The 500 calorie deficit myth

CourtDines1

thanks everyone! this has been helpful. i think i have attempted to lose Kgs faster then needed and will up my calories to a healthier amount.

im one of those people who ask the stupid questions LOL but if i dont ask i wont learn. so thanks for contributing with this.

Mr_Knight

When you go on a calorie restricted diet and you end up, weeks or months later, weighing more than you did initially, this is not you defying science.

Nonsense.

When it comes to weight loss, your body is trying to look out for you, and will try and keep you alive as best it can. If you deny it calories it will shut everything down and get rid of the one thing that keeps you lean, your muscle tissue.

That comment is completely off the rails. The idea that your body will get rid of muscle that it DOES need to keep fat that it DOESN'T need is not supported by either common sense or science.

And, specifically regarding the OP, it is not a statement supported by the very study the article is talking about.

...

tl;dr The original study is solid, but the article writer is either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the study actually showed.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

The men in Ancel Keys' study ate at a 50% deficit (I've recently been doing a bit of research involving that study). That's much larger than what is generally recommended and for good reason. The men in that study were eating at 3 times the recommended 500 calorie deficit.

Personally and anecdotally I can tell you that I do better with a small deficit. But for most of my weight loss, when I had more to lose, I lost a pound per week without negative side effects. I've been in maintenance for over a year.

WalkingAlong

I got to the second sentence. Reading a manifesto from some random blogger is one thing, but I'm not suffering through bad grammar to do so.

moontyrant

"Counting calories does not work, and we need to understand that before we really commit to what will (more on that to follow!). "

Yes, the world waits with bated breath for the new break through! Could it involve some new product or book?

I always find it fascinating that a habit that costs literally nothing is so often "ineffective" but expensive miracle potions and spells are fool proof. I like tracking. I like being able to see how much I have been eating, how much is a reasonable amount for me to eat, and when to stop. I would rather track my cereal and weigh my cream cheese than chug warm syrup water any day.

toddis

At the risk of ad hominem, the author's own reply to her article:
"Thanks for your comments everyone, but take a look around. The population has never eaten so little and yet been so stricken by obesity-related disease. Sure, if you dramatically change your macronutrient and general food quality intake as a result of counting calories, then you will have success. But sadly most calorie counters fall foul of the enormous marketing machine that is the 'low calorie' food industry, and subsequently end up living on high sugar, high sweetener, nutrientless processed rubbish in order to get as much (sweet/refined) bang for their calorie quota buck as possible. These are the exact foods which equate to toxins in the body and which trigger insulin release and subsequent fat storage."

Cuckoo.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

At the risk of ad hominem, the author's own reply to her article:
"Thanks for your comments everyone, but take a look around. The population has never eaten so little and yet been so stricken by obesity-related disease. Sure, if you dramatically change your macronutrient and general food quality intake as a result of counting calories, then you will have success. But sadly most calorie counters fall foul of the enormous marketing machine that is the 'low calorie' food industry, and subsequently end up living on high sugar, high sweetener, nutrientless processed rubbish in order to get as much (sweet/refined) bang for their calorie quota buck as possible. These are the exact foods which equate to toxins in the body and which trigger insulin release and subsequent fat storage."

Cuckoo.

Oh. Ok then. :indifferent:

TribeHokie

The factual information that was presented is correct for the most part, but the blogger's conclusion is crap. It is true that eating at a deficit will not cause you to just lose fat, you will also lose lean muscle. This is why it is important to do strength training while trying to lose weight: so you do not have a massive hit to your ultimate bmr and muscle composition. It is also true that weight loss is not linear and you can't expect to lose on a schedule. This is due to many other factors, though, like water retention, hormonal changes, etc. As others have said, the Minnesota study was done with men who were already at a healthy weight, not obese or overweight, which is why they experienced such negative effects and massive bounce-backs after the deficit period was over. The hundreds of thousands of people who have started heavy and lost until they were at a healthy weight and then kept it off should prove to you that it is not inevitable that your body will "fight" you and make you gain back anything you lose. Keep doing what you're doing, you'll be fine.

vagabondgoddess

That's ridiculous. I'm not saying the studies are wrong. But the truth is you have to eat less calories than you are burning. That is fact. If it wasn't true then nobody on here would lose any weight.

Mr_Knight

The population has never eaten so little...

I'm sorry, no professional can be that out of touch. The article author is flat out lying, as we know for certain that Americans have never in history been eating more than they do today.

Ignaura

I do believe that is not as simple as calorie in/calorie out (Most people will come and say it is as easy as that, but this is just my opinion). I also believe that what is really important is not losing weight but being a healthy human being with a healthy and active lifestyle, and that's much more than being on a deficit.

moontyrant

At the risk of ad hominem, the author's own reply to her article:
"Thanks for your comments everyone, but take a look around. The population has never eaten so little and yet been so stricken by obesity-related disease. Sure, if you dramatically change your macronutrient and general food quality intake as a result of counting calories, then you will have success. But sadly most calorie counters fall foul of the enormous marketing machine that is the 'low calorie' food industry, and subsequently end up living on high sugar, high sweetener, nutrientless processed rubbish in order to get as much (sweet/refined) bang for their calorie quota buck as possible. These are the exact foods which equate to toxins in the body and which trigger insulin release and subsequent fat storage."

Cuckoo.

Anyone that raves about metabolism, toxins, and negative calorie foods should exit the realm of reality and go on Dr. Oz's show. One time I saw a blog about how apples don't have calories, another post about how Nutrisystem eliminates toxins, and an ad for an appetite suppressant that burns calories for you. Sometimes it's time to just turn off the internet.

kuger4119

For the vast majority of people on this website, the 500 calorie deficit will work just fine. It worked fine for me and it's worked for 100's of people.

The key problem that the study highlights, which is a real world problem for most people that go on "diets" is that anytime you use a system to lose weight, most people will gain weight if they don't develop good habits while using the system. Weight watchers in particular dooms people to failure because it encourages people to survive on their prepackaged meals and many (most?) people can't keep it up when they go back to real world food.

Now, there is a point where you have to be smart about what you eat. Too many people on this site are impatient and deprive themselves of food and do put themselves into situations where their metabolisms get honked up. Losing 1/2 lb to 1 lb per week is fine and people need to remember that life is a marathon....not a sprint. The numbers work out in the long run as long as people don't get ridiculous.

jarodge

The theory suggests that, if I were to cut my calories by 500kcals per day, say from 2000 to 1500kcal (more than what most modern day diets recommend), I would lose 1lb (of pure fat) per week. If I did that for 1 year I would have lost 52lbs, which is nearly 4 stone. I can categorically tell you that if I ate 1500kcals per day for the next year I would not end up weighing in at around 5 stone. So why do we still believe that this is the way to lose fat?

This part is where a lot or misconceptions happen, I think. The 500 calorie deficit isn't about cutting 500 calories from what you were consuming before; it is 500 calories cut from what your body uses in a day. So if your body uses 2000 calories a day in breathing, pumping blood, running, walking, talking, and doing whatever you do in a day, then yes, consuming 1500 calories a day will drop you by about a pound in week. But it's quite difficult to figure out exactly how many calories you burn in a day, and since this expenditure depends on so many biological and environmental factors, it varies not only from person to person, but day to day, especially as your body mass changes. That's why the math seems so fuzzy.

Also, the extrapolation here doesn't work because the body isn't made up entirely of fat. The 500 cal/lb formula doesn't hold for lean body mass.

Mr_Bad_Example

"Thanks for your comments everyone, but take a look around. The population has never eaten so little and yet been so stricken by obesity-related disease. Sure, if you dramatically change your macronutrient and general food quality intake as a result of counting calories, then you will have success. But sadly most calorie counters fall foul of the enormous marketing machine that is the 'low calorie' food industry, and subsequently end up living on high sugar, high sweetener, nutrientless processed rubbish in order to get as much (sweet/refined) bang for their calorie quota buck as possible. These are the exact foods which equate to toxins in the body and which trigger insulin release and subsequent fat storage."

castlerobber

When you go on a calorie restricted diet and you end up, weeks or months later, weighing more than you did initially, this is not you defying science. Nor is it you being weak-willed. When it comes to weight loss, your body is trying to look out for you, and will try and keep you alive as best it can. If you deny it calories it will shut everything down and get rid of the one thing that keeps you lean, your muscle tissue.

Counting calories does not work, and we need to understand that before we really commit to what will (more on that to follow!).

References

Harcombe, Z (2010) The Obesity Epidemic. Comlumbus Publishing Ltd.

Tucker, Todd (2006). The Great Starvation Experiment: Ancel Keys and the Men Who Starved for Science. New York: Free Press.

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it!

millerll

While her blog is a load of nonsense, there is some truth to the statement that your body will burn muscle before fat, IF you're sedentary. Muscle, as stated, needs around 3 times the calories of fat just to maintain itself. To your body, you have a lot of expendable muscle. Fat is the last-resort emergency back-up. When faced with a calorie deficit, your body will go to muscle first, since it's metabolically "expensive".

However, this can be somewhat counteracted by eating sufficient protein, and partaking is a resistance training program. In that case, since you are regularly calling on your muscle for daily activities, your body will use less muscle and more fat. The trick is to find the calorie deficit that provides maximal fat loss and minimal muscle loss. Too large of a deficit, and your body will cannibalize some muscle, as it can only release limited amounts of fat at a time for energy. Sorry, I know this isn't the most scientific explanation, but that's how it was explained to me. I can't remember right now where I read this, but I'll try to find the article.

Dnarules

At the risk of ad hominem, the author's own reply to her article:
"Thanks for your comments everyone, but take a look around. The population has never eaten so little and yet been so stricken by obesity-related disease. Sure, if you dramatically change your macronutrient and general food quality intake as a result of counting calories, then you will have success. But sadly most calorie counters fall foul of the enormous marketing machine that is the 'low calorie' food industry, and subsequently end up living on high sugar, high sweetener, nutrientless processed rubbish in order to get as much (sweet/refined) bang for their calorie quota buck as possible. These are the exact foods which equate to toxins in the body and which trigger insulin release and subsequent fat storage."

Cuckoo.

thanks.

watto1980

The theory suggests that, if I were to cut my calories by 500kcals per day, say from 2000 to 1500kcal (more than what most modern day diets recommend), I would lose 1lb (of pure fat) per week. If I did that for 1 year I would have lost 52lbs, which is nearly 4 stone. I can categorically tell you that if I ate 1500kcals per day for the next year I would not end up weighing in at around 5 stone. So why do we still believe that this is the way to lose fat?

I read it up to here, this person doesn't know what they're talking about.

WalkingAlong

To your body, you have a lot of expendable muscle. Fat is the last-resort emergency back-up. When faced with a calorie deficit, your body will go to muscle first, since it's metabolically "expensive".

I don't think so. Muscle only 'costs' 6-10 calories/day per pound, and only provides around 600 per pound. Fat supplies around 3500 calories per pound. And obviously muscle is useful tissue whereas fat is primarily there for calorie storage. The body burns glycogen first, then fat, and protein (muscle) as a last resort, I believe.