It's NOT always as simple as a deficit

Rachelmilloy

In to read later, thanks!

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.

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.

I was addressing your statement that you netted 400 calories for the day but were not hungry. BTW I burn about 5-600 calories an hour swimming at a moderate effort. So 800 might be reasonable depending on your size and intensity.

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.

I was addressing your statement that you netted 400 calories for the day but were not hungry. BTW I burn about 5-600 calories an hour swimming at a moderate effort. So 800 might be reasonable depending on your size and intensity.

Ok. Pinky promise I wont get undernourished.

iballin

it is all about a deficit, but if someone is insulin resistant and lets say they lose weight at 1500 cals. on a keto diet.. well if they eat 1500 cals of straight carbs believe me, it will not be the exact same weight loss if any with the exact same calories... science does back that insulin resistance will turn carbs to fat, in an insulin resistant person, not all but most, where as they will use dietary fat as energy. so a deficit is not always the same deficit depending on macro make up.. insulin resistance is real. but if there in a overall deficit even with carbs, theyll lose weight, but 1500 cals from carbs, for 1500 cals from fat/protein is different in an resistant individual.

snikkins

If anything, calorie counting and CICO is what helped me get my hypothyroidism in check. When I decided I wanted to lose weight, it occurred to me to get my thyroid levels checked again because I had been somewhat negligent in keeping tabs on it. After the results came back, my dosage was upped from 88mcg (levothyroxine) to 125mcg. I had just started logging consistently, but I will admit I fell into "Woo! 1200 calories for 2 pounds of loss per week is totally doable!" group; I definitely know now that it isn't (I've tried doing it for kicks and giggles, and always end up hungry). Let me tell you, the weight was dropping off. It was great! Instead of losing 2 pounds per week, I was between 2-3! I had begun exercising again and just figured that I was doing a "better job" than what was logged.

Nope.

At the next blood test, it turned out that 125mcg had essentially made my hyperthyroid, so all the weight loss wasn't from me "being good" or any such reason I had attributed. My doctor bumped me down to 100mcg for the next three months, and it was awful. I looked back on the times of being hyperthyroid fondly. Yeah, I might have had some trouble sleeping, but at least I had energy and the weight was falling off. Despite logging thoroughly every last thing I ate, I gained and lost the same 2-5 pounds over and over again while on the 100mcg dosage. Of course, this was about a pound away from breaking the 200 mark, so it was pretty discouraging. But I knew I was doing all the "right" things. When I realized it wasn't enough food, I had already upped my calorie intake from the 1200 calorie suggestion of MFP to the 1 pound per week setting. I was always hovering right around my goal, so I should have been losing something. When my doctor called with the blood test results after the three months with 100mcg prescription, I was on the high end of normal, but I felt like hell. I wasn't losing weight any more, I was sluggish, discouraged; you name it, I was probably it. So, i asked if there was a dosage between the two. Lo and behold! There was. I'm now on 112mcg and losing weight at the expected pace. Is it always exactly 1 pound? Nope! Sometimes a little under, sometimes a little over, but it's a consistent loss. At this point, I should probably add that I didn't do anything differently macro wise with my food until very recently, so that didn't affect the stalled or started again weight loss.

TL;DR (anecdote edition): I have one of those "special snowflake" conditions (hypothyroidism), which was able to be handled better by me and my doctor because CICO is how this game is played. :drinker:

Edited because I'm a bad at computers.

EvgeniZyntx

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/

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.

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?

Perhaps? But that has nothing to do with fat loss. What I said makes no sense was the statement, " I can understand how what you eat makes more of a difference than the calorie deficit." That's completely untrue. Calorie deficit IS the cause for fat loss, how you achieve that deficit has far less affect then the deficit itself. If you ate three times your maintenance in bananas and granola what is the body going to do with the extra calories...? Science says slap it on your butt.. no matter how "healthy" it is. Not to mention, having that diet long term will damage your organs due to lack of proper nutrients. You'd lose muscle mass too... I think peoples perception of "healthy" is all out of wack.

DawnieB1977

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I do think everyone WILL lose at a deficit, they have to, BUT some people lose a lot faster than others.

I started losing weight July 2011 when my 2nd child was 8 weeks old. I'd gained a lot in pregnancy through not being as careful with eating as usual (as I was eating 1200 calories a day before as I was losing weight after my first child) and not going the gym (I had been going 5 times a week). So I started off eating 1200 calories a day, as I thought then that's what I should do, and exercising 5 times a week, as well as taking my 2 year old and baby out pretty much every single day to the park, on the seafront, soft play etc.

I didn't lose at a fast rate at all, but I did lose. When I finally got to MFP and worked out my TDEE it was over 2000, and that was when i weighed a lot less. So, eating 1200, plus burning say 350+ calories per exercise session, was creating a huge deficit. So, according to all the theories, I should've lost loads on that sort of deficit. I did eventually lose 67lbs, but it took me nearly 2 years!

My better weight loss happened after the first year of weight loss when I joined MFP, worked out my TDEE, ate more, and decreased my deficit.

As for the carbs thing...I lose faster if I don't eat many carbs. I tried to follow the slimming world plan for a while a few years ago, but barely lost a thing. As soon as I stopped with the pasta, weight loss improved. It works for some, but not for me.

We ARE all different, and what work for one peson will not work for another. Some people can lose on a diet of junk food. I know if I ate McDonald's and pizza every day, I'd be absolutely huge!

I'm pregnant now and the calculators suggest I should be eating around 2300 calories as i still exercise, look after 2 kids, and work asa teacher. I know, for me, if I eat that many calories I'll pile on weight, despite my activity level. I read the pregnancy threads and there are women who have barely gained a thing in pregnancy. So I look at their food diaries. Far less healthy than mine.

So, the trick is to know your own body and know what works for you, because we're not all the same.

davepearson86

Disagree with OP, in for support but if it's not coming off you're almost always way underestimating calorie intake.

ashleyjade57

I use a heart rate monitor to measure my calories and I find that the myfitnesspal calculations can sometimes be completely off.

NatashaTwersky

for me i had to eat more calories to lose weight....at 1200 calories a day was too low for me which put my body in starvation mode which can slow down weight loss. I now eat 1600 calories a day and when i exercise i eat the calories i've burned off to net 1600 calories a day. Working well for me!

RunMyOregonBunsOff

A few years back I was eating 1400 to 1700 cal a day and working out for at lest 2 hours a day plus was on my feet all day at work and I was still gaining weight. Turns out my thyroid functions was very low. Pretty much the only people that eating at a deficit doesn't work for are people with medical issues. Other wise probably not weighing, measuring or logging correctly. Not everybody should be doing the 1200 cal a day thing either though. I really wish MFP had a TDEE and a BMR calculator when you set up your account and would keep you in between the two numbers. Seems like it would cut out a lot of confusion.

bathedinshadow

I can't believe how many people on this site seriously believe "a calorie is a calorie." That is no true. Yes, a deficit is all you need to lose weight… AT FIRST. This is true when you have a lot of weight to lose. But if you're like me, it is always about 3-5 lbs of weight.

I can eat at a calorie deficit, meticulously weighing my food and I will NOT lose weight. And I have done this for months on end with no result. I have maybe 5 pounds to lose to where I would be at about 17%BF we (me and my trainer) figure. Those final pounds are incredibly difficult to lose and a deficit does not result in that for everybody, and certainly not me. I fluctuate between where I am now and 5 lbs less and it is purely based on what I eat. It doesn't matter how much I exercise or workout or how many calories in deficit I am. It is completely about not eating processed foods, too much sugar, too much salt, etc. FOR ME.

I find it hilarious how many of you seem to think you are the expert on this topic. If a deficit gets you to where you want to be, then great. I'm glad that works for you. But it will not work for everybody. And for so many of you to come on here state so a matter of fact like… well you have no credibility. Different foods are digested differently by different people. If that weren't true, then why does broccoli turn my best friends stomach upside down? If that weren't true, then I could sit here and eat a whole avocado without feeling like a knife is going through me. So how could you even begin to think that digestion doesn't play into this in terms of weight loss? And for so many of you to completely disregard that and act like a "calorie is a calorie" for everybody, well maybe you need to speak to a respected nutritionist. Or maybe several.

Thankfully I understand MY body and know how to get it where I want it, because it would seem pretty gloomy if I had to rely on the "expertise" of the people posting in this thread. I'd be sitting here eating bread and drink soda wondering why I can't lose weight even though I was very carefully counting my calories.

So to the OP, you're absolutely right and don't let the last 11 pages of completely madness get to you. Deficits are great and probably worked for you to a point. And if they don't anymore, then you figure out what does. For those that it's as simple as a deficit, well lucky them.

RunMyOregonBunsOff

I can't believe how many people on this site seriously believe "a calorie is a calorie." That is no true. Yes, a deficit is all you need to lose weight… AT FIRST. This is true when you have a lot of weight to lose. But if you're like me, it is always about 3-5 lbs of weight.

I can eat at a calorie deficit, meticulously weighing my food and I will NOT lose weight. And I have done this for months on end with no result. I have maybe 5 pounds to lose to where I would be at about 17%BF we (me and my trainer) figure. Those final pounds are incredibly difficult to lose and a deficit does not result in that for everybody, and certainly not me. I fluctuate between where I am now and 5 lbs less and it is purely based on what I eat. It doesn't matter how much I exercise or workout or how many calories in deficit I am. It is completely about not eating processed foods, too much sugar, too much salt, etc. FOR ME.

I find it hilarious how many of you seem to think you are the expert on this topic. If a deficit gets you to where you want to be, then great. I'm glad that works for you. But it will not work for everybody. And for so many of you to come on here state so a matter of fact like… well you have no credibility. Different foods are digested differently by different people. If that weren't true, then why does broccoli turn my best friends stomach upside down? If that weren't true, then I could sit here and eat a whole avocado without feeling like a knife is going through me. So how could you even begin to think that digestion doesn't play into this in terms of weight loss? And for so many of you to completely disregard that and act like a "calorie is a calorie" for everybody, well maybe you need to speak to a respected nutritionist. Or maybe several.

Thankfully I understand MY body and know how to get it where I want it, because it would seem pretty gloomy if I had to rely on the "expertise" of the people posting in this thread. I'd be sitting here eating bread and drink soda wondering why I can't lose weight even though I was very carefully counting my calories.

So to the OP, you're absolutely right and don't let the last 11 pages of completely madness get to you. Deficits are great and probably worked for you to a point. And if they don't anymore, then you figure out what does. For those that it's as simple as a deficit, well lucky them.

The last few lbs are a little different though because of typical fluctuations and just the fact that our bodies want a little padding for when food is scarce. Most of us don't go several months with a lack of food though. Of course, I am not an expert. I'm just happy to be figuring out what works for me, which is have the proper balance for my thyroid meds and eating a reasonable deficit, drinking plenty of water, trying to avoid stress and getting plenty of exercise.

EvgeniZyntx

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?

Perhaps? But that has nothing to do with fat loss. What I said makes no sense was the statement, " I can understand how what you eat makes more of a difference than the calorie deficit." That's completely untrue. Calorie deficit IS the cause for fat loss, how you achieve that deficit has far less affect then the deficit itself. If you ate three times your maintenance in bananas and granola what is the body going to do with the extra calories...? Science says slap it on your butt.. no matter how "healthy" it is. Not to mention, having that diet long term will damage your organs due to lack of proper nutrients. You'd lose muscle mass too... I think peoples perception of "healthy" is all out of wack.

I can explain some of that perceived variability - if, while eating processed food you consume more carbohydrates (and sodium, but to a lesser degree) some of the weight gain will be glucose sheathing. Glucose storage in tissue requires water, is a rapid uptake process and last several days as stores are maintained while sodium edema is really a much faster clearance process (hours).

So yes, even at a significant calorie deficit, it is possible to increase weight from glucose loading in a person who has depleted glucose stores. This is particularly easy to see in people that are afraid of so-called "bad carbs" and eat low carb. Add a little sugar to their diet and they will tell you they "bloat-up" from what is a natural storage process and are "carb sensitive" (umm, maybe, but not likely). It's a conformational bias form observed reaction but usually mis-interpreted. Yes, you gained weight from carbs, but no, it isn't fat. It's the tissue (muscle, usually) storing reserves. So you see: deficit+carbs may equal a passing weight gain. But consistent macros and deficit still result in weight loss.

Not all excess calories go to fat storage. We have glucose stores, short term protein stores in the liver and blood, even the rates of glucose uptake in blood, liver and other tissues vary with weight; heavier individuals basically have more "storage space" and therefore see a greater influence of normal glucose uptake. This little fact is why weight related uptake can influence things like tumor detection in PET scan - a well documented phenomenon.

jonnythan

I can eat at a calorie deficit, meticulously weighing my food and I will NOT lose weight.

Impossible, by definition. If you are not losing weight, you are not eating at a calorie deficit.

EvgeniZyntx

I can eat at a calorie deficit, meticulously weighing my food and I will NOT lose weight.

Impossible, by definition. If you are not losing weight long term, you are not eating at a calorie deficit long term.

Fify. Not to be smartypants, but for precision.

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?

Perhaps? But that has nothing to do with fat loss. What I said makes no sense was the statement, " I can understand how what you eat makes more of a difference than the calorie deficit." That's completely untrue. Calorie deficit IS the cause for fat loss, how you achieve that deficit has far less affect then the deficit itself. If you ate three times your maintenance in bananas and granola what is the body going to do with the extra calories...? Science says slap it on your butt.. no matter how "healthy" it is. Not to mention, having that diet long term will damage your organs due to lack of proper nutrients. You'd lose muscle mass too... I think peoples perception of "healthy" is all out of wack.

Exactly, but for a lot of people who come on here and start out by losing 10 lbs in the first week don't likely think about fat loss. All they care about is loss and do not care about how they get there. When it slows down they assume it is because eating fewer calories doesn't work for them and they need to do something else. These posts about not losing weight at a deficit are mistaking harder to burn calories with calories aren't burning. They are also seeing differences when they switch to low salt foods because the water is going. In reality there is still a deficit, and it will lead to fat loss.

I feel like in thses posts people seem to be talking past each other. What should be said it a deficit is HOW you lose fat. However, burning calories provided from different sources can be harder/easier for certain people to burn. See what I mean?