It's NOT always as simple as a deficit
Replies
-
The OP was not looking for what you seem to think is "advice", maybe you should read it again. The "advice" given included:
1. Suggesting the OP is unable to log correctly.
2. Suggesting the OP is doing things wrong despite the fact that the original post states she has found what works (for her).
3. Nitpicking the OP's food diary - carbs intake, food choices, etc.
4. Dragging in the OP's medical history.
These personal attacks do not invalidate what she said, they only serve to stifle discussion by intimidating anyone who doesn't subscribe to the crap science spewed by a gang of vocal MFP members.
You certainly are a pot stirrer, aren't you?
OP posted why she thinks that weight loss is not as simple as a calorie deficit, and indicates that she is having trouble losing weight. People are trying to help her understand what is going on, using the simple fact that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
Explain to me how that is a personal attack or diary nitpicking.
Thank you. :flowerforyou:
I refer you to my previous post quoted above. She was not looking for advice she was motivating others to keep trying until they find what works for them. The responses that involved my 4 points above were not attempting to help her, but denigrate her capabilities to manage her own diet.
So you refer me to your own unfounded post in answer to my question as to who was attacking and denigrating the OP? I think you are having a little bit of trouble following here. Or are being purposefully obtuse. Either way, carry on. It's rather entertaining.
My post is not unfounded. You did not originally ask 'who' was attacking and denigrating the OP - look above. You said:Explain to me how that is a personal attack or diary nitpicking.
'How' not 'who', which I had already clearly outlined. Now you seem to be specifically asking me 'who'. Now why would that be when the evidence in in this thread?0 -
The OP was not looking for what you seem to think is "advice", maybe you should read it again. The "advice" given included:
1. Suggesting the OP is unable to log correctly.
2. Suggesting the OP is doing things wrong despite the fact that the original post states she has found what works (for her).
3. Nitpicking the OP's food diary - carbs intake, food choices, etc.
4. Dragging in the OP's medical history.
These personal attacks do not invalidate what she said, they only serve to stifle discussion by intimidating anyone who doesn't subscribe to the crap science spewed by a gang of vocal MFP members.
You certainly are a pot stirrer, aren't you?
OP posted why she thinks that weight loss is not as simple as a calorie deficit, and indicates that she is having trouble losing weight. People are trying to help her understand what is going on, using the simple fact that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
Explain to me how that is a personal attack or diary nitpicking.
Thank you. :flowerforyou:
I refer you to my previous post quoted above. She was not looking for advice she was motivating others to keep trying until they find what works for them. The responses that involved my 4 points above were not attempting to help her, but denigrate her capabilities to manage her own diet.
So you refer me to your own unfounded post in answer to my question as to who was attacking and denigrating the OP? I think you are having a little bit of trouble following here. Or are being purposefully obtuse. Either way, carry on. It's rather entertaining.
My post is not unfounded. You did not originally ask 'who' was attacking and denigrating the OP - look above. You said:Explain to me how that is a personal attack or diary nitpicking.
'How' not 'who', which I had already clearly outlined. Now you seem to be specifically asking me 'who'. Now why would that be when the evidence in in this thread?
I still don't see it. You are going to need to draw me a picture.0 -
All over this thread.I have read the paper, and it does not say anything like 1 calorie =/= 1 calorie. This was already thoroughly discussed in another thread, that I believe you participated in.
Methinks you are projecting here, because no one is accusing anyone of being greedy, lazy OR stupid. That is your own personal bias speaking.
You clearly have not read the paper or understood it.Your intent here, seems to be to incite a riot over pretty much nothing at all.
Oh, I see - am I not allowed to support someone in the Motivation and Support board? How strange. Whereas it is acceptable and not riot-raising to diary bash here? Something a bit twisted about that logic.That poster always post studies, has no idea how to interpret them, gets called out be people that actually read them, gets told that the studies don't say what she thinks they say........it is a losing battle
Where is the evidence for this little gem? Yes, I post a few studies, show me where I have got "called out".
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1171416-i-like-sugar?page=100 -
bump0
-
Bump for later0
-
There is no trick to calorie deficits. If you have one, you'll lose weight. For most people it's not a huge chore to guesstimate a TDEE. But if you're having a problem with the equation, that's probably it.
i don't have one and I'm losing weight....
like a good 0.5lb a week
for someone my size thats quite a lot without a deflect0 -
All over this thread.
Where is the evidence for this little gem? Yes, I post a few studies, show me where I have got "called out".
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1171416-i-like-sugar?page=10
Well done you have found one of the posts where I have posted some studies, now perhaps you can be good enough to show me where I got "called out". I think you will find that no one responded to my last post and it quickly degenerated into posting pictures of chocolate. :laugh:0 -
'How' not 'who', which I had already clearly outlined. Now you seem to be specifically asking me 'who'. Now why would that be when the evidence in in this thread?
I still don't see it. You are going to need to draw me a picture.
At this stage of the discussion I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you trying to get me to name specific posters?0 -
I hear you OP. I eat healthy, log, and get PLENTY of exercise every day. I've talked to my doctor about my sudden weight gain and how slow losing has been and he keeps talking to me about STRESS. High cortisol levels makes weight loss difficult. I've worked to manage stress better. I truly believe that it isn't as simple as calorie deficits.
that would be water retention and not fat retention…slight difference...0 -
In.
Popcorn.gif
0 -
There is no trick to calorie deficits. If you have one, you'll lose weight. For most people it's not a huge chore to guesstimate a TDEE. But if you're having a problem with the equation, that's probably it.
i don't have one and I'm losing weight....
like a good 0.5lb a week
for someone my size thats quite a lot without a deflect
Are you trying to say you are losing weight without a deficit, because that doesn't make sense.0 -
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.
you need to rephrase what you're saying.
it is more difficult for some people to create a deficit than others. That's what you're trying to say. If you eat at a deficit, you lose weight, even with medical issues and everything else, because of the laws of physics. What medical issues (e.g. thyroid issues, PCOS) and similar do is make it more difficult for some people to create a deficit, because the calories out side of the equation isn't where it should be, so they (you) eat the calories the calculators say, but it doesn't work for you because you're burning less than average for your height, weight,a body fat percentage and activity levels. The numbers the calculator gives you are wrong *for you* but calories in v calories out is still true.
thing is, if you say you're eating at a deficit and not losing weight, people are going to come along and tell you that you're wrong.... because if you're not losing you're not at a deficit. Whether the reason is due to a medical/hormonal issue or due to you miscalculating something somewhere along the line is a different question, and it may very well be something medical or hormonal. But no weight loss = not eating at a deficit.
ETA: if the issue is hormonal, then you need to fix that problem before trying to create a deficit, as eating too little can make these problems worse. In these situations you need to get your body to burn more, rather than eating less.
Great post. I think disputes arise when someone suggest it's not calories in < calories out, when perhaps they should say it's not as simple as eating under your estimated TDEE with whatever foods/macros you want. If you're at a true deficit, your body will tap into fat stores/lean mass stores for energy because that energy has to come from somewhere. On the other hand, your macro/micronutrient intake can influence how your body behaves, meaning that while the calories in may be constant between two diets, the calories out can change based on how your body behaves in response to the food you're eating. In short, it IS as simple as a deficit, but there are times when people think they're creating a deficit when they really aren't.
lets go with this…
the simple part is - yes it really is - calories in vs calories out
the really hard part - calculating the caloric level at which you maintain and then figuring out how much to cut. I think that is something that we all struggle with …hell, I know I still do...
But people then take this to say well "calories in vs calories out does not work for me, so I went to low carb and now I am losing.." well no, you did not estimate your maintenance level or deficit correctly and going to low carb created a larger deficit, hence you started to lose again. It is still calories in vs calories out….
Even people with thyroid issues can lose weight via calorie deficit, they just have a harder time finding the right deficit level.0 -
I just read through this whole post and feel the need to weigh in.
I am not posting studies or research, just an anecdotal story.
I used to eat about 900 calories a day or less. That is how little I needed to eat to move the scale, even at 220 lbs. (and I ate prepackaged food, so there was no chance of miscalculating). I lost weight, but I gained it back because when I tried to transition back to eating normal food-even in small quantities and with exercise-I couldn't keep the weight from creeping back on.
After that, I have been focusing on low carb (for a while, doing no carb, but I didn't journal that) eating wayyy more than 900 calories, and I lost weight! Your body processes food in different ways and different foods burn more calories being digested so that effects your output. Different categories of calories interact in your body in different ways.
(And-side note-my roommate and I usually diet together. I have been significantly overweight my whole life, she has put on a little weight in college but is still a relatively thin person. Anyways, eating the same foods and with me working out and not drinking as often as she did she lost almost double the weight i did so I don't know how you would explain that in the context of calories in < calories out, but it's the truth!)0 -
I have a very up to date textbook about human biology here (2013). I had to learn that stuff recently.
This book says a healthy person needs about 5 gramms carbs per kilogramm every day. It suggests you need to intake more carbs than proteins (1 gramm per kilogramm per day) or fat (1.2 gramm per kilogramm per day). Thats what science shows is the most healthiest as of today.
Carbs got a lot of energy, so it's easy to decrease the energy intake by cutting them. But I doubt that's healthy in any way.0 -
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.0 -
But... when you hear hoofbeats, you should think horses, not zebras. For most, it IS as simple as calorie deficit. Usually if a person is not seeing results it is because they are overestimating their exercise calories or underestimating their intake, or both.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think
I agree. Usually when the scale is not moving, I have underestimated my food intake, got lazy with weighing and measuring and overestimated my workout calories. Every time I log correctly, I lose weight. Always.0 -
I firmly believe we (especially women) can cycle in and out of insulin resistance as we age.I think the folks who find that lower carb works when other things don't are probably insulin resistant (I am). You don't have to be diabetic to have problems in that area, and it's not very uncommon, particularly in people with extra weight. A lot of doctors don't check for those problems until your BG numbers actually flag you as diabetic, so it really is often undiagnosed.
The fix for it, mainly, is to watch carbs
So there ya go.
Perhaps women who are overeating...or over fat ones?
Have you got any more on that? I'd hate to be part of that group!0 -
*peeks in*0
-
But... when you hear hoofbeats, you should think horses, not zebras. For most, it IS as simple as calorie deficit. Usually if a person is not seeing results it is because they are overestimating their exercise calories or underestimating their intake, or both.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think
+0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
In...
...to find out OP's as-of-yet-undisclosed medical issue that is preventing CICO from working for her (and what solution she found to work around it).0 -
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.
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.
^^^ Yes, I agree with everything you have said, except your definition of the term a calorie = a calorie. Your definition differs to a point where a calorie =/= a calorie in the normal sense of the word equal. A calorie deficit is still required for weightloss, totally agree.0 -
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.
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.
^^^ Yes, I agree with everything you have said, except your definition of the term a calorie = a calorie. Your definition differs to a point where a calorie =/= a calorie in the normal sense of the word equal. A calorie deficit is still required for weightloss, totally agree.
I disagree. A calorie is a unit of energy. It's like saying a mile is a mile and a chicken is a chicken and a strawman is a strawman.
The energy OUT side of the equation is very complex. Differences in thermic effect for example, are part of the "out" side of the equation. It's an energy cost. It doesn't change the value of a calorie.
For example, 1000 calories of whey protein has the same number of calories as 1000 calories of pure fat.
They have the same energy value.
But you will expend additional energy consuming the protein and it will be utilized differently than fat.
But the caloric value of each, is 1000.0 -
In to watch the circus0
-
For 99% of people, it is.0
-
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.
In...
...to find out OP's as-of-yet-undisclosed medical issue that is preventing CICO from working for her (and what solution she found to work around it).
She's swapped some of her calorie dense food that is incredibly easy to overeat if you don't weigh it or purchase it ready made and presume the nutritional value the store/takeaway gives you is 100% every time for calorie sparse vegetables that if you eyeball and eat an extra 50g will only amount to a negligable increase in calories.
Alternatively the OP is defying science.0 -
I think one of the main problems why some people struggle to lose weight is their metabolism is a lot lower than the norm, have read that two adults with the same lean body mass and age had over 700 cals per day difference in their BMR, if these were the two extremes that would mean that both putting in their details on a calorie counter would be way out
if the calculator gave them say 2300 for maintenance one of them is going to struggle really bad using this figure as it should be 1950 per day, so to lose a 1lb a week they would need to consume no more than 1450 per day , that is probably near a 1000 cals a day less than they are used to
No wonder they cannot work out why they don't loose but the other person the weight drops off0 -
^^^ Yes, I agree with everything you have said, except your definition of the term a calorie = a calorie. Your definition differs to a point where a calorie =/= a calorie in the normal sense of the word equal. A calorie deficit is still required for weightloss, totally agree.
I disagree. A calorie is a unit of energy. It's like saying a mile is a mile and a chicken is a chicken and a strawman is a strawman.
The energy OUT side of the equation is very complex. Differences in thermic effect for example, are part of the "out" side of the equation. It's an energy cost. It doesn't change the value of a calorie.
For example, 1000 calories of whey protein has the same number of calories as 1000 calories of pure fat.
They have the same energy value.
But you will expend additional energy consuming the protein and it will be utilized differently than fat.
But the caloric value of each, is 1000.
Aha, this is true, but we are both totally aware that the terminology a calorie = a calorie and CICO talked about in this thread is usually defined the way the study explains:
What do we mean by "a calorie is a calorie?"
Because it is a colloquial phrase, it is important to understand exactly what it is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." The most common meaning is that is it impossible for two isocaloric diets to lead to different weight loss. Frequently, the concept is justified by reference to the "laws of thermodynamics", but an explicit connection has never been spelled out.0 -
^^^ Yes, I agree with everything you have said, except your definition of the term a calorie = a calorie. Your definition differs to a point where a calorie =/= a calorie in the normal sense of the word equal. A calorie deficit is still required for weightloss, totally agree.
I disagree. A calorie is a unit of energy. It's like saying a mile is a mile and a chicken is a chicken and a strawman is a strawman.
The energy OUT side of the equation is very complex. Differences in thermic effect for example, are part of the "out" side of the equation. It's an energy cost. It doesn't change the value of a calorie.
For example, 1000 calories of whey protein has the same number of calories as 1000 calories of pure fat.
They have the same energy value.
But you will expend additional energy consuming the protein and it will be utilized differently than fat.
But the caloric value of each, is 1000.
Aha, this is true, but we are both totally aware that the terminology a calorie = a calorie and CICO talked about in this thread is usually defined the way the study explains:
What do we mean by "a calorie is a calorie?"
Because it is a colloquial phrase, it is important to understand exactly what it is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." The most common meaning is that is it impossible for two isocaloric diets to lead to different weight loss. Frequently, the concept is justified by reference to the "laws of thermodynamics", but an explicit connection has never been spelled out.
I disagree with the definition the study uses and I think the authors are setting up a strawman by using it. That definition only addresses energy input and entirely ignores energy output. The saying is calories in/calories out. The authors are constructing a strawman definition that does not pay any mind to "out".0 -
I think people here say this, but is not true in a sense that is much easier to gain that weight back if you are in a big deficit very easily, if you slide one weekend you can get all that weight you cut very quickly, the important is that you need a deficit that wont get back at you in 5 months. I know because I did radical diets when younger, I lost 20 kg in 3 months and it came back because I was basically starving and then went on with my normal *not so bad, but not perfect* diet and regained back in 1 year and was harder to shed that again.There is no trick to calorie deficits. If you have one, you'll lose weight. For most people it's not a huge chore to guesstimate a TDEE. But if you're having a problem with the equation, that's probably it.
For me a diet of bread (packaged and calorie accountable) and cereals (also weighted), milk, fruits is not the same as avocado, tuna, non bread or gluten free bread diet, potato, eggs, veggies, dark chocolate, some sweets because I have a hard time digesting bread and cereals and I have pics to prove that I get bloated very quick with a cereals, even only wholesome grain past/bread, diet; the weight concentrates in my belly.
My digestion gets very bad and I feel slow. So for me (i have low globulin, blood protein which can indicate celiac disease) I cut bread/pasta q gluten from my diet and I am not bloated and even with only 7 kgs less I feel better than if I shed quickly 20 kgs eating wholesome or white flour bread/pasta.
I think she meant in this way her post.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions