Is 'eating at deficit' enough?

pennyllayne

So 2 people of the same body composition, height, weight, age could be put on the same amount of calories and one could maintain whilst the other gains.

Wow! Thanks for this amazing mind-boggling new information that nobody talking about CICO ever heard of or considered as a possibility or anything.

Except someone who I was responding to was actually claiming that could not happen. It'd be great if everyone could accept that we're all different but many people can't, so you have to repeat stuff. Hardly my fault is it and really no need for the condescending attitude is there?

LiftAllThePizzas

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

?????

No, it's not impossible to know what one's maintenance level is. It's different for every person, and by tracking calories in and weight changes it can then be determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Enough to allow one to maintain their own weight.

You seem to think that "maintenance" is defined by what some guesstimating calculator has spit out, rather than whatever has been observed for an individual. To point out that you have it backwards is not nitpicking. Stop being backwards so that you can make look like you are correcting someone else based on your misuse of the terms/concepts.

deksgrl

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

MFP is not a TDEE calculator, so it would be 1750 PLUS deliberate exercise.

pennyllayne

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

?????

No, it's not impossible to know what one's maintenance level is. It's different for every person, and by tracking calories in and weight changes it can then be determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Enough to allow one to maintain their own weight.

You seem to think that "maintenance" is defined by what some guesstimating calculator has spit out, rather than whatever has been observed for an individual. To point out that you have it backwards is not nitpicking. Stop being backwards so that you can make look like you are correcting someone else based on your misuse of the terms/concepts.

Do you have some device that determines exactly how your body processes every calorie from every type of food? If not then I've proved my point. If you eat the same foods every day and the same calories then you may be able to find a calorie level where you can maintain at, but even then you could still be over by 50 calories a day and you wouldn't know it until months later when you've accrued an extra few thousand calories and have gained a lb or 2. If you're eating a variety of foods (as many people do), it will be impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning, but again you may be able to find a calorie level where you maintain for that point in time but again you won't know until months later when you may have gained a lb and then you won't even know by how much you're going over. Anyway, you obviously have it all figured out. Good for you.

pennyllayne

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

MFP is not a TDEE calculator, so it would be 1750 PLUS deliberate exercise.

It allows you to select activity level. I do set mine at sedentary and then put exercise cals on top of that, but that's not really the point I'm getting at. I'm quite sure, based on experience, that 1750 is too high for my body if I am sedentary because I've gained weight on less than that and gained a lot more than I should have by only eating a little over that.

LiftAllThePizzas

So 2 people of the same body composition, height, weight, age could be put on the same amount of calories and one could maintain whilst the other gains.

Wow! Thanks for this amazing mind-boggling new information that nobody talking about CICO ever heard of or considered as a possibility or anything.

Except someone who I was responding to was actually claiming that could not happen. It'd be great if everyone could accept that we're all different but many people can't, so you have to repeat stuff. Hardly my fault is it and really no need for the condescending attitude is there?

The person you were arguing with was saying that anyone eating at maintenance would maintain their weight. They did not say or imply that any two people of the same weight/size have the same maintenance calories. I have never ever seen anyone suggest this. Ever. What they clearly meant by "maintenance" was that individual's TDEE. Which again, everyone already knows that any two individuals will have their own maint calories. But you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge this and keep inserting your strawman and then arguing against a position that nobody has taken.

LiftAllThePizzas

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

?????

No, it's not impossible to know what one's maintenance level is. It's different for every person, and by tracking calories in and weight changes it can then be determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Enough to allow one to maintain their own weight.

You seem to think that "maintenance" is defined by what some guesstimating calculator has spit out, rather than whatever has been observed for an individual. To point out that you have it backwards is not nitpicking. Stop being backwards so that you can make look like you are correcting someone else based on your misuse of the terms/concepts.

Do you have some device that determines exactly how your body processes every calorie from every type of food? If not then I've proved my point. If you eat the same foods every day and the same calories then you may be able to find a calorie level where you can maintain at, but even then you could still be over by 50 calories a day and you wouldn't know it until months later when you've accrued an extra few thousand calories and have gained a lb or 2. If you're eating a variety of foods (as many people do), it will be impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning, but again you may be able to find a calorie level where you maintain for that point in time but again you won't know until months later when you may have gained a lb and then you won't even know by how much you're going over. Anyway, you obviously have it all figured out. Good for you.

Yes, I have such a device. I call it "my body."

And yes I do have it all figured out. That is why I am successful in attaining my goals.

pennyllayne

So 2 people of the same body composition, height, weight, age could be put on the same amount of calories and one could maintain whilst the other gains.

Wow! Thanks for this amazing mind-boggling new information that nobody talking about CICO ever heard of or considered as a possibility or anything.

Except someone who I was responding to was actually claiming that could not happen. It'd be great if everyone could accept that we're all different but many people can't, so you have to repeat stuff. Hardly my fault is it and really no need for the condescending attitude is there?

The person you were arguing with was saying that anyone eating at maintenance would maintain their weight. They did not say or imply that any two people of the same weight/size have the same maintenance calories. I have never ever seen anyone suggest this. Ever. What they clearly meant by "maintenance" was that individual's TDEE. Which again, everyone already knows that any two individuals will have their own maint calories. But you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge this and keep inserting your strawman and then arguing against a position that nobody has taken.

My example was in response to another user who claimed that weight loss rates between people will be exactly the same if they were on the same diet. I was saying that wasn't true and that we don't all have the same rate of burning fat and we process different foods differently. Maybe you missed those posts, I don't know, but I'm not making ANY strawman argument. If I'm saying something you already know good for you. The point here is that people are claiming we all burn calories at the same rate and my example was refuting that.

deksgrl

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

MFP is not a TDEE calculator, so it would be 1750 PLUS deliberate exercise.

It allows you to select activity level. I do set mine at sedentary and then put exercise cals on top of that, but that's not really the point I'm getting at. I'm quite sure, based on experience, that 1750 is too high for my body if I am sedentary because I've gained weight on less than that and gained a lot more than I should have by only eating a little over that.

MFP is a Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) calculator. This is why when you exercise, it adds more for you to eat. When it asks your activity level, it is asking for normal daily activity NOT including exercise.

pennyllayne

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

?????

No, it's not impossible to know what one's maintenance level is. It's different for every person, and by tracking calories in and weight changes it can then be determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Enough to allow one to maintain their own weight.

You seem to think that "maintenance" is defined by what some guesstimating calculator has spit out, rather than whatever has been observed for an individual. To point out that you have it backwards is not nitpicking. Stop being backwards so that you can make look like you are correcting someone else based on your misuse of the terms/concepts.

Do you have some device that determines exactly how your body processes every calorie from every type of food? If not then I've proved my point. If you eat the same foods every day and the same calories then you may be able to find a calorie level where you can maintain at, but even then you could still be over by 50 calories a day and you wouldn't know it until months later when you've accrued an extra few thousand calories and have gained a lb or 2. If you're eating a variety of foods (as many people do), it will be impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning, but again you may be able to find a calorie level where you maintain for that point in time but again you won't know until months later when you may have gained a lb and then you won't even know by how much you're going over. Anyway, you obviously have it all figured out. Good for you.

Yes, I have such a device. I call it "my body."

And yes I do have it all figured out. That is why I am successful in attaining my goals.

Oh well that's great that you can see into your body and track everything it's doing. You are obviously very special.

pennyllayne

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

MFP is not a TDEE calculator, so it would be 1750 PLUS deliberate exercise.

It allows you to select activity level. I do set mine at sedentary and then put exercise cals on top of that, but that's not really the point I'm getting at. I'm quite sure, based on experience, that 1750 is too high for my body if I am sedentary because I've gained weight on less than that and gained a lot more than I should have by only eating a little over that.

MFP is a Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) calculator. This is why when you exercise, it adds more for you to eat. When it asks your activity level, it is asking for normal daily activity NOT including exercise.

So why does it ask you how often you exercise and increase cals based on that then? I figured you can either just eat those cals it gives you for the estimated exercise OR you take your maintenance cals and then add exercise. Anyway, I base it on being sedentary anyway and then add my exercise. But as I say, I think the estimation is too high for my body.

geebusuk

EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.

How do you know your TDEE was 2200? It sounds like your TDEE was under 1400 to me.

For the record, if you can store excess fat and put on weight overall while eating less calories than your body is using just to stay alive, your body holds the key to all the world's energy problems!

As an idea, if you were storing just 800 calories a day, over a year we are talking about 350kwh of energy that mas magically appeared in your body. If that were electrical energy, that could be worth £35 a year or more! As an idea, you could, say, run a freezer for a whole year with that energy!

LoseYouself

pennyllayne

EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.
[/quote]
How do you know your TDEE was 2200? It sounds like your TDEE was under 1400 to me.

For the record, if you can store excess fat and put on weight overall while eating less calories than your body is using just to stay alive, your body holds the key to all the world's energy problems!

As an idea, if you were storing just 800 calories a day, over a year we are talking about 350kwh of energy that mas magically appeared in your body. If that were electrical energy, that could be worth £35 a year or more! As an idea, you could, say, run a freezer for a whole year with that energy!
[/quote]

Hey who knows? Maybe she was on a starvation diet for years before doing the study and her metabolism crashed to burning just 600 cals a day...unlikely but hey we don't know all the specifics. I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt and explore and research rather than shunt them and tell them they're lying. We don't learn anything that way.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

I had pizza a flamin' hot cheetos today. I feel great and have lost 12lbs since Sept.

yarwell

So why does it ask you how often you exercise and increase cals based on that then?

If you're referring to the Goal setting part the exercise entered there has no effect on calories, it's a standalone goal for exercise for you to measure yourself against.

When you do exercise and log it then the food calories are increased in order to cancel out the exercise and maintain the original deficit.

pennyllayne

So why does it ask you how often you exercise and increase cals based on that then?

If you're referring to the Goal setting part the exercise entered there has no effect on calories, it's a standalone goal for exercise for you to measure yourself against.

When you do exercise and log it then the food calories are increased in order to cancel out the exercise and maintain the original deficit.

No there's a section when you set your goals that asks how active you are and it changes your maintenance cals based on what you select, but that might just be down to how active you are in your day in general as opposed to working out.

LoseYouself

I had pizza a flamin' hot cheetos today. I feel great and have lost 12lbs since Sept.

pennyllayne

I had pizza a flamin' hot cheetos today. I feel great and have lost 12lbs since Sept.

Jeez, why is everyone here so obsessed with food??

geebusuk

Hey who knows? Maybe she was on a starvation diet for years before doing the study and her metabolism crashed to burning just 600 cals a day...unlikely but hey we don't know all the specifics. I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt and explore and research rather than shunt them and tell them they're lying. We don't learn anything that way.

Where did I tell her she was lying?

I asked her how she knew that was her TDEE.
I suspect she doesn't have the correct information.

Though, lets say someone came and told you that when they drove their car, it actually filled the fuel tank up with fuel?
Would you say "err, no, I don't think you're telling truth"? Or perhaps you might ask how they had been calculating the figures and wonder if they had missed something?