Originally Posted by Demi
It's based on his Fast 800 plan:
Thank you, Demi - that was the information I needed, because the articles I saw above told me next to nothing, except that it was 800 cals (which is technically considered to be a starvation diet), and the lady who loved the diet was having dizzy spells from it, which to me still indicates there's some kind of problem.
Other diets can make you dizzy too - but to me, that says she needs something changed about it to keep her from having dizzy spells, which I'm guessing are most likely related to low blood sugar, perhaps from some of the higher carb recipes. With only 3 recipes in that article, there's one that has only about 3 oz chicken per serving, but then has chickpeas, apparently to increase the protein content. The recipe says a "tin of chickpeas", and a tin of chopped tomatoes.
I don't know how big a can/tin of chickpeas is in the UK, but back when I was eating beans, chickpeas were the one bean that it seemed only came in a 29 oz can (seven 1/2 cup servings, 20 carbs per serving), so that recipe could
potentially have 75 g carbs/serving, just from the chickpeas alone. Even if it's one of the smaller cans that most beans come in here (15-16 oz, 3-1/2 servings) if you use the entire can in that recipe, that's still 35 g carbs per serving - add to that the tin of chopped tomatoes (again, how big? I've seen 14-15 oz cans, 3-1/2 servings, 6ish carbs per serving, as well as 28 oz cans, with 6 or 7 servings) - the smaller can would add an additional 10ish grams carbs per serving, the larger can another 20ish g/serving), and the medium onion (approximately another 5 g carbs per serving)... so that would put you at a minimum of 45-50 g carbs/serving for that meal (or closer to 100, if you're in the US and think those recipes are indicating the larger cans), so not one that I would call truly LC, even if it is certainly better than pasta, potato chips, donuts, and cake.
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
It amazes me at the level of cynacism expressed.....we should be the cheerleaders of change.......any change that results in weight loss is a good thing. There is no perfect diet. What works for one may not for another. The more optiobs that can entice people to reaccess their food intake and their level of obesity is critical to change this obesety/chronic disease epidemic.
Atkins doesnt work for everyone.
OMAD worked well for at one point dropping about 20 pounds in 37 days.
Every other day fasting works for others.
If 800 calories for a few weeks shows willing participants what is possible and is an intro to taking control of ones health via food, why not?
Light headed? Well that can happen on Atkins too. On either diet, support should be offered during the transition. Imho a little light headedness us well worth avoiding toe amputations, foot amputation and leg amputation.
On this forum, we have a lot to offer in experience to assist those ready to change and jump into weight loss. Getting over the hump is what everyone experiences at whatever level of distress.
I wasn't trying to be cynical about it - I was basing what I said on what little was indicated in the article. First that it was an 800 calorie diet (didn't mention that it could be as much as 1000 calories), then that you would definitely lose a stone (14 lbs) in 3 weeks. Without knowing who Dr Mosley is (I'm terrible with names, so even though there was a thread on here earlier, I didn't associate the name) Basically, to me 800 calories, "it's so good!" about the recipes, and the promise of losing 14 lbs in 3 weeks - it looked like an article that could have come from one of junky women's magazines at the grocery store that always have these two things on the cover: some amazing diet-of-the-week... and a huge, tempting, decadent cake recipe.
On the other hand, what Dr Mosley says in the article he wrote is:
I know how hard it is to lose weight, and keep it off, but it can be done — I shed 9kg (nearly 20lb) and reversed my diabetes diagnosis by putting myself on a low-calorie diet.
Now I’m working with Channel 4 on a new three-part series, during which we test out an even faster approach to weight loss. The idea is that we take a group of people who have piled on the pounds during lockdown and help them shed that excess weight by putting them on a rapid weight-loss diet. Calorie consumption is limited to around 800 to 1,000 calories a day, and it’s based on a healthy, low-carb, Mediterranean-style way of eating.
See, now isn't that a much better description "lose a stone in 3 weeks on 800 calories a day"?
Then there's this:
Our participants needed to act to avoid the same potential fate.
I can’t yet reveal the end results because we’re still filming and I’ve asked them not to weigh themselves until the final day. By then we’ll also have all the blood results, enabling us to assess how well their immune system may now be functioning. I am optimistic, but a little nervous, as you never quite know what will happen.
Although we’re only filming the results of their first three weeks on the diet, I plan to support them long term. I don’t want this to be just a quick fix. I want to instil in them habits which will become permanent. It can be done, and there is no better time than the present — for all of us.
So did all of them lose at least 14 lbs in the 3 weeks, as well as significantly improving their blood work? That doesn't sound like even he knows as of the date her wrote that article - and he says he's optimistic, but also says you never quite know what will happen.
I'm glad to hear that it's not just a quick fix either, that he intends to support them long term - and hopefully, they're not going to be stuck at such a low calorie intake long term, based on this:
This may sound like a crash diet, but it’s actually based on a lot of good-quality scientific studies. Low-calorie diets like this have been piloted by the NHS in a bid to tackle obesity. Our volunteers wanted to see results, fast. We wanted to make sure the weight loss was safe and sustainable.
While we’ve been repeatedly told rapid weight-loss diets are dangerous and ineffective, because you just put all the weight back on again, this is not borne out by the latest research. Recent studies show that, if done properly, not only are people who lose weight fast more likely to hit their targets, but they are also more likely to keep it off in the long term.
If done properly is the big thing, and it appears that he's doing it right. Even for such a low calorie diet, the recipes in that article are not skimping on protein, not skimping on veggies, and his recipes actually call for added fats, even if not much, since the calories would add up way too fast if they did have a lot of fat.
So after finding out what HE actually has to say about it, I don't have nearly as many reservations about the diet.