A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Replies
-
I finally read through all 11 pages.
Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.
A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.
That's where I disagree with you. Which calories you choose will impact your weight loss. To pretend otherwise is simply incorrect.
You should cite a peer-reviewed study that supports that. Or perhaps, considering your history of citing sources, conducting your own would be faster and easier.0 -
Maybe I can help.
I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.
The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.
Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago
That's all.
I appreciate that, but it's not true. A deficit is necessary for weight loss -- yes -- I'm in total agreement with you there. But how you create that deficit (i.e which calories you consume) will impact how much weight you actually lose.
For example (again):
--- 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. So, if you are able to catabolize only fat and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 1 lb.
--- 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals (I've seen various numbers). If you only catabolize muscle and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 2.3-5.8 lbs.
The good news is that no one loses 100%, unless something is very medically wrong. So, most lose some percentage of fat and some percentage of muscle. Ideally, you want to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. Eating a certain amount of protein and lifting heavy will help you do this is in a caloric deficit.
So, in conclusion, what you eat to create that deficit most certainly impacts your amount and type weight loss (although you will lose weight in a deficit regardless -- just how much of fat vs. muscle and how much total weight will be vary based on what you eat).
Do you really think that the body, if it has a fat store (fat being an energy reserve put aside for times of low food abundance) it is going to preferentially use muscle to get energy from in times of low food abundance? I mean, I know that some LBM will be used if you are on too high of a calorie deficit and you aren't using that muscle anymore (to carry around the fat!) but, as a rough first estimate, the body is going to use the fat it has laid down specifically for this purpose.0 -
Maybe I can help.
I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.
The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.
Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago
That's all.
I appreciate that, but it's not true. A deficit is necessary for weight loss -- yes -- I'm in total agreement with you there. But how you create that deficit (i.e which calories you consume) will impact how much weight you actually lose.
For example (again):
--- 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. So, if you are able to catabolize only fat and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 1 lb.
--- 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals (I've seen various numbers). If you only catabolize muscle and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 2.3-5.8 lbs.
The good news is that no one loses 100%, unless something is very medically wrong. So, most lose some percentage of fat and some percentage of muscle. Ideally, you want to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. Eating a certain amount of protein and lifting heavy will help you do this is in a caloric deficit.
So, in conclusion, what you eat to create that deficit most certainly impacts your amount and type weight loss (although you will lose weight in a deficit regardless -- just how much of fat vs. muscle and how much total weight will be vary based on what you eat).
Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.
If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.
You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.
I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.
As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).
But you don't know my body comp? So how can you even say that?
With as little weight to lose as I have to lose; doing it any faster is unhealthy.0 -
I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.
As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).
really because earlier in this thread you said that the quality counts to ensure you don't lose muscle and wouldn't lose as fast if the quality was there...
ETA: quote so Im not called a liarWrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.
Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.
Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.
What I've been saying over and over again is what you eat (i.e the type of calorie) impacts your weight loss. Period. Whether you lose more fat versus muscle is impacted by what you eat. Whether you lose more weight is based on whether you lose more muscle or fat (given the same caloric deficit). The more muscle you catabolize, the greater the actual weight loss is because a pound of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas a lb of fat releases 3500 kcals.
so what's your theory on a pound of carrots? A pound of Almonds? a pound of rice?
No one eats JUST one food, overall, really. That's OUR point . we all eat a combination of many foods, so there's no ONE impact on weight loss, which is why the main focus is the calorie deficit. Unless you're on Survivor, living on nothing but rice, you're going to eat a combination of many different things each day. Rather than calculate how many kcals each food source might impact you, you calculate the calories of each food source and have an overall calorie deficit. that's how it works. that deficit results in weight loss. When you maintain a deficit that results in a loss of 1-2 lbs per week, and follow a fitness plan, you keep your lean muscle while losing fat.0 -
Protein = build/repair tissueA calorie of carbs is not the same as a calorie of protein or a calorie of fat. That's what I was getting at more than anything.
Carbs/Fat = energy0 -
Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).
Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.
Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...
You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...
We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...
If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...
I really don't understand how you can't follow this.
You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.
If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.
If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.
I didn't say I didn't follow it I said it made no sense in response to what I said...in other words you are reaching again.
And no you wont have different results as far as weight loss goes.
If people eat 500 calories a day below maintenance regardless of where the food comes from and regardless of if they watch their macros will average 1lb a week weight loss...period.
What the weight is that is lost is defined by the macros...
And that's where you're wrong. 3500 deficit will not equal 1 lb of weight loss. It will equal 1 lb of weight loss if 100% of what is lost is FAT. If it's muscle, it will result in 2.3 - 5.8 lbs of weight loss.
1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. 1 lb of muscle releases far fewer --- somewhere between 600 and 1500.
Lyle does a really good job of explaining it here (as apparently I'm failing miserably at it):
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html0 -
Protein = build/repair tissueA calorie of carbs is not the same as a calorie of protein or a calorie of fat. That's what I was getting at more than anything.
Carbs/Fat = energy
Fat also helps with vitamin absorption and tissue repair.0 -
But hitting your macros doesn't have to be achieved by quality foods. I could eat McNuggets and cheeseburgers for my protein if I wanted.Lindsey, if you're at the same deficit, the weight loss will be the same. The quality does not play into that.
What the article was talking about, as seen especially in that one paragraph that was quoted a lot in here already, is that the quality is a means to an end. The end being a calorie deficit. It's easier to have a calorie deficit on quality food than on not quality food, simply because it's more filling and you won't feel hungry as much.
So it doesn't actually play into the weight loss directly, it just helps you staying in the calorie restrictions (quantity) you set for yourself.
Steven -- I appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree. Weight loss will be directly impacted by whether you catabolize more muscle than fat. Whether you do so is affected by many factors, including what you're eating to reach that deficit.
As I said earlier, they've shown that a certain level of protein impacts this. If you get that threshold amount, you'll either maintain LBM while in a caloric deficit or minimize its loss. So, you'll lose weight more slowly as you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle, but overall that's a good thing as you'll lose more fat and maintain more muscle (i.e. better body fat percentage and likely look better as the same volume of fat weighs less than the same volume of muscle).
That's very reason people advocate various macros -- because they're important (though what the balance is is hotly debated).
Steven, that's a separate debate. Just paying attention to macros shows that you do believe that not all calories are the same. A calorie of carbs is not the same as a calorie of protein or a calorie of fat. That's what I was getting at more than anything.
Do you even know what a calorie is?
Yes, I do. It's a unit of measurement -- the amount of energy required to bring 1 kg of water up 1 degree C.
But how that unit of measurement is used to discuss the impact of various nutrients on the body varies widely. Speaking of it in purely physics/chemical terms isn't that helpful to a discuss of weight loss and metabolism.0 -
OT, but sadly, I read something recently that said McDonald's patties were something like 15% meat/protein. The rest was binders and whatnot. I'll see if I can find the article. It was pretty scary.
15% protein is pretty good seeing as pure raw meat is something like 22% protein.
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/allbeef.asp
McDonald's uses 100% USDA inspected beef in their patties.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link -- bummer it was only a hoax (or probably good that it was).
No prob.
Very good for me... All this talk of Mickey D's has me jonesin' for a burger.
It's actually Taco Bell that uses fillers...oatmeal, if I remember correctly.0 -
I finally read through all 11 pages.
Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.
A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.
That's where I disagree with you. Which calories you choose will impact your weight loss. To pretend otherwise is simply incorrect.
Which MACRONUTRIENTS you choose will impact your body composition during weight loss. Not calories.0 -
Then explain this statement in reference to them eating at MacDonalds 4-5x a week...based on this you believe that better quality foods help you lose weight faster but yet you say previous to this...it makes the weight loss slower as you are just losing fat not muscle...
so which is it? you lose weight faster by quality or is it the quality that makes you lose fat only therefore slowing weight loss????
Edit to fix quote
It's both, along with other individual factors, and depends on the individual. That's why a simple statement like "a calorie is a calorie" isn't true -- it's simply not that simple in regards to weight/fat/muscle loss. It's only true when you're talking about it in purely physicist terms as a unit of measurement.0 -
For some reason, OP reminds me of this gif. I have no idea why.
0 -
But hitting your macros doesn't have to be achieved by quality foods. I could eat McNuggets and cheeseburgers for my protein if I wanted.Lindsey, if you're at the same deficit, the weight loss will be the same. The quality does not play into that.
What the article was talking about, as seen especially in that one paragraph that was quoted a lot in here already, is that the quality is a means to an end. The end being a calorie deficit. It's easier to have a calorie deficit on quality food than on not quality food, simply because it's more filling and you won't feel hungry as much.
So it doesn't actually play into the weight loss directly, it just helps you staying in the calorie restrictions (quantity) you set for yourself.
Steven -- I appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree. Weight loss will be directly impacted by whether you catabolize more muscle than fat. Whether you do so is affected by many factors, including what you're eating to reach that deficit.
As I said earlier, they've shown that a certain level of protein impacts this. If you get that threshold amount, you'll either maintain LBM while in a caloric deficit or minimize its loss. So, you'll lose weight more slowly as you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle, but overall that's a good thing as you'll lose more fat and maintain more muscle (i.e. better body fat percentage and likely look better as the same volume of fat weighs less than the same volume of muscle).
That's very reason people advocate various macros -- because they're important (though what the balance is is hotly debated).
And here's where Jonnythan jumps in and makes the point that, in this context, McNuggets and cheeseburgers ARE "quality" because they are helping you achieve your protein macro.0 -
I'm starting to think OP is incapable of reading and writing and has been dictating what to write to someone else this whole time.
Oooh. That theory has merit I believe.
Except...why would that person not be debating the OP about their obviously ridiculous argument?0 -
I finally read through all 11 pages.
Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.
A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.
That's where I disagree with you. Which calories you choose will impact your weight loss. To pretend otherwise is simply incorrect.
You should cite a peer-reviewed study that supports that. Or perhaps, considering your history of citing sources, conducting your own would be faster and easier.
I did already, but since you missed it. Here's the one about sufficient protein intake affecting LBM loss/maintenance in a caloric deficit.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17299116
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/160467150 -
Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).
Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.
Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...
You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...
We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...
If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...
I really don't understand how you can't follow this.
You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.
If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.
If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.
I didn't say I didn't follow it I said it made no sense in response to what I said...in other words you are reaching again.
And no you wont have different results as far as weight loss goes.
If people eat 500 calories a day below maintenance regardless of where the food comes from and regardless of if they watch their macros will average 1lb a week weight loss...period.
What the weight is that is lost is defined by the macros...
And that's where you're wrong. 3500 deficit will not equal 1 lb of weight loss. It will equal 1 lb of weight loss if 100% of what is lost is FAT. If it's muscle, it will result in 2.3 - 5.8 lbs of weight loss.
1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. 1 lb of muscle releases far fewer --- somewhere between 600 and 1500.
Lyle does a really good job of explaining it here (as apparently I'm failing miserably at it):
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
Again quality of the weight loss over quantity argument does not prove your point...
as the article says 100% muscle loss will never happen...
and notice I said "average" 1lb a week...why because no one is perfect.0 -
Do you really think that the body, if it has a fat store (fat being an energy reserve put aside for times of low food abundance) it is going to preferentially use muscle to get energy from in times of low food abundance? I mean, I know that some LBM will be used if you are on too high of a calorie deficit and you aren't using that muscle anymore (to carry around the fat!) but, as a rough first estimate, the body is going to use the fat it has laid down specifically for this purpose.
I think any one individual's response is going to vary. Some hold on to fat much more stubbornly than others. And that's impacted by a whole host of factors -- what they eat, hormone balance, various effects from insulin, the liver, adrenals, etc.
Otherwise, everyone would lose the same and we definitely know that's not the same. Some take off weight and fat more easily and build muscle more easily. Others don't. There is quite a spectrum.
Two things that have been shown to help shift this balance in your favor (i.e. more fat used rather than muscle) -- sufficient protein intake and heavy lifting.0 -
Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.
If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.
You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.
I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.
As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).
But you don't know my body comp? So how can you even say that?
With as little weight to lose as I have to lose; doing it any faster is unhealthy.
I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.
When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.0 -
If a calorie is not a calorie, then what is it? :P
it's a cookie
So you're telling me that I can eat 1400 cookies a day and lose weight? Awesome.
Actually, yes. However, you might want to consider adding protein powder to the cookies.0 -
I finally read through all 11 pages.
Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.
A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.
That's where I disagree with you. Which calories you choose will impact your weight loss. To pretend otherwise is simply incorrect.
Which MACRONUTRIENTS you choose will impact your body composition during weight loss. Not calories.
Great point.0 -
Then explain this statement in reference to them eating at MacDonalds 4-5x a week...based on this you believe that better quality foods help you lose weight faster but yet you say previous to this...it makes the weight loss slower as you are just losing fat not muscle...
so which is it? you lose weight faster by quality or is it the quality that makes you lose fat only therefore slowing weight loss????
Edit to fix quote
It's both, along with other individual factors, and depends on the individual. That's why a simple statement like "a calorie is a calorie" isn't true -- it's simply not that simple in regards to weight/fat/muscle loss. It's only true when you're talking about it in purely physicist terms as a unit of measurement.
so when you contradict yourself you back track and say both statements are correct when they are in complete opposition to each other...
okay gotcha...right fighters are always right
I bow out because I actually do have to do some heavy lifting now...
If nothing else (because lindsey is not educational) it's been entertaining to watch someone so doggidly say one thing then say the complete opposite and then say both are correct....:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
It's like arguing with my mother about religion...I would rather be happy lifting then be laughing at this charade of intelligence...0 -
What I've been saying over and over again is what you eat (i.e the type of calorie) impacts your weight loss. Period. Whether you lose more fat versus muscle is impacted by what you eat. Whether you lose more weight is based on whether you lose more muscle or fat (given the same caloric deficit). The more muscle you catabolize, the greater the actual weight loss is because a pound of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas a lb of fat releases 3500 kcals.
so what's your theory on a pound of carrots? A pound of Almonds? a pound of rice?
No one eats JUST one food, overall, really. That's OUR point . we all eat a combination of many foods, so there's no ONE impact on weight loss, which is why the main focus is the calorie deficit. Unless you're on Survivor, living on nothing but rice, you're going to eat a combination of many different things each day. Rather than calculate how many kcals each food source might impact you, you calculate the calories of each food source and have an overall calorie deficit. that's how it works. that deficit results in weight loss. When you maintain a deficit that results in a loss of 1-2 lbs per week, and follow a fitness plan, you keep your lean muscle while losing fat.
Once again, I'm not attacking your strategy or trying to invalidate it. I'm simply putting out the general premise, and how people interpret it differently results in many of the various eating strategies out there -- from IIFYM, to Paleo, to Atkins, etc.
Some are bunk and poorly premised, others make more sense. But they all rely on the basic idea that what calories you choose impact weight loss, though they all go about it in different ways (at least those aimed at losing weight). Debating the different strategies is a whole other hornet's nest, which I'm not trying to do here. Just point out that what you choose to eat makes a difference and it's not all just about gross caloric number (though that's important as well).0 -
Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.
If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.
You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.
I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.
As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).
But you don't know my body comp? So how can you even say that?
With as little weight to lose as I have to lose; doing it any faster is unhealthy.
I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.
When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.
Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.0 -
Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.
If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.
You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.
I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.
As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).
But you don't know my body comp? So how can you even say that?
With as little weight to lose as I have to lose; doing it any faster is unhealthy.
I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.
When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.
Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.
Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.0 -
Why are you arguing about hypothetical things that don't happen in the real world? And why are you picking articles that don't actually support your point?Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).
Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.
Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...
You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...
We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...
If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...
I really don't understand how you can't follow this.
You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.
If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.
If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.
I didn't say I didn't follow it I said it made no sense in response to what I said...in other words you are reaching again.
And no you wont have different results as far as weight loss goes.
If people eat 500 calories a day below maintenance regardless of where the food comes from and regardless of if they watch their macros will average 1lb a week weight loss...period.
What the weight is that is lost is defined by the macros...
And that's where you're wrong. 3500 deficit will not equal 1 lb of weight loss. It will equal 1 lb of weight loss if 100% of what is lost is FAT. If it's muscle, it will result in 2.3 - 5.8 lbs of weight loss.
1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. 1 lb of muscle releases far fewer --- somewhere between 600 and 1500.
Lyle does a really good job of explaining it here (as apparently I'm failing miserably at it):
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
From the article
Never happens, so it's a pointless thing to try and argue.Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week.
Also, from the article:
In other words, Lyle specifically states that gaining or losing faster or slower than expected is due to daily activity, NOT specific food or nutrient combinations. This article doesn't support any of your claims.Changes in SPA/NEAT can vary hugely and explain most of the discrepancies in expected vs. actual weight gain.
And finally
In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and people who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. So you actually linked an article in an attempt to prove your point that actually went ahead and said that your argument is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. Kind of amusing, really. :laugh:Most claims that the energy balance equation is invalid are due to people simply not knowing what they are talking about. The equation is valid, it has to be, what’s invalid are people’s assumptions about how things should work.0 -
Again quality of the weight loss over quantity argument does not prove your point...
as the article says 100% muscle loss will never happen...
and notice I said "average" 1lb a week...why because no one is perfect.
The quality directly impacts the quantity. The better quality weight loss (i.e. more fat), the less actual weight loss because of the differences between muscle and fat.
The only thing it doesn't impact is the yes/no binary-ness of whether weight loss occurs. In both scenarios, weight loss occurs. But how much occurs and whether that's fat vs. muscle depends on what you're eating (along with other individual factors).0 -
Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.
If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.
You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.
I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.
As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).
But you don't know my body comp? So how can you even say that?
With as little weight to lose as I have to lose; doing it any faster is unhealthy.
I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.
When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.
Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.
Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.
Yea, I'm out at this point lol. I know less now than I did before I came in here. This is why these types of threads are dangerous to people and why I pointed that out in the beginning. ugh0 -
Why are you arguing about hypothetical things that don't happen in the real world? And why are you picking articles that don't actually support your point?Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).
Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.
Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...
You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...
We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...
If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...
I really don't understand how you can't follow this.
You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.
If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.
If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.
I didn't say I didn't follow it I said it made no sense in response to what I said...in other words you are reaching again.
And no you wont have different results as far as weight loss goes.
If people eat 500 calories a day below maintenance regardless of where the food comes from and regardless of if they watch their macros will average 1lb a week weight loss...period.
What the weight is that is lost is defined by the macros...
And that's where you're wrong. 3500 deficit will not equal 1 lb of weight loss. It will equal 1 lb of weight loss if 100% of what is lost is FAT. If it's muscle, it will result in 2.3 - 5.8 lbs of weight loss.
1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. 1 lb of muscle releases far fewer --- somewhere between 600 and 1500.
Lyle does a really good job of explaining it here (as apparently I'm failing miserably at it):
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
From the article
Never happens, so it's a pointless thing to try and argue.Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week.
Also, from the article:
In other words, Lyle specifically states that gaining or losing faster or slower than expected is due to daily activity, NOT specific food or nutrient combinations. This article doesn't support any of your claims.Changes in SPA/NEAT can vary hugely and explain most of the discrepancies in expected vs. actual weight gain.
And finally
In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and people who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. So you actually linked an article in an attempt to prove your point that actually went ahead and said that your argument is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. Kind of amusing, really. :laugh:Most claims that the energy balance equation is invalid are due to people simply not knowing what they are talking about. The equation is valid, it has to be, what’s invalid are people’s assumptions about how things should work.
don't waste your time brother..she is never wrong...must be nice..0 -
Then explain this statement in reference to them eating at MacDonalds 4-5x a week...based on this you believe that better quality foods help you lose weight faster but yet you say previous to this...it makes the weight loss slower as you are just losing fat not muscle...
so which is it? you lose weight faster by quality or is it the quality that makes you lose fat only therefore slowing weight loss????
Edit to fix quote
It's both, along with other individual factors, and depends on the individual. That's why a simple statement like "a calorie is a calorie" isn't true -- it's simply not that simple in regards to weight/fat/muscle loss. It's only true when you're talking about it in purely physicist terms as a unit of measurement.
so when you contradict yourself you back track and say both statements are correct when they are in complete opposition to each other...
okay gotcha...right fighters are always right
I bow out because I actually do have to do some heavy lifting now...
If nothing else (because lindsey is not educational) it's been entertaining to watch someone so doggidly say one thing then say the complete opposite and then say both are correct....:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
It's like arguing with my mother about religion...I would rather be happy lifting then be laughing at this charade of intelligence...
Where is their a contradiction? I've been saying the same thing ALL the time. That they're both important. I've just been debunking the idea that quality isn't important and the only thing that is important is quantity. Consistent the ENTIRE time.0 -
I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.
When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.
Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.
But I said "maybe". Maybe you would have lost it faster. Maybe you would have lost more fat rathe than muscle. Maybe you would have a better body comp right now. Maybe.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions