Quick way to get the weight going down!!

msbunnie68

I never stated that a deficit wasn't necessary, but merely that people can be in a deficit and not lose weight.

Then they were not, in fact, in a deficit after all.

So saying that if you're not losing weight = not in an deficit isn't necessary true. You can be in a caloric deficit and not lose weight or lose at a dramatically slower rate than expected -- that doesn't mean that your deficit is not calculated correctly necessarily (it could, but there can also be other factors that affect that).

If you're losing at a dramatically slower rate than expected, and you are accurate and precise with your intake, then the only possibility is that the metabolism is lower than expected. Which means the calories out are not what you think they are. Which means that the deficit is not as big as you think it is.

Do you need a deficit to lose weight? Generally, yes. Can you be in a deficit and not lose weight? Yes, if you have an underlying condition that affects that -- like insulin resistance.

No. You're just not in a deficit, because the condition has slowed the energy output side of the equation.

PERFECT.

Everyone read this.

Now move on.

For the OP (if still here after the bunfight that has just ensued)...

tricky...but if your weight loss has slowed it may be time to look at the calories in/out sum.

If you are weighing everything and putting your own home cooked foods into the recipe builder and working it all out etc...then I would look at going right back to the beginning. Try eating at maintenance for a few weeks to a month and see if that is truly your maintenance level. If you gain, step your calories per day down weekly (eg for a week set your daily limit to be 100-200 cals lower) until you reach a point where you no longer lose weight. That may be your magic number to be eating under. Then to lose eat at a 20% deficit to this.

That's my 2c worth.

hortensehildegarde

how can you possibly not lose weight if you are in a deficit? Isn't that, by definition, impossible? Where is your body getting the fuel to feed it's processes if not from what you eat and not from it's own mass? How is that even possible?

Now I can see how medical conditions can mean that TDEE, BMR, etc are WAY lower than to be expected. And I can see how chemically some people may have a more efficient processing of turning food into energy (or however is the proper way to say that) but wouldn't that just mean that that person would need to eat LESS to achieve a deficit, not that a deficit wouldn't work for them?

Isn't the only way you ever know where your personal deficit is achieved is by seeing when you lose weight or you have your expenditure tested? How do people who don't lose know for sure they are allegedly maintaining/gaining while eating at a deficit? Aren't they just guessing at what their CO is?

Not going to quibble with the argument that we shouldn't generalize too much, but unless there is a medical condition that makes you magically generate energy to create mass and/or fuel body processes out of thin air then CICO has to be correct for 100% of people?

Or is there some thing that your body uses to create energy that isn't measured in calories?

ETA- It also stands to reason to me that some deficits are small enough that the loss would be imperceptible but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

prattiger65

To say that one would not lose weight while in a true calorie deficit is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous and dangerous. There is biology and there is physics. If there is a biological abnormality, physics still apply.

cccoursey

This isn't quick and I know I will get a lot of flack about this and maybe even lose friends over it. I tried the TDEE method and the MFP method and was unable to lose the body fat I had accumulated. Then one day it hit me. If I am working out 3 days a week with weights and my cardio, coming from remodeling the house, isn't causing me to lose. Then my body must believe I am eating at maintenance. Eating at TDEE minus 10, 15, or even 20%, or even adding back calories to eat, I was still eating above my BMR. My body wasn't really having to pull from my fats stores. For several months it acted as if I were eating at maintenance. Since I had 30%+ body fat I figured I had stores to burn. So I began eating right at my BMR. Allowing a hundred or so over on workout days or days I was famished from remodeling the house. Within two weeks I had broke past the 180lb mark and started losing again and the body fat is now at 20% after a few months. It is staying there and my weight is at 170lbs. However, I can see more definition, I carry myself better, all my blood work and blood pressure is perfect. I have continued Stronglifts 5x5 hitting limits quickly because of the deficit. I deload and keep railing against the wall until it falls. I have started adding in more volume with 4x8,10, or even 20 of complimentary barbell work when I have the time. Sure it isn't a defined workout plan following someone else but I feel better if I have let the iron exhaust me. I feel like I have accomplished something with the bonus of deeper more refreshing sleep. The house and myself are both being remodeled. Both are good changes that should have taken place long ago. I am so much happier for it.

Yes I still go out for Japanese and gorge on Sushi and Hibachi almost once a week. Some days I eat less than 1000. It really isn't any different than calorie cycling or fasting. I just used my BMR as my baseline and allowed the workouts to be my deficit. Requesting my body to use the stores I had as fuel. It has worked and continues to work for me. It may not work for you and I know someone or a lot of people will reem me for even mentioning it. I worked plain and simple. Granted as you lose bf% you may start to stall until you add in more food because your stores are getting more and more limited. The lower your bf% the closer to maintenance you seem to need to eat. I know when I want to try and bulk after summer I will have to eat more. A lot more. However having the stores I did and still do eating at BMR as a baseline has been fine for me. Don't starve yourself or try to force food down. Just keep at it. Find what works for you. Something you can be consistant and content with and do that. Not everyone will agree and you will never make everyone on your friends list happy with your choices. But they are YOUR choices. No one else has to approve of them. The only person you have to make happy is you. If you aren't? Well. . . only you can change that.

Fullsterkur_woman

I just used my BMR as my baseline and allowed the workouts to be my deficit.

If you used your BMR as your baseline, your deficit was more than what you burned during workouts. It included all your other daily activities of living. BMR is what your body needs to keep the lights on, even if you're in a coma lying in bed.

And how do you know your BMR? Did you have it tested? It's pretty complicated to test that. Even the fancy tests they do at big universities when you're fasted and they hook you up to a breathing mask only can measure RMR (resting metabolic rate), not BMR (basal metabolic rate).

Or did you just pull it off a website?

Because really, the only thing you can know with any reasonable certainty is what your average TDEE over a period of time was based on an accurately and precisely recorded intake and an accurate and precise weight measurement (which is difficult to control for things like water fluctuations, GI tract contents, hormonal fluctuations, etc.). It's really just an estimate. That's why patience is SO necessary, and "Quick way to get the weight going down" are not the best course in the long term.

editorgrrl

The only thing you can know with any reasonable certainty is what your average TDEE over a period of time was based on an accurately and precisely recorded intake and an accurate and precise weight measurement (which is difficult to control for things like water fluctuations, GI tract contents, hormonal fluctuations, etc.). It's really just an estimate. That's why patience is SO necessary, and "Quick way to get the weight going down" are not the best course in the long term.

^^^This. QFT.

If you're not weighing your food, you're underestimating your calories.

Your weight will fluctuate. All that matters is a downward trend. Be sure to take photos & measurements, too.

Be patient!

cccoursey

May have missed the part about several months. BMR was based on calculator estimates. I did not mention RMR which has to be measured b individual. I weigh my food if it is something I prepare. I take into account whether I am eating out with friends or drinking that night. I cannot accurately measure that only a close guesstimation and account for it by eating below on the next day. I wore an FT7 heartrate monitor when I did P90X and Insanity. I used what info I could find and spoke with quite a few doctors especially since I have extremely low T production.(Less than an 80yo male), have heart disease, and I am diabetic. The realization I came to after speaking with them is that BMR is the baseline to keep you where you are without any outside stimulus. Thus, as you say in a coma. So if you are overweight and in a coma it accomplishes the goal of sustaining your overweight self. So I decided to deficit the number calculated from defining my overweight self. Combined with normal daily activity which includes remodeling the home and weight training. I broke my 26% bf plateau. I had begun losing again, finally. It can be argued all day. The point is I lost and am losing body fat. My weight isn't decreasing from 170lbs and hasn't in over a month. I am not concerned with that number. It is not the 213lbs I was last January. I look better, feel better, sleep better, and have more endurance. I continue to weigh what I eat. I am in no rush. I know it takes time. I mentioned in the previous post this was NOT and is NOT quick. It has been over a years time now. However it is doable and I haven't had any negative impact from doing so. This is not something I will do forever. Just until I hit 15% bf or so. So that I can finally say I accomplished what I set out to do and begin the process of gaining muscle and cutting back on a regular basis.

Fullsterkur_woman

May have missed the part about several months. BMR was based on calculator estimates. I did not mention RMR which has to be measured b individual. I weigh my food if it is something I prepare. I take into account whether I am eating out with friends or drinking that night. I cannot accurately measure that only a close guesstimation and account for it by eating below on the next day. I wore an FT7 heartrate monitor when I did P90X and Insanity. I used what info I could find and spoke with quite a few doctors especially since I have extremely low T production.(Less than an 80yo male), have heart disease, and I am diabetic. The realization I came to after speaking with them is that BMR is the baseline to keep you where you are without any outside stimulus. Thus, as you say in a coma. So if you are overweight and in a coma it accomplishes the goal of sustaining your overweight self. So I decided to deficit the number calculated from defining my overweight self. Combined with normal daily activity which includes remodeling the home and weight training. I broke my 26% bf plateau. I had begun losing again, finally. It can be argued all day. The point is I lost and am losing body fat. My weight isn't decreasing from 170lbs and hasn't in over a month. I am not concerned with that number. It is not the 213lbs I was last January. I look better, feel better, sleep better, and have more endurance. I continue to weigh what I eat. I am in no rush. I know it takes time. I mentioned in the previous post this was NOT and is NOT quick. It has been over a years time now. However it is doable and I haven't had any negative impact from doing so. This is not something I will do forever. Just until I hit 15% bf or so. So that I can finally say I accomplished what I set out to do and begin the process of gaining muscle and cutting back on a regular basis.

The only point I'm quibbling over is the BMR being based on calculator estimates. Particularly if you have low T, I just think *your* BMR is going to be different from what calculator estimates will give. I just don't want people reading this and thinking they can somehow pin down some magic exact number, because you can't. It works just like you say. You lower your caloric intake, and the weight slowly comes off. There's no magic.

KatyRu

People really need to stop telling everyone it's a simple deficit. Yes, for a lot of people, this works; however, there is no need to make people feel stupid or like they must be doing something wrong just because a deficit isn't working for them. It IS more complicated for some people than it is for others. I would weigh a LOT less if a deficit worked for me, but when I eat at TDEE - 15/20%, I get nowhere.

Are you weighing your food? If you're decently healthy and have no conditions (Diabetes, PCOS, Insulin Resistance, etc.) that would restrict your weight loss, you may be eating more than you think you are. I personally used to eat less than I thought I was, and then wonder why I was constantly hungry and binging at night. I once passed out thinking I'd eaten around 9 oz of chicken all day, when really I'd only had around 2-3. A LOT of people are the opposite, though, so make sure you're counting your calories correctly.

As for the deficit, if it's not working for you, you're not alone. Certain conditions may prevent a deficit from being the only diet-change necessary. I personally have PCOS and have to net significantly under my calorie goal in order to lose weight. I also try to stick to a high-fat, mod-protein, low-carb (and by low, I mean around 30g per meal, not 30g per day) diet. Sometimes, when there are conditions such as these, Macros matter A LOT. PCOS comes with insulin resistance, so carbs and sugars are not my friends.

Good luck losing! Just remember that everyone's body is different, and it's a process figuring out what works for you. Not everyone responds so quickly to a caloric deficit.

there are no special snowflakes, there are no special snowflakes, there are no special snowflakes…..keep repeating this every day because it is true …calorie deficit is what causes weight loss for everyone..

are you suggesting that OP can eat more then maintenance and lose?

I like you how you say calorie deficit does not work then go on to ask if OP weights food because he/she may be overestimating calories…if calorie deficit does not work for everyone, why would this even matter?

OP - you need to be consistent with your logging, and weigh/measure/log everything. Do you own a food scale? If no, then I highly suggest getting one….

Read a few later posts please (or reread this one). I said that a SIMPLE calorie deficit doesn't work for everyone. I also later stated that a calorie deficit IS required, but some need to actually watch their macros in the process. All I was getting at. Thanks for misreading.

Never said it made us "special," lol, just that it doesn't work that way for everyone. As someone else has mentioned, if it did, I would weigh a LOT less by now. I never said we were special, just that EVERY body is different. Not just people who need to work a little harder to lose weight. My goodness.

SLLRunner

People really need to stop telling everyone it's a simple deficit. Yes, for a lot of people, this works; however, there is no need to make people feel stupid or like they must be doing something wrong just because a deficit isn't working for them. It IS more complicated for some people than it is for others. I would weigh a LOT less if a deficit worked for me, but when I eat at TDEE - 15/20%, I get nowhere.

Are you weighing your food? If you're decently healthy and have no conditions (Diabetes, PCOS, Insulin Resistance, etc.) that would restrict your weight loss, you may be eating more than you think you are. I personally used to eat less than I thought I was, and then wonder why I was constantly hungry and binging at night. I once passed out thinking I'd eaten around 9 oz of chicken all day, when really I'd only had around 2-3. A LOT of people are the opposite, though, so make sure you're counting your calories correctly.

As for the deficit, if it's not working for you, you're not alone. Certain conditions may prevent a deficit from being the only diet-change necessary. I personally have PCOS and have to net significantly under my calorie goal in order to lose weight. I also try to stick to a high-fat, mod-protein, low-carb (and by low, I mean around 30g per meal, not 30g per day) diet. Sometimes, when there are conditions such as these, Macros matter A LOT. PCOS comes with insulin resistance, so carbs and sugars are not my friends.

Good luck losing! Just remember that everyone's body is different, and it's a process figuring out what works for you. Not everyone responds so quickly to a caloric deficit.

Eating at a deficit is the one truth about losing weight. Granted that medical problems can impede weight loss, it's pretty darned rare. Your deficit may need to be adjusted but, still, all it takes to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn.

The type of food you eat has nothing to do with losing weight. You can eat twinkies all day while staying at a deficit and you will lose weight. You might not feel very well, but you'd still lose.

Look at my ticker. I've lost 42 pounds the foods I like, and this includes foods that I'd cut out in earlier diets because I had labeled them as "fattening". I have been successfully maintaining.

This may be true for you, and if it is, congratulations. I gain weight using a "simple" deficit, so I'm happy it's so much easier for you. I also use a HRM to calculate my burns, and don't eat back exercise calories, so it's not an error in calorie calculations. For some, macros DO matter. It's not incredibly rare. In fact, it's estimated by researchers who work with insulin resistance that IR affects around one in four Americans. I'd say 25% is decently common, even if it's not the majority. Congratulations on being in the majority. For me, the lower deficit RESULTS in lower carb/sugar intake, which is what ultimately helps me lose weight. The deficit alone doesn't do it for me, or for quite a few others with insulin resistance problems (ie, if I ate 1200 calories in twinkies all day, chances are, I probably wouldn't lose weight).

How to lose weight is the same for everyone in that if you eat less than you burn then you will lose weight. Macros do not count as far as calories in/calories out, but they sure do count as far as energy and satiation. Calorie are calories in regards to weight loss, BUT they are not in regards to how our body feels when eating certain food.

For example, I am processed sugar sensitive, therefore, I eat sweets in moderation. It will never be the sweets that make me gain weight, but eating too many calories in a day that included those sweets. Believe me, if I allow it, sweets can send me way over my calorie goal.

You say you use a heart rate monitor, and I get the impression that have a difficult time losing weight (please correct me if I misunderstood). If this is true, do you weigh all your solid food and measure all your liquids? Do you log everything you eat?

SLLRunner

There's no point in arguing with some of these people. They simply don't understand the complexity of the human body and the role that certain hormones and metabolic pathways come into to play with weight loss. They don't understand that a greater deficit can actually impede weight-loss due to the body's stress response. They don't understand that if you have malfunctioning glucose metabolism that will affect your calorie balance and the macros you need to eat to see results.

They don't understand it, so they declare that doesn't exist. Luckily, reality is not dependent upon the limited understanding of such people.

In their reality, the world is flat.

Lindsey, that's not true. Did you see the poster who said that she doesn't have a thyroid therefore she has to make adjustments to find her correct calorie intake. It's not that conditions don't exist, because they do, but that the following is the same for everyone:

If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
If you eat about the same amount of calories you burns, you will maintain your weight.

With certain medical conditions, you will have to work with the numbers to find the correct TDEE for you and subtract from.

lindsey1979

There's no point in arguing with some of these people. They simply don't understand the complexity of the human body and the role that certain hormones and metabolic pathways come into to play with weight loss. They don't understand that a greater deficit can actually impede weight-loss due to the body's stress response. They don't understand that if you have malfunctioning glucose metabolism that will affect your calorie balance and the macros you need to eat to see results.

They don't understand it, so they declare that doesn't exist. Luckily, reality is not dependent upon the limited understanding of such people.

In their reality, the world is flat.

Lindsey, that's not true. Did you see the poster who said that she doesn't have a thyroid therefore she has to make adjustments to find her correct calorie intake. It's not that conditions don't exist, because they do, but that the following is the same for everyone:

If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
If you eat about the same amount of calories you burns, you will maintain your weight.

With certain medical conditions, you will have to work with the numbers to find the correct TDEE for you and subtract from.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. An easy example is someone with a carb sensitivity like insulin resistance.

Do you think they will lose weight with the same caloric deficit as someone that is not insulin resistant?

Because if that was the case, then you wouldn't have studies that show drastically different weight losses based on different macros for insulin sensitive and insulin resistant woman. There is one where 4 groups of women were given 2 different diet macros. All diets were calculated to have a 400 calorie deficit. Insulin sensitive women eating 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat lost nearly twice as much as other insulin sensitive women who ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. How do you explain that if a calorie deficit is all that matters?

It was the exact opposite for insulin resistant women. Those that ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 40% fat lost nearly twice as much weight as the insulin resistant women that ate 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% carbs.

If total caloric value was all that mattered in weight loss, then you'd see fairly similar results across all groups. But the study showed nearly twice as much lost in two groups as opposed to the other two on calorically equivalent diets.

Once again, how do you explain that if caloric value/deficit is all that matters?

lindsey1979

Here's a link to the referenced study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Is it fundamentally flawed? I don't know. It doesn't appear to be.

I will also say that this was also what I found to be from my own personal experience. I was cutting at an over 700 calorie average daily deficit and losing virtually no weight (2.2 lbs over three months). I had my RMR checked (that whole gas mask thing). It was lower than I thought, but not drastically -- it meant that my deficit was closer to 600 than 700, but still didn't line up with my lack of weight loss. But I still should have lost well over 12 lbs and instead was less than 3.

After a frustrating medical path, I finally learn that I have both a thyroid disorder and insulin resistance. I receive medication for both. About half way up to dosing up for both, weight starts coming off like a "normal" person -- in line with my deficits. I had my RMR checked again. It has increased (likely due to the thyroid)-- up to near what I thought it was originally -- so resulting in the 700+ daily caloric deficit I originally calculated. And I was losing weight almost perfectly in line with that.

So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed, that says to me that it's more than the mere calorie deficit as before I should have been losing a lot more but that only occurred once I took meds to treat the thyroid and the insulin resistance.

Some people here don't believe that or don't understand how that's possible. If you look into how insulin resistance affects glucose metabolism, it makes a lot of sense and why people with those issues -- whether prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, etc. -- struggle with losing weight, especially if they can't find a medication that helps with the glucose/insulin issue. And why limiting carbs (especially high glycemic carbs) is often very important to them to lose weight --- it's often a combination of a calorie deficit AND carb restriction that works.

I'd personally love for it all to be about easy CICO calculations for everyone, but I've found that not to be the case for ALL people. For some, it is about a lot more than just a sheer calorie deficit. And for those that don't know they have a medical condition (like I didn't know for YEARS), it can be very frustrating and downright dangerous for them to think that it's all about a calorie deficit as they could keep cutting and really get themselves into trouble and potentially further exacerbate their underlying problem.

Fullsterkur_woman

There's no point in arguing with some of these people. They simply don't understand the complexity of the human body and the role that certain hormones and metabolic pathways come into to play with weight loss. They don't understand that a greater deficit can actually impede weight-loss due to the body's stress response. They don't understand that if you have malfunctioning glucose metabolism that will affect your calorie balance and the macros you need to eat to see results.

They don't understand it, so they declare that doesn't exist. Luckily, reality is not dependent upon the limited understanding of such people.

In their reality, the world is flat.

Lindsey, that's not true. Did you see the poster who said that she doesn't have a thyroid therefore she has to make adjustments to find her correct calorie intake. It's not that conditions don't exist, because they do, but that the following is the same for everyone:

If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
If you eat about the same amount of calories you burns, you will maintain your weight.

With certain medical conditions, you will have to work with the numbers to find the correct TDEE for you and subtract from.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. An easy example is someone with a carb sensitivity like insulin resistance.

Do you think they will lose weight with the same caloric deficit as someone that is not insulin resistant?

Because if that was the case, then you wouldn't have studies that show drastically different weight losses based on different macros for insulin sensitive and insulin resistant woman. There is one where 4 groups of women were given 2 different diet macros. All diets were calculated to have a 400 calorie deficit. Insulin sensitive women eating 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat lost nearly twice as much as other insulin sensitive women who ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. How do you explain that if a calorie deficit is all that matters?

It was the exact opposite for insulin resistant women. Those that ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 40% fat lost nearly twice as much weight as the insulin resistant women that ate 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% carbs.

If total caloric value was all that mattered in weight loss, then you'd see fairly similar results across all groups. But the study showed nearly twice as much lost in two groups as opposed to the other two on calorically equivalent diets.

Once again, how do you explain that if caloric value/deficit is all that matters?

So each woman ate [/i]both[/i] diets at an isocaloric level (taking the thermic effect of food into account) for the same period of time and experienced different weight loss results on the two different diets? Otherwise, it is not a well-designed study.

Fullsterkur_woman

So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed

I think you may have hit upon something there. The measuring methodology does not work for all populations equally well. Why should that be surprising?

1ZenGirl

bump

lindsey1979

There's no point in arguing with some of these people. They simply don't understand the complexity of the human body and the role that certain hormones and metabolic pathways come into to play with weight loss. They don't understand that a greater deficit can actually impede weight-loss due to the body's stress response. They don't understand that if you have malfunctioning glucose metabolism that will affect your calorie balance and the macros you need to eat to see results.

They don't understand it, so they declare that doesn't exist. Luckily, reality is not dependent upon the limited understanding of such people.

In their reality, the world is flat.

Lindsey, that's not true. Did you see the poster who said that she doesn't have a thyroid therefore she has to make adjustments to find her correct calorie intake. It's not that conditions don't exist, because they do, but that the following is the same for everyone:

If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
If you eat about the same amount of calories you burns, you will maintain your weight.

With certain medical conditions, you will have to work with the numbers to find the correct TDEE for you and subtract from.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. An easy example is someone with a carb sensitivity like insulin resistance.

Do you think they will lose weight with the same caloric deficit as someone that is not insulin resistant?

Because if that was the case, then you wouldn't have studies that show drastically different weight losses based on different macros for insulin sensitive and insulin resistant woman. There is one where 4 groups of women were given 2 different diet macros. All diets were calculated to have a 400 calorie deficit. Insulin sensitive women eating 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat lost nearly twice as much as other insulin sensitive women who ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. How do you explain that if a calorie deficit is all that matters?

It was the exact opposite for insulin resistant women. Those that ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 40% fat lost nearly twice as much weight as the insulin resistant women that ate 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% carbs.

If total caloric value was all that mattered in weight loss, then you'd see fairly similar results across all groups. But the study showed nearly twice as much lost in two groups as opposed to the other two on calorically equivalent diets.

Once again, how do you explain that if caloric value/deficit is all that matters?

So each woman ate [/i]both[/i] diets at an isocaloric level (taking the thermic effect of food into account) for the same period of time and experienced different weight loss results on the two different diets? Otherwise, it is not a well-designed study.

Where do you ever see that happening? That someone has the same people eat both sets of diets? Are they suppose to eat one diet, lose the weight, then regain the weight and try the second diet? That's sort of a silly idea.

If you really meant to say what you said, then you pretty much consider every comparative diet study invalid as virtually none of them do what you suggest (nor does what you suggest make any sense). Moreover if diet wasn't a causual factor in the different results, then the results should have been random across all 4 groups. And they weren't -- at all. Two groups lost dramatically different amounts of weight compared with the other two.

lindsey1979

So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed

I think you may have hit upon something there. The measuring methodology does not work for all populations equally well. Why should that be surprising?

I have never heard of this. Do you have any information to speak to this?

In either case, since I was the test subject in both tests, the flaw would be consistent and relative (if such a flaw exists). Plus, on the second go around, I was losing in line with those calculations. So once again, your theory doesn't make much sense.

Fullsterkur_woman

So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed

I think you may have hit upon something there. The measuring methodology does not work for all populations equally well. Why should that be surprising?

I have never heard of this. Do you have any information to speak to this?

In either case, since I was the test subject in both tests, the flaw would be consistent and relative (if such a flaw exists). Plus, on the second go around, I was losing in line with those calculations. So once again, your theory doesn't make much sense.

Theory? That's awfully generous of you. It was an off-the-cuff observation.

I missed the part before where you mentioned you were part of the study. Is it usual for subjects to be so intimately familiar with the methodologies of a study?

Anyway, I didn't mean specifically RMR measurements. I meant the general observation that measurement methods are not equally accurate for all populations. For example, the whole max heart rate being equal to 220 - your age. That's not really a good model. I think just maybe it's possible that the RMR experiments don't properly control for all variables, and they may not know what all the sources of error are. I'm not actually an exercise physiologist, just an amateur scientist employing my skepticism and critical thinking.

Fullsterkur_woman

Where do you ever see that happening? That someone has the same people eat both sets of diets? Are they suppose to eat one diet, lose the weight, then regain the weight and try the second diet? That's sort of a silly idea.

If you really meant to say what you said, then you pretty much consider every comparative diet study invalid as virtually none of them do what you suggest (nor does what you suggest make any sense). Moreover if diet wasn't a causual factor in the different results, then the results should have been random across all 4 groups. And they weren't -- at all. Two groups lost dramatically different amounts of weight compared with the other two.

Maybe we do things differently in the physics world compared to the exercise/nutrition physiology world. If I wanted to see how two different diets affected individuals, I would design the experiment so that each individual would eat each diet for a set period of time and observe the results from each trial. I remember being a prospective subject for a study on the effects of dairy on weight, and it required individuals to trial a diet which did not include any dairy for a period of time, and then trial a diet which included a specific form of dairy. I wasn't about to give up all dairy for any length of time, but the point is, each individual had to trial both diets. How else can you compare apples to apples?

lindsey1979

So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed

I think you may have hit upon something there. The measuring methodology does not work for all populations equally well. Why should that be surprising?

I have never heard of this. Do you have any information to speak to this?

In either case, since I was the test subject in both tests, the flaw would be consistent and relative (if such a flaw exists). Plus, on the second go around, I was losing in line with those calculations. So once again, your theory doesn't make much sense.

Theory? That's awfully generous of you. It was an off-the-cuff observation.

I missed the part before where you mentioned you were part of the study. Is it usual for subjects to be so intimately familiar with the methodologies of a study?

Anyway, I didn't mean specifically RMR measurements. I meant the general observation that measurement methods are not equally accurate for all populations. For example, the whole max heart rate being equal to 220 - your age. That's not really a good model. I think just maybe it's possible that the RMR experiments don't properly control for all variables, and they may not know what all the sources of error are. I'm not actually an exercise physiologist, just an amateur scientist employing my skepticism and critical thinking.

There are two separate things going on. RMR was also tested in the study as the docs said that they couldn't account for the higher weight loss in the two groups that lost nearly twice as much weight. I was not part of this study.

I had my own RMR tested before and after the thyroid and insulin resistance diagnoses, where I was not not losing in line with my calculated deficits until I received medication for the conditions and began restricting carbs. That was what I was refencing as to RMR testing being deeply flawed, though I suppose it could refer to the study too as they did RMR testing as well.

Fullsterkur_woman

There are two separate things going on. RMR was also tested in the study as the docs said that they couldn't account for the higher weight loss in the two groups that lost nearly twice as much weight. I was not part of this study.

I had my own RMR tested before and after the thyroid and insulin resistance diagnoses, where I was not not losing in line with my calculated deficits until I received medication for the conditions and began restricting carbs. That was what I was refencing as to RMR testing being deeply flawed, though I suppose it could refer to the study too as they did RMR testing as well.

Oh! That makes more sense. So, when your condition was untreated, your RMR was measured as the same as afterward, when your condition was treated? I didn't get that from your earlier posts.

So here's another idea that just popped into my mind. They talk about the thermic effect of foods, but much like the maximal heart rate thing, I bet that varies across individuals.

Not that it would settle the question, but some 6 week trials of a large number of individuals on several different macro ratios might shed light on it. The difficulty is that these studies are just so difficult to control and very expensive to control.

lindsey1979

Where do you ever see that happening? That someone has the same people eat both sets of diets? Are they suppose to eat one diet, lose the weight, then regain the weight and try the second diet? That's sort of a silly idea.

If you really meant to say what you said, then you pretty much consider every comparative diet study invalid as virtually none of them do what you suggest (nor does what you suggest make any sense). Moreover if diet wasn't a causual factor in the different results, then the results should have been random across all 4 groups. And they weren't -- at all. Two groups lost dramatically different amounts of weight compared with the other two.

Maybe we do things differently in the physics world compared to the exercise/nutrition physiology world. If I wanted to see how two different diets affected individuals, I would design the experiment so that each individual would eat each diet for a set period of time and observe the results from each trial. I remember being a prospective subject for a study on the effects of dairy on weight, and it required individuals to trial a diet which did not include any dairy for a period of time, and then trial a diet which included a specific form of dairy. I wasn't about to give up all dairy for any length of time, but the point is, each individual had to trial both diets. How else can you compare apples to apples?

The problem with that is that you're not comparing the same things as they'd have different start weights, and that may prejudice the results (i.e. may lose more weight in first diet merely because they have more weight to lose and haven't had effects of prolonged caloric restriction). So instead they take a variety of individuals with specific attributes -- bf in a certain range, insulin sensitivity or resistance in a certain range, etc. -- in an attempt to control only the variable, which is difference in diet specifically. Then they average the results between groups to see trends as obviously there will be variation from person to person.

lindsey1979

There are two separate things going on. RMR was also tested in the study as the docs said that they couldn't account for the higher weight loss in the two groups that lost nearly twice as much weight. I was not part of this study.

I had my own RMR tested before and after the thyroid and insulin resistance diagnoses, where I was not not losing in line with my calculated deficits until I received medication for the conditions and began restricting carbs. That was what I was refencing as to RMR testing being deeply flawed, though I suppose it could refer to the study too as they did RMR testing as well.

Oh! That makes more sense. So, when your condition was untreated, your RMR was measured as the same as afterward, when your condition was treated? I didn't get that from your earlier posts.

So here's another idea that just popped into my mind. They talk about the thermic effect of foods, but much like the maximal heart rate thing, I bet that varies across individuals.

Not that it would settle the question, but some 6 week trials of a large number of individuals on several different macro ratios might shed light on it. The difficulty is that these studies are just so difficult to control and very expensive to control.

Did you read the study? Because I believe they discuss this as well, and was part of the reason why protein macro is the same in both diets. I believe protein has the biggest difference in thermic affect relative to carbs and fats (and is another reason why all calories aren't the same).

RINat612

As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.

My $.02, take it for what its worth.

Fullsterkur_woman

As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.

My $.02, take it for what its worth.

Welcome to the argument. The basic issue is that some people are denying that this is true.

prattiger65

As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.

My $.02, take it for what its worth.

As an old timer, welcome. And yes, you are spot on.

lindsey1979

As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.

My $.02, take it for what its worth.

I think you're right in part and wrong in part. I think you're correct on the CO part in general terms (at least for healthy individuals -- for those with conditions, this seems less clear), but what a lot of people don't seem to want to address is how different calories affect the CO. So that different input calories (such as carbs for people with carb sensitivity issues) drastically either change the CO equation or behave differently because assumptions that are true for healthy people are not true for people with such issues. From what I've seen, that seems to be very much up for debate, as demonstrated by the study I cited.

The researchers couldn't account for the dramatically different weight loss rates, at least by our current measurement standards for CO activities. So either our way of measuring the CO part of the equation as pertains to RMR and other energy expenditures is deeply flawed, which only becomes obvious with these sorts or issues, or there is something else that contributes to equation, which is either not currently captured in the CO part of the equation or may simply not apply and hasn't been found yet.

Because for people with such issues, a caloric deficit is often not enough for weight loss results. Oftentimes they have to restrict carbs as well -- so how they create that deficit can be just as, if not more, important than the deficit itself. This is the issue that a lot of the CICO purists won't address -- that not all calories are equal for all people.

teeya1984

Sigh - i feel like i read so many different opinions on these threads that i get sooo confused about what is true and what isn't. sometimes a deficit stops working for me and then i up my calories for a few days....then when i go back to 1200 for a few more days i lose like crazy....

what seems to work for me is tricking my body. that's how i get weight off really fast. 1800 one day, 1100 the next, 1300 the next day, 1000 the next, 2000, 1600, 1200, 800, 1600 etc etc. (exercising 4-5 days per week for at least 30 mins)

i do think everyone is different. some people need small deficits, some need large. some need a 5:2 diet. some need to just add exercise.

as for losing it quick? good luck in finding what works for you. in my experience, i didn't put it on overnight so i cant expect to lose it overnight. my mom always told me that the slower you lose, the easier it will be to keep it off. the quicker you lose, the easier you could put it back on. i know that's not professional advice, but my mom is pretty freaking amazing

good luck ox

prattiger65

Sigh - i feel like i read so many different opinions on these threads that i get sooo confused about what is true and what isn't. sometimes a deficit stops working for me and then i up my calories for a few days....then when i go back to 1200 for a few more days i lose like crazy....

what seems to work for me is tricking my body. that's how i get weight off really fast. 1800 one day, 1100 the next, 1300 the next day, 1000 the next, 2000, 1600, 1200, 800, 1600 etc etc. (exercising 4-5 days per week for at least 30 mins)

i do think everyone is different. some people need small deficits, some need large. some need a 5:2 diet. some need to just add exercise.

as for losing it quick? good luck in finding what works for you. in my experience, i didn't put it on overnight so i cant expect to lose it overnight. my mom always told me that the slower you lose, the easier it will be to keep it off. the quicker you lose, the easier you could put it back on. i know that's not professional advice, but my mom is pretty freaking amazing

good luck ox

This is frustrating. OP, I understand your confusion. But the fact is, regardless of weak arguments to the contrary, if you are in a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Period. You can't trick your body, it is physics. If you are on the negative side of the energy equation, you lose weight, it is impossible to do otherwise. If you are not losing weight, you are on the positive side of the equation. Consume fewer calories. No, it makes no difference where the calories come from.