It's NOT always as simple as a deficit

TaurusV

And by the way, there are scientific studies about it (for example published in JAMA.):

"The researchers found that the low-glycemic index diet—which draws about 40% of its calories from carbohydrates, 40% from fats, and 20% from protein—proved most effective at keeping weight off. In addition, participants on this diet burned about 150 calories a day more than those on the low-fat diet, without any adverse effects on cholesterol or hormone levels.

Though the low-carbohydrate diet seemed to help participants burn the most calories, the study found that it increased inflammation and production of stress hormone cortisol, risk factors for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Meanwhile, the researchers determined that the the low-fat diet was the least healthy. Participants on the diet burned fewer calories and experienced certain changes in metabolic factors typically associated with weight regain."

FiresongUK

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

ndj1979

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 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.

One weekend of over eating is going to ruin a cut, really? You would have to consume like 10,500 over maintenance in one weekend just to gain three pounds back…assuming 3000 is maintenance for this person, that would be a three day consumption of 19,500 calories..???

ndj1979

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.

I agree…that a deficit creates weight loss is the easy part; the hard part is figuring out your deficit.

The calculators, are just that, calculators and there is no way that they can be right for every single person, every single time.

Trial and error with the scale is really the best way to figure this out. Use a few calculators to get an average and then eat at that and see what happens….when you find a caloric level where you stop gaining or losing, then you have found maintenance.

stormieweather

I'll tell you what I found. I log, I weigh, and I measure everything. I chart and graph it. So WTF is wrong that I can't lose weight? Looking carefully at my graphs tells me that I lose as though I were eating 200 calories more per day than my log shows I am. And that every single cheat delays my progress by weeks. Upon which occurrence, I lose focus and determination, falling off the wagon completely. I can't explain the reasons for this calorie issue. The mix of macros, the amount of salt, the quantity of water, the quality of food don't seem to matter, ultimately.

So I set my goal to 200 less than I think it should be/what all the experts tell me it should be, and I do not cheat. This actually works, if I can stick to it. It's very difficult to do because results don't show up for weeks. But if I do stick to it, it does work. Maybe this will help someone else who is confused and struggling.

paganstar71

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".

However, the definition matches the same logic that many posters think they understand in this thread. The "out" is covered in section efficiency and thermogenesis which has also been disregarded by a calorie = a calorie proponents. The "out" is not just BMR and exercise.

Achrya

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.

SideSteel

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".

However, the definition matches the same logic that many posters think they understand in this thread. The "out" is covered in section efficiency and thermogenesis which has also been disregarded by a calorie = a calorie proponents. The "out" is not just BMR and exercise.

Yes they cover it in the paper and use that to attempt to declare that a calorie is not a calorie. They set up the strawman and then knock it down.

Regarding what other people say regarding calories, I do agree that the derp occurs on both sides of the calorie argument.

IronSmasher

That's a shame.

SideSteel has already come in with an explanation far more detailed and patient that I can ever be bothered with as usual, and was instantly hit with calorie not a calorie.

Anyway,

Yes OP, it is caloric deficit, but there are hundreds of ways to make this easier and more suitable to the individual.
But it's still caloric deficit.

TR0berts

^^^ 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".

That would be a very good analysis. Especially since they have completely misdefined the Zeroth, 2nd, and 3rd laws of thermodynamics.

Re: Zeroth

The zeroth law that establishes the concept of temperature

No, it doesn't. It simply states that if 2 systems are in thermal equilibrium with a 3rd system, then those 2 systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other. The reason it's the Zeroth law is because that's basically common sense. It has nothing to do with establishing the concept of temperature.

Re: 2nd

The second law was developed in the context of the industrial revolution and the attempt to understand the efficiency of machines. The law describes the theoretical limits on the efficiency of engines and applies as well to living (irreversible) systems. The second law says that no machine is completely efficient.

No, that is the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Oddly enough, the author(s) actually define the 2nd law fairly accurately elsewhere. It is that total entropy (that of the system plus its environment) increases due to natural processes. Or, more simply, nature tends toward disorder.



Re: 3rd

the third law that describes absolute zero are not relevant here

Read the definition the author(s) gave above for the 2nd law. That is correct - there can be no 100% efficient heat engine.


The description of the 1st law as given by the author(s) is close enough.

edited because of formatting

hilts1969

The only advice i could give because it worked pretty well was to accurately track your calories and weigh yourself once a month only, i did this for a couple of months and lost plenty and don't count anymore, if i hadn't lost weight i would have amended my calorie intake accordingly

paganstar71

That's a shame.

SideSteel has already come in with an explanation far more detailed and patient that I can ever be bothered with as usual, and was instantly hit with calorie not a calorie.

Actually SideSteel's contribution was discussing the study about a calorie is not a calorie, he was not "hit with" it - he entered the discussion on that very topic!

paganstar71

Yes they cover it in the paper and use that to attempt to declare that a calorie is not a calorie. They set up the strawman and then knock it down.

Regarding what other people say regarding calories, I do agree that the derp occurs on both sides of the calorie argument.

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

SideSteel

Yes they cover it in the paper and use that to attempt to declare that a calorie is not a calorie. They set up the strawman and then knock it down.

Regarding what other people say regarding calories, I do agree that the derp occurs on both sides of the calorie argument.

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

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?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

QuietBloom

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".

However, the definition matches the same logic that many posters think they understand in this thread. The "out" is covered in section efficiency and thermogenesis which has also been disregarded by a calorie = a calorie proponents. The "out" is not just BMR and exercise.

You are assuming that everyone misunderstands it. In reality, it is you who misunderstands it, as you think that the 'study' you posted shows that 1 calorie =/= 1 calorie.

paganstar71

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

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?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

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 are not an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. That's what "law" means.

But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.

I have hypothyroid as well, and it DOESN'T make me a special snowflake. I still lose weight when in a calorie deficit. Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals.

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.

Oh look, another one of these threads about how OP defies the laws of thermodynamics. And then 20,000 people point it out, and 5 argue that OP is right.

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.

geebusuk

I take "a calorie is a calorie" to mean just that.
I don't presume that running to the shop a mile away to buy a 200 calorie cake and eat it will work the same as reaching my hand over to the 200 calories of orange on the side.
I don't assume that if I purely ate cake my body would work in the same way as with a varied diet.
Calories in no doubt CAN change calories out.

However, as it goes, for most people in most cases "a calorie is a calorie" in that there is unlikely to be a significant difference if they say swap 200 calories of fruit for 200 caloires of cake a day, but keep the rest appropriately balanced.

While googling this, I enjoyed this link:

http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/calories-incalories-out-science-says-no/

Expanding on his point, it's not true that all calories are either burned or stored. I expel them in my feces, urine, and gases, I exhale, I radiate heat (especially when working out), and I have a host of bacteria in my gut that consume them for me.

I would suggest that 'calories out' covers all of those.
Hell, you can also include giving blood, as energy is leaving your body - I believe they have actually worked out the calories for that, though haven't checked if it's listed in MFP!

QuietBloom

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

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?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

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 are not an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. That's what "law" means.

But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.

I have hypothyroid as well, and it DOESN'T make me a special snowflake. I still lose weight when in a calorie deficit. Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals.

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.

Oh look, another one of these threads about how OP defies the laws of thermodynamics. And then 20,000 people point it out, and 5 argue that OP is right.

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.

:laugh: Keep trying.

ndj1979

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

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?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

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 are not an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. That's what "law" means.

But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.

I have hypothyroid as well, and it DOESN'T make me a special snowflake. I still lose weight when in a calorie deficit. Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals.

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.

Oh look, another one of these threads about how OP defies the laws of thermodynamics. And then 20,000 people point it out, and 5 argue that OP is right.

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.

I resent having my quote included in this without adequate explanation as to what you are claiming is false about said quote.

paganstar71

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?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

I resent having my quote included in this without adequate explanation as to what you are claiming is false about said quote.

I'm not sure which quote is yours, I didn't identify the quotes with specific posters. I was asked to point out where macronutrient composition is deemed irrelevant and all that matters is energy intake. This was clearly explained in the quoted portion at the top of the post.

QuietBloom

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?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

I resent having my quote included in this without adequate explanation as to what you are claiming is false about said quote.

I'm not sure which quote is yours, I didn't identify the quotes with specific posters. I was asked to point out where macronutrient composition is deemed irrelevant and all that matters is energy intake. This was clearly explained in the quoted portion at the top of the post.

You are the one who came on this thread and started calling people names.

And my post clearly states how macros are important.

ndj1979

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?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

I resent having my quote included in this without adequate explanation as to what you are claiming is false about said quote.

I'm not sure which quote is yours, I didn't identify the quotes with specific posters. I was asked to point out where macronutrient composition is deemed irrelevant and all that matters is energy intake. This was clearly explained in the quoted portion at the top of the post.

this is mine:


"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."

I was simply commenting that the easy part is saying that a calorie deficit is what makes you lose weight but the difficult part is finding the level at which you create said deficit. I never said that macronutrient content was not a part of that. So yea, you totally misquoted me.

perseverance14

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.

My diet Doctor told me I am insulin resistant, and I also am hypothyroid. When my fasting blood sugar was over 100 for the first time at a physical (it was 105), that was the final straw and I knew I had to do something. I am on a low calorie, low fat, controlled carbohydrate and high protein diet, and the fat is melting off, out of 11 lbs., I lost 10 fat (not muscle). I don't get weighed again till Tuesday night but my body fat scale says I am another 4 lbs. and over another percentage point of fat down.

I say when you find what works for you, keep doing it!

paganstar71

You are the one who came on this thread and started calling people names. And now you are misquoting us (or at least me). What exactly is your purpose in this thread again??

OMG, now there are 2 people not wanting to be quoted. What the hell is going on here, you've got to be kidding me?

Also that is quite an accusation - where have I misquoted you?

perseverance14

Even people with thyroid issues can lose weight via calorie deficit, they just have a harder time finding the right deficit level."

I was simply commenting that the easy part is saying that a calorie deficit is what makes you lose weight but the difficult part is finding the level at which you create said deficit. I never said that macronutrient content was not a part of that. So yea, you totally misquoted me.

I hear you, but when I get on maintenance, I am going to go slowly and be careful, and one thing is for sure, you can eat a lot more food (as far as volume) when you are eating vegetables not snicker doodles, and it is a lot healthier too!

paganstar71

I resent having my quote included in this without adequate explanation as to what you are claiming is false about said quote.

I'm not sure which quote is yours, I didn't identify the quotes with specific posters. I was asked to point out where macronutrient composition is deemed irrelevant and all that matters is energy intake. This was clearly explained in the quoted portion at the top of the post.

this is mine:


"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."

I was simply commenting that the easy part is saying that a calorie deficit is what makes you lose weight but the difficult part is finding the level at which you create said deficit. I never said that macronutrient content was not a part of that. So yea, you totally misquoted me.

You claimed that in the process of reducing carbs people are actually creating a larger calorie deficit and that is why they are losing weight. I do not feel I have misquoted you at all.

QuietBloom

You are the one who came on this thread and started calling people names. And now you are misquoting us (or at least me). What exactly is your purpose in this thread again??

OMG, now there are 2 people not wanting to be quoted. What the hell is going on here, you've got to be kidding me?

Also that is quite an accusation - where have I misquoted you?

I corrected my post, but that is OK - I will reiterate here what I said: MY POST CLEARLY STATES THE IMPORTANCE OF MACROS. So no, you didn't misquote me, but my post also doesn't say that macros don't matter for end results. I don't know why you even included it.

Dear God, is it possible for you to be any more dense?

ndj1979

I resent having my quote included in this without adequate explanation as to what you are claiming is false about said quote.

I'm not sure which quote is yours, I didn't identify the quotes with specific posters. I was asked to point out where macronutrient composition is deemed irrelevant and all that matters is energy intake. This was clearly explained in the quoted portion at the top of the post.

this is mine:


"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."

I was simply commenting that the easy part is saying that a calorie deficit is what makes you lose weight but the difficult part is finding the level at which you create said deficit. I never said that macronutrient content was not a part of that. So yea, you totally misquoted me.

You claimed that in the process of reducing carbs people are actually creating a larger calorie deficit and that is why they are losing weight. I do not feel I have misquoted you at all.

I was using that as an example of perceived deficit vs actual deficit. Most people perceive themselves tone in a deficit when they are not, and by going low carb they can create a deficit because they are removing calorie rich foods.

I never said that the content of macros does not count ,did I? you just took my example out of context.

Achrya

You are the one who came on this thread and started calling people names. And now you are misquoting us (or at least me). What exactly is your purpose in this thread again??

OMG, now there are 2 people not wanting to be quoted. What the hell is going on here, you've got to be kidding me?

Also that is quite an accusation - where have I misquoted you?

I corrected my post, but that is OK - I will reiterate here what I said: MY POST CLEARLY STATES THE IMPORTANCE OF MACROS. So no, you didn't misquote me, but my post also doesn't say that macros don't matter for end results. I don't know why you even included it.

Dear God, is it possible for you to be any more dense?

Hmm, never mind, her whole editing line answered the question even better than I did.

snowflake954