It's NOT always as simple as a deficit
Replies
-
I read 6 pages and couldn't take it anymore.
All I know is all the hottest people on this site follow IIFYM. That's good enough for me!
lol0 -
I think most people are arguing the same thing here. It is about creating a deficit but that deficit need not always be simple.
BMR calculators and the like probably work well for a lot of people out there but in reality they can have up to 20% variance in their results. Everyone's metabolism works differently and a lot of this is down to hormones; thyroid, PCOS and diabetes are examples of hormone imbalances causing dysfunction, but often these imbalances can be asymptomatic and thus very hard to factor into your BMR calculations. There are also unexplained reasons for a variation of almost 30% in BMR between similar individuals.
Here's a very interesting article if you have access: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/427059?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103339568197
Also: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.long
So then you adjust. Mfp suggests 1450 for me to lose a pound a week. I moved myself to 1650 then 1700 then 1800 to average that pound a week.
Tweaking calories is a fairly simple process: anyone with basic observational skills can do it.
Not losing weight? Adjust down!
Losing too much? Adjust up!
Repeat until desired rate is found.
Damn. How complicated.
Where it becomes complicated is when your calorie intake is already only 800, 900, 1200 and you still can't lose weight. How low should you adjust?
I've never seen anyone demonstrate consistent, solid logging long-term at that level without weight loss. Ever.0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.
I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!
No, she was correct. In order to maintain lean mass while restricting calories, protein requirements have been shown to be in excess of 1 gram per lb of lean mass. Protein requirements in absolute grams tend to go up as calorie intake goes down.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
Therefore, if there is no difference in weight loss between eating at a calorie deficit by varying macros, but eating higher protein maintains lean mass, this means macros DO matter in fat loss. In other words you will lose more fat by eating a higher protein diet because the weight lost is less likely to be lean mass.
Now we are getting somewhere.0 -
I like to focus on eating the right foods. Ideally I will stay within my caloric guide lines. But I am not going to beat myself up if I go over and am still eating well. I agree that the math is pretty straightforward, but that's not the whole story.
Everyone is different. Different things work for different people. There is not point in the negativity.0 -
I think most people are arguing the same thing here. It is about creating a deficit but that deficit need not always be simple.
BMR calculators and the like probably work well for a lot of people out there but in reality they can have up to 20% variance in their results. Everyone's metabolism works differently and a lot of this is down to hormones; thyroid, PCOS and diabetes are examples of hormone imbalances causing dysfunction, but often these imbalances can be asymptomatic and thus very hard to factor into your BMR calculations. There are also unexplained reasons for a variation of almost 30% in BMR between similar individuals.
Here's a very interesting article if you have access: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/427059?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103339568197
Also: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.long
So then you adjust. Mfp suggests 1450 for me to lose a pound a week. I moved myself to 1650 then 1700 then 1800 to average that pound a week.
Tweaking calories is a fairly simple process: anyone with basic observational skills can do it.
Not losing weight? Adjust down!
Losing too much? Adjust up!
Repeat until desired rate is found.
Damn. How complicated.
Where it becomes complicated is when your calorie intake is already only 800, 900, 1200 and you still can't lose weight. How low should you adjust?
I've never seen anyone demonstrate consistent, solid logging long-term at that level without weight loss. Ever.
Not true eventually your metabolism will adjust and you will not lose.
There are plenty of people on these boards that have started their diets at 1200 calories, lost a lot (but not all their weight) only to have it stall before they reached their goal weight and their only choice was to restrict more.... not healthy!0 -
I think most people are arguing the same thing here. It is about creating a deficit but that deficit need not always be simple.
BMR calculators and the like probably work well for a lot of people out there but in reality they can have up to 20% variance in their results. Everyone's metabolism works differently and a lot of this is down to hormones; thyroid, PCOS and diabetes are examples of hormone imbalances causing dysfunction, but often these imbalances can be asymptomatic and thus very hard to factor into your BMR calculations. There are also unexplained reasons for a variation of almost 30% in BMR between similar individuals.
Here's a very interesting article if you have access: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/427059?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103339568197
Also: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.long
So then you adjust. Mfp suggests 1450 for me to lose a pound a week. I moved myself to 1650 then 1700 then 1800 to average that pound a week.
Tweaking calories is a fairly simple process: anyone with basic observational skills can do it.
Not losing weight? Adjust down!
Losing too much? Adjust up!
Repeat until desired rate is found.
Damn. How complicated.
Where it becomes complicated is when your calorie intake is already only 800, 900, 1200 and you still can't lose weight. How low should you adjust?
I've never seen anyone demonstrate consistent, solid logging long-term at that level without weight loss. Ever.
Not true eventually your metabolism will adjust and you will not lose.
There are plenty of people on these boards that have started their diets at 1200 calories, lost a lot (but not all their weight) only to have it stall before they reached their goal weight and their only choice was to restrict more.... not healthy!
Even in extreme circumstances BMR will only be suppressed so far.
But, the point stands: there really aren't any people that fit that description. There are plenty of people who SAY they do, but their diaries simply don't stand up to the scrutiny. Either they have incomplete logs, missing days, are obviously not weighing portions, etc.0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.
I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!
You are not going to build muscle while in a calorie deficit. :huh:
Again, I know and never said anything of the sort!
And neither did I. So WTH?0 -
The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.
FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:
I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?
No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.
I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!
No, she was correct. In order to maintain lean mass while restricting calories, protein requirements have been shown to be in excess of 1 gram per lb of lean mass. Protein requirements in absolute grams tend to go up as calorie intake goes down.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
Therefore, if there is no difference in weight loss between eating at a calorie deficit by varying macros, but eating higher protein maintains lean mass, this means macros DO matter in fat loss. In other words you will lose more fat by eating a higher protein diet because the weight lost is less likely to be lean mass.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Maybe YOU are. I've been 'there' all along.0 -
Go, left-tickers!0
-
Therefore, if there is no difference in weight loss between eating at a calorie deficit by varying macros, but eating higher protein maintains lean mass, this means macros DO matter in fat loss. In other words you will lose more fat by eating a higher protein diet because the weight lost is less likely to be lean mass.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Macros do matter for portion of weight lost from fat vs lean. As QuietBloom notes, we've been there all along. But I'm glad you're approaching the station.0 -
Therefore, if there is no difference in weight loss between eating at a calorie deficit by varying macros, but eating higher protein maintains lean mass, this means macros DO matter in fat loss. In other words you will lose more fat by eating a higher protein diet because the weight lost is less likely to be lean mass.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Macros do matter for portion of weight lost from fat vs lean. As QuietBloom notes, we've been there all along. But I'm glad you're approaching the station.
As most people are intending to lose fat and not muscle when they attempt to lose weight, I cannot understand why anyone would say macros don't matter only calorie deficit works! Seems very disingenuous to me to suggest otherwise (repeatedly, I might add). A calorie of carb energy does not have the same metabolic effect as a calorie of protein. Isn't that what I have been saying all along?0 -
So why say it unless you thought it had some context? :huh:
I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!
You are not going to build muscle while in a calorie deficit. :huh:
Again, I know and never said anything of the sort!
And neither did I. So WTH?0 -
it actually is as simple as a deficit. if you burn 1800 in a day, and consume less, you will lose weight. if you dont, you are in 1 of 2 categories... number 1, and the most obvious... your doing something wrong!!! either under estimating your intake or overestimating your burn, maybe not logging everything, not measuring or weighing everything, or logging the wrong items... or, the 2nd option, you are one of those with a medical condition, such as thyoid issus, which, while possible, is usually not the case if up until now you have not been diagnosed due to other signs and symptoms...
its very simple, calories in / energy out.
maintain a deficit, A REAL DEFICIT, and you will lose.0 -
Therefore, if there is no difference in weight loss between eating at a calorie deficit by varying macros, but eating higher protein maintains lean mass, this means macros DO matter in fat loss. In other words you will lose more fat by eating a higher protein diet because the weight lost is less likely to be lean mass.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Macros do matter for portion of weight lost from fat vs lean. As QuietBloom notes, we've been there all along. But I'm glad you're approaching the station.
As most people are intending to lose fat and not muscle when they attempt to lose weight, I cannot understand why anyone would say macros don't matter only calorie deficit works! Seems very disingenuous to me to suggest otherwise (repeatedly, I might add). A calorie of carb energy does not have the same metabolic effect as a calorie of protein. Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
No one ever says calories don't matter.
Calories are the determining factor in whether you are losing, maintaining, or gaining body mass. Period. Macros influence the portion of mass change from fat vs lean, but macros have no influence on whether the overall change is positive, negative, or zero (within reasonable bounds).0 -
Therefore, if there is no difference in weight loss between eating at a calorie deficit by varying macros, but eating higher protein maintains lean mass, this means macros DO matter in fat loss. In other words you will lose more fat by eating a higher protein diet because the weight lost is less likely to be lean mass.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Macros do matter for portion of weight lost from fat vs lean. As QuietBloom notes, we've been there all along. But I'm glad you're approaching the station.
As most people are intending to lose fat and not muscle when they attempt to lose weight, I cannot understand why anyone would say macros don't matter only calorie deficit works! Seems very disingenuous to me to suggest otherwise (repeatedly, I might add). A calorie of carb energy does not have the same metabolic effect as a calorie of protein. Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
IF people knew or cared what they were losing yes they would watch their macros but let's be frank...when people say they want to lose weight they mean what they say...they are not talking code...
They want to lose weight they don't care how they do all that matters is what the scale says.
So when we say all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficet that is in fact the truth...even with medical issues you need a calorie deficet...it might be slower but that's what you need...
All the rest of it is fine tuning.0 -
As most people are intending to lose fat and not muscle when they attempt to lose weight, I cannot understand why anyone would say macros don't matter only calorie deficit works! Seems very disingenuous to me to suggest otherwise (repeatedly, I might add). A calorie of carb energy does not have the same metabolic effect as a calorie of protein. Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
No one ever says calories don't matter.
Calories are the determining factor in whether you are losing, maintaining, or gaining body mass. Period. Macros influence the portion of mass change from fat vs lean, but macros have no influence on whether the overall change is positive, negative, or zero (within reasonable bounds).
In other words macros can affect fat loss, either by increasing or decreasing fat in proportion to muscle and water. Plus lean body mass determines your metabolic rate. Therefore the correct proportion of macros will ensure that your metabolism is preserved which helps to sustain further fat loss. Macros do matter, it's not just about eating in deficit.0 -
As most people are intending to lose fat and not muscle when they attempt to lose weight, I cannot understand why anyone would say macros don't matter only calorie deficit works! Seems very disingenuous to me to suggest otherwise (repeatedly, I might add). A calorie of carb energy does not have the same metabolic effect as a calorie of protein. Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
IF people knew or cared what they were losing yes they would watch their macros but let's be frank...when people say they want to lose weight they mean what they say...they are not talking code...
They want to lose weight they don't care how they do all that matters is what the scale says.
So when we say all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficet that is in fact the truth...even with medical issues you need a calorie deficet...it might be slower but that's what you need...
All the rest of it is fine tuning.
Rubbish, people want to get rid of the flab - the scale is just a convenient way to measure progress if they have not got a way to accurately measure body fat.
I don' t think your average obese person is fretting about what the scale says; they are worried about their health, fitting into clothes, having mobility to lead a happy life, not being looked at or treated differently because of their physical size. All of these things are not made apparent by stepping on a scale!0 -
I don' t think your average obese person is fretting about what the scale says; they are worried about their health, fitting into clothes, having mobility to lead a happy life, not being looked at or treated differently because of their physical size.
And all of these they can achieve. Through a calorie deficit.
/thread0 -
0
-
0
-
This content has been removed.
-
great study, will definitely book mark that one...0
-
paganstar - since you appear to have so much knowledge on this subject, I have a simple question for you. what would you recommend to a beginner the best way to lose weight?0
-
it actually is as simple as a deficit. if you burn 1800 in a day, and consume less, you will lose weight. if you dont, you are in 1 of 2 categories... number 1, and the most obvious... your doing something wrong!!! either under estimating your intake or overestimating your burn, maybe not logging everything, not measuring or weighing everything, or logging the wrong items... or, the 2nd option, you are one of those with a medical condition, such as thyoid issus, which, while possible, is usually not the case if up until now you have not been diagnosed due to other signs and symptoms...
its very simple, calories in / energy out.
maintain a deficit, A REAL DEFICIT, and you will lose.
It will work if you have the hormonal machinery working to liberate the fatty acids from your fat cells. In the example above, assume you had been eating and burning 1800 day. Then you decide to eat 1400 a day - you should have a 400 calorie deficit, right? But if your fat metabolism is screwed up and you can only release 200 calories from your fat cells, your metabolism is going to drop to 1600 and you won't lose any weight. Now the person who goes to the doctor with this problem is going to be told that they are probably not counting calories right, they should exercise more, etc.....0 -
So in your example, you're eating 1400 calories and burning 1600 calories.It will work if you have the hormonal machinery working to liberate the fatty acids from your fat cells. In the example above, assume you had been eating and burning 1800 day. Then you decide to eat 1400 a day - you should have a 400 calorie deficit, right? But if your fat metabolism is screwed up and you can only release 200 calories from your fat cells, your metabolism is going to drop to 1600 and you won't lose any weight. Now the person who goes to the doctor with this problem is going to be told that they are probably not counting calories right, they should exercise more, etc.....
You have a deficit of 200.
Why won't you lose weight? Where do the other 200 calories you burn come from?0 -
There is certainly anecdotal evidence that reducing carbohydrates allows people to lose weight while having more energy and being able to eat a similar number of calories than they did previously (though obviously not as extreme as the numbers above - they are for illustration). And there are a few scientific studies that one’s metabolism increases with a lower carb diet.
No not really. It's been quiet effectively knocked down.
http://anthonycolpo.com/finally-a-study-that-proves-a-low-carb-metabolic-advantage-yeah-right/
I don't think he effectively knocked anything down.
He pointed out that not every single subject in the experiment had the same results - wow.
Then he said that the low-carb subjects had slightly higher cortisol levels than the others- CRP level of .87 (low carb) to .78 (low fat). Supposedly this is a big disaster. Note that prior to the study, the subjects had an average of 1.75 (with a range of .4 to 4.6). Doesn't seem to be a very significant finding.
Apart from those two observations of the actual studies, a lot of ranting about low-carb and how there are no studies that show any advantages.0 -
wow.0
-
it actually is as simple as a deficit. if you burn 1800 in a day, and consume less, you will lose weight. if you dont, you are in 1 of 2 categories... number 1, and the most obvious... your doing something wrong!!! either under estimating your intake or overestimating your burn, maybe not logging everything, not measuring or weighing everything, or logging the wrong items... or, the 2nd option, you are one of those with a medical condition, such as thyoid issus, which, while possible, is usually not the case if up until now you have not been diagnosed due to other signs and symptoms...
its very simple, calories in / energy out.
maintain a deficit, A REAL DEFICIT, and you will lose.
It will work if you have the hormonal machinery working to liberate the fatty acids from your fat cells. In the example above, assume you had been eating and burning 1800 day. Then you decide to eat 1400 a day - you should have a 400 calorie deficit, right? But if your fat metabolism is screwed up and you can only release 200 calories from your fat cells, your metabolism is going to drop to 1600 and you won't lose any weight. Now the person who goes to the doctor with this problem is going to be told that they are probably not counting calories right, they should exercise more, etc.....
But you see... It doesn't work that way. Because science.0 -
This thread is still going? Ugh.0
-
This thread is still going? Ugh.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I was honestly just thinking the same thing. That is why I came in here.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions