Talk:Very-low-calorie diet/Archive 1

Capitalization
I think that the title should be Very low calorie diet because it is not a proper noun. See WP:CAPS. 75.26.11.133 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation really needed
The claim: "The body will break down fat, but it will also break down muscle and other lean body tissue which can be very dangerous." REALLY needs a citation, as this is one of those vague claims that has a tendency to perpetuate itself by being stated over and over again without any proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcordone (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. For all the claims of slowing down one's metabolism or the body breaking down muscle, I am having a really hard time finding evidence to support these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.116.33 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Several problems with the article

 * First of all, juice certainly isn't a low-calorie drink. I have removed that part from the introduction.
 * Secondly, do VLCD diets really require medical supervision? In Sweden, they are sold for use during two weeks without any supervision needed.
 * Thirdly, a producer of VLCD products claims the risk of gallbladder disease (specificially stones) is removed when the VLCD diet contains at least 7 grams of fat per day, which apparently is the requirement since several years (at least in Sweden). The current source for gallbladder issues is from 1992. Does anybody know of a newer source?
 * Fourthly, the part about setting up a bigger health risk once the diet is over seems strange. VLCD diets are intended to be used only for a certain time period. Also, the source is a blog article, not about any method in particular but rather dieting in general. It mentions excercise as the best weight loss method in conjunction with healthy eating. All VLCD products I have seen are intended to be used for a period to lose weight, in conjunction with excercise and a gradual taper to regular healthy food. If used as these products are intended, the blog article doesn't seem to really apply. It just seems very POV, very vague and very discouraging for people who use VLCD diets.
 * Fifthly, aren't VLCDs supposed to be nutritionally complete (see intro text)? If so, why does the article claim that the lack of essential nutrients will deteriorate hair and nails? Also, the talk about serotonin levels seems related to thinking VLCDs contain too little amino acids to produce enough serotonin, which also contradicts the intro text. Of course, osteoporosis and electrolyte imbalances are unsourced as well.
 * Sixth, low calorie diets are low in protein. Protein is responsible for the building and maintaining muscle. Muscle requires more calories than any other tissue in the body and is therfore crucial for a fast metabolism.  Loss of muscle is a real post diet danger as the ability to burn calories relative to a persons normal daily calorie consumption is drastically reduced, thus sabortaging the dieter as they pile on more weight faster than they lost it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.176.80 (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what to do about the above points?

Where next Columbus? (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are sold in Sweden without the need for medical supervision being stipulated, might be a reason to amend that information for the Swedish Wikipedia. However, the U.S. codex (as can be read at http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=76935 among other places) specifically defines a VLCD as "a doctor-supervised weight loss plan".--Roger Pilgham (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm - for some reason I missed your reply despite having watched this page. Anyway. I don't think it is right to use the US as the ruler to which everything should be measured, and then use that measure to claim that others is deviating from whatever the standard is according to the measurement. That would be to unwittingly introduce a North American bias, when in fact Wikipedia is international (after all English is spoken in countries other than the US). I used Sweden as an example since I happen to live here, but as you referred to a dictionary definition written in the US, I decided to Google for some more information and found this:
 * "VLCD products that are prescribed for selected patients under medical supervision and which are only available in hospitals or comparable situations. This applies to Germany."
 * In France, VLCDs are prescription only.
 * In Belgium, VLCDs are OTC in pharmacies.
 * In Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, The United Kingdom, and Norway, VLCDs are freely available. Of these, only Denmark, Norway and Portugal have implemented the non-statutory standard Codex alimentarius STAN 203-1995, which references STAN 180-1991, which in its turn contains the labeling requirement "A prominent statement "USE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION" shall appear on the label in bold letters in an area separated from other written, printed, or graphic information."
 * I did not search for the "US codex", but could not find it at the link you suggested, although I have my suspicions that it is indeed the aforementioned Codex alimentarius standard that you intended me to find.
 * This means that six EU countries use national or other regional standards, which do not neccesarily contain the particular labeling requirement that your article article states. The COMA standard of the UK seems to call for (but not neccesarily require; "should" is used instead of "must") doctor's consultation prior to the person embarking on a VLCD, as seem to do Norway's and Denmark's regulations (the literal translation here would be "ought" to consult a doctor). In Finland one may use a VLCD for up to three weeks without consulting a doctor, however it may be used for longer periods under supervision. however, as I can't read e.g. French I am not sure exactly what the standards in Belgium, Italy and Portugal are. Also interesting is that several of the larger VLCD programs I've found seem to imply that a child (at least those 16 years of age) can use a VLCD in some of these countries under medical supervision, even though the Wikipedia article states one must never put a child on a VLCD. Since these progrms are rather well-known/established (i.e., Cambridge program in UK, Nutrilett in Nordic countries), it would seem to me as unlikely, although possible, that they have escaped governmental oversight and regulation - as this is mandated via compulsory registration of the programs by the applicable policies in at least UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.
 * As a result, I think the enwp page should be updated to say that a) VLCDs are to be used after consulting a doctor in many countries, and that in some countries medical supervision while on the diet is suggested; however some countries allow the unsupervised use of VLCDs for a limited amount of time (usually up to three weeks), and b) that in many countries VLCDs are contraindicated to be used by persons under the age of 18, but that in some cases it may be helpful for adolescents to use a VLCD if they suffer e.g. from very severe obesity or diabetes, when under medical supervision.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have the opportunity right now to actually go dig up these sources and read them fully; this is why I put this on the talk page so that someone who has access to proper medical sources or has the opportunity and willingness to go look them up can go do that and insert properly sourced additions to the article. Or, I may come back and do this in some months' time when I have the time/energy to do that myself. Just have to find that univerity library card which I have somewhere... Also, the remaining items on my list are still unaddressed - if anyone does go look into VLCD sources, perhaps they can address those issues as well. W n C? 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, VLCDs can be purchased off the shelf at chemists, or even at supermarkets. Also, the article states that 5 liters of water per day are recommended by most VLCDs, but the listed source doesn't mention that at all. All the VLCDs that I have seen suggest 2 liters per day (OptiSlim, FatBlaster, Tony Ferguson). PS, Sorry if I haven't added this correctly, I've never added to Wikipedia before. 203.59.123.181 (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Very low calorie diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070107063711/http://www.vanderbilt.edu:80/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/LiquidDiets.htm to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/LiquidDiets.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved to hyphenated title?
I'm not sure I've ever seen very-low-calorie anywhere. It was moved here with the rather terse edit summary of "logic". I'd like to move it back to very low calorie which I think is much more common. Otherwise, the intro should be rewritten. Any comments? W n C? 07:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved it back. But I'll say that hyphenated titles are a bit over a third of the usage, see google books and google scholar. I also see some people using "very low-calorie diet", but I think that's just confusing. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:HYPHEN, the article should be at Very-low-calorie diet, as "very low calorie" is a compound modifier and the hyphens increase clarity and help avoid ambiguity. See . I've moved it back. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Heading image illustration
I have shortlisted 3 possible heading image for this entry:, does someone have a preference? --Signimu (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Fad diet?
The lead sentence describes this as a fad diet, but the rest of the article goes on to discuss evidence-based medical uses for the diet. Surely the practitioners who prescribe this diet for bariatric patients are not doing so just because they heard about it on Facebook. IMHO this article could use a clearer distinction between medically supervised VLCDs and fad "crash diets". SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing and correcting the article!  About the qualification of fad diet, there were several extensive debates on other diets articles, and in the end we rewrote Fad diets in the hope of clarifying what it means. In the end, most serious sources qualify diets as fad diets when they are popular (and thus used in an unsupervised way by the general public), regardless of the medical uses or merits. And indeed, several fad diets also now have recognized medical uses, such as VLCD, but also low-carb or the mediterranean diets. The current consensus we reached with other editors was that as long as a few reliable sources qualify a diet as a fad diet, it should be qualified as such in the entry, regardless of the medical merit (as shown in List of fad diets). As for your specific question, there is no difference between VLCDs and fad "crash diets" (similarly to other fad diets and their medical counterpart) other than medical supervision  Unfortunately, no source makes the specific distinction, so it has to be inferred by the reader. Signimu (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The definition of "fad diet" seems fair enough. It might be helpful to have a separate "Society and culture" section with examples of medically unsupervised VLCD/"starvation diets" that have attracted media discussion and controversy. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we could usefully make the distinction between the diet as fad, and its use in a clinical setting. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the suggestions, I'll see what I can do Alexbrn, I agree, but I am not sure how to properly write this as my previous attempts elsewhere were reverted, so please feel free to edit and I'll follow suit with your formulation  --Signimu (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either. Ideally we could find a source that makes this distinction ... (A bit later: how about PMID 11115796 ?) Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Mmmm it's only a proceedings, not sure it would be very robust to add such a source (although I would very much like to, because it also clarifies why fad diets are making extravagant claims, to sell!), and even if it indeed differentiates VLCD from fad diets, it doesn't differentiate between VLCD under medical supervision and outside supervision (but it says that VLCD should always be under medical supervision, like in the 2013 AHA guidelines). Honestly I'm not sure we should spend much more time on this point for now, because the last month I have actively looked in all sources for such an explicit differentiation, and for the moment found none (only the BDA is making some work towards defining formally what are fad diets, but it's fairly recent, it began in 2017). This point will surely be clarified in the future, but for now I'm not sure we can find anything :-/ --Signimu (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have added a succinct "History and society" section summarizing the most important points, it could be expanded but I would need to buy some books first Is it in line with what you suggested? --Signimu (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good start, thanks :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)