Calorie Deficit (Is it a Myth)

Sternjohn662200

Is the calorie amount deficit a myth and is it really all about what you eat from those calories. It seems to be widely accepted that to lose 1lb (0.45kg) or 2lb (0.9kg) a week you need a daily deficit of 500/1000 calories.

I have a Fitbit charge hr which has been worn for when im exercising and throughout the day and looking at the data for the last 30 days i have an average burn of 2604 calories (appreciate its not an exact science) and an average intake of 1849 calories so an average deficit of 750 calories a day.

During those last 30 days I have lost 0.7kg so 1.5 pounds in total which im happy with as tend to aim for 1/2lb a week weight loss. Whilst happy with my weight loss as i started at 96kg and today weight 77kg surely this should have been closer to 6lbs/2.7kg working on the deficit concept???

During the last 30 days i have logged all the food i eat whilst weighing the food inc sauces etc. I have allowed myself the occasional bit of chocolate or crisps in these 30 days and haven't eaten as well as i usually do but have stuck to 1800 calories a day to see how a calorie controlled diet would work.

Am i simply better just eating healthier foods and cutting out the snacks but not particularity worrying about calories?

Thanks

John

Sued0nim

I don't trust 24 hour wearable HRMs to provide an accurate burn

and it's not an exact science and certainly not linear as you seem to be expecting

but it's good enough

LivingtheLeanDream

Its still likely that you have been inaccurate in your food logging (its really easy to do this) which is why you're not seeing the loss you could have...but overall, you still lost which is great

Calories do count, if we take in more than we burn we wont lose/maintain.

trackers are a great guideline but there are also some inaccuracies in the burns they show, allow 5% variance at least, thats what I've found.

erickirb

Do you weight all solids you eat and measure liquids?

stevencloser

It is my understanding that HRMs should not be worn 24/7 and are only useful (and even then not super accurate) when exercising.

shadow2soul

Have you been accurately logging your food intake? Food scale for solids. Measuring cups for liquids. If not you could be eating a bit more than you realize.

That said trackers are just a starting point and you will need to adjust up or down based on actual results. If your logging is accurate, than your Fitbit is probably overestimating your burn. Some people find that Fitbits overestimate and others find they underestimate.

Calorie deficit isn't a myth. It's math. The problem is there is no way to be 100% accurate on your calories out and without accurate logging your calories in can be off as well. If one or both sides of the equation are off, your results won't match the plan.

Mischievous_Rascal

You said you're weighing, measuring and logging everything. Are you sure you're choosing reliable database entries? Some of them are way off.

Also, as said, HRM are unfortunately an inaccurate tool sometimes. When I was using mine to calculate calorie burns, I lost more slowly, too. I also found that my fitbit overestimated when I was overweight and underestimated when I was leaner than "average". Now that I'm in the "normal" range of body weight/body fat percentage, it's pretty right on.

Have you tried an online calculator to determine what your daily calorie expenditure is? There are a few. I took the average from about five of them, along with my fitbit, and took a deficit from there. Monitored for a four to five weeks and adjusted as necessary. CICO is the way to weight loss, truly. It's just math, but each person's math is highly individualistic and needs to be determined through trial and error. You've discovered the error in relying solely on a HRM and now you can keep striving to find out what your own personal goal should be. Best of luck!

Colorscheme

Other things can affect weight loss other than cals in and cals out. Hormones [if you're a woman], sodium, etc. You're losing weight so obviously something is working for you. You should be pretty proud of yourself so far

stevencloser wrote: »

It is my understanding that HRMs should not be worn 24/7 and are only useful (and even then not super accurate) when exercising.

The Fitbit is meant to be worn all the time though, I believe. Especially as it tracks sleep and such. Then again, I have the Fitbit Charge, non hr one.

LivingtheLeanDream

yes Fitbit's worn on the wrist are meant to be worn all the time.

Sternjohn662200

Thanks for all the responses, really appreciate it.

I weigh all the solids i eat where i can. Started doing that when i realised what the actual weight was of the weekend bowl of cereal i was having. (80g not 30g like i was logging so huge difference). Liquids i try to measure using measuring cups - not always possible though like with the food if i have lunch out. Good shout with the entries though as i have noticed occasionally there are various ones for the same food so i could be making a mistake there.

I was thinking it could be the fitbit overestimating the calorie burn as the majority of my weight loss previously came through a healthy diet and exercise. I used to use TDEE calculators and estimated this to be 2400 using various calculators and taking the average.

I wouldn't really eat the exercise calories back which i do now because of fitbit as i would eat 1600 calories a day but now eat 1800 due to the fitbit stats. Looks like these 200 calories seems to be part of the issue so its really a deficit of 500 calories a day then not 750. If im 200 calories out with food then its only a 300 calories a day deficit which probably equates to the 0.3lbs a week weight loss.

If its all about calories in vs calories out does the quality of the calorie not affect weight loss. Surely 100 kcals for a banana is better than 100kcals for a bag of salt & vinegar squares. Surely it cant be that simple, what about fats, salt etc.

Colorscheme

The quality of the calorie does not affect weight loss. But it does affect nutrition. For example. a hundred calories of broccoli or fruit is healthier than a hundred calories of potato chips due to the nutritional content, and fruit and veg are more voluminous, but for weight loss purpose..a calorie is a calorie.

Salt is an electrolyte and it is necessary [pending heart failure, kidney failure, etc], but when you overdo it you will see an increase in the number of the scale due to water weight. Extra salt can bloat.

snowflake930

Eating less calories than you are burning = weight loss. CICO is how you lose weight, no matter what type of weight loss diet you are on. It may be referred to by different terms, but it is CICO. Are you weighing, measuring, and recording EVERYTHING that you eat and drink.

I have a ChargeHR and mainly use it to motivate me to move more and never eat back ALL exercise calories. I do not snyc it with MFP and log my exercise here.

LivingtheLeanDream

like for like 100 cals is 100 cals doesn't matter what food it is....but one will keep you fuller and the other is more empty calories.

.3lb loss per week isn't bad if you haven't much to lose. Are you new to Fitbit? it takes a while to predict your numbers I find, a few weeks is what I've found when I've gotten a new device. For any Fitbit issues/questions there is a Fitbit group on here.

1600, even 1800 cals a day is low for a guy. I'm only 5ft 2" and if I didn't eat more than 1800 calories I'd drop 1/2lb a week.

I think you need to give it more time, I would suggest you not going lower than 1800, let your body get used to those calories for a few weeks and then re-evaluate.

dollydiva2

On the Fitbit web page dashboard, if you click on your profile it'll give you at 30 day graph showing your average burn and average intake by day....times these figures by 30 then take the intake from the burn and divide by 3500. This should give you and idea of how many pounds you should have lost in the 30 day period.
My calorie deficit was 24,540 for the last 30 days so 7lbs projected loss according to fitbit stats for the period.
My weight at the beginning was 11.7 and I'm now 11.1 so I find it pretty accurate (the extra lb is probably due to me not logging correctly)

Sternjohn662200

Sounds like i need to be more vigilant on both fronts then to find the balance between the two. Im always conscious for health reasons of not eating below my BMR (which i used to at 1600kcals) as my BMR is 1700 kcals a day so might need to make sure i get the best use out of what im consuming calories wise to fill me up. I'll struggle with calories out as i have an office job so not moving much and dont have much time to exercise at home which is why i do T25 or insanity max 30 workouts but think i will use the middle ground between online calculators of 2400 TDEE and Charge HR 2600 TDEE and work to 2500. If i eat around 1700/1800 calories then ill be getting the sort of weight loss numbers im after as need to lose another stone to get within a healthy BMI.

Sternjohn662200

dollydiva2 wrote: »

On the Fitbit web page dashboard, if you click on your profile it'll give you at 30 day graph showing your average burn and average intake by day....times these figures by 30 then take the intake from the burn and divide by 3500. This should give you and idea of how many pounds you should have lost in the 30 day period.
My calorie deficit was 24,540 for the last 30 days so 7lbs projected loss according to fitbit stats for the period.
My weight at the beginning was 11.7 and I'm now 11.1 so I find it pretty accurate (the extra lb is probably due to me not logging correctly)

Thanks. Just done this and its 6.47lbs so having lost 1.5lbs as current then im clearing doing something wrong with calories in vs calories out.

Colorscheme

I'm not advising anyone to eat below their BMR, but someone who is overweight or obese won't have issues eating slightly under it because of fat stores. For example, if your BMR is 1600 cals and you eat 1400 cals, you're not going to starve to death. But...it is recommended to eat at least your BMR to cover all your organs needs, since your brain and body parts need a certain amount of calories to function properly. And if you exercise then you get to eat more!

dollydiva2

I don't log any exercise if that helps, just let it work out my burn from my heart rate so I don't get huge amounts of extra calories from exercise. I only get around an extra 300/400 a day over my TDEE on my gym days. On days I don't exercise fitbit calories burned pretty much match what I get from a TDEE calculator.
I'm probably not doing it right but it seems to be working out for me.

cbihatt

shadow2soul wrote: »

Calorie deficit isn't a myth. It's math. The problem is there is no way to be 100% accurate on your calories out and without accurate logging your calories in can be off as well. If one or both sides of the equation are off, your results won't match the plan.

This is true. However, it is also true that the equations used to determine things like BMR and TDEE and NEAT are also estimates. They are generally good estimates for most people, but it is possible that individuals may have variances. I am not a scientist, but that would be my guess as to your situation.

Colorscheme

I think the only way to truly determine BMR is to have one of those tests done with a machine where you breathe in and out and it calculates it. Everything else is just an estimate.

missblondi2u

I chose a non HR fitbit because I was afraid it would log calorie burns when my heart rate went up for non exercise reasons, like stress or excitement. I don't know if that's happening with you, but I haven't had any of my friends with a non HR fitbit complain of inflated burn numbers.

B_TEEN

On a high(er)-fat diet, calorie deficit and CICO are important as the body will easily store excess fat consumed, with very little energy required to do so. It's widely shared and assumed that a calorie is a calorie but diets high in starch and fiber and low in fat do not and will not have the same impact calorie-for-calorie in the long-run compared to a high(er) fat diet that includes animal products. Beyond this being studied and documented, it is representative within some of the longest living, healthiest cultures / communities.

As my understanding evolves and I see the changes that my body experiences, calorie restriction is no longer a part of my life. Satiety and calorie quality (i.e., really nutrient density) are the foundation of good nutrition which supports healthy bodily function of which the byproduct is normalized weight in the long-run. I understand everyone may not agree with this position. This is my answer based on my understanding and research interest in nutrition and it's impact on health and body structure.

janejellyroll

missblondi2u wrote: »

I chose a non HR fitbit because I was afraid it would log calorie burns when my heart rate went up for non exercise reasons, like stress or excitement. I don't know if that's happening with you, but I haven't had any of my friends with a non HR fitbit complain of inflated burn numbers.

My understanding is that the HR "understands" when you're moving and doesn't give you increased calories just because your heart rate has sped up. I'm not totally familiar with all the design, but I know I've been eating back my activity adjustments from my Charge HR for months and it seems very accurate.

erickirb

B_TEEN wrote: »

On a high(er)-fat diet, calorie deficit and CICO are important as the body will easily store excess fat consumed, with very little energy required to do so. It's widely shared and assumed that a calorie is a calorie but diets high in starch and fiber and low in fat do not and will not have the same impact calorie-for-calorie in the long-run compared to a high(er) fat diet that includes animal products. Beyond this being studied and documented, it is representative within some of the longest living, healthiest cultures / communities.

As my understanding evolves and I see the changes that my body experiences, calorie restriction is no longer a part of my life. Satiety and calorie quality (i.e., really nutrient density) are the foundation of good nutrition which supports healthy bodily function of which the byproduct is normalized weight in the long-run. I understand everyone may not agree with this position. This is my answer based on my understanding and research interest in nutrition and it's impact on health and body structure.

dietary fat does not = body fat. If you are in a deficit it wont matter the make up of the cals as you wont be storing fat, you will be burning body fat to make up for the majority of the deficit of calories.

csuhar

stevencloser wrote: »

It is my understanding that HRMs should not be worn 24/7 and are only useful (and even then not super accurate) when exercising.

This is part of why I only use my FitBit to try to get me to 10,000 steps. But even then, I know that driving on a bumpy road or other activities can artificially increase the numbers of steps I take. And I imagine heart rate monitors may have similar challenges because things other than exercise might get your heart going or otherwise impact how much the heart rate changes.

OP: Like others have said, the process is neither linear nor an exact process. For me, I've found that the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation, with an appropriate activity factor, generally yields consistent results over time. But even then, there are times where I don't lose, maintain, or gain what the math says I "should", and that's simply because of all the little factors like water retention, whether I've got food still in my system and hasn't been eliminated, or errors in my activity and intake calculations.

ClosetBayesian

Sternjohn662200 wrote: »

Thanks for all the responses, really appreciate it.

I weigh all the solids i eat where i can. Started doing that when i realised what the actual weight was of the weekend bowl of cereal i was having. (80g not 30g like i was logging so huge difference). Liquids i try to measure using measuring cups - not always possible though like with the food if i have lunch out. Good shout with the entries though as i have noticed occasionally there are various ones for the same food so i could be making a mistake there.

I was thinking it could be the fitbit overestimating the calorie burn as the majority of my weight loss previously came through a healthy diet and exercise. I used to use TDEE calculators and estimated this to be 2400 using various calculators and taking the average.

I wouldn't really eat the exercise calories back which i do now because of fitbit as i would eat 1600 calories a day but now eat 1800 due to the fitbit stats. Looks like these 200 calories seems to be part of the issue so its really a deficit of 500 calories a day then not 750. If im 200 calories out with food then its only a 300 calories a day deficit which probably equates to the 0.3lbs a week weight loss.

If its all about calories in vs calories out does the quality of the calorie not affect weight loss. Surely 100 kcals for a banana is better than 100kcals for a bag of salt & vinegar squares. Surely it cant be that simple, what about fats, salt etc.

Re. the bold: a calorie is a calorie. For energy purposes, your body does not care if the calories come from bananas or salt and vinegar squares (what is this sorcery??? Must try salt and vinegar squares....).

Someone already spoke about the (obvious) nutritional differences between fruit/veg and less nutritional alternatives (i.e., chips, candy, etc.); salt will affect weight loss in that it causes temporary water retention (which is why you might see a gain on the scale the day after you have salty chips/crisps), but it is temporary, it's just water, and drinking a little more water than you usually drink will help to flush some of that excess away.

extra_medium

It is not a myth.. what is much more likely is that you're either overestimating your burn or underestimating your intake. Make adjustments and see how it goes from there.

blues4miles

Sternjohn662200 wrote: »

I have a Fitbit charge hr which has been worn for when im exercising and throughout the day and looking at the data for the last 30 days i have an average burn of 2604 calories (appreciate its not an exact science) and an average intake of 1849 calories so an average deficit of 750 calories a day.

Although 9 times out of 10 logging is the issue, I also think the calorie counts given by the fitness trackers can be inflated for some people. Maybe for obese people? There have been a lot of folks on here with 20-30 lbs to lose who say their Fitbit is really accurate for them. I am obese and use an UP3 and it gives me an insane amount of extra calories for walking. I wonder if it does some adjustment for my weight that is way off.

I don't think eating healthier necessarily helps the numbers game. Other than that I eat out a lot, and calories from fast food will obviously be a lot less accurate than something you weighed from ingredients and cooked yourself. I know water retention can also be a huge factor for women, not sure how much it affects men.

I think if you are happy with your rate you should stick with it, but I have the same problem, my numbers were adding up but then stopped after I started exercising more. So my theory was I was overestimating exercise calories. I now use the calculation of .33 x (weigh in lbs) x miles = calories burned on a walk. When I put my walks into MFP I change the calorie number to reflect that. I use 90% of the calories my Garmin (with chest strap HR monitor) gives me for my running. I am still collecting the UP3 data because I think it is cool (and tracks sleep which is important) but I am not syncing it with MFP now. Also, I always look at what I can do to be more accurate with logging. Hopefully after a couple more weeks of this the numbers will add up again. But if I want to lose faster, the best way is just to eat less.

missblondi2u

janejellyroll wrote: »

missblondi2u wrote: »

I chose a non HR fitbit because I was afraid it would log calorie burns when my heart rate went up for non exercise reasons, like stress or excitement. I don't know if that's happening with you, but I haven't had any of my friends with a non HR fitbit complain of inflated burn numbers.

My understanding is that the HR "understands" when you're moving and doesn't give you increased calories just because your heart rate has sped up. I'm not totally familiar with all the design, but I know I've been eating back my activity adjustments from my Charge HR for months and it seems very accurate.

Yeah, I'm not sure how that works either. But my boss and I recently gave a seminar in front of a couple hundred people. We both have fitbits, but he has the Charge HR and I have the Flex. During the 5 hours or so we were speaking, we were either standing or pacing slowly around the front of the room. My Fitbit said I took 2000 or so steps and gave me a small adjustment. His Fitbit said he took about the same number of steps, but he got a much larger adjustment, even accounting for weight/height difference. I think this was the case because obviously his heart rate was elevated speaking in front of such a large group. Maybe his was more accurate, and mine was just underestimating, but I'm not sure. For the record, he is losing just fine with his Charge HR.

B_TEEN

erickirb wrote: »

[....] If you are in a deficit it wont matter the make up of the cals as you wont be storing fat, you will be burning body fat to make up for the majority of the deficit of calories.

I understand the principal of CICO and calorie restriction but it does not appear sustainable for most people in duration as calorie restriction is not how our mind or body prefers to work.

If you eat unprocessed plant foods (starches and grains, fruits and vegetables), you won't need to compute an estimated caloric deficit as your body will regulate how to process plant foods between energy/nutrients sources and waste; plus, you can reach a point of satiety [without guilt].

So, I like to eat until I'm full (which the body physically prefers) and know what I eat fuels my energy and health equally. On some days, it's going to be a large volume of food and on others maybe not as much. When I feed my body a variety of food from the major food groups (starches, grains, fruits and veg), I trust that it will process and waste without long-term harm, internal damage or excessive weight gain, as it was programmed to do.

snowflake930

B_TEEN wrote: »

erickirb wrote: »

[....] If you are in a deficit it wont matter the make up of the cals as you wont be storing fat, you will be burning body fat to make up for the majority of the deficit of calories.

I understand the principal of CICO and calorie restriction but it does not appear sustainable for most people in duration as calorie restriction is not how our mind or body prefers to work.

If you eat unprocessed plant foods (starches and grains, fruits and vegetables), you won't need to compute an estimated caloric deficit as your body will regulate how to process plant foods between energy/nutrients sources and waste; plus, you can reach a point of satiety [without guilt].

So, I like to eat until I'm full (which the body physically prefers) and know what I eat fuels my energy and health equally. On some days, it's going to be a large volume of food and on others maybe not as much. When I feed my body a variety of food from the major food groups (starches, grains, fruits and veg), I trust that it will process and waste without long-term harm, internal damage or excessive weight gain, as it was programmed to do.

Great that this works for you, however, for most people, it takes about 20 minutes for your brain to register that your stomach is full.
And, it doesn't matter where your calories come from, your body does not differentiate what foods the calories are coming from.

Maybe a little psychological thought process is involved for some.