It's NOT always as simple as a deficit

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

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?

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.

snowflake954

This is me!!!!! I love snowflakes!!!!!!!

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?

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*

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?

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.

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?

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.

DamePiglet

Wait... When did "equals" stop meaning "equals"?

Cat.gif

paganstar71

"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.

ndj1979

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!

Luv2Smile55

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:

jaiblevins

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.