WebMD article advocating extreme calorie reduction

I came across this article while Googling the biggest loser diet.

Here is the most intriguing snippet:

"When it comes to weight loss, calories count the most, says Dansinger. He recommends cutting back to a daily level of 7 calories per pound of your current body weight (which for a 200-pound person, for example, would be 1,400 calories), but no less than 1,050 calories/day (the lowest level that can be done safely at home). Dietitians more typically recommend 1,200 calories as a daily minimum."

What do you guys make of this?

at 7 calories per pound and 124 pounds they would want me eating only 868 calories a day. Now even the minimum of 1,050 calories would leave me STARVING as i am currently maintaining on almost twice that of 1800 to 2000 cals a day! I can lose by eating 1400 to 1600  a day! NO WAY JOSE

As much as I love Biggest Loser, it IS a crash diet - the weight those people lose is too much, too fast, and I think there is a really good reason we don't see a lot of past winners of the show - they gain the weight back. What they do there isn't sustainable, and while it makes great entertainment, it isn't something that we should seek to replicate at home.

Also, is Dansinger the doctor on TBL? The one with a mullet? I think that says it all.

I get where you guys are coming from. Thought it would be interesting to discuss the article's argument since it is basically the opposite of many CC user's viewpoint. The article is essentially saying that one can lose weight really fast by restricting calories even more and exercising more AND maintain the weight loss later on. I believe a few of its sources are registered dieticians. 

...just for the sake of discussion. 

Yep, that is crazy!! I weigh 122 pounds, looking to take of a few pounds before summer. My burn rate is usually between 2500-3000 calories a day. So, @ 122 X 7=854 calories!! You would find me passed out some where...no doubt!!

I found this article a little disturbing.  The most disturbing comment of all was "In fact, having a goal like looking great at a wedding or reunion can be a great motivator, as long as you follow a weight loss plan that you can keep up after the special event."

Perhaps I read the statement wrong but it seems to suggest that you will have to maintain severe calorie restriction and extreame exercise to keep the weight off.  Who wants that for the rest of their lives?

I read the whole article and I think the 7 calorie per pound body weight recommendation was really focusing on those that were really trying to lose weight fast for a specific event and was not meant as a long-term weight-loss amount and also, it specifically did indicate that you should not go under 1050 cal/day no matter what.  The whole point of the article was if you really want to lose fast for a specific event, do not do some fad diet or try to fast.  Instead you should restrict your calories to a minimum and exercise a lot more.

Not a great article but not necessarily totally contradictory to standard approach advocated here.

I would consider that article as instruction to fad diet, despite it's claims to the contrary.

However, I do think that there is a valid argument/discussion to be had regarding calorie restriction for longevity.  I am not a proponent of this.  It would require that I give up beer permanently and that, I feel would adversely affect my longevity.

http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblog/2007/10/ calorie-restric.html

http://www.calorierestriction.org/

The article from WebMD advocates against quick fix, fad diets...but they are saying you can loose 20 lbs. fast by cutting calories way down.  It's a bit oddly written and although it has some good info., it also sounds like a fad diet/quick fix because it's abbreviated and quoting a t.v. doctor, which kinda makes me not take them too seriously.  And 7 calories per pound might work on heavier people...but with thinner people, it wouldn't be very many calories.  We are all different and it sort of lumps people all together in the article. 

The CR way of eating that on_point linked is odd.  I know I couldn't live like that.  It says that way of eating increases lifespan in every animal they have tested....but it is not yet proven in humans.  And does it depend on when you start eating like that?  Does it work for males and females?  I doubt it's a guarentee you will live for 20 "extra" years.  I wouldn't want to live 20 extra years being hungry all the time.  I guess it's what is important to you...quantity of life, or quality of life.  If you can have both, then more power to you. 

""Eat enough protein and distribute it evenly through your meals to minimize muscle loss and maximize fat loss," says Tallmadge, author of Diet Simple, who also advises clients to swap out carbs in favor of veggies."

Funny.
Vegetables are predominately carbs.

Yeah, that 'swap out carbs for veggies' needs to say 'swap out starchy carbs like processed bread, pastries, and pasta in favor of veggies'

Actually... This works out perfectly for me.  I weigh 412 right now.  Times 7 is 2884 calories, which is almost exactly what CC is telling me I should be eating;  3050.

Overall, this really is a poorly written and poorly worded article, although some of the statements are true, they are not conveyed well.

I am very glad that I, along with most of the commenters feel that 1,050 calories a day is way too low for the average person.  It is.  Education about diet and exercise is so important, and it's nice to see people so intense about not crash dieting!

The article is about people who need to lose a lot of weight - not people who are already at the correct weight. The guidline is to prevent the obese from being over-restrictive.

on edit: still looks like a crash diet however, obviously not the best thing in the world to help teach people how to maintain after loss.

I think this article is meant to be read and followed by people who are categorized as "Morbidly Obese," meaning a BMI greater than 40, and greater than 100 lbs. overweight.  The average overweight to slightly obese individual should be consuming more than 7 calories per lb in order to function properly.

Original Post by arielle130:

I think this article is meant to be read and followed by people who are categorized as "Morbidly Obese," meaning a BMI greater than 40, and greater than 100 lbs. overweight.  The average overweight to slightly obese individual should be consuming more than 7 calories per lb in order to function properly.

You would think, but then the article uses a 200 lb person as an example:

"He recommends cutting back to a daily level of 7 calories per pound of your current body weight (which for a 200-pound person, for example, would be 1,400 calories), but no less than 1,050 calories/day (the lowest level that can be done safely at home). Dietitians more typically recommend 1,200 calories as a daily minimum."

So it makes sense to only apply the 7 calories per pound to a morbidly obese person, but the article says nothing of that and then goes on to use an overweight person as an example.