It is NOT that simple.

Mighty_Rabite

Calories out must supersede calories in.

But let's add in the caveat of "at proper homeostasis."

Someone who is obese and inactive who eats little is likely to not have a very high metabolism, but ~1100 calories a day is still not usually down in the range of "you're going to lose weight no matter what." Usually such a state is clinically referred to as anorexia. Furthermore.. fat stores hardly burn any energy and don't contribute much to the metabolism other than being stored fuel.

My approximation.. your metabolism was dragging enough at 1100 calories per day that it slowed to the point of that being your maintenance level and therefore you maintained. When you bumped up your calories and ate more cleanly, it also bumped your metabolism by way of more food to process, more bodily functions could be done more efficiently..

And at least in my opinion, diet is the hardest part. I'm certain to lose 60lbs you bumped up the activity some! When I lost 50-55lbs back in 2006, it too was mostly diet, but I was reducing calories and adding some exercise.

neverstray

Had you increased calories eating junk, you would have lost.

Aviva92

Really? You haven't seen the hundreds of people saying, "I'm at my goal weight but I'm unhappy with my body. I ate 1200 calories for two years... what happened?" I'd go so far as to say that the crazy statistic of people who end up regaining lost weight stems from a loss of muscle on prolonged VLCD.

i don't think it means they are skinny fat. it's because the ideal now has changed to be muscular and they want to be the ideal.

etoiles_argentees

maintained 97 pounds for 6 months here at 1970 calories net. Gained 7 pounds eating over 2500 net in 6 months. 105 now, and I'm fine.

PikaKnight

I don't think she was using skinny fat to insult body type, but to describe a skinny person's health being just as bad as an obese person's because they eat piles of **** wrapped in bacon...

well yeah in that case it's true. eating a crappy diet is bad. most people don't use the term skinny fat to mean that. they use it to mean skinny, but not muscular. that's why i hate the term.

I disagree there. Skinny fat means that yes they are at a healthy BMR and a healthy weight, but still at an unhealthy body fat percentage

I think this happening is pretty rare.

Really? You haven't seen the hundreds of people saying, "I'm at my goal weight but I'm unhappy with my body. I ate 1200 calories for two years... what happened?" I'd go so far as to say that the crazy statistic of people who end up regaining lost weight stems from a loss of muscle on prolonged VLCD.

Save your sanity. :flowerforyou: :drinker: Just ignore.

FearlessRobb

You skimmed over the part where a trainer told you to eat more. This trainer, what did they train you to do? Did you also begin an effective exercise program at the same time as eating different foods. Can you tell us more about this exercise? Is there any possibility that the change in your exercise habits contributed to your newfound weightloss? Or does that hurt your narrative?

Yes, but I wasn't a workout fiend, and I had been working out before. The activity wasn't a very great increase. It only increased by about one day a week (went from 2-3 days on average to 4 days on average). And again, still doesn't "explain" how I was unable to lose weight on a calorie deficit. If that were that simple, I would've already been losing, wouldn't I?


Whoever asked how I was counting... I was using nutritional labels (since everything was packaged...) and keeping a paper journal. At the time, I was not aware of websites like MFP, so I was doing it "old school". So... eat a protein bar, write it down directly from the label. Eat a TV dinner? Write it from the label. That's how it was back then. And most of my cals came from carbs. I wasn't really making my own food at that time, so it was fairly simple to record what was on the label.


And I applaud all of you who are able to lose with the simple calorie deficit. But assuming it works for everyone and attacking anyone who says anything differently (this thread is a perfect picture of that) is just plain arrogant and ignorant. Perhaps there are "outside factors" for someone not losing weight--hypothyroid, medical condition, whatever--but that doesn't justify talking down to people and being condescending simply because they offer an alternative point of view. Clearly it can work for MOST, but true health is much more than BF% or BMI. The food you eat literally becomes your cells. So yeah, even if someone is not obese, they can still develop cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease, because even if they ear fewer cals than they burn, they eat crap.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to increase cals or that CI/CO can't work, but that it's one piece of health, and may not work for everyone. For those who are struggling with losing weight and are constantly told, "It's so simple!!!" It's degrading and frustrating for those of us who do carry a calorie deficit and may still struggle. I see so many posts of people (usually women) saying they've been under their count for so long now and seeing no results--or even gaining--and then a bunch of people (usually men) jump on them and tell them "it's so simple", when it's really not. It's way more complex than that.

well if u google it under 1200 calories a day is unhealthy for a person and ur body could have thought it was starving and storing fat as a way to survive. alot of people will eat 900-1000 for a month maybe 2 to drop 10 lbs a little more but its recomended to step up the food intake above 1200.
also since u were eating 1100 and then exercising ide say average 400 take off that ur at 700 calories for the day.
I honestly think its because your body thought it was starving and what they call starvation mode. just my opinion tho.

ps: calories are the main thing. but you should watch fat intake and drink a ton ton of water casue that helps alot

firstsip

I don't think she was using skinny fat to insult body type, but to describe a skinny person's health being just as bad as an obese person's because they eat piles of **** wrapped in bacon...

well yeah in that case it's true. eating a crappy diet is bad. most people don't use the term skinny fat to mean that. they use it to mean skinny, but not muscular. that's why i hate the term.

I disagree there. Skinny fat means that yes they are at a healthy BMR and a healthy weight, but still at an unhealthy body fat percentage

I think this happening is pretty rare.

Really? You haven't seen the hundreds of people saying, "I'm at my goal weight but I'm unhappy with my body. I ate 1200 calories for two years... what happened?" I'd go so far as to say that the crazy statistic of people who end up regaining lost weight stems from a loss of muscle on prolonged VLCD.

Save your sanity. :flowerforyou: :drinker: Just ignore.

I know... I'm trying to learn my lesson.

PikaKnight

Save your sanity. :flowerforyou: :drinker: Just ignore.

I know... I'm trying to learn my lesson.

It's one I have to remind myself often...lol.

lasmit4477

Really? You haven't seen the hundreds of people saying, "I'm at my goal weight but I'm unhappy with my body. I ate 1200 calories for two years... what happened?" I'd go so far as to say that the crazy statistic of people who end up regaining lost weight stems from a loss of muscle on prolonged VLCD.

i don't think it means they are skinny fat. it's because the ideal now has changed to be muscular and they want to be the ideal.

She didn't say that in her post!

Muscle mass makes up body composition and when you are in that low of a deficit without proper macronutrients and micronutrients, you will lose LBM. When people start a weight-loss journey, they set a goal weight, but in all honesty, they have a certain image of what they "think" they will look like at that weight. Being uneducated and misinformed is the issue. This is also the issue with the OP's post!

Akumu

I don't understand the gif, but I am feeling nice and tranquil now....

Lol, me too

binknbaby

The term skinny fat does get overused and misused a lot on here. And lots of people have their own definitions for it, and think they are being scientific and stating a fact. The OP claims that well nourished thin and active people with muscle are skinny fat because they eat a lot. But, usually "skinny fat" is the result of under eating, and not exercising and losing LBM. Otherwise she is encouraging an eating disorder. Slender people need to eat a lot, so they do not lose weight.

Okay, this was not the definition I had in my head while writing my OP, so I apologize for the misuse. How I intended it to mean was people who eat crap, don't gain weight because of it, and have "fat person" diseases (diabetes, heart disease, high cholest., etc) but who are not clinically overweight. I did not intend for it to mean people who simply have less muscle tone. So I am sorry for the offense that caused, as that was not my intention with that phrase.


And again, I'm not saying that CI/CO does not work, or that it can't be that simple for some people (or even most). I was mainly frustrated that people were being rude and condescending to anyone who said something along the lines of encouraging someone to cut down on the processed foods, or who was frustrated with a stall after a calorie deficit.

I am not totally disagreeing with the concept. Yes, there is truth in it. But the picture of total *health* is much bigger than that. You can be thin and still have a heart attack; you can be at a healthy weight, while still having T2 diabetes. It's not JUST about CI/CO, but about MORE than that. It's not that it's totally UNTRUE, but that it's *more complicated* than that, and telling people that they SHOULD lose weight with CI/CO, when they clearly are not, can be frustrating for that person, and is condescending to whoever offers a different viewpoint. Yes, you CAN lose weight with only a calorie deficit. And you can GAIN weight with a calorie deficit. It can go either way, depending on the person's individual body chemistry, metabolism, nutritional needs, etc. I wasn't saying that it doesn't work at all ever for anyone. I was pointing out that it didn't work for me, that I needed something MORE (which included much more focus on whole foods and the proportions of macros), so I was pointing out that it isn't THAT simple, but that there CAN be much more to weight loss than a simple calorie deficit, and talking down to anyone who says otherwise is just plain rude.

SeahorseDolphin

You are terribly rude and completely misinformed. There is such a thing as not eating enough. That's where YOU effed up the calories in calories out equation. It's a different ball game when you're starving your body. You are not a special snowflake. Please stop spreading incorrect information.

nz_deevaa

You weren't eating enough. That's why you didn't lose weight. You started eating more and you lost weight.

It's simple.

rm7161

Dr. Lustig speaks truth when he's talking about sugar, btw. But you have to be careful with all high caloric density carbohydrates, but especially more careful with sugar, and just stay away from high fructose corn syrup, period. Also alcohol isn't far behind that. Many people don't count their alcohol calories. Tsk, tsk.

ashleen7

There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy.

I really hate this term and think it needs to stop. It's used way too much to shame otherwise healthy women who just happen to not be muscular. I don't believe you have to be muscular in order to be healthy.

Are you just waiting for opportunities to get your point across about not liking muscles on women? WE GET IT ALREADY!! Don't hijack another thread.

SideSteel

Dr. Lustig speaks truth when he's talking about sugar, btw. But you have to be careful with all high caloric density carbohydrates, but especially more careful with sugar, and just stay away from high fructose corn syrup, period. Also alcohol isn't far behind that. Many people don't count their alcohol calories. Tsk, tsk.

I wouldn't be so quick to preach Lustig unless you pay attention to dose and context:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Aviva92

There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy.

I really hate this term and think it needs to stop. It's used way too much to shame otherwise healthy women who just happen to not be muscular. I don't believe you have to be muscular in order to be healthy.

Are you just waiting for opportunities to get your point across about not liking muscles on women? WE GET IT ALREADY!! Don't hijack another thread.

huh? when did i claim that i don't like muscles on women? you're the second person who claimed i said that. where did i say that? i do like muscle on women and never claimed otherwise.

RobynMWilson

BRAVO and well said!!

cls_333

Eat more, weigh less. I'm a fan of the club!

bebreli

I don't understand the gif, but I am feeling nice and tranquil now....

Lol, me too

Special Snowflake!

rm7161

Dr. Lustig speaks truth when he's talking about sugar, btw. But you have to be careful with all high caloric density carbohydrates, but especially more careful with sugar, and just stay away from high fructose corn syrup, period. Also alcohol isn't far behind that. Many people don't count their alcohol calories. Tsk, tsk.

I wouldn't be so quick to preach Lustig unless you pay attention to dose and context:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I'm not saying to avoid sugar completely, but watching the sugar and alcohol has definitely contributed to my weight loss in a major way. I still eat items sweetened with sugar, but careful to weigh and portion it out, and account for every single bit of it.

binknbaby

You are terribly rude and completely misinformed. There is such a thing as not eating enough. That's where YOU effed up the calories in calories out equation. It's a different ball game when you're starving your body. You are not a special snowflake. Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Oy vey. Seriously reading way more into my post. Read my last one.

Admittedly I was frustrated after seeing about 3 posts in a row when someone had posted useful information on metabolism, whole foods, and stalling, and about a dozen people jumped on them and shouted "calories in calories out!", as if that should be the end of the discussion. So I may not have clarified as well as I should have in the first post. Obviously I was starving myself, and obviously that was stalling me, but while I used that as an example of why it's not that SIMPLE (being the key word here), that wasn't the whole of my stance/argument. My point with that example was that if the oversimplification of that equation were true, then I would have lost weight, because I was eating fewer calories than I was using. And multiple people on here who are disagreeing with me, are actually agreeing with me, by pointing out that there is a point where it becomes unhealthy. But they are still missing the point by ignoring the word "SIMPLE". My point is not that is is untrue, but that it's not as easy as 4-1=3, but that there are multiple factors to consider, such as macros, getting enough cals to stay healthy, quality of food (making sure it can actually be used by the body), and individual metabolism. My point (again) was not that it was completely false, but that it wasn't the complete picture, and the oversimplification is condescending to those who say otherwise.

Topher1978

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

We call these doctors quacks for a reason...

Aviva92

You are terribly rude and completely misinformed. There is such a thing as not eating enough. That's where YOU effed up the calories in calories out equation. It's a different ball game when you're starving your body. You are not a special snowflake. Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Oy vey. Seriously reading way more into my post. Read my last one.

Admittedly I was frustrated after seeing about 3 posts in a row when someone had posted useful information on metabolism, whole foods, and stalling, and about a dozen people jumped on them and shouted "calories in calories out!", as if that should be the end of the discussion. So I may not have clarified as well as I should have in the first post. Obviously I was starving myself, and obviously that was stalling me, but while I used that as an example of why it's not that SIMPLE (being the key word here), that wasn't the whole of my stance/argument. My point with that example was that if the oversimplification of that equation were true, then I would have lost weight, because I was eating fewer calories than I was using. And multiple people on here who are disagreeing with me, are actually agreeing with me, by pointing out that there is a point where it becomes unhealthy. But they are still missing the point by ignoring the word "SIMPLE". My point is not that is is untrue, but that it's not as easy as 4-1=3, but that there are multiple factors to consider, such as macros, getting enough cals to stay healthy, quality of food (making sure it can actually be used by the body), and individual metabolism. My point (again) was not that it was completely false, but that it wasn't the complete picture, and the oversimplification is condescending to those who say otherwise.

the mfp forum is all about being condescending when people don't agree with you. lose the weight as you see fit and ignore the haters.

tjl2329

I agree. I eat a lot and all the time. Healthy food. Not junk sugar or fast food. I ocassionally eat bad but only a little and have very few cravings. I eat way more st 225 than I did at 268. I cant believe how much I eat. The weight just keeps coming off as long as I eat healthy food. I went to the nutritionist and this is how she told me to eat. I am diabetic and it works for me. Everyone is different and we shouldn't judge or criticize a person for expressing there view. Last week I was extremely hungry and the only thing available to. Me was a hot dog and chips. I ate still lost weight. Just ate better rest of the day. I only ate the appropriate amount. 1 serving. I cant speak for everyone but I understand what shes saying. I have a medical condition that's why I started eating this way. Didn't know id lose weight but I did. I really eat what I want. Once you lay off junk you crave it less and actually don't like it as much. A big. Thing for me was making my own food and portion control. I also eat out but only at restaurants and always eat a salad first. Please stop saying mean things. It makes us feel discouraged. Pets all be happy healthy and supportive of others.

BinaryPulsar

The good thing is that you are eating more and losing weight. That's something many of us do agree with. And agree that VLCD are not healthy or good for fitness.

Meeting your micro and macro nutrients is good also.

The thing people are disagreeing with is the misapplication of logic based on just your one experience (that was not being tracked scientifically).

trogalicious

I like to compare it to a car engine.

If your BMR is the bare minimum amount of food required to keep the engine (your rip-roaring-fat-burning metabolism) going, then you have to keep it fueled adequately.

If you put gas in the tank, the car goes... but you have to put enough in for it to keep moving. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

You ate 1600 calories, which was apparently enough to refuel your engine. Engine starts again.

It is calories in / calories out, but you have to factor in how much you need to keep the engine going.


...FAR too many people are here, almost a month into the new year, and they're annoyed at why they aren't losing at 1200 calories because that's what the app may have told them. Or they're coming here and telling us all how we've done it wrong. It's okay, just slow down and simplify the concepts.

msbunnie68

You skimmed over the part where a trainer told you to eat more. This trainer, what did they train you to do? Did you also begin an effective exercise program at the same time as eating different foods. Can you tell us more about this exercise? Is there any possibility that the change in your exercise habits contributed to your newfound weightloss? Or does that hurt your narrative?

Yes, but I wasn't a workout fiend, and I had been working out before. The activity wasn't a very great increase. It only increased by about one day a week (went from 2-3 days on average to 4 days on average). And again, still doesn't "explain" how I was unable to lose weight on a calorie deficit. If that were that simple, I would've already been losing, wouldn't I?


Whoever asked how I was counting... I was using nutritional labels (since everything was packaged...) and keeping a paper journal. At the time, I was not aware of websites like MFP, so I was doing it "old school". So... eat a protein bar, write it down directly from the label. Eat a TV dinner? Write it from the label. That's how it was back then. And most of my cals came from carbs. I wasn't really making my own food at that time, so it was fairly simple to record what was on the label.


And I applaud all of you who are able to lose with the simple calorie deficit. But assuming it works for everyone and attacking anyone who says anything differently (this thread is a perfect picture of that) is just plain arrogant and ignorant. Perhaps there are "outside factors" for someone not losing weight--hypothyroid, medical condition, whatever--but that doesn't justify talking down to people and being condescending simply because they offer an alternative point of view. Clearly it can work for MOST, but true health is much more than BF% or BMI. The food you eat literally becomes your cells. So yeah, even if someone is not obese, they can still develop cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease, because even if they ear fewer cals than they burn, they eat crap.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to increase cals or that CI/CO can't work, but that it's one piece of health, and may not work for everyone. For those who are struggling with losing weight and are constantly told, "It's so simple!!!" It's degrading and frustrating for those of us who do carry a calorie deficit and may still struggle. I see so many posts of people (usually women) saying they've been under their count for so long now and seeing no results--or even gaining--and then a bunch of people (usually men) jump on them and tell them "it's so simple", when it's really not. It's way more complex than that.

Is it possible you were misinterpreting the labels? Now before you jump on me for this let me explain. Most processed food labels list calories/kilojoules by serving size. Looks fantastic...until you look at the serving size in grams vs the actual packet size. A lot of the prepackaged foods that look like one meal lists that it contains 2 or more servings. A packet of instant noodles will state that it contains x amount of calories per serve which looks good until you realize the packet contains 2 serves which would mean breaking the little handkerchief sized block of dried noodles in half and you actually consume twice the amount of calories that are list on the nutrition panel.

Sometimes it is very easy to underestimate your intake with processed foods. It is a bit harder to do that with whole unprocessed foods unless you don't weigh or measure.

firstsip

You are terribly rude and completely misinformed. There is such a thing as not eating enough. That's where YOU effed up the calories in calories out equation. It's a different ball game when you're starving your body. You are not a special snowflake. Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Oy vey. Seriously reading way more into my post. Read my last one.

Admittedly I was frustrated after seeing about 3 posts in a row when someone had posted useful information on metabolism, whole foods, and stalling, and about a dozen people jumped on them and shouted "calories in calories out!", as if that should be the end of the discussion. So I may not have clarified as well as I should have in the first post. Obviously I was starving myself, and obviously that was stalling me, but while I used that as an example of why it's not that SIMPLE (being the key word here), that wasn't the whole of my stance/argument. My point with that example was that if the oversimplification of that equation were true, then I would have lost weight, because I was eating fewer calories than I was using. And multiple people on here who are disagreeing with me, are actually agreeing with me, by pointing out that there is a point where it becomes unhealthy. But they are still missing the point by ignoring the word "SIMPLE". My point is not that is is untrue, but that it's not as easy as 4-1=3, but that there are multiple factors to consider, such as macros, getting enough cals to stay healthy, quality of food (making sure it can actually be used by the body), and individual metabolism. My point (again) was not that it was completely false, but that it wasn't the complete picture, and the oversimplification is condescending to those who say otherwise.

I think a vast majority of people, especially people I've seen post good, sound, scientific advice most often, DO realize it's more than just a simple "2 -2 = 0." If you come across someone that says it IS that cut and dry, they may be new or not fully understanding the process. Obviously, people plateau all the time doing JUST that: calories in vs. calories out. However, that does not undermine the very basic science that, yes, outside of extenuating medical conditions, that is still how one loses weight. So it IS that simple, that the basic formula for how a body loses weight, is "burning more than you take in"; the complexity is the rate of how this happens, the steadiness, etc. etc.

binknbaby

The good thing is that you are eating more and losing weight. That's something many of us do agree with. And agree that VLCD are not healthy or good for fitness.

Meeting your micro and macro nutrients is good also.

The thing people are disagreeing with is the misapplication of logic based on just your one experience (that was not being tracked scientifically).

I was just using that as an *example* of how it's not as *simple* as many of them are saying. The tone in which they say it's so "simple" (and the way they responded to my example, by saying I must have tracked incorrectly--which of course is possible as I am human, but not the point), tends to be arrogant. Like anyone who says that it's more complicated than that is just "doing it wrong" (as evidenced by this thread). Again, I wasn't saying it's completely wrong, but that it's more complex than that, and it can't *always* be summed up with basic math. Sometimes there's more to it than that, and posting that on threads that have useful information as to why someone may have stalled or is having trouble, is not only misleading to those who are struggling (which leads to people only taking in 1100 cals/day...), but also rude to those who put the thought and effort into creating the informational thread, and is flippant toward the information that could help other people to achieve their goals.