It's NOT always as simple as a deficit

angdpowers

And every single one of you has missed the point of the post.

There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.

I'm with you ... they were all missing the point of the post!
I agree with you. It simply is NOT all about intake vs output or calories in vs out.

The book "Why we get fat" is soooo good.

Loosing weight is NEVER black and white ... ppl who think so are well ... mistaken.

cafeaulait7

But if the OP does have PCOS (and insulin resistance), then carbs are a key factor in reasonable weight loss for most people with that condition. Not just a calorie deficit -- specifically carbs. For folks without a condition, I can see where carbs don't matter.

So the OP isn't a special snowflake or breaking any laws of physics. She just has a known condition with known remedies. (Yawn ).

I have a condition (type 2 diabetic) and don't avoid carbs as a matter of fact they have and still do make up the largest part of my macro's, in the end after trial in error with logging, weighing, and measuring my food to find my deficit range, it came down to calories in vs calories out which is the only true way to lose weight whether you have a so called condition or not...

Do you take insulin-sensitizing meds like Metformin? That really helps the metabolism of carbs, since that what it's supposed to do and all

LiftAllThePizzas

Wait... When did "equals" stop meaning "equals"?

Cat.gif

I had to look up the second law to see if it was what I thought it was. It is and I'm more confused on how that applies to raising the temperature of 1g of water 1 degree Celsius DOES NOT EQUAL raising the temperature of 1g of water 1 degree Celsius. Keep in mind I only took the minimum of science required for high school graduation.

Are you suggesting that if you take 3500 grams of water and raise its temperature by one degree celsius, it will gain one pound because you added 3500 calories to it?

QuietBloom

OK, I'm still IN. To learn more about how a calorie deficit will not result in weight loss.

sarafischbach9

It's true. Everyone is so different. We all burn calories differently. And certain things will work for one person and not for another.

Eating at a deficit and exercising has always worked for me. But having too much of a deficit has been a bad thing for me in the past. I'm more likely to plateau if I eat too little ( too much of a deficit... usually like more than 1000 calories )

kaotik26

I think that a calorie deficit will create weight loss, but I also believe that a deficit along with healthier non processed foods is a better weight loss. What's the point of losing all that weight just to find out that your heart is going berserk due to eating high sodium foods? Or having low energy because you ate at your goal for the day already but you only got to eat 4 things that were higher in calories instead of eating 15 things that were low calorie and better nutrients?

eric_sg61

This thread just keeps delivering the gold lol

sun_fish

But if the OP does have PCOS (and insulin resistance), then carbs are a key factor in reasonable weight loss for most people with that condition. Not just a calorie deficit -- specifically carbs. For folks without a condition, I can see where carbs don't matter.

So the OP isn't a special snowflake or breaking any laws of physics. She just has a known condition with known remedies. (Yawn ).

Surprise medical condition not mentioned in the OP ftw!

Be careful about mentioning she has PCOS - I did and got scolded by OP and her white knight for bringing it up (she said she had it in another topic). Apparently her having PCOS had nothing to do with this topic......

juiletflt

Anyone ever read Dr. Suess's The Butter Battle Book? Just curious.

geebusuk

I think that a calorie deficit will create weight loss, but I also believe that a deficit along with healthier non processed foods is a better weight loss. What's the point of losing all that weight just to find out that your heart is going berserk due to eating high sodium foods? Or having low energy because you ate at your goal for the day already but you only got to eat 4 things that were higher in calories instead of eating 15 things that were low calorie and better nutrients?

I did worse doing the 'non processed foods' thing?
Why, because that was when I wasn't nearly as well researched and had believed the unsupported stuff I'd read like that and others.
With more general research I'm both better at losing weight AND not scared of specific types of food.
High energy density can be bad, but can also occur in non-processed foods. Infact, I choose a lot of foods that have had extra processing because they are less calorie dense.
My heart has never 'gone beserk' eating high sodium and my blood pressure is in the ideal range.

sarahmichel101

Everyone is unique and there are certainly people that do have medical issues that create problems.

On the other hand, the point about people eating more than they think is valid more often than not. For instance, I know that when I pour a bowl of cereal in the morning, the serving size is 3/4 of cereal and 1 cup of milk. The reality is that is often closer to 1 cup of cereal and 1 1/4 cups of milk. By doing that, my breakfast is now 330 calories instead of 260. When I eat a banana for a snack in the morning, do I select the wrong one and end up with an extra 30 calories? When I'm eating dinner, do I write down 1 1/2 cups instead of the 2 cups of whatever I'm eating and underestimate by 100 calories? At that point, even though it's only minor differences, I'm off by half of my deficit for the day. Eat a snack because I was good all day and than I'm at such a small deficit that it will take months to notice much of a difference. Some people throw in a cheat day once a week and by doing that, they will never lose weight and they will say that they don't know why.

The honest truth is that someone who is significantly overweight is that they have demonstrated a history of lacking discipline when it comes to food. It is incredibly difficult to break that cycle and they do need support, but it's important that they really look at what they are eating. Again, I say that knowing that some people are screwed by medical conditions that change the math completely.

My first suggestion to the issues brought up here is weigh everything. Just last week I bought popcorn that said 4 cups (which was a certain amount of grams) was a certain amount of calories. I measured the 3 cups and when I weighed it, it weighed almost 1.5 times what the serving size is. I weigh everything I can due to this. Maybe try to do the same?

As for a cheat day once a week, will it really result in not losing weight? Think of a user on here who wants to lose 2 lbs a week, That means that MFP has created a 7000 calorie deficit in their calories per week. Is a person chooses on a particular day each week they will go 500, of even 1000 calories over (thats a BIG treat), then shouldn't a person still lose 1.7ish lbs a week? I have a cheat day every week, but all that this means for me is that I eat my exercise calories on this one day. I know some people cheat and go above their calories on one day, but will this ruin the other 3 days at a 1000 deficit?

paganstar71

No, actually. There isn't any evidence that that is true. Low carbing nets you more up front loss, but that is mostly water weight. In the end, either method is equally effective.

And now, really out!

So I didn't misquote you or misunderstand your reference to macros then, when I was asked:

Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?

CyberEd312

But if the OP does have PCOS (and insulin resistance), then carbs are a key factor in reasonable weight loss for most people with that condition. Not just a calorie deficit -- specifically carbs. For folks without a condition, I can see where carbs don't matter.

So the OP isn't a special snowflake or breaking any laws of physics. She just has a known condition with known remedies. (Yawn ).

I have a condition (type 2 diabetic) and don't avoid carbs as a matter of fact they have and still do make up the largest part of my macro's, in the end after trial in error with logging, weighing, and measuring my food to find my deficit range, it came down to calories in vs calories out which is the only true way to lose weight whether you have a so called condition or not...

Do you take insulin-sensitizing meds like Metformin? That really helps the metabolism of carbs, since that what it's supposed to do and all

Yes I still take metformin because my Endocrinologist believes that its benefits is that it protects the remaining receptor that didn't initially burn up when I became type 2 diabetic and by doing so I may prolong the eventual use of insulin once those remaining receptor burnout. But had I known all I had to do was take Metformin to lose weight and not eat at a deficit and exercise and track/log all my intake, it would have made losing 300+ lbs. alot easier.... Who knew.... :-)

MGrock75

Calorie deficit will work regardless of the medical condition, but you need to consult with a doctor first to ensure that the weight loss will occur from where you want it and to get tips on how to get ther efficiently.

I have Klinefelter's Syndrome, consequently I carry fat distribution very differently to the "normal" population. For me, I carry virtually no fat on my limbs apart from a small amount at the very tops of my arms and legs. More than 95% of my fat is concentrated between my hips and upper chest.. The demarcation between where I hold weight and not is such that when I started medication an stacked on 30+kg I only changed up one trouser size. Previous testing by my doctor and through other medical tests has shown that most of that fat is located under the muscle in the abdomen around the organs. Apart from the obvious heal issues relating to this it makes the fat very hard to move.

Part of treatment to manage my symptoms requires me to take a strong hormone replacement medication which is targeted at trying to balance my body chemistry and maintain my muscular-skeletal system. Without this medication I waste both muscle and bone (irreversible at my age). The medication also slows my metabolism and promotes weight gain. On consultation with my doctor about weight loss I was given the following advice:
- take my weight down slowly to ensure that I am taking off fat rather than muscle;
- I cannot afford to remove dairy products from my diet as the loss of calcium would be very detrimental;
- due to the medication weight loss will be all over the place.

My experience is that the when I take the medication I gain weight with no change in what I am doing, this is apparently due to fluid retention as the medication is absorbed over a 3 to 4 day period. Then the weight starts to come off. It means that rather than steadily losing weight I get a stepping type result, but the key is that through each cycle the weight is coming down.

If the deficit is not working talk to a doctor and understand the underlying medical condition. It may be a case that you are loosing fat, but retaining fluids or other secondary reactions because you are not managing your diet as you need to and maybe there is medication that can help to manage the underlying problem which will make the process easier.

QuietBloom

No, actually. There isn't any evidence that that is true. Low carbing nets you more up front loss, but that is mostly water weight. In the end, either method is equally effective.

And now, really out!

So I didn't misquote you or misunderstand your reference to macros then, when I was asked:

Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?

It depends on if you are talking about weight loss only. For weight loss only, the only thing that matters is that you be in a calorie deficit (see 'The Twinkie Diet). If you want a nice end result, then macros matter a great deal.

kgeyser

I think that a calorie deficit will create weight loss, but I also believe that a deficit along with healthier non processed foods is a better weight loss. What's the point of losing all that weight just to find out that your heart is going berserk due to eating high sodium foods? Or having low energy because you ate at your goal for the day already but you only got to eat 4 things that were higher in calories instead of eating 15 things that were low calorie and better nutrients?

A person can eat processed foods and still stay within the healthy range for sodium. A person can also eat processed foods and still eat plenty of food, meet your nutrient needs, stay within your calorie goals, and have plenty of energy. If you prefer to choose non-processed foods over processed ones, that's fine, but people who do not use the same approach are not necessarily going to end up nutrient-deficient, passed out on the side of the road with heart issues. There are plenty of processed foods that are also healthy foods.

CompressedCarbon

I have a condition (type 2 diabetic) and don't avoid carbs as a matter of fact they have and still do make up the largest part of my macro's, in the end after trial in error with logging, weighing, and measuring my food to find my deficit range, it came down to calories in vs calories out which is the only true way to lose weight whether you have a so called condition or not...

This guy, take a look at his ticker. He might possibly know what he is talking about. And by that I mean, listen to him, he knows what he is talking about.

I AM a snowflake, see profile pic to prove it, and sadly, there is no magic formula for me either. I've found it to be just what Ed has already explained. CICO.

vjohn04

But if the OP does have PCOS (and insulin resistance), then carbs are a key factor in reasonable weight loss for most people with that condition. Not just a calorie deficit -- specifically carbs. For folks without a condition, I can see where carbs don't matter.

So the OP isn't a special snowflake or breaking any laws of physics. She just has a known condition with known remedies. (Yawn ).

Surprise medical condition not mentioned in the OP ftw!

^this

jofjltncb6

And every single one of you has missed the point of the post.

There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.

I'm with you ... they were all missing the point of the post!
I agree with you. It simply is NOT all about intake vs output or calories in vs out.

The book "Why we get fat" is soooo good.

Loosing weight is NEVER black and white ... ppl who think so are well ... mistaken.

"NEVER black and white"? Really?

I've deliberately moved my weight in a range of almost 40 pounds in the past two years and it very tightly fits a predictive model of a surplus/deficit of 3500 calories = an increase/decrease of a pound of body weight. Two+ years of consistent and accurate logging gives me the information I need to know/verify that. (I suspect this kind of data would be useful for others too if they would only take the time and make the consistent effort to create their own set of data over a sufficient period of time.)

crazybostondriver

I totally agree with you! There are definately conditions/illnesses that make losing weight more difficult. Keep the faith and don't give up. It just takes longer for some folks than other.