Is 'eating at deficit' enough?

Options
13567…22

Replies

  • missdibs1
    missdibs1 Posts: 1,092 Member
    Options
    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!?
  • sheldonz42
    sheldonz42 Posts: 233 Member
    Options
    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...
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    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.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    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.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    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
    Cool, let us know when you collect your Nobel prize.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    And in to find out how thinking or talking is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    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.
  • astronomicals
    astronomicals Posts: 1,537 Member
    Options
    nice bro science OP
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    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 catch
  • devil_in_a_blue_dress
    devil_in_a_blue_dress Posts: 5,214 Member
    Options
    No, it's a deficit. Period.

    Thanks for playing though.
  • loribethrice
    loribethrice Posts: 620 Member
    Options
    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.
  • justal313
    justal313 Posts: 1,375 Member
    Options
    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.
  • christinaxcarrie
    christinaxcarrie Posts: 3
    Options
    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.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options

    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.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    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.
    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.

    Calories are calories.....unless you want to gain muscle.

    That makes no sense.
  • Kita328
    Kita328 Posts: 370 Member
    Options
    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:
  • 1princesswarrior
    1princesswarrior Posts: 1,242 Member
    Options

    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:
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    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.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    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)

Categories