It's NOT always as simple as a deficit

sarahmichel101

I know this has all been said before but I want to voice myself also!
I do believe it is calorie in and calorie out to lose weight. Create a deficit and the weight will be lost. However, I do know it is harder for some to burn calories than others. And for certain people, calories from different sources are easier to burn. This site is so good, but it does tend to unfairly put everyone into tidy boxes.

As an example I swam laps for 55 minutes. For my stats MFP said that I burned 811 calories. Really MFP!? I cant imagine this is true, because it is saying that my net calories for the day is 400 I am very comfortable in the hunger category. Maybe I don't burn calories as fast as other people my size?

What I have to say to the original poster is I encourage you and respect what you are trying! I applaud you for eating things that are better for you and hope you do not choose to eat when you are not hungry. Learn your body and if it is not saying you need calories, listen to it over MFP.

eric_sg61

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

Taubes LOL
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

Myhaloslipped

Just peeking in here.

magerum

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.

Wait!






Is that cat panting?

QuietBloom

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

Taubes LOL
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

*Runs off to check her bingo card*

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

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.... :-)

Hee! Nope, not just the Metformin. There are a lot of folks who get disappointed that just popping the pill doesn't make the weight fly off

For me, I was in a deficit and losing, just quite slowly, and then the pill kind of supercharged my metabolism (insulin/carb metabolism at least). I never expected faster weight loss, because I always lose weight fine -- just slowly.

wanna_b_there

This entire study is essentially making a strawman out of the energy balance concept:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/


It's been well known for a while now that each macronutrient has a different thermic effect and is utilized differently. Isocaloric diets with different macronutrient composition do not show identical results and we've known this for a while now. EDIT: Important clarification -- typically protein isn't held constant in many of these comparisons.

This doesn't invalidate calories in vs out. These differences are in the "out" side of the equation.


Now as it pertains to the original topic ---

There's certainly merit to the idea that different macronutrient profiles are going to have an effect on how the individual performs, feels, and adheres to their energy intake. There could be minor differences in energy output and certainly massive differences in mood and how you feel.

But none of this means that a calorie isn't a calorie.

1) You are required to create and maintain an energy deficit in order to lose weight.
2) Even these metabolic differences do not change the value of a calorie.

Yes, that means you who believes you are special and that calorie deficits don't apply to you -- they do. Do you do better on a low carb diet? You might have much better dietary adherence and blunted hunger signaling which leads you to long term compliance which leads you to greater fat loss. But you are still required to be in an energy deficit. This isn't optional and none of the above invalidates a calorie being a calorie.

Regarding the logging issue, we have ample data showing that people routinely eat more than they log even under conditions where people are trained properly on how to log and under conditions where these people know they are being monitored for logging accuracy. They still over-eat, by a significant amount. It stands to reason that the average person who is NOT trained and is NOT being monitored, probably does this to a greater degree.

Combine estimation errors with nibbles of this or that, and add to it licking the peanut butter spoon, and these calories add up. Now take this type of thing and instead of looking at a day or a week, look at 6 months. Add to it the number of unlogged meals or entire days in that 6 month period, and the number of "taking a day off of my diet" days in that period, and you'll see many, many people eating much closer to maintenance than their supposed dietary intake, which may not be correct in the first place.

This does not make anyone a liar, a thief, a bandit, or any other insulting word you can think of. It is not intellectually dishonest, but it still happens.

SideSteel

One might vary macronutrient intake to increase performance, improve dietary adherence, maximize muscle retention, blunt hunger, increase enjoyment of the overall diet due to taste preferences.. These would be some reasons to change macronutrient composition.

Good valid reasons, why not to also improve weightloss?

[/quote]

Improved weightloss would result as a byproduct of above factors unless we're comparing significantly unmatched protein intake. For the majority of people, especially those who are savvy to their dietary intake, minor adjustments in macronutrients aren't going to make enough of an impact in DIT.

Even though there is plenty of science that suggests low carb is more effective for weightloss than low fat.

Is there "plenty of science" showing that when you compare two isocaloric diets where energy input and output is tightly regulated/monitored, and you match protein intake that the low carb treatment offers significantly better fat loss over time?

TattooedNici

The best support is to suggest the most logical course of action, such weighing your food, logging accurately etc, as that is most often where the issues lie. To flirt around the edges of the problem, will often only make the problem worse.

I am guilty of this.

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?

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.

Well yes, in terms of this thread topic, weight loss is what we are talking about.

With regards to the Twinkie Diet you cannot claim he was eating an unbalanced mix of macros http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/diary/who/haub/ as he ate a fair mix of foods, not just Twinkies. For a man the diet is VLC and I have never said weight loss does not correlate with calorie deficit!

However macros are metabolised and affect satiety levels differently.

julieferg7

For me, it wasn't just looking at the calorie deficit but making sure the calories that I ate hit my macros. If I ate ate the desired calories but didn't hit 40-30-30- my weight loss didn't happen. And on days with lots of exercise I ate over my calorie allotment here and there throughout the process. Many people I see here hit their numbers but the components of their intake is way off balance.....way over on sugars and carbs and way under on protein and fiber. I do believe it is attention to detail and not just eating at a calorie deficit that keeps the machine running smoothly . Stress also wreaks havoc on our system as well. I believe that there is no one formula for everyone.

^^^This!!

I have, when in my early twenties successfully lost weight with Weight Watchers, when it was their "Selection" type plan. But once I hit 26, something changed and (I was quite detail oriented and a very conscientious weigher/measurer). At the age of 28, I was diagnosed as being Insulin Resistant and was told to go light on the complex carbs by the Endocrinologist. She believed that the issue probably began at around the age of 26 due to the prevailing low fat high carb diets I was following and that they typically do not work well for folks with IR. Now, though being on metformin to sensitize to insulin and eating lower carb, I am seeing the weight come off faster than it has in years!

While some can happily and easily lose weight eating 200 g or more in carbs, that amount would turn me into a diabetic in no time flat!

TomfromNY

Here’s a thought experiment.

Suppose there is a person in perfect calorie balance at 2000 calories per day. Then the person comes down with some metabolic problem in which their body will store on a daily average 500 calories worth of fatty acids in their fat cells - this problem also prevents this energy from leaving the fat cells.

What will happen next?
1 - The person feels hungry because they only have 1500 calories to burn and their body is accustomed to burning 2000. So they eat 2500 - they’ll gain 1 pound per week
2 - The person counts their calories meticulously and forces themselves to eat only 2000. As their body has only 1500 to burn, their resting metabolism will slow, they’ll be unable to perform the exercise that they normally do, they will feel lethargic both physically and mentally. They will still gain 1 pound per week
Or it may be some combination of the two.

Now this weight gain follows the laws of thermodynamics, calories in / calories out, etc….

However, is the cause of this weight gain the fact that they ate more calories than they burned? When someone on this forum tells them they need to reduce calories or increase energy expenditures, does that advice provide any practical benefit in this situation?

The person isn’t getting fatter because they are consuming more calories than they are burning. They are consuming more calories than they are burning because they are getting fatter.

Now this is a pretty extreme example (for illustrative purposes). However, I think that more scientific study needs to be done on fat metabolism and what additional advice we could give people beyond ‘eat less, burn more’. That advice is not working for many, many people

Now lets think of the opposite case. Suppose there is an obese person who is in caloric balance at 2500 calories a day. They undergo some metabolic change in which their body removes 500 calories a day from their fat cells and prevents this fat from re-entering the cells. What happens?

1 - They feel less hungry and eat 2000 calories a day and continue to burn 2500 - they lose a pound a week
2 - They continue to eat 2500 but with the extra 500 from their fat cells, their resting metabolism rises, they have tremendous physical and mental energy and they burn 3000 (how could they not - thermodynamics and so on) - they lose a pound a week

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.

In any case, there needs to be much more scientific research and not just tell people to get in a caloric deficit - hopefully by studying fat metabolism we can provide practical advice on how to achieve this.

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.... :-)

Hee! Nope, not just the Metformin. There are a lot of folks who get disappointed that just popping the pill doesn't make the weight fly off

For me, I was in a deficit and losing, just quite slowly, and then the pill kind of supercharged my metabolism (insulin/carb metabolism at least). I never expected faster weight loss, because I always lose weight fine -- just slowly.

Personally I have never felt any advantages or benefits from taking it, only time I felt anything from any meds, was when I had to be taken off my glipizide after about 5 months in to my weightloss because my blood sugar was dropping down into the 30's and was experiencing dizziness, and darn near fainting spells... but I have never felt any benefits from taking the metformin. I will put more faith into my 4 years (3 in weightloss mode, and 1 in maintenance) solely on my logging, weighing and measuring my food, and exercising.

nikkihk

I agree. I see more weight loss in the weeks I do not eat processed foods. I can eat more calories in foods with less processing and lose more weight than weeks when I eat processed foods and less calories. So I can understand how what you eat makes more of a difference than the calorie deficit.

^^ This makes no sense.

sarahmichel101

I agree. I see more weight loss in the weeks I do not eat processed foods. I can eat more calories in foods with less processing and lose more weight than weeks when I eat processed foods and less calories. So I can understand how what you eat makes more of a difference than the calorie deficit.

^^ This makes no sense.

Do you think it may have to do with salt and water retention? Processed food has A LOT more salt. Doesn't having a lot of sodium result in keeping more water?

LiftAllThePizzas

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.)

Although it only takes one example to refute "never," I gotta say I've done the same, in both directions while cutting and bulking. It works every time.

jonnythan

OP has only been logging for 2-3 weeks. When were all these "weeks" where she at processed food but didn't lose weight?

LiftAllThePizzas

I know this has all been said before but I want to voice myself also!
I do believe it is calorie in and calorie out to lose weight. Create a deficit and the weight will be lost. However, I do know it is harder for some to burn calories than others. And for certain people, calories from different sources are easier to burn. This site is so good, but it does tend to unfairly put everyone into tidy boxes.

As an example I swam laps for 55 minutes. For my stats MFP said that I burned 811 calories. Really MFP!? I cant imagine this is true, because it is saying that my net calories for the day is 400 I am very comfortable in the hunger category. Maybe I don't burn calories as fast as other people my size?

What I have to say to the original poster is I encourage you and respect what you are trying! I applaud you for eating things that are better for you and hope you do not choose to eat when you are not hungry. Learn your body and if it is not saying you need calories, listen to it over MFP.

Undereating and malnutrition can cause loss of appetite and mess with your hunger signals. So "I'm not hungry" doesn't prove anything.

ndj1979

OP has only been logging for 2-3 weeks. When were all these "weeks" where she at processed food but didn't lose weight?

honestly, I think all that got buried under an avalanche of snowflakes clamming they were exempt from calories in vs calories out….

sarahmichel101

I know this has all been said before but I want to voice myself also!
I do believe it is calorie in and calorie out to lose weight. Create a deficit and the weight will be lost. However, I do know it is harder for some to burn calories than others. And for certain people, calories from different sources are easier to burn. This site is so good, but it does tend to unfairly put everyone into tidy boxes.

As an example I swam laps for 55 minutes. For my stats MFP said that I burned 811 calories. Really MFP!? I cant imagine this is true, because it is saying that my net calories for the day is 400 I am very comfortable in the hunger category. Maybe I don't burn calories as fast as other people my size?

What I have to say to the original poster is I encourage you and respect what you are trying! I applaud you for eating things that are better for you and hope you do not choose to eat when you are not hungry. Learn your body and if it is not saying you need calories, listen to it over MFP.

Undereating and malnutrition can cause loss of appetite and mess with your hunger signals. So "I'm not hungry" doesn't prove anything.

I don't really think this was the point of what I was saying. I still encourage tracking and following a healthy guideline. This comment referred to calories given from exercise, and something to use your digression with. If you get to the end of the day and panic eat because there are 1000 calories left on top of the calories youve already eaten, you might want to follow your hunger instead of your mfp. It isn't trying to prove anything, but with him eating 2000 or whatever a day plus his calories I don't believe he is under eating. Im not an expert and my advice isnt pushy or law....just something to think about.