstrores, online eg amazon & from Cambridge HQ rrp £5.99

It is a pleasant easy read, gives info in answer to some of your points & gives a good idea of the length & breadth of the research that was undertaken in the 20 odd years between conception & UK marketing of the diet, but without the dessicated tedium of the actual academic papers.

By combining the atkins/protein power/carb addict diet/holford/low GI/Low GL approaches, mean that you will get adequate protein and no leaching of calcium. On the subject of calcium leaching, I would be very interested to see the research as to how the calcium supplements in CD and LL foodpacks are formulated to ensure that they can be used by the body as just adding calcium is not usually enough.
I agree. calcium biochemistry is very complex. Absorption & utilization involves Vit D, parathyroid hormone, gluco & minaralo corticoids to name but a few. It is a notoriously fickle beast. ae sex, smoking,drinking & other lifestyle choices have a marked effect. However, these variables don't just apply when on CD or LL or homemade-diet plan.


Insulin converts the blood sugar to fat

No it does NOT.
I have to say that if you are saying that insulin does not make sure that excess sugar turns to fat then you are very wrong.
All I said was that your assertion, (see above in black) that insulin converts sugar into fat is false.
Insulin is a hormone.
the metabolic processes involved in converting fat to sugar or vice versa requires numerous enzymes, co-enzymes & catalysts.
This reminds me of a joke.
Q: what's the difference between a hormone & an enzyme?
A: I've never heard an enzyme.

So insulin takes excess blood sugar and turns it to fat when eating a lot of carbs,
No It encourages it's movement across cell membranes. It does not change or convert anything. and glycagon takes excess fat and converts it to blood sugar in times of no carbs (and in ketosis).
ditto

Again, you are trying to make things more complex than they need to be -
Possibly,but I was trying to counter the misleading suggestion that insulin is a sort of bodily wand that whan waved turns things into other things .I did simplify so that the main premise couild be understood. There is nothing "magic" about carbs apart from the fact that we humans have managed to process them to change them form a natural and safe foodstuff into processed power foods that absolutely are a problem and are causing the obesity epidemic we have in the western world.
again I agree with you that processed foods with their processed carbs,added salt & fat are contributing to western obesity I would not agree that they are causing it. too big a subject fro this reply/
In a diet high in processed carbs (and sometimes defficient in protein/fat as a consequence) the body spends its time proucing massive amounts of insulin.
sorry to have to disagree again.
We eat far more meat per capita in GB now than we did 50 yrs ago. Deficient on protein? I think not! Nor are our diets short of fat. The opposite is true for a large percentage of the population.This is why people become type 2 diabetic - either through poor insulin sensitivity (insulin resistance) in the cells, or to lower insulin production by the pancreas. I have to say that you are so very wrong on this point.
how can I be wrong on a point that I didn't discuss. I didn't mention Diabetes.

As the brain runs on glucose - blood sugar, you do not need any carbs to keep your brain going as it will function perfectly using the glucose made from your own fat!

This is dangerously false.
Yes we can produce some glucose 'de novo' via the gluconeogenic pathway, but it has v limited capacity. with no supplementary carb source some people will fairly rapidly get into difficulties with insufficient blood glucose for proper brain function.

And I have to say that you are absolutely wrong - we will have to agree to differ. I lived well for 2 years on Atkins and for a major part of that was consuming less than 20 gms carbs per day with NO side effects. You seem to be coming up with a load of pro low-cal anti protein claptrap!

At no time during my lengthy reply to you did I resort to personal insults, nor did I say anything anti-protein (whatever that may be) I repeat what I said: Eating NO carbs at all relying entirely on gluconeogenesis to provide glucose for cerebral function is not wise. Infact you invalidate your own arguement by stating that your own diet contained <20g carbs daily. "20g is a lot more than none.

For thiose wanting a more detailed understanding of carbohydrate, blood sugar, insulin etc - I found http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...7fa9d615b280fd which provides much food for thought.
__________________
Sadly your link doesn't seem to work.

 

[mikey]

Hi Jane, My reposts in blue (again) but with a >> in front this time LOL!

OK, My original points are in black, Janes are in brown, and my reposts;-) are in blue.

I guess I'd better be green for this post then Mike

Poeple do it all the time in dangerous ways - slimfast,
Please: slimfast is not dangerous.

RE slimfast, what I meant was that eating just slimfast would be bad news - I am sure you would agree with this as that is not how it is intended to be used
ah! yes, of course, mis understood you.

>> I thought so - glad we agree !

Right so it is better to eat a bunch of powders that is nutritionally complete (and pay through the nose for it too) than to eat a diet that is healthy and also is suplemented to ensure it is nutritionally complete ?
3 comments here.
1. Paying through the nose? Absolutly not. £35 for a whole week's nosh. I grow my own eggs & veg & even so struggle to feed us for less. you are a LLchap so upfront costs are double but you should be getting a counsellor with more specialised training. Putting sole source aside, £1.65 for a nutritionally complete meal is a bargain in my book.

>> But it is not a meal - at least not on LL - it is a bunch of powders that turns into some form of drink or gloop depending on the water you add.

2. I'm not sure I'd know how to go about constructing my own supplements to create this perfect diet. CD spent a long time creating the recipe we have today, including I understand, borrowing from NASA things learned from the space race. In the unlikely event of a single person being able to inprove on this, you have 2 options:
a) copy the Cambridge recipe.
b) use their products. The first is more work. Is it possible to do it on a small scale at less cost?
I have no actual knowledgeof the make up of the LL packs, but am assuming that the recipe is as close to CD as makes no odds. Might even be identical.

>> Fortunately many other companies have done the work and there are some very high quality sipplements available - I believe that these are what is added to LL/CD packs anyway (but done at the manufacturing stage)


3. I'm totally with you in the matter of striving to eat a healthy diet. I'd actually prefer one with as wide a variety of foods as poss & requiring no supplements. The packs should be a means to an end, BUT, in an imperfect world full of people with imperfect lives & habits, having a pack once, twice or ten times a week as a weight control tool seems to me to be a straightforward pragmatic approach to maintenance.

>>I agree, but I also thing that in the same light if a person could have a very low cal but healthy real meal "once, twice, or ten times a week," than that would be an even better approach - don't you agree? This is ne of the reasons I want to put this plan together - a "straight forward pragmatic way to maintenance".

If you have evidence of ketosis being dangerous when used for a couple of weeks in people with a BMI of 25 or below, I'd really like to see it please as it would affect my plans. Is there anything like this?
Please do provide the info when you can.

I know I've got a nice little bar chart somewhere of Body lean mass vs BMI whilst on VlCD, but when I had a quick scout for it y'day couldn't find it = typical.
However, may I recommend you read 'the Cambridge Diet' 20th anniversary edition by Dr Alan Howard. 2004.
Available from bookstrores, online eg amazon & from Cambridge HQ rrp £5.99

It is a pleasant easy read, gives info in answer to some of your points & gives a good idea of the length & breadth of the research that was undertaken in the 20 odd years between conception & UK marketing of the diet, but without the dessicated tedium of the actual academic papers.

>>Thanks for that- I'll look out for it - I'd recommend "Protein Power" and "The Holford diet" as previously suggested these similarly cover the issues, but I imagine that they must paint a slightly different picture to the CD book you recommend.

Insulin converts the blood sugar to fat


No it does NOT.
I have to say that if you are saying that insulin does not make sure that excess sugar turns to fat then you are very wrong.
All I said was that your assertion, (see above in black) that insulin converts sugar into fat is false.
Insulin is a hormone.
the metabolic processes involved in converting fat to sugar or vice versa requires numerous enzymes, co-enzymes & catalysts.
This reminds me of a joke.
Q: what's the difference between a hormone & an enzyme?
A: I've never heard an enzyme.

>> I like the joke! So we agree that a major part of the role of isulin is to control (reduce) the amount of blood sugar and that it causes a chain of events whereby the sugar is stored as fat ???

So insulin takes excess blood sugar and turns it to fat when eating a lot of carbs,
No It encourages it's movement across cell membranes. It does not change or convert anything.
>> See the point above - I have generalised, you are being very precise. Net effect is the same - Insulin causes the blood sugar to be converted to fat.
and glycagon takes excess fat and converts it to blood sugar in times of no carbs (and in ketosis).
ditto

>> See point above

Again, you are trying to make things more complex than they need to be -
Possibly,but I was trying to counter the misleading suggestion that insulin is a sort of bodily wand that whan waved turns things into other things .
>> I never made any statements to that effect, I was trying simply to state the role of insulin and blood sugar






In a diet high in processed carbs (and sometimes defficient in protein/fat as a consequence) the body spends its time proucing massive amounts of insulin.
sorry to have to disagree again.
We eat far more meat per capita in GB now than we did 50 yrs ago. Deficient on protein? I think not! Nor are our diets short of fat. The opposite is true for a large percentage of the population.
>> Well, 50 years ago, the world had come out of a recent world war and protein levels were at an all time low - so yes we eat more protein now than we did then. Go back 10,000 years (a very short time in evolutionary terms) and I think you will see that we now eat a tiny fraction of the protein that we ate then.

This pdf outlines the protein power ethos and makes for simple interesting reading - it also has a section on minerals and nutrients http://www.proteinpower.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12&d=1141991495



This is why people become type 2 diabetic - either through poor insulin sensitivity (insulin resistance) in the cells, or to lower insulin production by the pancreas. I have to say that you are so very wrong on this point.
how can I be wrong on a point that I didn't discuss. I didn't mention Diabetes.

>> I only mentioned diabetes as an example to illustrate what I was saying. I didn't say tha you had mentioned it.

As the brain runs on glucose - blood sugar, you do not need any carbs to keep your brain going as it will function perfectly using the glucose made from your own fat!

This is dangerously false.
Yes we can produce some glucose 'de novo' via the gluconeogenic pathway, but it has v limited capacity. with no supplementary carb source some people will fairly rapidly get into difficulties with insufficient blood glucose for proper brain function.

And I have to say that you are absolutely wrong - we will have to agree to differ. I lived well for 2 years on Atkins and for a major part of that was consuming less than 20 gms carbs per day with NO side effects. You seem to be coming up with a load of pro low-cal anti protein claptrap!

At no time during my lengthy reply to you did I resort to personal insults, nor did I say anything anti-protein (whatever that may be)

>> Well, I really do not see much difference between your comment that what I said was "dangerously wrong" and my comment about "claptrap" and certainly neither are personal insults! In any case as you started it .....


I repeat what I said: Eating NO carbs at all relying entirely on gluconeogenesis to provide glucose for cerebral function is not wise. Infact you invalidate your own arguement by stating that your own diet contained <20g carbs daily. "20g is a lot more than none.

>> OK I was (mistakenly) under the impression that you were advocating that we should eat carbs because a diet deficient in them would cause the brain to stop working. I gave my personal evidence that that was not correct, and so now you say that even the levels of 10-20gs/day of carbs is now OK. Fine we agree.


For thiose wanting a more detailed understanding of carbohydrate, blood sugar, insulin etc - I found http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...7fa9d615b280fd which provides much food for thought.
__________________
Sadly your link doesn't seem to work.

>> Looks like it got squelched by the mimimins Bulletin Board software! I cannot find it - but here is a concise explanation that I found instead: Mark’s Daily Apple » Blog Archive » The Definitive Guide to Insulin, Blood Sugar & Type 2 Diabetes (and you’ll understand it)

 

[ditzeeblonde]

Hi
I have just joined this forum & am starting back on Dr Cohens vlcd diet.
I succeeded in losing 7 stone in 4 months in 2006 until my counsellor left so I didn't refeed, fell pregnant & went back to my old ways.

I was eating between 400-600 cals per day without a shake or powder in sight... I believe (but I am no expert) that this diet produced the same effects as other vlcd. (having not tried any others I have no idea if thats true).

 

[mikey]

Thanks ditzeeb, I had not heard of Dr Cohen's diet. I will try to find a website and have a read - any other info you have would be great.

Good luck with your weightloss
Cheers
Mike

 

[mikey]

Found a lot of info including a bunch of recipes at Dr Cohen Recipes - Cohen's Lifestyle Clinic which might be of interest. (at least to me anyway).

I'll need to do the nutritional analysis and then modify them to suit my plans.

 

[ditzeeblonde]

I have a post further down Cohens or TLC which another member wrote about the effects of Cohens (far more knowledgable than me!)

Would give you a bit more of an insight into the science of it all!

I can dig out all mu gumpf on it & give you a food list if that helps?

 

[mikey]

Hi, the food list and anything that goes with it would be of great interest - thanks very much
Cheers
Mike

 

[toller-girl]

Sorry to hi-jack, just got a question for Jane about VCLDs being dangerous under a BMI of 25.

My Lighter Life counsellor wants us to stay in abstinence until we reach a BMI of about 22, would that be dangerous?

I'm not doing that anyway, it's definitely not the best option for me, but I'm not entirely sure it's healthy advice

 

[Peridot]

Mikey

Have you read Gary Taube's "The Diet Delusion"? It seems to undertake all the research you've indentified as being inadequate/non-existent and also analyses the reasons behind the low-fat dieting assumptions that are widespread.

He is a science journalist and I would not say it's an easy read but it is fascinating.

And he subscribes at the end to a low-carb way of eating too.

Oops - plot spoiler!

 

[mikey]

No Peridot, that sounds very interesting - I'll take a look at it when I find it (no doubt on Amazon!)
Cheers
Mike

 

[EnglishHeart]

I am trying to lose weight by calorie-counting... I don't think it's the same as VLCD (doesn't that involve liquid meal replacements etc?) but it lets me keep track of myself and not binge. Unfortunately, today has been a bad day . I got up at 6am, my exam went badly, I've consumed about 740 calories today and now I'm just totally knackered. I think I will have a yoghurt or something later, to bump it up to about 900.

 

[Charisma]

I am trying to lose weight by calorie-counting... I don't think it's the same as VLCD (doesn't that involve liquid meal replacements etc?) but it lets me keep track of myself and not binge. Unfortunately, today has been a bad day . I got up at 6am, my exam went badly, I've consumed about 740 calories today and now I'm just totally knackered. I think I will have a yoghurt or something later, to bump it up to about 900.

i thought 900 is good as your ment to have 2000 a day arent u?? thats less than half

 

[mikey]

I am trying to lose weight by calorie-counting... I don't think it's the same as VLCD (doesn't that involve liquid meal replacements etc?) but it lets me keep track of myself and not binge. Unfortunately, today has been a bad day . I got up at 6am, my exam went badly, I've consumed about 740 calories today and now I'm just totally knackered. I think I will have a yoghurt or something later, to bump it up to about 900.

A VLCD is just a diet that has less than 800 kcals per day.

LighterLife is nutritionally complete which means that in your food packs you have all the vitamins and minerals that are recommended for a healthy diet.

It is possible that the reason you are tired is that you are missing important minerals of viatmins so I would recommend some supplements.

Another reason is that you may not be drinking enough water. Common wisdom is that on ketosis based diets (and depending on what you are eating you may or may not be in ketosis) you should have a minimum of 4 litres water per day.

Diet drinks are not a good idea as they can take you out of ketosis.

 

[Dinosaur]

Not a VLCD, but in this weeks Womens Own (I saw it in a shop, but didn't buy, honest!), they have a diet in there which is just over 800cals per day, all food based, but with only 50g of carbs a day.

I didn't get it as I'm doing 810/1000 on CD atm and am only ½ a stone from goal, but it might be worth a look for you!