Is 'eating at deficit' enough?
Options
Replies
-
<snip>
And I think even Jonny -'McDonalds'-than eats more veggies than OP does,
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.
I always thought it was what you drink before you shake-a-weight...
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.
I don't actually need to read a study to know that a (not-kilo) calorie is a unit of measure DEFINED as the amount of energy it takes to raise one gram of water one degree celsius. What your body does with calories may be quite complex, but a calorie is a unit of measure and is therefore, a calorie.
Edited for messed up quote.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.
Again, not technically right, absolutely right. And you would be wrong, on pretty much your entire post. I am not even sure what you are trying to do with your cut off your arm strawman. Your post borders on lunacy. First, you cant gain muscle while eating at a deficit. Second, you cant gain muscle without Strength training (more or less). Third, to retain lean mass while eating at a deficit, you strength train. And lastly......your post is just muddying the water too. The post is about weight loss. Period. And you don't really want to slap anyone do you? Violence is seldom the answer.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:
Since this study comes from a very reputable source I am inclined to believe it is you all that have the misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.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:
Since this study comes from a very reputable source I am inclined to believe it is you all that have the misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
LOL how open minded of you ...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:
Since this study comes from a very reputable source I am inclined to believe it is you all that have the misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
LOL how open minded of you ...
I will always challenge the status quo that people just accept without looking at things in a different light. Conventional wisdom has been incorrect on just about everything else.
There is plenty of research articles that back up their research.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:
Since this study comes from a very reputable source I am inclined to believe it is you all that have the misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
The authors of this study have a bias that is obvious. Just google them, the only thing that comes up is this study. Its an agenda driven "study". We could go back and forth all day playing pokemon with our study "cards". I do however appreciate the fact that they are trying to redefine a scientific law.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.
Hmm nope I still consider myself fairly new to successfully losing weight and my primary interest is in a lower scale #. I try to increase protein and fiber but that's pretty much it. Why would I cut off my arm to accomplish this weight loss goals rather than just eat a little less of all the things I want?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:
Since this study comes from a very reputable source I am inclined to believe it is you all that have the misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
LOL how open minded of you ...
I will always challenge the status quo that people just accept without looking at things in a different light. Conventional wisdom has been incorrect on just about everything else.
There is plenty of research articles that back up their research.
I will stick with something that has been proven to be a scientific law….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.
I don't actually need to read a study to know that a (not-kilo) calorie is a unit of measure DEFINED as the amount of energy it takes to raise one gram of water one degree celsius. What your body does with calories may be quite complex, but a calorie is a unit of measure and is therefore, a calorie.
Edited for messed up quote.
Perhaps you SHOULD read the study and go back to the original post?
Nobody is arguing that a calorie is NOT a calorie, but what kind of reaction each single calorie provokes in your body THAT is the REAL issue!
You are playing with semantics and this is not helpful on a forum that deals with weightloss and health. If I eat 1500 cal daily of chocolate or the same amount of calories in veggies the reaction of my body to those 1500 calories will differ. Nobody here seems to make a comment about losing weight healthier and faster by eating the "right" calories.
Stef.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.
I don't actually need to read a study to know that a (not-kilo) calorie is a unit of measure DEFINED as the amount of energy it takes to raise one gram of water one degree celsius. What your body does with calories may be quite complex, but a calorie is a unit of measure and is therefore, a calorie.
Edited for messed up quote.
Perhaps you SHOULD read the study and go back to the original post?
Nobody is arguing that a calorie is NOT a calorie, but what kind of reaction each single calorie provokes in your body THAT is the REAL issue!
You are playing with semantics and this is not helpful on a forum that deals with weightloss and health. If I eat 1500 cal daily of chocolate or the same amount of calories in veggies the reaction of my body to those 1500 calories will differ. Nobody here seems to make a comment about losing weight healthier and faster by eating the "right" calories.
Stef.
ummm maybe you should follow your own advice..from the last sentence of OP's post:
"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."
OP specifically said you can eat at a deficit, not be losing, and need to look at the "types of food" and not "how much food"…if you are in a true deficit, you will lose weight, period.
and who is advocating eating 1500 calories of chocolate a day?0 -
I lost 30 pounds eating a deficit. And then I woke up and was like, OMG I IZ HANGRY. So I started eating a lot of food. Like ALL the time. And I gained about 7 pounds back. Now, I'm back on track, eating at a deficit to get myself to my *WEIGHT LOSS* goal. Once there, I plan to change my goal to maintenance by adding in calories slowly and perhaps working out a bit less. But right now..since I'm trying to LOSE WEIGHT, I'm EATING AT A DEFICIT.
Hopefully really spelling this out will help the OP understand.0 -
Once again people are conflating "calorie" the unit of energy and "calorie" the metaphor for "food which contains a certain number of macronutrients." Just to claorify: a "calorie(1)" is not a "calorie(2)."
Also, the laws of thermodynamics are not directly applicable to CICO. Thermodynamics is about the behavior of heat energy. Fat gain/loss is about the number of molecules entering and leaving a body and is only indirectly related to the usable energy those molecules contain. The laws of thermodynamics say nothing about how/when a lipid/carbohydrate/protein molecule may or may not enter or leave a human body.0 -
Not technically right, absolutely right. A "clean" diet (I still haven't found 2 people who can agree on what that even is) or any other diet will perform EXACTLY the same given the same energy balance in terms of WEIGHT LOSS. Again, these types of arguments only muddy the water for people just starting out. WHAT you eat makes NO difference in terms of WEIGHT loss......NONE. 2000 calories of Twinkies or 2000 calories of kale at the same level of calorie burn will produce the same results for weight loss.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.
Technically you are right. However, it's extremely difficult to know EXACTLY how many calories you're taking in because even food labels are often incorrect, it's extremely difficult to know EXACTLY how much you're burning per day and therefore it could appear as if you're eating over your TDEE and losing weight but your body is obviously either burning more than you realise or you are taking in less than you realise. And this is when it can appear as though you are not creating a deficit and still losing weight. What the person you quoted is probably experiencing is that their body functions more effectively on a clean diet and they end up expending more energy than they were previously which could be for a number of reasons. The body is a complicated vessel.
Sorry but I can't agree. There is a lot of evidence that shows that people on a higher protein diet burn more energy than people eating lower amounts of protein. People eating lower protein also lose the most muscle and the least fat. If you take someone who is carb sensitive and put them on a high carb eating plan, they will not lose weight as fast as someone who is completely healthy. People do not process foods in the same way, and that is proved by the many people who can tolerate certain foods while others can't and those who get extremely hungry eating mostly carbohydrates while others don't. I would really like to see some evidence that what you say is correct other than "because I said so".0 -
Based on my own experience, I would have to say that eating at a calorie deficit for weight loss IS the only factor. There are times when my diet is as clean as I could possibly get it, and I still don't lose weight because I'm not at enough of a deficit. I'm not good at keeping my net calories consistent. Part of it is my slow metabolism and part of it is that I'm only trying to lose a small amount of weight. But eating healthy for weight loss isn't enough.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 agree and disagree. What you said about food being fuel creates a false dichotomy as if only certain foods "clean foods" provide nutrients which leads people down the wrong path of food obsession. It is true thought that lean meats, veggies, ect should be a staple but that doesn't mean less whole foods negate the effect of the aforementioned foods.0 -
There is two separate issues with "a calorie is a calorie".
It is. There is no way you can justify any different with that simple term.
Like saying "a mile is not always a mile".
One mile of road may be considerably more expensive to drive along in fuel terms, but may also be a lot more fun.
But it's still a mile.
HOWEVER, from what I've seen, by far the most important aspect to weight loss IS calories.
Yes, getting your macros right will help a bit - but you need the calories right in the first place.
Calories are the first thing that should be worried about.
And even less concern on micro's as far as weight loss goes.
You're not going to lose weight if you have perfect vitamin and mineral balance but a surplus of calories.0 -
Not technically right, absolutely right. A "clean" diet (I still haven't found 2 people who can agree on what that even is) or any other diet will perform EXACTLY the same given the same energy balance in terms of WEIGHT LOSS. Again, these types of arguments only muddy the water for people just starting out. WHAT you eat makes NO difference in terms of WEIGHT loss......NONE. 2000 calories of Twinkies or 2000 calories of kale at the same level of calorie burn will produce the same results for weight loss.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.
Technically you are right. However, it's extremely difficult to know EXACTLY how many calories you're taking in because even food labels are often incorrect, it's extremely difficult to know EXACTLY how much you're burning per day and therefore it could appear as if you're eating over your TDEE and losing weight but your body is obviously either burning more than you realise or you are taking in less than you realise. And this is when it can appear as though you are not creating a deficit and still losing weight. What the person you quoted is probably experiencing is that their body functions more effectively on a clean diet and they end up expending more energy than they were previously which could be for a number of reasons. The body is a complicated vessel.
Sorry but I can't agree. There is a lot of evidence that shows that people on a higher protein diet burn more energy than people eating lower amounts of protein. People eating lower protein also lose the most muscle and the least fat. If you take someone who is carb sensitive and put them on a high carb eating plan, they will not lose weight as fast as someone who is completely healthy. People do not process foods in the same way, and that is proved by the many people who can tolerate certain foods while others can't and those who get extremely hungry eating mostly carbohydrates while others don't. I would really like to see some evidence that what you say is correct other than "because I said so".
you are talking about Thematic effect of Food (TEF) which has been shown to have a slight increase, but it is so slight that it is negligible.
also, you are combining two separate issues; first - people with no medical condition; second - people with a medical condition.
yes, people with some kind of medical condition will lose more slow than the rest of us, but they still have to have a negative energy balance….
So at the end of the day it comes down to amount of calories eaten - "calories in vs calories out" - not, "quality of calories consumed"….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:
Since this study comes from a very reputable source I am inclined to believe it is you all that have the misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
In that case, I invite you to go to your local library or used book store, pick up ANY chemistry or physics textbook, and compare the definitions of the Laws of Thermodynamics to how the study defined them.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions