Is 'eating at deficit' enough?
Options
Replies
-
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.
That's a good analogy. One mile is one mile, but driving that mile is not the same as walking is, which is not the same as biking it. But it's still a mile.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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.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".
I can produce as much evidence to prove my point as you can to prove yours. With that said, you can go back and read my posts and they refer to "weight loss". Not "fat loss", not "muscle retention" (except that one where I was making a different point), not overall health. The reason I dig my heels in on this is because for people to lose weight, all people, every people (good grammar, I know) is a calorie deficit. It is mind numbingly simple. You can explain it to someone in a couple of minutes or just a few typed sentences. I would bet the vast majority of people starting out to lose weight don't know much about macro distribution and probably don't care, at least to begin with. Now the OP said, if you are eating at a deficit AND not losing weight, its probably the food you are eating. That is just false and all of my replies have been to address that point in general. I take issue with anyone who follows any diet that says anything other than CICO for WEIGHT LOSS, because that is all that matters for weight loss. It never fails that "clean eaters" or paleo eaters jump all over this and proclaim it false. It is not false. I welcome all comers to produce evidence to prove that eating fewer calories than you burn will NOT cause weight loss.
ETA an apology for typos and grammar that I am just too lazy to fix.0 -
Just a thumbs up! I love when people say "give me studies to prove your point" when they don't produce any studies to prove their own.
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".
I can produce as much evidence to prove my point as you can to prove yours. With that said, you can go back and read my posts and they refer to "weight loss". Not "fat loss", not "muscle retention" (except that one where I was making a different point), not overall health. The reason I dig my heels in on this is because for people to lose weight, all people, every people (good grammar, I know) is a calorie deficit. It is mind numbingly simple. You can explain it to someone in a couple of minutes or just a few typed sentences. I would bet the vast majority of people starting out to lose weight don't know much about macro distribution and probably don't care, at least to begin with. Now the OP said, if you are eating at a deficit AND not losing weight, its probably the food you are eating. That is just false and all of my replies have been to address that point in general. I take issue with anyone who follows any diet that says anything other than CICO for WEIGHT LOSS, because that is all that matters for weight loss. It never fails that "clean eaters" or paleo eaters jump all over this and proclaim it false. It is not false. I welcome all comers to produce evidence to prove that eating fewer calories than you burn will NOT cause weight loss.
ETA an apology for typos and grammar that I am just too lazy to fix.0 -
Just a thumbs up! I love when people say "give me studies to prove your point" when they don't produce any studies to prove their own.
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".
I can produce as much evidence to prove my point as you can to prove yours. With that said, you can go back and read my posts and they refer to "weight loss". Not "fat loss", not "muscle retention" (except that one where I was making a different point), not overall health. The reason I dig my heels in on this is because for people to lose weight, all people, every people (good grammar, I know) is a calorie deficit. It is mind numbingly simple. You can explain it to someone in a couple of minutes or just a few typed sentences. I would bet the vast majority of people starting out to lose weight don't know much about macro distribution and probably don't care, at least to begin with. Now the OP said, if you are eating at a deficit AND not losing weight, its probably the food you are eating. That is just false and all of my replies have been to address that point in general. I take issue with anyone who follows any diet that says anything other than CICO for WEIGHT LOSS, because that is all that matters for weight loss. It never fails that "clean eaters" or paleo eaters jump all over this and proclaim it false. It is not false. I welcome all comers to produce evidence to prove that eating fewer calories than you burn will NOT cause weight loss.
ETA an apology for typos and grammar that I am just too lazy to fix.
I don't think I ever said that. I gave an explanation with specifics while he just said, "I'm right".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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.
First - you seem to be contradicting yourself in the first paragraph you say that it is not about calories for some people, but then you go on to agree that calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone.
Second - please provide a link to that study, as everyone I have seen has always said that the effect is not enough to make a significant impact on weight loss/metabolism.
third - of course the same energy imbalance will not work the same for everyone. I have 12% body fat and at a 500 calorie deficit, I am going to lose a lot slower then say an obese male with 25% body fat. I don't think anyone even made that point…
Finally - who in the heck would want to eat 2000 calories of kale *gag* or 2000 calories of sugar???? I do not really think that is a valid comparison. Ever heard of the twinkie diet? The guy ate twinkies and lost weight and body fat ….here is a link to a general article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
here is a snippet about his health indicators after the diet:
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."
so you might want to re think what you are saying about the 2000 calorie sugar diet...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".
I can produce as much evidence to prove my point as you can to prove yours. With that said, you can go back and read my posts and they refer to "weight loss". Not "fat loss", not "muscle retention" (except that one where I was making a different point), not overall health. The reason I dig my heels in on this is because for people to lose weight, all people, every people (good grammar, I know) is a calorie deficit. It is mind numbingly simple. You can explain it to someone in a couple of minutes or just a few typed sentences. I would bet the vast majority of people starting out to lose weight don't know much about macro distribution and probably don't care, at least to begin with. Now the OP said, if you are eating at a deficit AND not losing weight, its probably the food you are eating. That is just false and all of my replies have been to address that point in general. I take issue with anyone who follows any diet that says anything other than CICO for WEIGHT LOSS, because that is all that matters for weight loss. It never fails that "clean eaters" or paleo eaters jump all over this and proclaim it false. It is not false. I welcome all comers to produce evidence to prove that eating fewer calories than you burn will NOT cause weight loss.
ETA an apology for typos and grammar that I am just too lazy to fix.
So you believe that everyone loses muscle at the same rate? If you're talking about weight alone and not fat or muscle then you're not taking into account bone loss and water loss, and people certainly don't lose those things at the same rate so how exactly would weight loss be the same? And if you can provide some evidence that EVERYONE processes ALL foods the same, please do so. I have never seen one study that shows exact same amount of weight loss amongst every person and usually an average is taken. So even if a few different studies of different diets show the same average weight loss, how would that prove that every person loses weight at the same rate? And what about bowel movements for that matter? Does everyone have the same amount of waste loss too?? Plus, fat and muscle have different density so how can weight loss be the same even if 2 people have the same TDEE but one is preserving muscle while the other is losing? A 3500 deficit that should cause a loss of 1lb of fat will not cause a 1lb loss of muscle because muscle is less energy dense.
Health is obviously a factor in weight loss or people with health conditions wouldn't have a harder time losing weight, would they? I never argued that you don't need to create a deficit, but I don't think you have provided anything to suggest that calculating calories in and calories out is an exact science.
The post of yours I responded to wasn't in relation to what the OP said, but rather someone who claimed to be eating above their TDEE and still losing weight. I explained how this could appear to be the case because of how different people's bodies react differently to different foods. That's a fact. As for not losing weight in a deficit though it absolutely is possible because 1. Weight loss is not linear so you may lose nothing for weeks whilst eating at a deficit and then suddenly drop a few lbs in one go and 2. If you have messed up your hormones or digestion by eating foods that don't agree with your body it won't as readily let go of fat. E.g. stress hormone cortisol. I'm not just making this stuff up.
So to conclude, I have not at any time disagreed that a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight/fat/muscle, whatever. But I will never agree that what you eat doesn't matter and that 2000 calories of kale will produce the same results as 2000 calories of twinkies. Weight loss may occur in both situations, but it won't be at the same rate.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.
I automatically think George Costanza eating the eclair out of the trash!!! "If its adjacent to refuse, it's refuse!!!"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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.
First - you seem to be contradicting yourself in the first paragraph you say that it is not about calories for some people, but then you go on to agree that calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone.
Second - please provide a link to that study, as everyone I have seen has always said that the effect is not enough to make a significant impact on weight loss/metabolism.
third - of course the same energy imbalance will not work the same for everyone. I have 12% body fat and at a 500 calorie deficit, I am going to lose a lot slower then say an obese male with 25% body fat. I don't think anyone even made that point…
Finally - who in the heck would want to eat 2000 calories of kale *gag* or 2000 calories of sugar???? I do not really think that is a valid comparison. Ever heard of the twinkie diet? The guy ate twinkies and lost weight and body fat ….here is a link to a general article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
here is a snippet about his health indicators after the diet:
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."
so you might want to re think what you are saying about the 2000 calorie sugar diet...
No you're twisting my words. I said it's not ONLY about calories. I do not disagree that a calorie deficit is needed, but in many cases it is not the only factor.
the guy who I quoted did actually say that weight loss will occur at the same rate for everyone no matter what is eaten and you have quoted my response to him. The comparison I used was the same as his, stating that 2000 calories of kale or 2000 calories of twinkies would produce the same results. I am only using the comparisons that others are to prove my point, so don't take issue with me on it. I haven't said you can't lose weight eating only twinkies at a deficit, but are you seriously suggesting that you'd get the same results eating the same calories of vegetables?? Or that a female would lose the same amount of weight? Or someone who is carb sensitive would lose at the same rate? The article doesn't say how much his muscle mass changed but I would expect muscle loss would be more on a low protein diet. There can be a number of reasons for the changes in his health markers and since he didn't eat twinkies alone it would be hard to say, but anyway that was never my point.
This study shows at least one person burned an extra 300 cals a day on a low carb diet: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154. The average will obviously show different results, but this just emphasises the fact that everyone's body reacts differently.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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.
First - you seem to be contradicting yourself in the first paragraph you say that it is not about calories for some people, but then you go on to agree that calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone.
Second - please provide a link to that study, as everyone I have seen has always said that the effect is not enough to make a significant impact on weight loss/metabolism.
third - of course the same energy imbalance will not work the same for everyone. I have 12% body fat and at a 500 calorie deficit, I am going to lose a lot slower then say an obese male with 25% body fat. I don't think anyone even made that point…
Finally - who in the heck would want to eat 2000 calories of kale *gag* or 2000 calories of sugar???? I do not really think that is a valid comparison. Ever heard of the twinkie diet? The guy ate twinkies and lost weight and body fat ….here is a link to a general article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
here is a snippet about his health indicators after the diet:
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."
so you might want to re think what you are saying about the 2000 calorie sugar diet...
No you're twisting my words. I said it's not ONLY about calories. I do not disagree that a calorie deficit is needed, but in many cases it is not the only factor.
the guy who I quoted did actually say that weight loss will occur at the same rate for everyone no matter what is eaten and you have quoted my response to him. The comparison I used was the same as his, stating that 2000 calories of kale or 2000 calories of twinkies would produce the same results. I am only using the comparisons that others are to prove my point, so don't take issue with me on it. I haven't said you can't lose weight eating only twinkies at a deficit, but are you seriously suggesting that you'd get the same results eating the same calories of vegetables?? Or that a female would lose the same amount of weight? Or someone who is carb sensitive would lose at the same rate? The article doesn't say how much his muscle mass changed but I would expect muscle loss would be more on a low protein diet. There can be a number of reasons for the changes in his health markers and since he didn't eat twinkies alone it would be hard to say, but anyway that was never my point.
you are the one contradicting yourself..saying that calories do not matter for some of us, and then coming back and saying that calorie deficit is what works.
All I am saying is that you can eat what people call "garbage" aka twinkies , and lose weight and have better health markers. Would it be the same if you ate only vegetables, probably not, but you would probably burn through as much muscle on a diet of only vegetables as you would on a diet of only twinkies.
I never said that people lose weight at the same rate, and I do not think anyone in this thread did.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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.
First - you seem to be contradicting yourself in the first paragraph you say that it is not about calories for some people, but then you go on to agree that calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone.
Second - please provide a link to that study, as everyone I have seen has always said that the effect is not enough to make a significant impact on weight loss/metabolism.
third - of course the same energy imbalance will not work the same for everyone. I have 12% body fat and at a 500 calorie deficit, I am going to lose a lot slower then say an obese male with 25% body fat. I don't think anyone even made that point…
Finally - who in the heck would want to eat 2000 calories of kale *gag* or 2000 calories of sugar???? I do not really think that is a valid comparison. Ever heard of the twinkie diet? The guy ate twinkies and lost weight and body fat ….here is a link to a general article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
here is a snippet about his health indicators after the diet:
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."
so you might want to re think what you are saying about the 2000 calorie sugar diet...
No you're twisting my words. I said it's not ONLY about calories. I do not disagree that a calorie deficit is needed, but in many cases it is not the only factor.
the guy who I quoted did actually say that weight loss will occur at the same rate for everyone no matter what is eaten and you have quoted my response to him. The comparison I used was the same as his, stating that 2000 calories of kale or 2000 calories of twinkies would produce the same results. I am only using the comparisons that others are to prove my point, so don't take issue with me on it. I haven't said you can't lose weight eating only twinkies at a deficit, but are you seriously suggesting that you'd get the same results eating the same calories of vegetables?? Or that a female would lose the same amount of weight? Or someone who is carb sensitive would lose at the same rate? The article doesn't say how much his muscle mass changed but I would expect muscle loss would be more on a low protein diet. There can be a number of reasons for the changes in his health markers and since he didn't eat twinkies alone it would be hard to say, but anyway that was never my point.
I will say it. I believe that the weight loss difference would be negligible on these two diets over a given time. ONCE AGAIN, I am talking about weight loss not body composition, not overall health, not rate of loss between fat and muscle. This is what I am talking about when I say muddying up the water. Its really very simple: Calorie deficit=weight loss. Period. You cant argue that. You don't need LCHF or LCHP diet to lose weight. Just eat less than you burn. Now I am gonna rage quit the tread because you are being mean. I think Ill go start a mean people thread about it.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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.
First - you seem to be contradicting yourself in the first paragraph you say that it is not about calories for some people, but then you go on to agree that calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone.
Second - please provide a link to that study, as everyone I have seen has always said that the effect is not enough to make a significant impact on weight loss/metabolism.
third - of course the same energy imbalance will not work the same for everyone. I have 12% body fat and at a 500 calorie deficit, I am going to lose a lot slower then say an obese male with 25% body fat. I don't think anyone even made that point…
Finally - who in the heck would want to eat 2000 calories of kale *gag* or 2000 calories of sugar???? I do not really think that is a valid comparison. Ever heard of the twinkie diet? The guy ate twinkies and lost weight and body fat ….here is a link to a general article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
here is a snippet about his health indicators after the diet:
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."
so you might want to re think what you are saying about the 2000 calorie sugar diet...
No you're twisting my words. I said it's not ONLY about calories. I do not disagree that a calorie deficit is needed, but in many cases it is not the only factor.
the guy who I quoted did actually say that weight loss will occur at the same rate for everyone no matter what is eaten and you have quoted my response to him. The comparison I used was the same as his, stating that 2000 calories of kale or 2000 calories of twinkies would produce the same results. I am only using the comparisons that others are to prove my point, so don't take issue with me on it. I haven't said you can't lose weight eating only twinkies at a deficit, but are you seriously suggesting that you'd get the same results eating the same calories of vegetables?? Or that a female would lose the same amount of weight? Or someone who is carb sensitive would lose at the same rate? The article doesn't say how much his muscle mass changed but I would expect muscle loss would be more on a low protein diet. There can be a number of reasons for the changes in his health markers and since he didn't eat twinkies alone it would be hard to say, but anyway that was never my point.
you are the one contradicting yourself..saying that calories do not matter for some of us, and then coming back and saying that calorie deficit is what works.
All I am saying is that you can eat what people call "garbage" aka twinkies , and lose weight and have better health markers. Would it be the same if you ate only vegetables, probably not, but you would probably burn through as much muscle on a diet of only vegetables as you would on a diet of only twinkies.
I never said that people lose weight at the same rate, and I do not think anyone in this thread did.
I never said calories DON'T matter for some of us! Please point out exactly where I said that. I have said a calorie deficit is needed in EVERY case but rates of weight loss will be different depending on what is eaten. I never said you CAN'T lose weight only eating twinkies, did I? And yes, it has been said many times that no matter what you eat, weight loss will be the same. Please read the other posts. Please read the post of the poster that I quoted where he says exactly that using 2000 cals of kale and 2000 cals of twinkies as an example. I don't know why you're even arguing with me. We seem to actually agree here, but you're making out as if we don't. It's the guy I quoted you want to take issue with.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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.
First - you seem to be contradicting yourself in the first paragraph you say that it is not about calories for some people, but then you go on to agree that calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone.
Second - please provide a link to that study, as everyone I have seen has always said that the effect is not enough to make a significant impact on weight loss/metabolism.
third - of course the same energy imbalance will not work the same for everyone. I have 12% body fat and at a 500 calorie deficit, I am going to lose a lot slower then say an obese male with 25% body fat. I don't think anyone even made that point…
Finally - who in the heck would want to eat 2000 calories of kale *gag* or 2000 calories of sugar???? I do not really think that is a valid comparison. Ever heard of the twinkie diet? The guy ate twinkies and lost weight and body fat ….here is a link to a general article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
here is a snippet about his health indicators after the diet:
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."
so you might want to re think what you are saying about the 2000 calorie sugar diet...
No you're twisting my words. I said it's not ONLY about calories. I do not disagree that a calorie deficit is needed, but in many cases it is not the only factor.
the guy who I quoted did actually say that weight loss will occur at the same rate for everyone no matter what is eaten and you have quoted my response to him. The comparison I used was the same as his, stating that 2000 calories of kale or 2000 calories of twinkies would produce the same results. I am only using the comparisons that others are to prove my point, so don't take issue with me on it. I haven't said you can't lose weight eating only twinkies at a deficit, but are you seriously suggesting that you'd get the same results eating the same calories of vegetables?? Or that a female would lose the same amount of weight? Or someone who is carb sensitive would lose at the same rate? The article doesn't say how much his muscle mass changed but I would expect muscle loss would be more on a low protein diet. There can be a number of reasons for the changes in his health markers and since he didn't eat twinkies alone it would be hard to say, but anyway that was never my point.
you are the one contradicting yourself..saying that calories do not matter for some of us, and then coming back and saying that calorie deficit is what works.
All I am saying is that you can eat what people call "garbage" aka twinkies , and lose weight and have better health markers. Would it be the same if you ate only vegetables, probably not, but you would probably burn through as much muscle on a diet of only vegetables as you would on a diet of only twinkies.
I never said that people lose weight at the same rate, and I do not think anyone in this thread did.
I never said calories DON'T matter for some of us! Please point out exactly where I said that. I have said a calorie deficit is needed in EVERY case but rates of weight loss will be different depending on what is eaten. I never said you CAN'T lose weight only eating twinkies, did I? And yes, it has been said many times that no matter what you eat, weight loss will be the same. Please read the other posts. Please read the post of the poster that I quoted where he says exactly that using 2000 cals of kale and 2000 cals of twinkies as an example. I don't know why you're even arguing with me. We seem to actually agree here, but you're making out as if we don't. It's the guy I quoted you want to take issue with.
This:
"You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals" < you just said that for some people calorie deficit alone will not lead to weight loss, and it is "more" then that….0 -
subscribing...lol0
-
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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.
First - you seem to be contradicting yourself in the first paragraph you say that it is not about calories for some people, but then you go on to agree that calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone.
Second - please provide a link to that study, as everyone I have seen has always said that the effect is not enough to make a significant impact on weight loss/metabolism.
third - of course the same energy imbalance will not work the same for everyone. I have 12% body fat and at a 500 calorie deficit, I am going to lose a lot slower then say an obese male with 25% body fat. I don't think anyone even made that point…
Finally - who in the heck would want to eat 2000 calories of kale *gag* or 2000 calories of sugar???? I do not really think that is a valid comparison. Ever heard of the twinkie diet? The guy ate twinkies and lost weight and body fat ….here is a link to a general article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
here is a snippet about his health indicators after the diet:
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."
so you might want to re think what you are saying about the 2000 calorie sugar diet...
No you're twisting my words. I said it's not ONLY about calories. I do not disagree that a calorie deficit is needed, but in many cases it is not the only factor.
the guy who I quoted did actually say that weight loss will occur at the same rate for everyone no matter what is eaten and you have quoted my response to him. The comparison I used was the same as his, stating that 2000 calories of kale or 2000 calories of twinkies would produce the same results. I am only using the comparisons that others are to prove my point, so don't take issue with me on it. I haven't said you can't lose weight eating only twinkies at a deficit, but are you seriously suggesting that you'd get the same results eating the same calories of vegetables?? Or that a female would lose the same amount of weight? Or someone who is carb sensitive would lose at the same rate? The article doesn't say how much his muscle mass changed but I would expect muscle loss would be more on a low protein diet. There can be a number of reasons for the changes in his health markers and since he didn't eat twinkies alone it would be hard to say, but anyway that was never my point.
I will say it. I believe that the weight loss difference would be negligible on these two diets over a given time. ONCE AGAIN, I am talking about weight loss not body composition, not overall health, not rate of loss between fat and muscle. This is what I am talking about when I say muddying up the water. Its really very simple: Calorie deficit=weight loss. Period. You cant argue that. You don't need LCHF or LCHP diet to lose weight. Just eat less than you burn. Now I am gonna rage quit the tread because you are being mean. I think Ill go start a mean people thread about it.
I edited my post to include a study showing very different effects on energy expenditure on different diets. You can see the individual variations, so please don't tell me that all foods react the same for everybody.
I no longer even know what you mean by weight loss. You don't mean fat loss, you don't mean muscle loss, you don't mean water loss, you don't mean bone loss, you don't mean waste loss. So what other kind of weight are you talking about exactly?? I never disagreed with you that a calorie deficit will equal weight loss, it seems like you are just trying to have an argument over nothing. I pointed out that it was a simplistic view because of how the body reacts to different foods and how it is difficult to determine how much energy you are burning in a day. Two people can eat the exact same amount of calories but burn energy at different rates. Yes calories in must equal calories out for maintenance, but simply eating a certain amount of calories does not determine a specific deficit or rate of loss.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"….
You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals. I was talking about more than just the thermic effects of food, but I have seen studies where in some people the increase in energy expenditure was up to 300 calories. I'd hardly call that negligible.
And yes, I know there's a difference between people with a medical condition and people without but there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that that matters. Of course you still need a calorie deficit, but I get tired of people saying "We're all the same". We're not. Some of us have medical conditions and others don't. Some people just generally have a tougher time losing weight or slower BMRs while others don't. And as I've said, different foods react in the body differently. If one person ate 2000 calories of protein whilst another ate 2000 calories of sugar, the first person will preserve more muscle and burn more energy and therefore lose more weight than the second. Additionally, all that sugar and lack of nutrients will place stress on the body and it will be less efficient at burning fat. The first person will also be feeding their body an inefficient source of fuel which will be less likely to be stored as fat than the sugar.
So I didn't at any point say that people who lose weight slower don't need an energy imbalance, I'm saying that the SAME energy deficit will result in slower loss for those people than for others and I'm disputing that 2000 calories of kale will react the same way in the body as 2000 cals of twinkies because that's simply not true. The body will extract more energy and at a faster rate from twinkies than from kale as kale is harder to break down and it has a lot of nutrients. Whether the difference in calories extracted is large or not, the fact remains the same; those 2 foods do not react the same way in the body. We are not machines. And my point was that because of this, it is near impossible to actually determine how many calories we are taking in and how many we are expending. You don't have to have a medical condition to have a slow metabolism. People here are talking in very general terms as if every diet performs the same for everyone and that just isn't true.
First - you seem to be contradicting yourself in the first paragraph you say that it is not about calories for some people, but then you go on to agree that calorie deficit is what causes weight loss. Calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone.
Second - please provide a link to that study, as everyone I have seen has always said that the effect is not enough to make a significant impact on weight loss/metabolism.
third - of course the same energy imbalance will not work the same for everyone. I have 12% body fat and at a 500 calorie deficit, I am going to lose a lot slower then say an obese male with 25% body fat. I don't think anyone even made that point…
Finally - who in the heck would want to eat 2000 calories of kale *gag* or 2000 calories of sugar???? I do not really think that is a valid comparison. Ever heard of the twinkie diet? The guy ate twinkies and lost weight and body fat ….here is a link to a general article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
here is a snippet about his health indicators after the diet:
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent."
so you might want to re think what you are saying about the 2000 calorie sugar diet...
No you're twisting my words. I said it's not ONLY about calories. I do not disagree that a calorie deficit is needed, but in many cases it is not the only factor.
the guy who I quoted did actually say that weight loss will occur at the same rate for everyone no matter what is eaten and you have quoted my response to him. The comparison I used was the same as his, stating that 2000 calories of kale or 2000 calories of twinkies would produce the same results. I am only using the comparisons that others are to prove my point, so don't take issue with me on it. I haven't said you can't lose weight eating only twinkies at a deficit, but are you seriously suggesting that you'd get the same results eating the same calories of vegetables?? Or that a female would lose the same amount of weight? Or someone who is carb sensitive would lose at the same rate? The article doesn't say how much his muscle mass changed but I would expect muscle loss would be more on a low protein diet. There can be a number of reasons for the changes in his health markers and since he didn't eat twinkies alone it would be hard to say, but anyway that was never my point.
you are the one contradicting yourself..saying that calories do not matter for some of us, and then coming back and saying that calorie deficit is what works.
All I am saying is that you can eat what people call "garbage" aka twinkies , and lose weight and have better health markers. Would it be the same if you ate only vegetables, probably not, but you would probably burn through as much muscle on a diet of only vegetables as you would on a diet of only twinkies.
I never said that people lose weight at the same rate, and I do not think anyone in this thread did.
I never said calories DON'T matter for some of us! Please point out exactly where I said that. I have said a calorie deficit is needed in EVERY case but rates of weight loss will be different depending on what is eaten. I never said you CAN'T lose weight only eating twinkies, did I? And yes, it has been said many times that no matter what you eat, weight loss will be the same. Please read the other posts. Please read the post of the poster that I quoted where he says exactly that using 2000 cals of kale and 2000 cals of twinkies as an example. I don't know why you're even arguing with me. We seem to actually agree here, but you're making out as if we don't. It's the guy I quoted you want to take issue with.
This:
"You're just repeating what has already been said. For some people, calories alone can cause weight loss. For many, it's about more than that, especially once you get closer to your goals" < you just said that for some people calorie deficit alone will not lead to weight loss, and it is "more" then that….
Oh jesus
. I said it's more than that, I didn't say calories don't matter. Meaning a calorie deficit as well as eating foods that your body can effectively process for many people. So someone with a tendency to store carbs as fat eating at maintenance on carbs alone will be able to gain weight because their body isn't expending all the energy it is extracting. As I said, twisting my words... 0 -
I would reply, but I have rage quit and I would look weak if I came back in. But If I were to come back in I would say that I am saying that a difference of say, .0000002 is no difference at all and you say it is. That is about how much difference I think it would make.0
-
I would reply, but I have rage quit and I would look weak if I came back in. But If I were to come back in I would say that I am saying that a difference of say, .0000002 is no difference at all and you say it is. That is about how much difference I think it would make.
Oh well if you say so it must be true
...never mind the studies that do show a difference, we'll just take your word shall we? 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?
You are quite wrong. I was in a study that we had to eat 1400 calories of low fat, high carb food and I gained weight like no tomorrow.
I was in a steep deficit.
What you eat has more to do with it like the study states, not how much you eat.0 -
Just to be clear, if they are gaining weight, they are not at 'maintenance', which is where you weight stays constant. They are in a calorie surplus.Oh jesus. I said it's more than that, I didn't say calories don't matter. Meaning a calorie deficit as well as eating foods that your body can effectively process for many people. So someone with a tendency to store carbs as fat eating at maintenance on carbs alone will be able to gain weight because their body isn't expending all the energy it is extracting. As I said, twisting my words...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions