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
Options
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.
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 -
Take The Biggest Loser, they worked on the CICO theory, but also that you must eat at least the minimum calories for the body to function
However, not sure if this is true, but apparently the majority of the contestants have regained the weight back? Now whether this is because of CICO or they were never in it to lose weight we'll never know
But both trainers Bob and Jillian pushed the CICO theory0 -
Maybe those that are regaining the weight is because they are not updating the amount they need to eat?
That, perhaps. Or they're not weighing their portions with due care. Or they're using bad estimates of their calorie burns. Or they're impatient, and are seeing normal weight fluctuations and thinking they're not "really" losing. There are all kinds of reasons. See the usual flowchart.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
Why on earth would you eat at a 2 lb/week loss rate after you hit your goal weight? You switch to maintenance calories at that point. Depending on how overweight you are, 2 lb/week may well be too aggressive even now.
Water weight is only temporary. Excess water is excreted as fast as your kidneys can extract it from your blood. In terms of macronutrients, there are 4 cal/g in carbohydrates and protein, and 9 cal/g in fat. So you do get more calories in a gram of fat than in anything else, but eating all fat won't make you lose weight faster. Micronutrients provide negligible calories, and any component of food you don't use is excreted. Calories in more "compact" form might make you weigh less as it passes through your alimentary canal, but it makes no other difference.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 more0 -
Take The Biggest Loser, they worked on the CICO theory, but also that you must eat at least the minimum calories for the body to function
However, not sure if this is true, but apparently the majority of the contestants have regained the weight back? Now whether this is because of CICO or they were never in it to lose weight we'll never know
But both trainers Bob and Jillian pushed the CICO theory
It's not a theory, it's a fact. All diets that work, work by CICO whatever else they may claim.
No, the problem with The Biggest Loser is that they forced participants to crash diet rather than develop healthy eating habits and a healthy attitude towards food. When a season was over, they'd just go back to their old habits and gain it all back -- and then some, because they'd be losing so fast they'd drop a lot of lean mass along with the fat, lowering their TDEE.6 -
Take The Biggest Loser, they worked on the CICO theory, but also that you must eat at least the minimum calories for the body to function
However, not sure if this is true, but apparently the majority of the contestants have regained the weight back? Now whether this is because of CICO or they were never in it to lose weight we'll never know
But both trainers Bob and Jillian pushed the CICO theory
Careful with the Biggest Loser. Read http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1338-5-details-they-cut-from-my-season-the-biggest-loser.html
In short, they fudged with the activities etc. to make a tv show and what was on the tube may not have been what actually happened.
The question isn't will your BMR decrease as you lose weight, that is a given. Where the issue with fast weight loss is is that it may result in a lower than expected BMR.
So take three men, 6' and 180 lbs.
First has always been this size.
Second was 300 lbs and dropped to 180 over 6 months
Third was 300 lbs and dropped to 180 over 3 years.
The concern is that the BMR of the second person, who had a rapid weight loss, may be materially lower than the first or third. And that by losing weight quickly, they have damaged their metabolism enough that they would now have to eat less calories to maintain 180 than the other 2. This is what some of the studies have shown. Not sure if they've shown it conclusively or if the impact is long term or not. But this is the issue raised with fast weight loss.1 -
Water weight is only temporary. Excess water is excreted as fast as your kidneys can extract it from your blood.
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
There's quite a lot of factors that can play a role in that. Your kidneys actually work both ways (can release fluid back into circulation if needed), once it's in the bladder though it's a one way trip. A lot of it has to do with electrolyte balance, and blood PH. There's actually plenty of dietary (and non dietary) things that can cause fluid retention.
But certainly what you eat can definitely cause you to hold onto water for a bit longer than normal.
1 -
Water weight is only temporary. Excess water is excreted as fast as your kidneys can extract it from your blood.
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
There's quite a lot of factors that can play a role in that. Your kidneys actually work both ways (can release fluid back into circulation if needed), once it's in the bladder though it's a one way trip. A lot of it has to do with electrolyte balance, and blood PH. There's actually plenty of dietary (and non dietary) things that can cause fluid retention.
But certainly what you eat can definitely cause you to hold onto water for a bit longer than normal.
You didn't actually say anything to contradict me. But maybe you didn't intend to and just wanted to add details.0 -
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
[...]
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
Dude, the bolded part IS the definition of calories in, calories out (CICO).
If your body "adapted" every time to less calories, no one would ever starve. (Not to be crude, but a lot of dead bodies beg to differ with that.)
The only thing is, when you weigh less, you require less to fuel it, so yes you do have to reduce the intake as you go. (It doesnt matter which diet method you use. Its all based on CI<CO)
People gain weight after diets because they go back to eating more than they need, not because CICO isnt valid. You just have to pay attention to what the CO portion is; because it will change, as you lose weight and as you age.0 -
So you contradict yourself then by saying
When you weigh less, then the body needs less, so yes you do have to reduce the intake as you go
Which is the body adapting as you lose/gain weight
A person that once weighed 300lbs and then lost weight to say 160lbs the body no longer needs the same amount of calories to live/function
The reason people starve is because they eat less than the minimum calories the bodies needs to live, hence the minimum 1500/1700
Regarding CICO, I wasn't arguing regarding the meaning/definition but that others have said it is not the only way, or that it is the wrong way nor did I say CICO is not valid, considering the fact that I am losing weight via MFP which goes by CICO wouldn't that then be stupid then to say it isn't valid?
I don't want to sound rude woman, since you decided to call me dude, but maybe you need to read what you are replying to and what you are typing
When I hit my goal weight, my maintenance CI is around 1700 with a little exercise, I am only around 16lbs away from goal weight so yes I could change it to 1lb, it is still the same CI unless I override it, MFP will not let me go under 1700, so even though it is set to 2lbs, doesn't mean I am eating at that0 -
If you stayed at a 500 calorie deficit vs your TDEE, your TDEE will continue to drop over time.
Maintaining that deficit would put you underweight and into a slow starvation.
Obviously you would die before you hit zero pounds, as the body cannibalized things that really matter (no excess fat).0 -
So you contradict yourself then by saying
When you weigh less, then the body needs less, so yes you do have to reduce the intake as you go
Which is the body adapting as you lose/gain weight
A person that once weighed 300lbs and then lost weight to say 160lbs the body no longer needs the same amount of calories to live/function
The reason people starve is because they eat less than the minimum calories the bodies needs to live, hence the minimum 1500/1700
Regarding CICO, I wasn't arguing regarding the meaning/definition but that others have said it is not the only way, or that it is the wrong way nor did I say CICO is not valid, considering the fact that I am losing weight via MFP which goes by CICO wouldn't that then be stupid then to say it isn't valid?
I don't want to sound rude woman, since you decided to call me dude, but maybe you need to read what you are replying to and what you are typing
When I hit my goal weight, my maintenance CI is around 1700 with a little exercise, I am only around 16lbs away from goal weight so yes I could change it to 1lb, it is still the same CI unless I override it, MFP will not let me go under 1700, so even though it is set to 2lbs, doesn't mean I am eating at that
CICO is the only way.. it's Energy Balance. People say CICO is wrong because their misunderstanding of how variables effect CI or CO. And some with "disprove it" because of different reactions in free living conditions. But if you look at any metabolic ward study, they baseline EE from the get go. It's how they make calorie adjustments.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions