We are recently led to believe in articles that came out in UK newspapers Timesonline and The Daily Mail that going through a crash diet is healthy and efficient in losing weight.

But often than not, in spite of seeing it work for some Hollywood stars (who are often the proponents of crash diets), the negative effect it would, in the future, slam our body with are in the details.

Dr. Susan Roberts, the researcher behind this study, defines crash diet differently than we understand it.

According to Roberts, there are good and bad crash diets. In actuality, a minimum of 1,200 calories a day (1,800 for men), with adequate protein and low glycemic carbs, is still to be considered as “crash diet.”

The study summarizes that: there are two groups—group one cuts 10 percent calories while group two cuts 30 percent. Roberts stated that after one year into this diet program, all members of the two groups “wound up pretty much the same.”

There are lots of arguments whether what constitutes a crash diet or not. I am also thinking that there might be a difference to what each of our body needs since our genetic materials are uniquely different from each other. A low-carb diet might work for some while some may require a program that is low in protein; the same goes for crash diets. Some bodies might be tolerant with crash diet while others may not.

Just to be sure, consult with a nutritionist or health expert before committing your body to a certain diet program.