Calorie Deficit, split off into debate

cmriverside

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

When you get to maintenance, recalculate and use "Maintain my weight" as your choice and it will give you calories for your NEAT. That should be around 2000-2500, you don't leave it at 1700 when you are wanting to maintain your weight.

For that matter, you can manually override the calories. I don't think 1700 is the minimum for men, I think it's 1500, but that isn't the point. You want to eat at a very small deficit right now if you have 16 pounds to go. (Like 250 under your NEAT)

Here's the place to recalculate:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided

lynn_glenmont

wytey wrote: »

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

Needing fewer calories when you weigh 160 lbs than you did when you weighed 300 lbs isn't your body "adapting." It's your body doing less work. Everything you do, from standing up to walking across the room, up the stairs, and doing actual "exercise" is less work if you weigh 160 lbs than if you weigh 300 lbs. If you strapped a 140 lb vest on, and went for an hour walk at a 3 mph pace, wouldn't you expect to use more calories than if you walked the same route, for an hour, at the same pace, but left your 140 lb vest at home?

dfwesq

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Needing fewer calories when you weigh 160 lbs than you did when you weighed 300 lbs isn't your body "adapting." It's your body doing less work. Everything you do, from standing up to walking across the room, up the stairs, and doing actual "exercise" is less work if you weigh 160 lbs than if you weigh 300 lbs. If you strapped a 140 lb vest on, and went for an hour walk at a 3 mph pace, wouldn't you expect to use more calories than if you walked the same route, for an hour, at the same pace, but left your 140 lb vest at home?

That person's body is also passively using fewer calories at 160 pounds than at 300, fwiw.

danford48

@Lorilynn_37


David Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D. David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD is a practicing endocrinologist and researcher at Boston Children’s Hospital. He holds the rank of Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. Dr Ludwig is Founding Director of the Optimal Weight for Life (OWL) program at Children’s Hospital, one of the country’s oldest and largest multidisciplinary clinics for the care of overweight children. He also directs the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center. His research focuses on the effects of diet on hormones, metabolism and body weight. In particular, he developed a novel “low glycemic load” diet (i.e., one that decreases the surge in blood sugar after meals) for the treatment of obesity and prevention of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Dr. Ludwig is Principal Investigator on numerous grants from the National Institutes of Health, has published over 150 scientific articles, and presently serves as Contributing Writer for JAMA. He is author of the forthcoming book, Always, Hungry? Conquer Cravings, Retrain your Fat Cells, and Lose Weight Permanently (Grand Central Publishing, January 2016).


You can take your advice from the people on this forum thread with no medical training or you can take advice from Dr. Ludwig or any other expert of your choosing. He is one of the most respected scientists on this topic in the country. The decision is ultimately yours. Good luck on your weight loss journey, have a good day now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpi5Lir_eJs&t=3367s

danford48

@shadow2soul

Thanks for the reply, yes I'm aware that phd's are the way to go. I just linked Fung's video because it was what I was currently listening to and I was in a little bit of a hurry to post lol. I agree with you on that. Maybe I should have linked Dr. David Ludwig's video instead.

As far as your Dr. Hall and Dr. Carson study:

"More data are required to better understand whether human food intake is under active control or is primarily habitual and follows the changing environment. Unfortunately, it is extraordinarily difficult to directly measure human food intake over extended time periods with accuracy and precision. New devices and technologies are being developed to address these issues [23–26]. Mathematical modeling currently provides the most inexpensive and simplest way to translate repeated measures of body weight into accurate estimates of energy intake changes [28]. These methods will be useful for calculating how energy intake responds following experimental perturbations as well as naturally over the course of time. Furthermore, these new methods have practical implications for weight management interventions since they can be used to monitor adherence to a prescribed lifestyle intervention and provide quantitative dynamic feedback on how to achieve weight goals [30]."

I do agree that CICO will lead to weight loss but I personally don't want to do it that way. Alright thanks again bye!

stevencloser

wytey wrote: »

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

That is not an adaption, it's the physical concept of work. Energy = mass * displacement. Mass decreases, activities do not (the displacement part), the energy required lowers.

2nd) The 1500/1700 are not minimum calories the body needs to live, whatever your TDEE is is what your body needs to live at any given point. If the intake is insufficient for that, instead of dropping dead your body uses its stores to make up for the rest to keep you alive, reducing the stores and with it your bodymass in the process. People starve because they continue being in a deficit like that for so long, the body's fat stores run out, it has to resort to using up your muscle and organ tissue, you eventually suffer organ failure and you die.

psuLemon

danford48 wrote: »

@shadow2soul

Thanks for the reply, yes I'm aware that phd's are the way to go. I just linked Fung's video because it was what I was currently listening to and I was in a little bit of a hurry to post lol. I agree with you on that. Maybe I should have linked Dr. David Ludwig's video instead.

As far as your Dr. Hall and Dr. Carson study:

"More data are required to better understand whether human food intake is under active control or is primarily habitual and follows the changing environment. Unfortunately, it is extraordinarily difficult to directly measure human food intake over extended time periods with accuracy and precision. New devices and technologies are being developed to address these issues [23–26]. Mathematical modeling currently provides the most inexpensive and simplest way to translate repeated measures of body weight into accurate estimates of energy intake changes [28]. These methods will be useful for calculating how energy intake responds following experimental perturbations as well as naturally over the course of time. Furthermore, these new methods have practical implications for weight management interventions since they can be used to monitor adherence to a prescribed lifestyle intervention and provide quantitative dynamic feedback on how to achieve weight goals [30]."

I do agree that CICO will lead to weight loss but I personally don't want to do it that way. Alright thanks again bye!

I don't think you actually know what CICO. It's not a diet.. its a simple name for energy balance. NOw, as Dr. Hall and Dr. Carson point out, there are a ton of influencing factors that they still haven't identified everything. Essentially, as technology and science advances, there will be more information to identify everything.

What you posted with David Ludwig, doesn't disprove energy balance. In fact, it's discussing more the hypothesis of insulin theory, something that KH has already done a few experiments testing the validity of. The recent experiment was funded by NuSI, which is a low carb group lead by Gary Taubes.


Even more so, the video discusses just how complicated the human body is and the various items that can impact things like hunger, reward and much more. None of this negates CICO, but what it does is can have influence on REE/TEE which can then influence your ability to get into an energy deficit (or surplus) and your ability to sustain. But for all things being equal when it comes to nutrition, protein and fiber have the largest impact. Fats and carbs are minimal at best.

lemurcat12

dfwesq wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Needing fewer calories when you weigh 160 lbs than you did when you weighed 300 lbs isn't your body "adapting." It's your body doing less work. Everything you do, from standing up to walking across the room, up the stairs, and doing actual "exercise" is less work if you weigh 160 lbs than if you weigh 300 lbs. If you strapped a 140 lb vest on, and went for an hour walk at a 3 mph pace, wouldn't you expect to use more calories than if you walked the same route, for an hour, at the same pace, but left your 140 lb vest at home?

That person's body is also passively using fewer calories at 160 pounds than at 300, fwiw.

And would be even if they'd never been more than 160. It's not weight loss that means that someone 160 (all else equal) burns less even from being sedentary than someone 300.

There also, depending on circumstances, is probably an additional reduction in burn for someone who lost substantial weight, but how permanent it is is debated and seems to be still in question (and you can counteract it with movement).

extra_medium

danford48 wrote: »

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"

You can have an opinion about things that are subjective (movies, music, favorite food) but when your "opinion" is objectively and factually incorrect, people have every right to say you are wrong.

extra_medium

wytey wrote: »

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

Most likely they gained the weight back because they no longer lived in extremely controlled conditions with cameras pointed at them 24/7, weekly weigh-ins on national television, access to professional trainers and a controlled diet. After that, being suddenly released into the wild to fend for themselves, I'm not at all shocked many (or most) went back to their old habits.

cwolfman13

danford48 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. 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.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about...I don't think I've ever said anything about exercise leading to substantial weight loss in and of itself...

CICO isn't a diet...it's an equation. To lose weight, your calories coming in must be less than your calories going out. I lost 40 Lbs...I've kept it off for 4 years. My metabolism isn't "crashed" or anything...I lost weight eating around 2,300-2500 calories per day...I maintain on about 2800-3000.

RedSquadronLeader

Okay, I'm going to try to say this in as many ways as possible so that as many people as possible understand, because I think people who "don't believe in" CICO misunderstand what it is, and people who "get" CICO misunderstand why others don't understand it, and it all really comes down to semantics.

CICO is NOT "Online calculator tells me my BMR is 1800 kcal/day, I ate 1300 kcal for two weeks and I didn't lose 2 pounds, so CICO must be wrong." No, that means that your BMR is not actually 1800 kcal, or you weren't eating 1300 kcal. Let's say you actually lost just one pound. That means (neglecting fluctuations due to water retention, etc...we should really be doing this over a longer time scale) that you were actually using 250 kcals more than you were eating. Whether you were eating 1550, or your BMR was lower than you thought, or a combination, or a host of other factors, your actual weight lost determines your average daily energy deficit.

To be upfront, I do believe the hormonal theory of weight gain/loss: these are the primary mechanisms by which our bodies adjust how much energy we can absorb from our food, and how much energy we will expend as waste, heat, etc. What you eat can certainly affect the regulation of these hormones, expressions of genes which play a part in body composition, hunger and satiety, etc on and on. There's so much going on there that it's no hope to figure it all out in a single model which will predict exactly what your body's doing; there's too much variation between different people as well. Hence, the variation in approaches to weight loss.

But "CICO" as it's commonly called is just an expression of energy conservation. This is a basic physical principle and there is no way to circumvent it. Different factors affect both the energy that you can absorb from the food you take in, and the energy you'll expend through being alive. Your energy expenditure may be different from what any model tells you it should be. You may not actually be able to absorb and use all the energy from that 100 g of nuts, and the 'calories' it contains to begin with are figured from the average of the heat it gives off when burned in a calorimeter ... certainly some variations there. You may digest more or less efficiently than the average, have a gut microbiome that's taking a little more or less energy than average from the food you eat, you may run slightly hotter or cooler than average, your heart may beat more or less times each minute, your muscles may expand and contract with greater or lesser efficiency...you get the idea. Tons of things affect the "calories out."

But fundamentally, if you are balancing your energy intake with your energy expenditure, consciously or unconsciously, regardless of what your hormones are doing, you're going to maintain your weight. If you increase/decrease your energy intake, but your metabolism somehow adjusts to compensate for the change, you're still going to maintain your weight. If you lose weight, you have - consciously or unconsciously - created an energy deficit. You have expended more than you've taken in. Measure it in Joules or btu's or calories, it doesn't matter ... you've used up extra energy, and that came from somewhere.

Even people that are proponents of the hormonal theory of weight loss (Stephen Phinney, Jeff Volek, Gary Taubes all come to mind) -- they recognize that at the end of the day it's energy, it's calories. I've collected data on myself over my years of weight loss, gain, body recomposition, etc. I find that adjustments to my macronutrient ratios make non-negligible differences to my energy expenditure. But I still have to take in less energy than that total expenditure to lose.

I'm a physicist, btw. If you ever find out how to circumvent energy conservation, call me and I'll phone Stockholm. They'll be itching to award you the Nobel Prize.