Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Calorie Deficit, split off into debate
danford48
Posts: 12 Member
This discussion was created from replies split from: Calorie deficit question.
0
Replies
-
I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people. If you have an open mind, read on otherwise stop reading here!!
Firstly, a calorie deficit is a very,very bad idea. Don't do it! Shadow2soul is dead wrong in my opinion. For simplicity, lets start with a 100 pound man. Most people think 3,500 calories is a pound so a 500 calorie deficit every day would be 1 pound a week correct? Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen. This is why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS3yakItmYY
Secondly, I disagree with cwolfman13 on exercise and weight loss. According to many scientific studies(there are tons!) exercise alone will not lead to substantial weight loss. Sure you may lose 5 or even 10 pounds in a year if your lucky assuming nothing else in your diet changes. Exercise is very ineffective on weight loss. Don't get me wrong, exercise has many benefits but not very effective for weight loss. The following study debunks this myth in part:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/26/modern-lazy-people-burn-as-many-calories-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/
Yes, I was one of you people. I believed in the calories in calories out theory for a long time and I was on a strict calorie deficit diet for about 3 months. I lost about 25 pounds of weight, plateaued, and then gain it all back and then some. Nobody can sustain this way of life for the long term. 95% of the people doing calorie deficit diets on this forum will gain all of their weight back within the next 10 years period. Why would anybody bust their *kitten* to lose weight and then gain it back later on? Doesn't make sense to me....
The trick is to make life long habits and avoid all of these so called "diets"
If anybody wants to know how I'm losing weight without any of these pitfalls, let me know. I will be more then happy to share my story.5 -
I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people. If you have an open mind, read on otherwise stop reading here!!
Firstly, a calorie deficit is a very,very bad idea. Don't do it! Shadow2soul is dead wrong in my opinion. For simplicity, lets start with a 100 pound man. Most people think 3,500 calories is a pound so a 500 calorie deficit every day would be 1 pound a week correct? Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen.
The definition of deficit is "a sum less than what is needed."
As you lose weight your maintenance goes down and as such you have to eat less than what you did at the start to maintain the same deficit.
So what was a 500 cal deficit for me at my highest is now a calorie level that would likely have me gaining. This however does not change the meaning of a deficit by definition or otherwise. It means that at my lower weight my needs have changed and as such so has the calorie amount required to create a deficit.
For the record, CICO is just a math equation. I have used it to control my weight since 2013. 127 lbs lost and maintaining.19 -
If anybody wants to know how I'm losing weight without any of these pitfalls, let me know. I will be more then happy to share my story.
Most people regain regardless of the method used to lose weight. You can not claim to be anymore successful than any of us who talk about CICO since you yourself have not maintained long term (what you say will happen to all us CICO people).9 -
shadow2soul wrote: »I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people. If you have an open mind, read on otherwise stop reading here!!
Firstly, a calorie deficit is a very,very bad idea. Don't do it! Shadow2soul is dead wrong in my opinion. For simplicity, lets start with a 100 pound man. Most people think 3,500 calories is a pound so a 500 calorie deficit every day would be 1 pound a week correct? Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen.
The definition of deficit is "a sum less than what is needed."
As you lose weight your maintenance goes down and as such you have to eat less than what you did at the start to maintain the same deficit.
So what was a 500 cal deficit for me at my highest is now a calorie level that would likely have me gaining. This however does not change the meaning of a deficit by definition or otherwise. It means that at my lower weight my needs have changed and as such so has the calorie amount required to create a deficit.
For the record, CICO is just a math equation. I have used it to control my weight since 2013. 127 lbs lost and maintaining.
I agree. Lower body weight means less calories needed but you missing my big point. You are decreasing your total energy expenditure when you lower your caloric intake. Your metabolism will adjust to the new amount of calories it is receiving until you are at maintenance. What happens if you eat above your 500 calorie maintenance, you gain weight you said. You are one of those people who believe in the "calories in calories out theory". In my opinion, I think the hormonal theory of obesity/weight gain is a better theory.
What if there is a way that somebody(not you) can eat above their maintenance and not gain weight? Guess what, there are a lot of those people out in the world out there right now. You remember that skinny kid that can eat junk food all day not gain a single pound? This points towards hormones being responsible for weight gain, not calories!! Take care friend.
3 -
shadow2soul wrote: »I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people. If you have an open mind, read on otherwise stop reading here!!
Firstly, a calorie deficit is a very,very bad idea. Don't do it! Shadow2soul is dead wrong in my opinion. For simplicity, lets start with a 100 pound man. Most people think 3,500 calories is a pound so a 500 calorie deficit every day would be 1 pound a week correct? Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen.
The definition of deficit is "a sum less than what is needed."
As you lose weight your maintenance goes down and as such you have to eat less than what you did at the start to maintain the same deficit.
So what was a 500 cal deficit for me at my highest is now a calorie level that would likely have me gaining. This however does not change the meaning of a deficit by definition or otherwise. It means that at my lower weight my needs have changed and as such so has the calorie amount required to create a deficit.
For the record, CICO is just a math equation. I have used it to control my weight since 2013. 127 lbs lost and maintaining.
I agree. Lower body weight means less calories needed but you missing my big point. You are decreasing your total energy expenditure when you lower your caloric intake. Your metabolism will adjust to the new amount of calories it is receiving until you are at maintenance. What happens if you eat above your 500 calorie maintenance, you gain weight you said. You are one of those people who believe in the "calories in calories out theory". In my opinion, I think the hormonal theory of obesity/weight gain is a better theory.
What if there is a way that somebody(not you) can eat above their maintenance and not gain weight? Guess what, there are a lot of those people out in the world out there right now. You remember that skinny kid that can eat junk food all day not gain a single pound? This points towards hormones being responsible for weight gain, not calories!! Take care friend.
I was that person and guess what? I still am. I ate all the foods then and I still do. I just pay more attention now since my activity level varies and if I'm lazy I need to eat like it. I gained weight by being inactive but eating like an active person. However growing up I was the "twig" in the family who happily ate all the foods. I was really active though and never ate more than I needed. It didn't disprove how calories work. Yes hormones do effect how many calories your body uses, but again still doesn't change the basic math:
Eat less than you need to maintain = weight loss
Eat more than you need to maintain = weight gain
Eat to maintain = weight maintenance
Your maintenance number however is influenced by a large number of factors like body composition, activity level, hormones, weight, gender, ect. Still doesn't void the math.
My maintenance is 2300-2400, not 500. It was a bit higher at 260 lbs, but that is because my body needed more calories to move 260 lbs than it does to move 133 lbs. Yes my energy needs aren't the same, but my energy needs are about what is expected for someone of my height, weight, activity level, and gender.6 -
shadow2soul wrote: »
If anybody wants to know how I'm losing weight without any of these pitfalls, let me know. I will be more then happy to share my story.
Most people regain regardless of the method used to lose weight. You can not claim to be anymore successful than any of us who talk about CICO since you yourself have not maintained long term (what you say will happen to all us CICO people).
You are twisting my words and miss quoting me. If you can maintain your weight for another 6 years then grats! You are in the 5% that was able to do it. I said 95% of all people doing CICO will probably gain weight back in the next 10 years, not "all"
I'm interested in scientific studies of CICO working in the long term. I'm not talking about short term weight loss. Can you link me a couple of these studies?2 -
shadow2soul wrote: »
If anybody wants to know how I'm losing weight without any of these pitfalls, let me know. I will be more then happy to share my story.
Most people regain regardless of the method used to lose weight. You can not claim to be anymore successful than any of us who talk about CICO since you yourself have not maintained long term (what you say will happen to all us CICO people).
You are twisting my words and miss quoting me. If you can maintain your weight for another 6 years then grats! You are in the 5% that was able to do it. I said 95% of all people doing CICO will probably gain weight back in the next 10 years, not "all"
I'm interested in scientific studies of CICO working in the long term. I'm not talking about short term weight loss. Can you link me a couple of these studies?
haha.
There is no other way to lose weight than CI<CO.
I've been studying nutrition as a hobby too for ten years.
My qualifications are the same as yours.
Guess how you lost your weight? CI<CO
Yup.
I've maintained for ten years using CI=(approx)CO. What say you?
11 -
shadow2soul wrote: »
If anybody wants to know how I'm losing weight without any of these pitfalls, let me know. I will be more then happy to share my story.
Most people regain regardless of the method used to lose weight. You can not claim to be anymore successful than any of us who talk about CICO since you yourself have not maintained long term (what you say will happen to all us CICO people).
You are twisting my words and miss quoting me. If you can maintain your weight for another 6 years then grats! You are in the 5% that was able to do it. I said 95% of all people doing CICO will probably gain weight back in the next 10 years, not "all"
I'm interested in scientific studies of CICO working in the long term. I'm not talking about short term weight loss. Can you link me a couple of these studies?
I don't believe such a study exists. Most weight loss studies are not conducted over long term. There is always looking at the National Weight loss registry.
CICO is just energy balance. There are multiple ways to go about achieving the correct balance for weight loss, but if you are losing weight than your CI is less than your CO whether you awknoledge it or not.8 -
Many variables are involved in the endocrine system, not just the types of foods you eat (or don't eat-based on your Dr. Fung video) which is where I think this is going, right @danford48 ?
And if you manipulate your hormones in a way that is measurable based only on your food choices (not quantity) please link your endocrinologist's reports here.
Go start your own thread if you want to argue this - it will be the eleventy-thousandth thread on this topic on this site in the past week.
Apologies to @Lorilynn_37 Looks like your question was already answered before this highjack.
3 -
cmriverside wrote: »Many variables are involved in the endocrine system, not just the types of foods you eat (or don't eat-based on your Dr. Fung video) which is where I think this is going, right @danford48 ?
And if you manipulate your hormones in a way that is measurable based only on your food choices (not quantity) please link your endocrinologist's reports here.
Go start your own thread if you want to argue this - it will be the eleventy-thousandth thread on this topic on this site in the past week.
Apologies to @Lorilynn_37 Looks like your question was already answered before this highjack.
Ha I noticed that! It's ok there's always a disagreement with stuff like that.
I was just looking for a definition of a calorie deficit. Not a scientific theory lol
I've always went by what mfp gave me in calories and have successfully lost the 30 pds
It just stopped and I thought I was doing it wrong.
Thanks everyone for your input0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Many variables are involved in the endocrine system, not just the types of foods you eat (or don't eat-based on your Dr. Fung video) which is where I think this is going, right @danford48 ?
And if you manipulate your hormones in a way that is measurable based only on your food choices (not quantity) please link your endocrinologist's reports here.
Go start your own thread if you want to argue this - it will be the eleventy-thousandth thread on this topic on this site in the past week.
Apologies to @Lorilynn_37 Looks like your question was already answered before this highjack.
Did you even watch half of the video? I clearly stated not to read on if you don't have an open mind. Nevertheless, Yes, the hormone levels specifically insulin is altered based food choices. Eat alot of candy or plain sugar and check your blood sugar 2 hours later It will rise. In simple terms, your liver turns some carbs not all into glucose which is released into the blood stream. In order for glucose to enter each cell, insulin must be released which is why eating protein also releases insulin. Leptin the satiety hormone, goes up when you start to get full. Ghrelin is also affected but to a lesser extent. This mechanism is very well known, you don't need a endocrinologist report to prove anything. Refer to your trusted online source or text book. Natural sugars found in whole foods have less of an effect on your sugar levels. Dr. Fung links many studies that measure hormones at baseline and then hormones again after certain foods are eaten. The studies are in his videos if you need to see them. Eating meat will release the most insulin into your blood which is why LCHF people always tell us to eat protein in moderation. He is not the only person discussing this topic, there are many experts out there. No need to focus on him.
This is how Dr. Fung tells us how to eat:
1) avoid refined carb and added sugars(ie candy, cookies). These foods lead to weight gain.
2) Intermittent fasting is beneficial for weight loss assuming you have no medical problems or have low body fat.
3) avoid white bread and certain starches since they can lead to weight gain in some people
These are some of the same things that USDA and the FDA mentions on their websites already.
Have a good day cmriverside
0 -
haha.
There is no other way to lose weight than CI<CO.
I've been studying nutrition as a hobby too for ten years.
My qualifications are the same as yours.
Guess how you lost your weight? CI<CO
Yup.
I've maintained for ten years using CI=(approx)CO. What say you?
Grats! You managed to keep your weight off for 10 years. Most people can't do that. Nice job. My point is, your metabolism slowed down to match your current lower caloric intake. Metabolic slow down is a bad thing(in terms of weight loss). Most people would want to burn fat fast not slow.
0 -
[not even gonna try to fix those quotes]
@danford48
Thanks, but my metabolism didn't slow down. As a matter of fact, my calculated maintenance calories according to online calculators all tell me I will maintain on 1400-1500 and in fact I have been eating at 1900-2200 for six months, not even working or going to school, just walking for an hour three times a week.
Of course I need fewer calories now than when I started dieting. I don't have the same mass to move around at 140 as I did at 220.
Metabolic adaptation is short lived and is only in effect when in a deficit. Within a week of eating at maintenance it is no longer a variable.
11 -
I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people. If you have an open mind, read on otherwise stop reading here!!
Firstly, a calorie deficit is a very,very bad idea. Don't do it! Shadow2soul is dead wrong in my opinion. For simplicity, lets start with a 100 pound man. Most people think 3,500 calories is a pound so a 500 calorie deficit every day would be 1 pound a week correct? Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen. This is why:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS3yakItmYY
Secondly, I disagree with cwolfman13 on exercise and weight loss. According to many scientific studies(there are tons!) exercise alone will not lead to substantial weight loss. Sure you may lose 5 or even 10 pounds in a year if your lucky assuming nothing else in your diet changes. Exercise is very ineffective on weight loss. Don't get me wrong, exercise has many benefits but not very effective for weight loss. The following study debunks this myth in part:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/26/modern-lazy-people-burn-as-many-calories-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/
Yes, I was one of you people. I believed in the calories in calories out theory for a long time and I was on a strict calorie deficit diet for about 3 months. I lost about 25 pounds of weight, plateaued, and then gain it all back and then some. Nobody can sustain this way of life for the long term. 95% of the people doing calorie deficit diets on this forum will gain all of their weight back within the next 10 years period. Why would anybody bust their *kitten* to lose weight and then gain it back later on? Doesn't make sense to me....
The trick is to make life long habits and avoid all of these so called "diets"
If anybody wants to know how I'm losing weight without any of these pitfalls, let me know. I will be more then happy to share my story.
are you serious? clearly you wouldn't stay in a deficit to 0 pounds. at some you hit a goal and switch to maintenance or lean bulk etc.
The laws of thermodynamics apply to everyone. You must output more then your input to force your body to use fat stores (ideally) to bridge the gap5 -
cmriverside wrote: »[not even gonna try to fix those quotes]
@danford48
Thanks, but my metabolism didn't slow down. As a matter of fact, my calculated maintenance calories according to online calculators all tell me I will maintain on 1400-1500 and in fact I have been eating at 1900-2200 for six months, not even working or going to school, just walking for an hour three times a week.
Of course I need fewer calories now than when I started dieting. I don't have the same mass to move around at 140 as I did at 220.
Metabolic adaptation is short lived and is only in effect when in a deficit. Within a week of eating at maintenance it is no longer a variable.
Thanks for the replies. You have a favorite lecture on you-tube that I can view? I'm open minded, I want to view both sides on this topic.
??
Take care.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »[not even gonna try to fix those quotes]
@danford48
Thanks, but my metabolism didn't slow down. As a matter of fact, my calculated maintenance calories according to online calculators all tell me I will maintain on 1400-1500 and in fact I have been eating at 1900-2200 for six months, not even working or going to school, just walking for an hour three times a week.
Of course I need fewer calories now than when I started dieting. I don't have the same mass to move around at 140 as I did at 220.
Metabolic adaptation is short lived and is only in effect when in a deficit. Within a week of eating at maintenance it is no longer a variable.
Thanks for the replies. You have a favorite lecture on you-tube that I can view? I'm open minded, I want to view both sides on this topic.
??
Take care.
Read the stickies here. They explain the concept clearly enough. If you have questions AFTER doing then, then start a thread and ask them. But please don't derail someone elses thread.
Thanks3 -
Then you think wrong.shadow2soul wrote: »I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people. If you have an open mind, read on otherwise stop reading here!!
Firstly, a calorie deficit is a very,very bad idea. Don't do it! Shadow2soul is dead wrong in my opinion. For simplicity, lets start with a 100 pound man. Most people think 3,500 calories is a pound so a 500 calorie deficit every day would be 1 pound a week correct? Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen.
The definition of deficit is "a sum less than what is needed."
As you lose weight your maintenance goes down and as such you have to eat less than what you did at the start to maintain the same deficit.
So what was a 500 cal deficit for me at my highest is now a calorie level that would likely have me gaining. This however does not change the meaning of a deficit by definition or otherwise. It means that at my lower weight my needs have changed and as such so has the calorie amount required to create a deficit.
For the record, CICO is just a math equation. I have used it to control my weight since 2013. 127 lbs lost and maintaining.
I agree. Lower body weight means less calories needed but you missing my big point. You are decreasing your total energy expenditure when you lower your caloric intake. Your metabolism will adjust to the new amount of calories it is receiving until you are at maintenance. What happens if you eat above your 500 calorie maintenance, you gain weight you said. You are one of those people who believe in the "calories in calories out theory". In my opinion, I think the hormonal theory of obesity/weight gain is a better theory.
Do you know how your body adjusts its metabolism to the amount of food you're eating? Primarily, by gaining or shedding pounds. More body mass means more calories put you at maintenance; less body mass means the opposite. Anything else is negligible for the sorts of deficits we're talking about. That's why even those who chronically overeat don't put on weight indefinitely. Eventually they reach a body weight where their calorie burn is at equilibrium with their intake.
You've had this experience yourself, as you admitted when you first posted to this thread to confuse the poor OP. You ate less and you lost weight. Your problem was that you dieted in a way that was not sustainable, so you failed to develop healthy eating habits along the way. When your diet was over you reverted to your old habits and in time you were right back to where you started.
This really isn't complicated. People prefer to complicate it because it gives them a fantasy of an easy solution -- or at least a way to characterize the problem so that it's not their own behavior which has caused their problem. Reinforcing the fantasy is the opposite of helpful.4 -
We all have a right to an opinion. You disagree with my opinion, nothing wrong with that but don't tell me that I think wrong please. I clearly stated "In my opinion"0
-
Why not? I hope you realize that it's entirely possible for an opinion to be wrong. I could, for instance, voice an opinion that the Earth is flat -- as some public sports figures recently have, apparently in all seriousness. That opinion is very obviously wrong.We all have a right to an opinion. You disagree with my opinion, nothing wrong with that but don't tell me that I think wrong please. I clearly stated "In my opinion"8 -
I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people. If you have an open mind, read on otherwise stop reading here!!
Firstly, a calorie deficit is a very,very bad idea. Don't do it! Shadow2soul is dead wrong in my opinion. For simplicity, lets start with a 100 pound man. Most people think 3,500 calories is a pound so a 500 calorie deficit every day would be 1 pound a week correct? Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen.
No, it doesn't happen because your hypothetical 100 pound man would be dead within a few months on a 500-calorie deficit (unless he were lucky enough to get treatment, eat more, and recover).Yes, I was one of you people. I believed in the calories in calories out theory for a long time and I was on a strict calorie deficit diet for about 3 months. I lost about 25 pounds of weight, plateaued, and then gain it all back and then some. Nobody can sustain this way of life for the long term. 95% of the people doing calorie deficit diets on this forum will gain all of their weight back within the next 10 years period. Why would anybody bust their *kitten* to lose weight and then gain it back later on? Doesn't make sense to me....
Does three and a half years count as long term? I lost 30 pounds in about four months on a calorie deficit and I've kept it off for three and a half years. Lots of people here have similar histories.2 -
We all have a right to an opinion. You disagree with my opinion, nothing wrong with that but don't tell me that I think wrong please. I clearly stated "In my opinion"
Your first post started with "I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people."
You will be challenged on what you write here, especially if you are claiming to be an expert. Get used to it. You presented poorly referenced information and tried to pass it as fact.12 -
I'm interested in scientific studies of CICO working in the long term. I'm not talking about short term weight loss. Can you link me a couple of these studies?
You must know studies don't go that long, right.
You can have follow ups though, and gather data on people that have had success.
http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/WeightLossMaintenance.html
1 -
shadow2soul wrote: »I've been studying nutrition as a hobby for about 10 years and I recently took 2 college semesters on nutrition. I'm not an expert but I probably know more then most people. If you have an open mind, read on otherwise stop reading here!!
Firstly, a calorie deficit is a very,very bad idea. Don't do it! Shadow2soul is dead wrong in my opinion. For simplicity, lets start with a 100 pound man. Most people think 3,500 calories is a pound so a 500 calorie deficit every day would be 1 pound a week correct? Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen.
The definition of deficit is "a sum less than what is needed."
As you lose weight your maintenance goes down and as such you have to eat less than what you did at the start to maintain the same deficit.
So what was a 500 cal deficit for me at my highest is now a calorie level that would likely have me gaining. This however does not change the meaning of a deficit by definition or otherwise. It means that at my lower weight my needs have changed and as such so has the calorie amount required to create a deficit.
For the record, CICO is just a math equation. I have used it to control my weight since 2013. 127 lbs lost and maintaining.
I agree. Lower body weight means less calories needed but you missing my big point. You are decreasing your total energy expenditure when you lower your caloric intake. Your metabolism will adjust to the new amount of calories it is receiving until you are at maintenance. What happens if you eat above your 500 calorie maintenance, you gain weight you said. You are one of those people who believe in the "calories in calories out theory". In my opinion, I think the hormonal theory of obesity/weight gain is a better theory.
What if there is a way that somebody(not you) can eat above their maintenance and not gain weight? Guess what, there are a lot of those people out in the world out there right now. You remember that skinny kid that can eat junk food all day not gain a single pound? This points towards hormones being responsible for weight gain, not calories!! Take care friend.
CICO is not a theory. It's fact. In fact, there are even several studies conducted by multiple sources that in isocaloric studies where protein was well steady, that there was NO difference between a ketogenic or high carb/high sugar group. In fact, Kevin Hall did those studies that were funding by NuSI.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest
Also, there is nothing more fundamental about weight loss than energy balance. If you look at all metabolic ward studies, you will see one of the first things they do is balance EE. And why is that? because it's already been proven by science thousands of time. In fact, below is a recent paper by Dr. Kevin Hall and Dr. Carson Chow regarding it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/
When it comes to debating the science of metabolism, I would certainly make a recommendation that you should be looking for experts in that field, which are PhD's, not MDs who treat metabolic disorders. There has yet to be a study that Dr. Fung has release to back his claims against CICO/EE or many of his theories.
Overall, he may not give bad dietary advice, because it largely would be beneficial to cut out added sugars and processed fats/carbs (essentially the bakery section) but that doesn't prove his theories. Hell, that last blog I read of his, his argument against CICO was that your body responds differently if you eat Fish and veggies vs a cookie. Because the context of ones diet looks actually like that. /sarcasm.
I am sure Dr. Fung is competent in treating his patience, but I would never take nutrition advice from a person who is not educated in the subject. It's like going to a dermatologist to get heart surgery. They are both doctors, but one is more specialized. And PhD's trained and educated in the field of nutritional science (like Dr. Layne Norton, Dr. Brad Schoenfeld, etc..) are going to provide much more informed information than an MD specializing in treatment of a disease. It's honestly research vs treatment.
4 -
Lorilynn_37 wrote: »Hi everyone!
I feel like a dork but can someone explain to me using simple example/words what exactly a calorie deficit is?
Is it eating with calories left over which is the deficit? Or is it something else?
I've been on mfp for a little less than a year and have lost 31 pounds but haven't lost successfully in almost 3 months.
I think I'm doing something wrong and the weight came off easy because I was overweight..?
37 years old
Sw 192
Cw 160
Gw 145
One thing to consider as you become more lean, you have less room for error when it comes to logging practices. So you might have to tighten up your logging to help progress things lower.1 -
Ok, so 100 weeks or about 2 years on this calorie deficit diet, this same person would weight zero pounds and die!?? This is absurd, we all know that this doesn't happen. This is why:
No, because as his weight decreases his BMR decreases, so unless it's an unlivable diet he will eventually hit maintenance, albeit at likely too low basic weight.1 -
Classic Simpsons quote.
I just want to see what this guy Danford is selling. Sounds like this is the get rich quick scheme that might finally get me rich...and quick.
For what it is worth, I have lost 100 pounds over the last three years, and I have done with various methods of food modification and exercise over different stretches. I, also like so many people here, read a ton of nutrition stuff.
It is pretty clearly established that CICO / calorie deficit is the only way to actually lose weight. The rest of it (how to do it in the first place, how to keep it off, the other factors of metabolism and starting size and hormones etc etc etc). is where we have as many solutions as there are people.
Everyone's body is different and responds to different methods, but in the end the only way your body loses weight is CICO.
and amputation.6 -
This is a typical case of half truths & a little bit of knowledge, twisted and delivered in a horribly bad way.
Danford48 you really should take your own open minded advice and listen to this topic objectively rather than cherry picking bits and pieces to advance your skewed agenda.
The calorie equation always wins. However, that equation can be affected by other things besides food intake & activity level. Your hormones, (including stess levels) gut bacteria, individual variances in physiology, etc all have an impact on this equation and leads to individualized tweaking, but the fact remains, the equation always wins.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »Many variables are involved in the endocrine system, not just the types of foods you eat (or don't eat-based on your Dr. Fung video) which is where I think this is going, right @danford48 ?
And if you manipulate your hormones in a way that is measurable based only on your food choices (not quantity) please link your endocrinologist's reports here.
Go start your own thread if you want to argue this - it will be the eleventy-thousandth thread on this topic on this site in the past week.
Apologies to @Lorilynn_37 Looks like your question was already answered before this highjack.
Oh, it's Fung.
LOL.
That explains everything.4 -
Been thinking about this, plenty of sites with different theories
Alot say CICO is the wrong way of losing weight as the body's BMR adapts to the body's weight, thus as you lose weight your body's BMR also lowers
I have yet to hit my goal weight and then change my calorie intake to maintenance, so we shall see
But like many have said, we gain weight because we eat more calories than we burn, to lose weight we need to burn more calories than we eat
Maybe those that are regaining the weight is because they are not updating the amount they need to eat?
I.e. Currently I need to eat 1700 to lose 2lbs per week before exercise, however once I hit my goal weight I suspect that would go down to 1500, which is the minimum for a male
But maybe we need to take into account the weight of those calories we eat?
We burn calories throughout the day regardless of whether we exercise or not, so if I ate the minimum calories that weighed very little I should lose more weight than if those minimum calories weighed a lot if that makes sense? Not to mention if the food we ate soaked/retained more water, then that would also make us weigh more
Then the muscles weigh more....
Maybe I am just thinking too much into this though, as I am bouncing around 177-181lbs0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions