Caloric deficit question

webdomainhub

I weigh 70kg and my daily maintenance calorie is 1800. Currently I start to walk to burn about 300 calories daily so technically I am in a daily caloric deficit of 300 calories and in 30 days about 9000 calories and I will be burning off about 2lbs and in one year about 24lbs. Question: If I continue walking will I still be burning off 24lbs yearly assuming all other things such as caloric intake remains unchanged? That does not make sense because if I continue on this journey and in 6 years I will have nothing left to burn. The fact is that I don’t want to stop walking and I don’t want to eat more than what I am eating so I still can’t get my head wrap around this caloric deficit thing. Any enlightenment is highly appreciated.

Lietchi

As you lose weight, you burn less calories (a smaller body needs less calories to exist - basal metabolism - and less energy is used when moving a smaller body e.g. walking) so the weight loss will taper off gradually.

webdomainhub

So it means my initial 90 minutes of walking to burn off 300 calories will now burn less?

janejellyroll

webdomainhub wrote: »

So it means my initial 90 minutes of walking to burn off 300 calories will now burn less?

Yes. It takes less energy to move a smaller body around, so as we lose weight the amount of calories we burn through exercise and just daily existence will go down.

Lietchi

A formula often used to estimate calorie expenditure for walking is:
bodyweight (lbs) x distance (miles) x 0.3

So if you are eating at a deficit (losing weight), this is a theoretical example:
Walking 4.5 miles and weighing 150lbs, you'll burn 203 calories
Walking the same distance and weighing 140 lbs, you'll burn 189 calories

On top of that your body burns less calories to 'exist' when it's smaller, about 5 calories less for every lb lost.

These are theoretical numbers of course, real life results will vary, but the general principle is that a smaller body burns less.

yirara

Lietchi wrote: »

A formula often used to estimate calorie expenditure for walking is:
bodyweight (lbs) x distance (miles) x 0.3

So if you are eating at a deficit (losing weight), this is a theoretical example:
Walking 4.5 miles and weighing 150lbs, you'll burn 203 calories
Walking the same distance and weighing 140 lbs, you'll burn 189 calories

On top of that your body burns less calories to 'exist' when it's smaller, about 5 calories less for every lb lost.

These are theoretical numbers of course, real life results will vary, but the general principle is that a smaller body burns less.

What all the others said. This equation above in metrics is roughly bodyweight (kg) * distance (km) * 0.42-ish.

springlering62

IRL example: when I first started tracking calories, at about 222, I would often burn 1500 calories or more per day, per Apple Watch.

Now, at 130, exercising harder and more often, I burn 900 minimum per day, 1200 a couple times a week.

Again, that’s overall burn, not all viaexercise, but working out much harder and with more frequency.

It was a real let down (and very confusing) at first, til I realized that ultimately it actually meant I was in better health. YMMV, of course.

cwolfman13

webdomainhub wrote: »

So it means my initial 90 minutes of walking to burn off 300 calories will now burn less?

You will burn less as you get smaller...like an F-150 burns more gas than a Honda Civic...but you also have to take into account that when you want to go to maintenance, you would need to eat maintenance calories...maintenance would include any exercise you do.

So in reality, your NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) maintenance is 1800 calories...but with exercise your TDEE is 1800 + 300= 2100 calories...that would be your actual maintenance level of calories provided all of your estimates and assumptions are correct.

sijomial

webdomainhub wrote: »

So it means my initial 90 minutes of walking to burn off 300 calories will now burn less?

You can compensate for needing less energy for movement by walking faster in that 90 mins to cover more distance. Or walk for longer at the same speed.

Just like my cycling calorie burns and rate of burn went up because I got fitter/more powerful as I got lighter and went further and faster.

heybales

OP - To your other point - while the above is true, you will continue to slowly lose fat until you reach the point you have a low enough body weight that you are no longer causing a deficit.

Also - you say your goal is to burn 300 calories walking daily. (as unrealistic as that may be, you know, life)

Using estimates above or a device or calc for NET calorie burn - you'll still burn 300 walking at whatever lower weight - it will just take longer to do.
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

Now:
300 cal burn walk @ 6.4 km/hr @ 70kg takes 64 min

After 1 yr (actually keeping a 300 cal deficit the whole time, meaning you'll eat less as you weigh 31.3lbs/14.2kg less):
@ 55.8kg takes 80 min.

So through the year as weight is lost you'll need to add 1 min to the walk every 3.25 weeks.


Therefore the only thing that is lowering is your daily burn moving around less mass and less BMR, and age actually. Your daily maintenance won't be 1800.

Current:
1800 @ 70kg

After 1 year older and 14.2 kg lighter:
1600 @ 55.8kg


So for that 300 cal walk to keep causing a 300 cal deficit for fat loss, you'd have to slowly through the year lower your eating level 200 cal. 50 cal less each quarter - not too bad.
Except you said you wanted to keep eating 1800.

Therefore you'd either except the lack of weight loss as the year went on, therefore the walks would not have to get as long.

Or you'd have to increase the walks even more for them to start burning 500 cal eventually to make up that lost 200.
At the lower weight that would mean 134 min walk.

So to keep the 300 cal deficit as your weight lowered, you'd slowly add 2.6 min every week through the year.


If you did not want to walk more than 300 cal, and you did not want to eat less than 1800 cal, it could be mathed out where the breakeven point would be for slowly no longer losing weight and maintaining.

AnnPT77

In addition to all of the above, since I didn't see it on a skim-through: If you got that 1800 number from a calculator (MFP or another), or even from a fitness tracker, be aware that those are estimates (just as the exercise calories are).

Most people are close to what the calculators/trackers say, a few are a meaningful moderate bit off (high or low), and a very rare few are quite far off (also in either direction).

So, when you're projecting losses over a year, that can be a factor, if you turn out to be different from the averages. (It isn't always obvious why someone would be different from the averages, BTW. It's just a statistical thing that can happen.)

So, eat your estimated calorie goal for 4-6 weeks, and compare your expectations with the reality of your weight loss, averaged over that period of weeks. Then you'll have a better, personalized idea. (Premenopausal women should look at whole cycles, comparing weight at the same relative point in at least two different cycles.)

It's an experiment that you run, and the calculator/tracker gives you a starting point. (You may find either or both to be spot on.)

That's in addition to what people are saying above, about needing fewer calories just to be alive, as well as to walk X distance, as you get lighter, and so forth.

webdomainhub

Thanks for all the insightful comments. Another hypothetical question: I am at my ideal weight right now of 70kg and I don’t want to lose weight. However my body structure is not ideal which is more fat than muscle. So how do I maintain that weight but change my body into more muscle? I know resistance training will achieve the muscle part but is caloric deficit still necessary if I want to maintain this weight?

Lietchi

Maintaining your weight while building muscle and reducing body fat is certainly possible, especially for people who are relative beginners to strength training and have enough body fat reserves. It's called 'recomposition'. For that, you simply eat at maintenance calories and do progressive strength training. It's a slow process which requires patience.

heybales

webdomainhub wrote: »

Thanks for all the insightful comments. Another hypothetical question: I am at my ideal weight right now of 70kg and I don’t want to lose weight. However my body structure is not ideal which is more fat than muscle. So how do I maintain that weight but change my body into more muscle? I know resistance training will achieve the muscle part but is caloric deficit still necessary if I want to maintain this weight?

Just so you have clearly in mind what a calorie deficit means.

You are eating less than you burn. You have a deficit.

That by definition means you will lose weight.

So per your desire to maintain weight - you can NOT have a calorie deficit.

And to your prior scenario of 300 cal walks and not changing eating level, and now with point of not losing weight - you do recognize that isn't possible, right?

A hard strength training workout burns about as much as a 3 mph walk does.
So you may be still close to losing weight if you don't want to eat more.

AnnPT77

webdomainhub wrote: »

Thanks for all the insightful comments. Another hypothetical question: I am at my ideal weight right now of 70kg and I don’t want to lose weight. However my body structure is not ideal which is more fat than muscle. So how do I maintain that weight but change my body into more muscle? I know resistance training will achieve the muscle part but is caloric deficit still necessary if I want to maintain this weight?

What the above people said.

Also, there's a very good thread about exactly that goal, and how to pursue it, here:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat

lgfrie

What all the above people said, plus, you burn approx 5 calories less every time you lose a pound. It adds up, for anyone who loses a substantial amount of weight. I burn 400+ less calories per day than when I started dieting. Nothing you can do will fully compensate for that. That's why weight loss slows as you lose weight and also why your weight won't go to zero. You can see this number in action for yourself by going to tdeecalculator.net and trying out a few scenarios with your current weight, weight minus ten pounds, weight plus ten pounds, etc.

webdomainhub

heybales wrote: »

OP - To your other point - while the above is true, you will continue to slowly lose fat until you reach the point you have a low enough body weight that you are no longer causing a deficit.

Also - you say your goal is to burn 300 calories walking daily. (as unrealistic as that may be, you know, life)

Using estimates above or a device or calc for NET calorie burn - you'll still burn 300 walking at whatever lower weight - it will just take longer to do.
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

Now:
300 cal burn walk @ 6.4 km/hr @ 70kg takes 64 min

After 1 yr (actually keeping a 300 cal deficit the whole time, meaning you'll eat less as you weigh 31.3lbs/14.2kg less):
@ 55.8kg takes 80 min.

So through the year as weight is lost you'll need to add 1 min to the walk every 3.25 weeks.


Therefore the only thing that is lowering is your daily burn moving around less mass and less BMR, and age actually. Your daily maintenance won't be 1800.

Current:
1800 @ 70kg

After 1 year older and 14.2 kg lighter:
1600 @ 55.8kg


So for that 300 cal walk to keep causing a 300 cal deficit for fat loss, you'd have to slowly through the year lower your eating level 200 cal. 50 cal less each quarter - not too bad.
Except you said you wanted to keep eating 1800.

Therefore you'd either except the lack of weight loss as the year went on, therefore the walks would not have to get as long.

Or you'd have to increase the walks even more for them to start burning 500 cal eventually to make up that lost 200.
At the lower weight that would mean 134 min walk.

So to keep the 300 cal deficit as your weight lowered, you'd slowly add 2.6 min every week through the year.


If you did not want to walk more than 300 cal, and you did not want to eat less than 1800 cal, it could be mathed out where the breakeven point would be for slowly no longer losing weight and maintaining.

Very well explained. Thank you!

webdomainhub

Thank you all your extremely valued opinions. I can now safely continue on my walking journey without the fear of getting to zero weight. Lol. Anyway I will try to come in here from time to time to report on my journey. This community is awesome!

webdomainhub

Another hypothetical question. What happens if there is no calories deficit but the calories are now turned into a high protein low carb diet, does weight loss still happen or what will happen with this approach?

Lietchi

webdomainhub wrote: »

Another hypothetical question. What happens if there is no calories deficit but the calories are now turned into a high protein low carb diet, does weight loss still happen or what will happen with this approach?

Well, technically weight loss might happen, but it will only be short term water weight loss due to less carbs, not fat loss. After that, nothing will happen: no deficit means no fat loss.

heybales

If you ate a lot of calories as your level, and started with very little protein, and moved to high protein with those many calories - yes you would have a slight deficit as the difference between processing of protein takes more energy. TEF - Thermic Effect of Food

Say you ate 80% carbs from 3000 cal diet - 2400 cal that took 10% of it to process - 240 cal
Protein @ 15% - 450 cal took 25% - 113 cal
Fat @ 5% - 150 took 3% - 5 cal
358 cal to process those macros.

Moved to 80% protein instead - 2400 for 25% - 600 cal
Carbs @ 15% - 450 cal 10% - 45 cal
Fat same 5 cal
650 cal to process those macros.

292 cal advantage, therefore deficit.

You'd lose a little weight until weighing correct amount for those daily calories - not much.

And as you start lowering that 3000 cal diet down to perhaps normal levels - you see the advantage start disappearing for an amount that really matters.

Now - take the fact that nutritional labels in US are allowed to be upwards of 20% off - guess which direction is normal so it appears better on the label. Other countries have allowances too since they can't be that exact.
You could easily much smaller to no advantage then.

So - what's with all the theory questions?
Inquiring minds want to know. Both ways it appears.

webdomainhub

heybales wrote: »

If you ate a lot of calories as your level, and started with very little protein, and moved to high protein with those many calories - yes you would have a slight deficit as the difference between processing of protein takes more energy. TEF - Thermic Effect of Food

Say you ate 80% carbs from 3000 cal diet - 2400 cal that took 10% of it to process - 240 cal
Protein @ 15% - 450 cal took 25% - 113 cal
Fat @ 5% - 150 took 3% - 5 cal
358 cal to process those macros.

Moved to 80% protein instead - 2400 for 25% - 600 cal
Carbs @ 15% - 450 cal 10% - 45 cal
Fat same 5 cal
650 cal to process those macros.

292 cal advantage, therefore deficit.

You'd lose a little weight until weighing correct amount for those daily calories - not much.

And as you start lowering that 3000 cal diet down to perhaps normal levels - you see the advantage start disappearing for an amount that really matters.

Now - take the fact that nutritional labels in US are allowed to be upwards of 20% off - guess which direction is normal so it appears better on the label. Other countries have allowances too since they can't be that exact.
You could easily much smaller to no advantage then.

So - what's with all the theory questions?
Inquiring minds want to know. Both ways it appears.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I have been quite unsuccessful in the past going on a calorie deficit with no weight loss. So this time I want to do it right and thought that the unsuccessful attempt earlier could be due to my diet because I consume quite a high carb diet at the moment. White bread, noodles, rice are a staple.

heybales

Likely due to accuracy logging - but the fact is if you stayed just as active, and dropped a known amount of calories from what is normally eaten - you will lose fat weight.
No logging needed - merely pick items that add up to what needs to be the deficit and don't eat them.

You make a bunch of changes that require accuracy now, and aren't accurate - you'll have problems you'll need knowledge on how to handle.

If you started exercise at the same time - exercise is for health and many times comes with water weight gain.
If you stressed body out and gained cortisol induced water weight.
Many reason why people stop losing.
A few reasons why people don't start losing.

And many lose quite easily on a high carb diet.

lgfrie

webdomainhub wrote: »

Another hypothetical question. What happens if there is no calories deficit but the calories are now turned into a high protein low carb diet, does weight loss still happen or what will happen with this approach?

Same caloric intake = same exact level of fat loss/gain

But shifting the macro balance from carbs to non-carbs will cause some water to drain off, since carbs lead to water retention; it might show up as a pound or two "lost" on the scale. Next time you have a bowl of spaghetti, it'll be back.

Macros make no difference for fat loss. Nada. Zip. They might matter for other things (diabetics, etc.) but not for losing weight.