Would You Pay $5,600 for a 'Starvation Vacation'?

by SodaHead Living Posted 2011/03/29 14:00:00

Related Topics: Starvation Vacation, Ranch At Live Oak, Malibu

159 votes
Read all 141 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	14 votes	9%
	No	145 votes	91%

Making your summer vacation plans? Here's a new one to consider: $5,600 to eat almost nothing at all for a week.

Wall Street Journal reporter Christina Binkley did just this at the Ranch at Live Oak in Malibu, Calif.

Binkley says "starvation hadn't been my goal" when she booked the trip -- rather, she was looking forward to daily massages, hiking, eating good food and getting fit.

She soon learned that exercise is mandatory at the Ranch, and coffee, meat and wine are forbidden. Breakfast was just 170 calories, lunch 310 calories and dinner 430 calories. And while she spent most of the week hungry and cranky, by the end she found herself 6.5 pounds thinner (weight she surely gained back within two weeks of being home) and oddly relaxed.

Would you spend almost $6,000 to starve yourself for a week?

+12

Add a comment above

Bulanova (Team Hargitay) 2011/03/29 20:10:53

No

+7
Why does this ranch have breakfast being the lightest meal and dinner being the heaviest? It's supposed to be exactly the opposite - taking in the most calories during the morning (so you have energy all day and a full day to burn it off) and taking in the fewest late before bed (so you don't sleep and let it turn to fat with no way to burn it off). I'm not an expert and even I know that. And 6.5 pounds in a week, that has GOT to be mostly water weight. Totally not worth it.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Living

Liza Jane to wpsark_... 2011/03/29 21:55:36

http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

reply
wpsark_... to Liza Jane 2011/03/29 21:59:04

ah interesting

reply
♥Hannah... to wpsark_... 2011/03/30 00:55:54

+1
Yay, someone understands what I was trying to tell her.

reply
Dawn to wpsark_... 2011/03/30 00:58:21

+1
Actually in mountain areas alot ARE starving for the fact that the community was centered on coal and other mining industries. Now that those resources are gone they starve because their is almost nowhere to work and too rocky to farm. Also, I'd consider the Eastern Shore rural.

reply
Stan to Liza Jane 2011/03/29 22:08:44

+1
Well said, I'm also quite sure that this is geared more for the overweight or grossly obese people.

This is obviously not targeted at the athletic or active individuals

reply
Anna E 2011/03/29 21:13:44

No

+3
$5600 per week? WOW! Someone's got some racketeering going on.
I would sooner spend the $5600 on groceries for people and families that can't find work.

reply
it'skrissie!d:) 2011/03/29 20:57:02

No

+3
You can do it at home. But I don't support people who starve themselves. It's sick.

reply
MOMMA THOMAS 2011/03/29 20:54:19

No

+2
I CAN STAY HOME AND STARVE. IN FACT, COULD GO JUST ABOUT ANYPLACE IN THE WORLD AND NOT EAT AT LESS COST THAN $5,600.

reply
kmay 2011/03/29 20:52:20

No

Stupid gimic.

reply
Vic~*PHAET*~ 2011/03/29 20:41:47

No

+1
I can do that on my own time, thanks.

reply
M A 2011/03/29 20:32:52

No

+2
I can starve myself for free

reply
bruce banner 2011/03/29 20:12:18

No

+1
NO WAY

reply
sabbatha 2011/03/29 20:11:02

No

+2
Doesn't sound like much of a vacation

reply
Bulanova (Team Hargitay) 2011/03/29 20:10:53

No

+7
Why does this ranch have breakfast being the lightest meal and dinner being the heaviest? It's supposed to be exactly the opposite - taking in the most calories during the morning (so you have energy all day and a full day to burn it off) and taking in the fewest late before bed (so you don't sleep and let it turn to fat with no way to burn it off). I'm not an expert and even I know that. And 6.5 pounds in a week, that has GOT to be mostly water weight. Totally not worth it.

reply
PhilCooper to Bulanov... 2011/03/30 02:48:32

The total calorie intake is so low that it probably doesn't matter in which order the high-calorie meal is presented. It's not even enough to sustain the body's basal metabolism. The guests are literally starving.

reply
Walks_on_Clouds 2011/03/29 20:09:12

No

+4
Guess Ms Brinkley will ask a few more questions next time before booking a vacation. What a ditz.

reply
ThePumpkinator 2011/03/29 20:05:28

No

+3
Maybe, if I was stupid enough to qualify as the person who wrote this article.

reply
magic_is_might BN-0 2011/03/29 19:42:15

No

+3
I can do that for free at home, so.... no thank you.

reply
Whatsername 2011/03/29 19:41:38

No

+2
i can do that by my self without spending any money

reply
bye 2011/03/29 19:33:02
shinnis 2011/03/29 19:22:43

No

+3
are you nuts?

reply
83Pats12 2011/03/29 19:19:32

No

+2
HELL NO

reply
Aurora 2011/03/29 19:07:40

No

+4
I can do all that for free....

reply
Rocky 2011/03/29 18:53:30

No

+2
You have to be kidding? A starvation vacation. Not even hardly!

reply
earl 2011/03/29 18:51:50

No

+1
Ah,No!

reply
Angie 2011/03/29 18:43:54

No

+3
I was all for it until the ''no wine bit''

There are some sacrifices I will not make!

reply
Faith † to Angie 2011/03/30 00:46:47

+1

reply
Faith † to Angie 2011/03/30 00:47:18

+1

reply
Angie to Faith † 2011/03/30 13:06:27

+1
Cheers :D

reply
none 2011/03/29 18:42:47

No

+1
I could do the same thing at home and it would cost less than a normal week because I'd be eating less food. Paying $5,600 for something you can do yourself is making the Ranch alot of money off of people that obviously have little will power and too much money.

reply
Crazy Feet 2011/03/29 18:36:09

No

+1
not just for a week

reply
Boss 2011/03/29 18:28:40

No

+1
this is one good reason why we need to raise taxes on the very rich..anyone who has $5600 to spend on ridiculous thing like this has way too much disposable income...

reply
missEMOFOX 2011/03/29 18:26:57 (edited)

No

+1
I could do that at home if I wanted. Plus, what is all that money for, certainly not the food...

reply
o 2011/03/29 18:21:06

No

+1
id rather go to mcdonalds thanks :)

reply
Monster Claws 2011/03/29 18:18:51

No

it doesnt sound that bad but its too expensive..... and i like food on vacations maybe if it was less i would consider it

reply
AlCashier 2011/03/29 18:13:57

No

+1
we are already "starv-acationing" at home on generic hotdogs and mac&cheese; as michelle obama feasts on taxpayer-dollar imported lobster at every meal.

reply
shinnis to AlCashier 2011/03/29 19:21:00

+1
here we go!......

reply
Lady-DeathBright 2011/03/29 18:08:05

No

+1
For that much I'm going to eat myself into food coma every night on some of the finest foods!

reply
Açorda 2011/03/29 18:07:38

No

+1
That's too much money to have a diet... I have a similar one without paying $5,600

reply
PhilCooper 2011/03/29 18:05:49

No

+2
I'd find a way to starve on my own, on-the-cheap. By the looks of how this poll is already shaping up, if it were up to folks like us, Ranch at Live Oak would be starving itself out of business.

reply