It's NOT always as simple as a deficit
Replies
-
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?
So you edited your post AFTER I quoted you? That makes it mighty hard for anyone to check the veracity of your claims against me and in your support.0 -
This is me!!!!! I love snowflakes!!!!!!!0
-
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?
So you edited your post AFTER I quoted you? That makes it mighty hard for anyone to check the veracity of your claims against me and in your support.
No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.
*headdesk*0 -
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?
I suppose she could be trying to dispense knowledge to those at goal weight when she appears to have lost a minimal amount at best.
Anywho. Did someone mention snickerdoodles?
I got to goal weight from running around correcting misinformation. I am going to log this latest session.0 -
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?
I suppose she could be trying to dispense knowledge to those at goal weight when she appears to have lost a minimal amount at best.
Anywho. Did someone mention snickerdoodles?
I got to goal weight from running around correcting misinformation. I am going to log this latest session.
I burn all of my calories facepalming. Surprisingly effective.0 -
Wait... When did "equals" stop meaning "equals"?
Cat.gif0 -
"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.
Your theory implies that the majority of people who are clearly tracking calorie intake in order to identify a 'low carb' diet, weren't aware of a resultant total drop in calories. This is highly unlikely and despite your explanation your quote clearly supports the idea that the thermogenesis in a calorie of protein is equal to that of a calorie of carbs.0 -
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?
I suppose she could be trying to dispense knowledge to those at goal weight when she appears to have lost a minimal amount at best.
Anywho. Did someone mention snickerdoodles?
I got to goal weight from running around correcting misinformation. I am going to log this latest session.
I burn all of my calories facepalming. Surprisingly effective.
me too!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.
Thanks for this Mandi. I agree 500%. One would have to experience what you mean to fully understand. There are numerous reasons for lack of weight loss even when eating at a deficit. It isn't as simple as some would like to make it. Again, Thank you SO much for this post.
:flowerforyou: 0 -
For the most part, simply creating a CONSISTENT deficit, is all it takes. However, consuming the right kinds of calories makes a HUGE difference, as well. If you are eating at a deficit, but still consuming too many carbs, and fats, and not enough protein, you will not necessarily see the results you want. But, the real key is CONSISTENCY. You will definitely not see the results you want, if you eat right 4 or 5 days a week, eat ok for the other day or 2, and then go crazy on "Cheat Day". That's just the way 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.
Thanks for this Mandi. I agree 500%. One would have to experience what you mean to fully understand. There are numerous reasons for lack of weight loss even when eating at a deficit. It isn't as simple as some would like to make it. Again, Thank you SO much for this post. :flowerforyou:
ok - then what causes weight loss if it is not calories in vs calories out?0 -
I have PCOS and am having a terrible time. I eat 1200 cals/day. Eat 30-50% exercise calories back. I've lost right at 25 lbs which sounds great but I've stalled out there and the past month I've hovered at the same weight +/- a lb. I've not changed anything i'm doing. I still have a long way to go so its not like i'm close to my goal so im slowing down. The fact is, you are right. Its NOT always simple. I am very frustrated and while I am not giving up, it does make the whole journey much harder.0
-
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?
So you edited your post AFTER I quoted you? That makes it mighty hard for anyone to check the veracity of your claims against me and in your support.
No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.
*headdesk*
No it doesn't. I quoted your post in full and you stated "Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals".
Blurred your profile pic and name out of courtesy.0 -
I have PCOS and am having a terrible time. I eat 1200 cals/day. Eat 30-50% exercise calories back. I've lost right at 25 lbs which sounds great but I've stalled out there and the past month I've hovered at the same weight +/- a lb. I've not changed anything i'm doing. I still have a long way to go so its not like i'm close to my goal so im slowing down. The fact is, you are right. Its NOT always simple. I am very frustrated and while I am not giving up, it does make the whole journey much harder.
Have you considered eating back less of your exercise calories? 25 pounds is not a small a amount of weight and as you lose it's normal for the amount you started at to have to lower some.
Doing the exact same thing for a month even though there has been no change is pretty much the definition of making things harder than they have to be.0 -
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?
So you edited your post AFTER I quoted you? That makes it mighty hard for anyone to check the veracity of your claims against me and in your support.
No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.
*headdesk*
No it doesn't. I quoted your post in full and you stated "Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals".
Blurred your profile pic and name out of courtesy.
"Adjusted according to our goals" isn't an acknowledgement of the role varying macro percentages can play?
Interesting.
Also worst blurring ever.0 -
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?
So you edited your post AFTER I quoted you? That makes it mighty hard for anyone to check the veracity of your claims against me and in your support.
No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.
*headdesk*
No it doesn't. I quoted your post in full and you stated "Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals".
Blurred your profile pic and name out of courtesy.
"Adjusted according to our goals" isn't an acknowledgement of the role varying macro percentages can play?
Interesting.
Also worst blurring ever.
Yeah, I keep waiting for her 'get' it. Glad I'm not holding my breath.0 -
IMHO many here have a very simplistic view on the human body: Obviously you put energy in your body, your body works with that energy and if you put in more energy than your body uses your body will store it and if you put in less energy your body will try to meet its need in other ways. However, your body is a very complex system and if we just use the principle of conservation of energy we fail to take into account many mechanisms of our body: our body will try to spend less energy if it perceives that we don't have enough energy. Part of its functions will be reduced. The body might use protein instead if fat under certain circumstances to get its energy and our body may also react by holding onto water which may make us gain weight (weight, not fat). We have all a rather complex endocrine system, our metabolism and our gastrointestinal tract don't work like in a constant way no matter what happens to our body or how we treat it. Humans survived so many years because our bodies adapt to our environment and that includes nutrition.
So our body will not create energy out of nowhere, but it certainly has ways to increase or decrease our BMR and nutrition is one (!!) of the factors that influences our body and those systems. It still means calories in need to be less than calories out in order to lose weight, but where the calories we put in come from will in some of us influence how many calories go out.0 -
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.
In.
People post several short cuts and attempt to consider a generalization of the law of conservation of energy to either suggest that:
- All things considered and constant except total calories, the creation of a deficit results in weight loss
Or
- independent of macro nutrient composition, total calories in a diet being exactly equivalent will result in the same weight gain of loss
Or
- the most significant factor in weight loss is total calorie consumption versus needs and use.
The first is true, the second false and the third a generally good yardstick in weight loss.
That article not only sets up a very poor straw-man. Quite simply, anyone attempting to argue either side of Second Law arguments fails to understand that the Second Law stand for isolated systems. No second law needs to be upheld or suspended or abused in any way with regard to a biological entity because these are not isolated energy measurements. To argue about laws in terms of irreversible reactions is in fact, incorrect for biological respiration and glucose oxidation which is a reversible process (with the required thermal inefficiencies), the article fails to even make mention of these. Poor biology.
This would be the same as arguing that biological systems break the first law because as it states "heat is a form of energy" and since cellular systems (with the exception of some interesting Cyanobacteria in heat vents) do not use heat as a calorific energy source then the first law is not observed. Very poor.
Nutritional energy and heat calories are not the same. The units used are common and are substrate - reaction dependent but this is not what discussions about diet of nutrition talk about. This is so simple as to be ridiculous a calorie from burning gasoline won't fuel any cellular processes. It's really a tree and forest or as someone earlier wrote about hoofbeats, horses and zebras.
Yet, it is as simple as a deficit. Just that making a deficit, keeping it can be quite complex.
Keep it simple.
All things considered long term fat focused weight loss requires a conservation of energy such that the calories consumed are less than the calories "out". However complex those "out" equations might be.
Reduce calories by diet or exercise is the first, second and third thing to look at.
Treat exceptions, preferences and medical conditions as such.
[ultra geek /on]
And forget the thermodynamic arguments in terms of biochemical processes - these are all dissipative processes, energy is lost and Noether's Theorem has already dealt a blow to the need of a conservation law in these cases. (Ref - The Noether theorems: Invariance and conservation laws in the twentieth century). The math is beyond my attention span.
[ultra geek /off]0 -
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.0 -
No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.
*headdesk*
No it doesn't. I quoted your post in full and you stated "Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals".
Blurred your profile pic and name out of courtesy."Adjusted according to our goals" isn't an acknowledgement of the role varying macro percentages can play?
In response to the previous poster it is quite clear that QuietBloom does not believe that varying macronutrients play a part in weight reduction.Yeah, I keep waiting for her 'get' it. Glad I'm not holding my breath.
So then what goals do you vary your macros for? You claim you "clearly stated the importance of macros" without explaining what goals.
edited to fix quote tags.0 -
In case I wasn't in before, I most certainly am now to sit back and watch the right-tickers and left-tickers argue on the internet.
popcorn.gif
ETA: Given my own ticker, I guess I should say..."GO, LEFT-TICKERS! BEAT RIGHT!"0 -
No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.
*headdesk*
No it doesn't. I quoted your post in full and you stated "Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals".
Blurred your profile pic and name out of courtesy."Adjusted according to our goals" isn't an acknowledgement of the role varying macro percentages can play?
In response to the previous poster it is quite clear that QuietBloom does not believe that varying macronutrients play a part in weight reduction.Yeah, I keep waiting for her 'get' it. Glad I'm not holding my breath.
So then what goals do you vary your macros for? You claim you "clearly stated the importance of macros" without explaining what goals.
edited to fix quote tags.
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.0 -
So then what goals do you vary your macros for? You claim you "clearly stated the importance of macros" without explaining what goals.
edited to fix quote tags.
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? Which is all the OP stated and was promptly lambasted for breaking the laws of thermodynamics, being a snowflake, etc, etc. Even though there is plenty of science that suggests low carb is more effective for weightloss than low fat.0 -
So then what goals do you vary your macros for? You claim you "clearly stated the importance of macros" without explaining what goals.
edited to fix quote tags.
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.
^Yep. /discussion (Sorry guys, I know you all are entertained, but I'm getting tired of posting to someone who thinks I have something to defend against.)0 -
So then what goals do you vary your macros for? You claim you "clearly stated the importance of macros" without explaining what goals.
edited to fix quote tags.
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? Which is all the OP stated and was promptly lambasted for breaking the laws of thermodynamics, being a snowflake, etc, etc. Even though there is plenty of science that suggests low carb is more effective for weightloss than low fat.
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!0 -
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
). 0 -
But if the OP does have PCOS (and insulin resistance), then carbs are a key factor in reasonable weight loss for most people with that condition. Not just a calorie deficit -- specifically carbs. For folks without a condition, I can see where carbs don't matter.
So the OP isn't a special snowflake or breaking any laws of physics. She just has a known condition with known remedies. (Yawn ).
Surprise medical condition not mentioned in the OP ftw!0 -
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.0
-
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...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.
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.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