Is 'eating at deficit' enough?
Replies
-
After seeing how everyone was jumping on the OP, I was going to step in and try to give some validation to some of the points she made.
But I decided to check out her diary first, and NAHHHHH, she is on her own with this one.
In my opinion, Shakeology would fall under the garbage category. And I think even Jonny -'McDonalds'-than eats more veggies than OP does,
I don't see many jumping but because of this post I did look at her diary...
I want to find that bacon that is 69 calories for 1.5 slices...:laugh:
It's all those "superfoods" in Shakeology that makes a difference I'm sure.0 -
Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
if the scale is not moving then you are eating at maintenance or at a surplus…
reduce intake slightly and see what happens..
most people that have this problem are not weighing/logging/measuring all of their food…0 -
in….for the snowflakes who defy the law of mathematics and physics...0
-
After seeing how everyone was jumping on the OP, I was going to step in and try to give some validation to some of the points she made.
But I decided to check out her diary first, and NAHHHHH, she is on her own with this one.
In my opinion, Shakeology would fall under the garbage category. And I think even Jonny -'McDonalds'-than eats more veggies than OP does,
I don't see many jumping but because of this post I did look at her diary...
I want to find that bacon that is 69 calories for 1.5 slices...:laugh:
It's all those "superfoods" in Shakeology that makes a difference I'm sure.
According to the USDA website 1 slice of bacon only has 42 calories. So 1.5 slices of bacon would be only 63 calories, which she over estimated actually.0 -
If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.
Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
What are macro nutrients? In a nutshell....I'm not sure.0 -
Everyone is different. Personally carbs are my downfall. I can eat clean and lose all kinds of weight even over my caloric intake. The best ides is to do a body fat % and see what works for you. Losing weight isn't a cookie cutter situation. Some people need different way to attack it.
End of
no everyone is the same ..it boils down to being in a calorie deficit…
unless you are diabetic or have some kind of carb sensitivity..but even then, it still comes down to eating less then you burn...0 -
If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.
Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
It matters what your goals are. If weight loss is your only goal then Yes eating at a deficit is enough. If you are looking for overall health then some of what you say has merit. Macros are vital but all food is fuel and I do not believe there is any "garbage" foods as you say.
Twizzlers are garbage food. Delicious but garbage.0 -
Technically, if you eat less than you burn, no matter where you get your calories, you will lose weight.
That is the first law of Thermodynamics, (I believe)
BUT...... WHERE those calories come from, will affect your body composition, which will affect your metabolism.
i.e. if you do not eat enough protein to feed your muscles, then your muscle mass will lower and you will not burn as many calories. This means your BMR and TDEE are now lower and you must lower your intake to keep the same deficit.
Also, simple, processed sugars and carbs do not keep you full and satiated for very long, so you are hungry again soon after you eat. They also spike your blood sugar, (if that is all you are eating), and after the initial sugar high, there is a crash, and you will be reaching for more sugar/simple carbs soon in an attempt to get your energy level back up. For these reasons, it may be harder to stay within your calorie goal.
For certain people with PCOS, Diabetes, and other metabolic disorders, Macros definitely do make a big difference in their weight loss efforts. Their bodies do not process carbs/sugar the same way as a healthy person, and if they eat a high carb diet, they won't be able to eat as many calories as they could on a lower carb diet.
For the average healthy person, it is simply calories in-calories out. For a while anyway.
Common sense goes along way in the process.
Most people realize that you would not be healthy eating nothing but donuts all day.
They also realize that eating 100% 'clean' every single day for the rest of your life, and never having a donut, or pizza,etc, is very unlikely.
Moderation. It is an amazing thing.0 -
^that!0
-
Wrong.If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.
Well, unless you ACTUALLY mean eating out of the bin (err, lets ignore the times I've done that :P), then a lot of what I eat others would term 'garbage' and I've done just fine on both accounts.
I do make an effort with protein these days, but haven't in the past and have been ok too.0 -
If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.
Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
There is a difference between weight loss and body recomp I think this si what you are trying to say!?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Everyone is different. Personally carbs are my downfall. I can eat clean and lose all kinds of weight even over my caloric intake. The best ides is to do a body fat % and see what works for you. Losing weight isn't a cookie cutter situation. Some people need different way to attack it.
End of
Sorry but, no. No one can eat above TDEE and lose weight. That would defy the laws of thermodynamics. It really is just calories.
Saying a calorie is just a calorie violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
A calorie (kcal) is a unit of measure. How those calories are burned, part of which involves the 2nd law, does not change the unit of measure. A calorie is a calorie just as a meter is a meter, a gram is a gram, etc., ad nauseum...0 -
Technically, if you eat less than you burn, no matter where you get your calories, you will lose weight.
That is the first law of Thermodynamics, (I believe)
BUT...... WHERE those calories come from, will affect your body composition, which will affect your metabolism.
i.e. if you do not eat enough protein to feed your muscles, then your muscle mass will lower and you will not burn as many calories. This means your BMR and TDEE are now lower and you must lower your intake to keep the same deficit.
Also, simple, processed sugars and carbs do not keep you full and satiated for very long, so you are hungry again soon after you eat. They also spike your blood sugar, (if that is all you are eating), and after the initial sugar high, there is a crash, and you will be reaching for more sugar/simple carbs soon in an attempt to get your energy level back up. For these reasons, it may be harder to stay within your calorie goal.
For certain people with PCOS, Diabetes, and other metabolic disorders, Macros definitely do make a big difference in their weight loss efforts. Their bodies do not process carbs/sugar the same way as a healthy person, and if they eat a high carb diet, they won't be able to eat as many calories as they could on a lower carb diet.
For the average healthy person, it is simply calories in-calories out. For a while anyway.
Common sense goes along way in the process.
Most people realize that you would not be healthy eating nothing but donuts all day.
They also realize that eating 100% 'clean' every single day for the rest of your life, and never having a donut, or pizza,etc, is very unlikely.
Moderation. It is an amazing thing.
Actually the studies I have been reading contradict everything that everyone says about a "calorie being a calorie", even for a normal, healthy person.
Saying that a calorie is a calorie is actually violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
It is commonly held that "a calorie is a calorie", i.e. that diets of equal caloric content will result in identical weight change independent of macronutrient composition, and appeal is frequently made to the laws of thermodynamics. We have previously shown that thermodynamics does not support such a view and that diets of different macronutrient content may be expected to induce different changes in body mass.0 -
Everyone is different. Personally carbs are my downfall. I can eat clean and lose all kinds of weight even over my caloric intake. The best ides is to do a body fat % and see what works for you. Losing weight isn't a cookie cutter situation. Some people need different way to attack it.
End of
Sorry but, no. No one can eat above TDEE and lose weight. That would defy the laws of thermodynamics. It really is just calories.
Saying a calorie is just a calorie violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
A calorie (kcal) is a unit of measure. How those calories are burned, part of which involves the 2nd law, does not change the unit of measure. A calorie is a calorie just as a meter is a meter, a gram is a gram, etc., ad nauseum...
You are trying to simplify what is not as simple. Obviously you did not read the study and how a calorie is a calorie only applies to Law 1 of thermodynamics and thinking as such actually violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.0 -
Cool, let us know when you collect your Nobel prize.Everyone is different. Personally carbs are my downfall. I can eat clean and lose all kinds of weight even over my caloric intake. The best ides is to do a body fat % and see what works for you. Losing weight isn't a cookie cutter situation. Some people need different way to attack it.
End of0 -
And in to find out how thinking or talking is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.0
-
Technically, if you eat less than you burn, no matter where you get your calories, you will lose weight.
That is the first law of Thermodynamics, (I believe)
BUT...... WHERE those calories come from, will affect your body composition, which will affect your metabolism.
i.e. if you do not eat enough protein to feed your muscles, then your muscle mass will lower and you will not burn as many calories. This means your BMR and TDEE are now lower and you must lower your intake to keep the same deficit.
Also, simple, processed sugars and carbs do not keep you full and satiated for very long, so you are hungry again soon after you eat. They also spike your blood sugar, (if that is all you are eating), and after the initial sugar high, there is a crash, and you will be reaching for more sugar/simple carbs soon in an attempt to get your energy level back up. For these reasons, it may be harder to stay within your calorie goal.
For certain people with PCOS, Diabetes, and other metabolic disorders, Macros definitely do make a big difference in their weight loss efforts. Their bodies do not process carbs/sugar the same way as a healthy person, and if they eat a high carb diet, they won't be able to eat as many calories as they could on a lower carb diet.
For the average healthy person, it is simply calories in-calories out. For a while anyway.
Common sense goes along way in the process.
Most people realize that you would not be healthy eating nothing but donuts all day.
They also realize that eating 100% 'clean' every single day for the rest of your life, and never having a donut, or pizza,etc, is very unlikely.
Moderation. It is an amazing thing.
protein also causes an insulin spike …but I do not see anyone arguing against eating that…
and even if you have a medical condition it still comes down to consuming less than you are taking it, it just becomes more difficult to do so.0 -
nice bro science OP0
-
After seeing how everyone was jumping on the OP, I was going to step in and try to give some validation to some of the points she made.
But I decided to check out her diary first, and NAHHHHH, she is on her own with this one.
In my opinion, Shakeology would fall under the garbage category. And I think even Jonny -'McDonalds'-than eats more veggies than OP does,
Thanks for pointing that out. I was wondering if this post was some sort of affirmation or need for validations for the OP in regards to what was going on with the her losses, lack thereof, or intake. Nice catch0 -
No, it's a deficit. Period.
Thanks for playing though.0 -
If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.
Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
I don't know if I really agree. I have SED (selective eating disorder) and only eat foods that you would consider garbage and yet I have lost 28lbs. I have never eaten vegetables in my life except lettuce a few times. I just keep at a deficit.0 -
After seeing how everyone was jumping on the OP, I was going to step in and try to give some validation to some of the points she made.
But I decided to check out her diary first, and NAHHHHH, she is on her own with this one.
In my opinion, Shakeology would fall under the garbage category. And I think even Jonny -'McDonalds'-than eats more veggies than OP does,
Holy Crap, I thought that "Shakeology" was a catch-all derisive term for meal replacement drinks. I had NO IDEA it was an actual product.0 -
I really want to slap some of the people on here who are like "Omg you are muddying up the water...blah, blah, blah." The truth of the matter is they are technically right about eating at a deficit being enough to lose weight, but nobody actually wants to lose weight, they want to lose BODY FAT. I could lose weight by cutting off my arm, but I am still just as fat as I was before cutting my arm off right?
A calorie in vs. a calorie out only goes so far. It effects the number on the scale, but when it comes down to losing body fat you do need to pay more attention to what you eat. If I'm loading up on carbs, even if I'm on a calorie deficit, I'm not going to lose fat I'm going to lose weight but chances are its going to be the right type of weight.0 -
You are trying to simplify what is not as simple. Obviously you did not read the study and how a calorie is a calorie only applies to Law 1 of thermodynamics and thinking as such actually violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And you obviously don't understand the study you linked to. As I tore it apart in another thread where it was mentioned, it's absolute garbage.
Firstly, they misdefine every law of thermodynamics except the first. As such, they have no business talking about the laws of thermodynamics in the first place.
Secondly, human bodies are not closed systems. As such, the argument(s) that they are trying to make don't apply.0 -
you are wrong too......sorry not everyone is equal. I know plenty of people who eat worse than I do and still see better results. It is different for everyone.I really want to slap some of the people on here who are like "Omg you are muddying up the water...blah, blah, blah." The truth of the matter is they are technically right about eating at a deficit being enough to lose weight, but nobody actually wants to lose weight, they want to lose BODY FAT. I could lose weight by cutting off my arm, but I am still just as fat as I was before cutting my arm off right?
A calorie in vs. a calorie out only goes so far. It effects the number on the scale, but when it comes down to losing body fat you do need to pay more attention to what you eat. If I'm loading up on carbs, even if I'm on a calorie deficit, I'm not going to lose fat I'm going to lose weight but chances are its going to be the right type of weight.
Calories are calories.....unless you want to gain muscle.
That makes no sense.0 -
If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.
Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
No it really is just about eating less than you burn.
As for garbage yah I don't dumpster dive and feel for those who have to in order to eat...that's awful.
:laugh:0 -
You are trying to simplify what is not as simple. Obviously you did not read the study and how a calorie is a calorie only applies to Law 1 of thermodynamics and thinking as such actually violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And you obviously don't understand the study you linked to. As I tore it apart in another thread where it was mentioned, it's absolute garbage.
Firstly, they misdefine every law of thermodynamics except the first. As such, they have no business talking about the laws of thermodynamics in the first place.
Secondly, human bodies are not closed systems. As such, the argument(s) that they are trying to make don't apply.
You took the words right out of my fingers. I didn't even finish the article because it was so bad and such a horrible misunderstanding of thermodynamics.
:drinker:0 -
I really want to slap some of the people on here who are like "Omg you are muddying up the water...blah, blah, blah." The truth of the matter is they are technically right about eating at a deficit being enough to lose weight, but nobody actually wants to lose weight, they want to lose BODY FAT. I could lose weight by cutting off my arm, but I am still just as fat as I was before cutting my arm off right?
A calorie in vs. a calorie out only goes so far. It effects the number on the scale, but when it comes down to losing body fat you do need to pay more attention to what you eat. If I'm loading up on carbs, even if I'm on a calorie deficit, I'm not going to lose fat I'm going to lose weight but chances are its going to be the right type of weight.
wait so there is another way to lose fat besides calorie deficit????? If you want to utilize your fat stores then you have to have a negative energy balance.0 -
If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.
Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
I've never eaten garbage. It is kind of a given that anything out of the garbage is going to contain germs that will make you sick. :sick:
If you are trying to lose weight, and the scale isn't moving, then you aren't in a deficit. (or you have some underlying medical condition that only a doctor can diagnose)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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