Is this true?

Sandamilaxx

“ only a slight deficit, then it will only make small differences.

Your body only enters hard calorie burns if you instigate it with radical changes such as via ketosis”.

Basically my friend is saying a small defcit is not enough if you want to lose body fat.

Is this true?

Luke_rabbit

Sandamilaxx wrote: »

“ only a slight deficit, then it will only make small differences.

Your body only enters hard calorie burns if you instigate it with radical changes such as via ketosis”.

Basically my friend is saying a small defcit is not enough if you want to lose body fat.

Is this true?

Is your friend saying that one wouldn't lose any weight or that the weight loss wouldn't be fat?

I've lost almost 17 pounds on a 250 calorie deficit. I'm sure most of it was fat. Did not change my diet at all (pescatarian) except tried harder to get adequate protein (for me that is 70 - 100 grams).

Sandamilaxx

bold_rabbit wrote: »

Sandamilaxx wrote: »

“ only a slight deficit, then it will only make small differences.

Your body only enters hard calorie burns if you instigate it with radical changes such as via ketosis”.

Basically my friend is saying a small defcit is not enough if you want to lose body fat.

Is this true?

Is your friend saying that one wouldn't lose any weight or that the weight loss wouldn't be fat?

I've lost almost 17 pounds on a 250 calorie deficit. I'm sure most of it was fat. Did not change my diet at all (pescatarian) except tried harder to get adequate protein (for me that is 70 - 100 grams).

Thanks for ur reply! That’s great, I want to lose about 15 pounds. He’s saying you cant lose weight in general.

Duck_Puddle

Not true.

Well-the first sentence is true but not a negative thing.

Any deficit will result in weight loss. The smaller the deficit, the slower the rate of loss. However, your body has a limit to how much fat you can actually burn off in a day. If your deficit exceeds that, you’re going to burn muscles, organs, etc plus fat. I’m not interested in losing weight by burning off my muscles and vital organs. So a smaller deficit results in better (but not faster) weight loss.

sijomial

Ask your friend what happens in a small energy/calorie deficit, where exactly does that energy need get supplied from if not your body's energy stores? Sunshine perhaps?
The vast majority of people losing weight don't follow the ketogenic diet, they just eat less / move more.

Shuttling excess calories into fat stores in a caloric surplus and reversing the process when in a deficit is totally normal - in fact you are doing both sides of the process several times a day and at night. No special nurturing or forcing required, it's just how your body manages its energy stores.

Often in Spring I lose a few excess pounds very slowly and lean out, sometimes just 1lb / month if I don't have much to lose.

JBanx256

Your friend is wrong, flat-out. That's like saying if you walk instead of run you'll never get around the block. It'll just take a little longer. But if it's not a race, who cares?

Duck_Puddle

The keto bit is a bunch of nonsense. You don’t need radical anything, nor “hard” calorie burns (not even sure what that means?).

You only need to consume fewer calories than your body burns.

To maximize the amount of fat lost (vs muscle), a deficit that isn’t aggressive, adequate protein intake and resistance training will help.

sardelsa

Not true at all. I make small and steady changes all the time, usually only lose 0.5lbs per week (sometimes even less) since I am always so close to goal. I easily go from deficit to maintenance to surplus just by adding or subtracting my calories to the right amount. I've never done keto before.

Luke_rabbit

Sandamilaxx wrote: »

bold_rabbit wrote: »

Sandamilaxx wrote: »

“ only a slight deficit, then it will only make small differences.

Your body only enters hard calorie burns if you instigate it with radical changes such as via ketosis”.

Basically my friend is saying a small defcit is not enough if you want to lose body fat.

Is this true?

Is your friend saying that one wouldn't lose any weight or that the weight loss wouldn't be fat?

I've lost almost 17 pounds on a 250 calorie deficit. I'm sure most of it was fat. Did not change my diet at all (pescatarian) except tried harder to get adequate protein (for me that is 70 - 100 grams).

Thanks for ur reply! That’s great, I want to lose about 15 pounds. He’s saying you cant lose weight in general.

It's useful to understand that when losing a small amount of weight, especially within normal BMI range, the loss rate is slow. It should be slow, too. You want to be providing your body with necessary nutrients and there isn't as much play room with calories. Patience is the most important tool. Plus a food scale, of course, because there is very little margin for guesstimates.

Sandamilaxx

Duck_Puddle wrote: »

Not true.

Well-the first sentence is true but not a negative thing.

Any deficit will result in weight loss. The smaller the deficit, the slower the rate of loss. However, your body has a limit to how much fat you can actually burn off in a day. If your deficit exceeds that, you’re going to burn muscles, organs, etc plus fat. I’m not interested in losing weight by burning off my muscles and vital organs. So a smaller deficit results in better (but not faster) weight loss.

Thanks for ur reply! Yes that’s wat I told him as well but he’s like no that’s not true and stuff. I basically asked how long will it take to get to 15-20% body fat from 28% body fat. And then he said the bigger the deficit and btw he’s saying 800 cals deficit the more quicker you will get to ur goal. I’m only 5.2ft and weigh 61kg and my goal is to lose fat and be “toned”.

sardelsa

The closer you are to goal and the more aggressive the weight loss the higher chance of muscle loss and higher chance of looking the opposite of toned. Slow and steady.

AnnPT77

If your goal is to be "toned" and a little lighter, a small calorie deficit (slow loss), good nutrition, and progressive strength training are you best strategies. Ignore your friend.

whmscll

Absolutely not true. I lost 20 pounds with just a small deficit.

lynn_glenmont

Sandamilaxx wrote: »

Duck_Puddle wrote: »

Not true.

Well-the first sentence is true but not a negative thing.

Any deficit will result in weight loss. The smaller the deficit, the slower the rate of loss. However, your body has a limit to how much fat you can actually burn off in a day. If your deficit exceeds that, you’re going to burn muscles, organs, etc plus fat. I’m not interested in losing weight by burning off my muscles and vital organs. So a smaller deficit results in better (but not faster) weight loss.

Thanks for ur reply! Yes that’s wat I told him as well but he’s like no that’s not true and stuff. I basically asked how long will it take to get to 15-20% body fat from 28% body fat. And then he said the bigger the deficit and btw he’s saying 800 cals deficit the more quicker you will get to ur goal. I’m only 5.2ft and weigh 61kg and my goal is to lose fat and be “toned”.

He's really wrong about that. The bigger the deficit, the more likely you are to lose a higher proportion of lean body mass, so your progress toward a lower BF % will be compromised.

PAV8888

11.1 lbs during my second year on MFP and 2.7 lbs during my third year argue that very small deficits work fine!

See above for body composition arguments.

IF you are an elite level competitor and want to maximize the benefits of your training some counterargument could be made about losing faster so that you can spend more training time in a non deficit position. For myself preserving what I currently have would come first and that would argue for slower weight loss!

Unknown

This content has been removed.