It's NOT always as simple as a deficit
Replies
-
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 -
But if the OP does have PCOS (and insulin resistance), then carbs are a key factor in reasonable weight loss for most people with that condition. Not just a calorie deficit -- specifically carbs. For folks without a condition, I can see where carbs don't matter.
So the OP isn't a special snowflake or breaking any laws of physics. She just has a known condition with known remedies. (Yawn
).
I have a condition (type 2 diabetic) and don't avoid carbs as a matter of fact they have and still do make up the largest part of my macro's, in the end after trial in error with logging, weighing, and measuring my food to find my deficit range, it came down to calories in vs calories out which is the only true way to lose weight whether you have a so called condition or not...
Do you take insulin-sensitizing meds like Metformin? That really helps the metabolism of carbs, since that what it's supposed to do and all 0 -
Are you suggesting that if you take 3500 grams of water and raise its temperature by one degree celsius, it will gain one pound because you added 3500 calories to it?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 -
OK, I'm still IN. To learn more about how a calorie deficit will not result in weight loss.0
-
It's true. Everyone is so different. We all burn calories differently. And certain things will work for one person and not for another.
Eating at a deficit and exercising has always worked for me. But having too much of a deficit has been a bad thing for me in the past. I'm more likely to plateau if I eat too little ( too much of a deficit... usually like more than 1000 calories )0 -
I think that a calorie deficit will create weight loss, but I also believe that a deficit along with healthier non processed foods is a better weight loss. What's the point of losing all that weight just to find out that your heart is going berserk due to eating high sodium foods? Or having low energy because you ate at your goal for the day already but you only got to eat 4 things that were higher in calories instead of eating 15 things that were low calorie and better nutrients?0
-
This thread just keeps delivering the gold lol0
-
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!
Be careful about mentioning she has PCOS - I did and got scolded by OP and her white knight for bringing it up (she said she had it in another topic). Apparently her having PCOS had nothing to do with this topic......0 -
Anyone ever read Dr. Suess's The Butter Battle Book? Just curious.0
-
I did worse doing the 'non processed foods' thing?I think that a calorie deficit will create weight loss, but I also believe that a deficit along with healthier non processed foods is a better weight loss. What's the point of losing all that weight just to find out that your heart is going berserk due to eating high sodium foods? Or having low energy because you ate at your goal for the day already but you only got to eat 4 things that were higher in calories instead of eating 15 things that were low calorie and better nutrients?
Why, because that was when I wasn't nearly as well researched and had believed the unsupported stuff I'd read like that and others.
With more general research I'm both better at losing weight AND not scared of specific types of food.
High energy density can be bad, but can also occur in non-processed foods. Infact, I choose a lot of foods that have had extra processing because they are less calorie dense.
My heart has never 'gone beserk' eating high sodium and my blood pressure is in the ideal range.0 -
Everyone is unique and there are certainly people that do have medical issues that create problems.
On the other hand, the point about people eating more than they think is valid more often than not. For instance, I know that when I pour a bowl of cereal in the morning, the serving size is 3/4 of cereal and 1 cup of milk. The reality is that is often closer to 1 cup of cereal and 1 1/4 cups of milk. By doing that, my breakfast is now 330 calories instead of 260. When I eat a banana for a snack in the morning, do I select the wrong one and end up with an extra 30 calories? When I'm eating dinner, do I write down 1 1/2 cups instead of the 2 cups of whatever I'm eating and underestimate by 100 calories? At that point, even though it's only minor differences, I'm off by half of my deficit for the day. Eat a snack because I was good all day and than I'm at such a small deficit that it will take months to notice much of a difference. Some people throw in a cheat day once a week and by doing that, they will never lose weight and they will say that they don't know why.
The honest truth is that someone who is significantly overweight is that they have demonstrated a history of lacking discipline when it comes to food. It is incredibly difficult to break that cycle and they do need support, but it's important that they really look at what they are eating. Again, I say that knowing that some people are screwed by medical conditions that change the math completely.
My first suggestion to the issues brought up here is weigh everything. Just last week I bought popcorn that said 4 cups (which was a certain amount of grams) was a certain amount of calories. I measured the 3 cups and when I weighed it, it weighed almost 1.5 times what the serving size is. I weigh everything I can due to this. Maybe try to do the same?
As for a cheat day once a week, will it really result in not losing weight? Think of a user on here who wants to lose 2 lbs a week, That means that MFP has created a 7000 calorie deficit in their calories per week. Is a person chooses on a particular day each week they will go 500, of even 1000 calories over (thats a BIG treat), then shouldn't a person still lose 1.7ish lbs a week? I have a cheat day every week, but all that this means for me is that I eat my exercise calories on this one day. I know some people cheat and go above their calories on one day, but will this ruin the other 3 days at a 1000 deficit?0 -
No, actually. There isn't any evidence that that is true. Low carbing nets you more up front loss, but that is mostly water weight. In the end, either method is equally effective.
And now, really out!
So I didn't misquote you or misunderstand your reference to macros then, when I was asked:Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?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...
Do you take insulin-sensitizing meds like Metformin? That really helps the metabolism of carbs, since that what it's supposed to do and all
Yes I still take metformin because my Endocrinologist believes that its benefits is that it protects the remaining receptor that didn't initially burn up when I became type 2 diabetic and by doing so I may prolong the eventual use of insulin once those remaining receptor burnout. But had I known all I had to do was take Metformin to lose weight and not eat at a deficit and exercise and track/log all my intake, it would have made losing 300+ lbs. alot easier.... Who knew.... :-)0 -
Calorie deficit will work regardless of the medical condition, but you need to consult with a doctor first to ensure that the weight loss will occur from where you want it and to get tips on how to get ther efficiently.
I have Klinefelter's Syndrome, consequently I carry fat distribution very differently to the "normal" population. For me, I carry virtually no fat on my limbs apart from a small amount at the very tops of my arms and legs. More than 95% of my fat is concentrated between my hips and upper chest.. The demarcation between where I hold weight and not is such that when I started medication an stacked on 30+kg I only changed up one trouser size. Previous testing by my doctor and through other medical tests has shown that most of that fat is located under the muscle in the abdomen around the organs. Apart from the obvious heal issues relating to this it makes the fat very hard to move.
Part of treatment to manage my symptoms requires me to take a strong hormone replacement medication which is targeted at trying to balance my body chemistry and maintain my muscular-skeletal system. Without this medication I waste both muscle and bone (irreversible at my age). The medication also slows my metabolism and promotes weight gain. On consultation with my doctor about weight loss I was given the following advice:
- take my weight down slowly to ensure that I am taking off fat rather than muscle;
- I cannot afford to remove dairy products from my diet as the loss of calcium would be very detrimental;
- due to the medication weight loss will be all over the place.
My experience is that the when I take the medication I gain weight with no change in what I am doing, this is apparently due to fluid retention as the medication is absorbed over a 3 to 4 day period. Then the weight starts to come off. It means that rather than steadily losing weight I get a stepping type result, but the key is that through each cycle the weight is coming down.
If the deficit is not working talk to a doctor and understand the underlying medical condition. It may be a case that you are loosing fat, but retaining fluids or other secondary reactions because you are not managing your diet as you need to and maybe there is medication that can help to manage the underlying problem which will make the process easier.0 -
No, actually. There isn't any evidence that that is true. Low carbing nets you more up front loss, but that is mostly water weight. In the end, either method is equally effective.
And now, really out!
So I didn't misquote you or misunderstand your reference to macros then, when I was asked:Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?
It depends on if you are talking about weight loss only. For weight loss only, the only thing that matters is that you be in a calorie deficit (see 'The Twinkie Diet). If you want a nice end result, then macros matter a great deal.0 -
I think that a calorie deficit will create weight loss, but I also believe that a deficit along with healthier non processed foods is a better weight loss. What's the point of losing all that weight just to find out that your heart is going berserk due to eating high sodium foods? Or having low energy because you ate at your goal for the day already but you only got to eat 4 things that were higher in calories instead of eating 15 things that were low calorie and better nutrients?
A person can eat processed foods and still stay within the healthy range for sodium. A person can also eat processed foods and still eat plenty of food, meet your nutrient needs, stay within your calorie goals, and have plenty of energy. If you prefer to choose non-processed foods over processed ones, that's fine, but people who do not use the same approach are not necessarily going to end up nutrient-deficient, passed out on the side of the road with heart issues. There are plenty of processed foods that are also healthy foods.0 -
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...
This guy, take a look at his ticker. He might possibly know what he is talking about. And by that I mean, listen to him, he knows what he is talking about.
I AM a snowflake, see profile pic to prove it, and sadly, there is no magic formula for me either. I've found it to be just what Ed has already explained. CICO.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!
^this0 -
And every single one of you has missed the point of the post.
There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.
I'm with you ... they were all missing the point of the post!
I agree with you. It simply is NOT all about intake vs output or calories in vs out.
The book "Why we get fat" is soooo good.
Loosing weight is NEVER black and white ... ppl who think so are well ... mistaken.
"NEVER black and white"? Really?
I've deliberately moved my weight in a range of almost 40 pounds in the past two years and it very tightly fits a predictive model of a surplus/deficit of 3500 calories = an increase/decrease of a pound of body weight. Two+ years of consistent and accurate logging gives me the information I need to know/verify that. (I suspect this kind of data would be useful for others too if they would only take the time and make the consistent effort to create their own set of data over a sufficient period of time.)0 -
I totally agree with you! There are definately conditions/illnesses that make losing weight more difficult. Keep the faith and don't give up. It just takes longer for some folks than other.0
-
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.0 -
Taubes LOL
The book "Why we get fat" is soooo good.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html0 -
Just peeking in here.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.
Wait!
Is that cat panting?0 -
Taubes LOL
The book "Why we get fat" is soooo good.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
*Runs off to check her bingo card*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...
Do you take insulin-sensitizing meds like Metformin? That really helps the metabolism of carbs, since that what it's supposed to do and all
Yes I still take metformin because my Endocrinologist believes that its benefits is that it protects the remaining receptor that didn't initially burn up when I became type 2 diabetic and by doing so I may prolong the eventual use of insulin once those remaining receptor burnout. But had I known all I had to do was take Metformin to lose weight and not eat at a deficit and exercise and track/log all my intake, it would have made losing 300+ lbs. alot easier.... Who knew.... :-)
Hee! Nope, not just the Metformin. There are a lot of folks who get disappointed that just popping the pill doesn't make the weight fly off
For me, I was in a deficit and losing, just quite slowly, and then the pill kind of supercharged my metabolism (insulin/carb metabolism at least). I never expected faster weight loss, because I always lose weight fine -- just slowly.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 -
[/quote]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?
Improved weightloss would result as a byproduct of above factors unless we're comparing significantly unmatched protein intake. For the majority of people, especially those who are savvy to their dietary intake, minor adjustments in macronutrients aren't going to make enough of an impact in DIT.Even though there is plenty of science that suggests low carb is more effective for weightloss than low fat.
Is there "plenty of science" showing that when you compare two isocaloric diets where energy input and output is tightly regulated/monitored, and you match protein intake that the low carb treatment offers significantly better fat loss over time?0 -
The best support is to suggest the most logical course of action, such weighing your food, logging accurately etc, as that is most often where the issues lie. To flirt around the edges of the problem, will often only make the problem worse.
I am guilty of this.0 -
No, actually. There isn't any evidence that that is true. Low carbing nets you more up front loss, but that is mostly water weight. In the end, either method is equally effective.
And now, really out!
So I didn't misquote you or misunderstand your reference to macros then, when I was asked:Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?
It depends on if you are talking about weight loss only. For weight loss only, the only thing that matters is that you be in a calorie deficit (see 'The Twinkie Diet). If you want a nice end result, then macros matter a great deal.
Well yes, in terms of this thread topic, weight loss is what we are talking about.
With regards to the Twinkie Diet you cannot claim he was eating an unbalanced mix of macros http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/diary/who/haub/ as he ate a fair mix of foods, not just Twinkies. For a man the diet is VLC and I have never said weight loss does not correlate with calorie deficit!
However macros are metabolised and affect satiety levels differently.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