It's NOT always as simple as a deficit

I have PCOS and am having a terrible time. I eat 1200 cals/day. Eat 30-50% exercise calories back. I've lost right at 25 lbs which sounds great but I've stalled out there and the past month I've hovered at the same weight +/- a lb. I've not changed anything i'm doing. I still have a long way to go so its not like i'm close to my goal so im slowing down. The fact is, you are right. Its NOT always simple. I am very frustrated and while I am not giving up, it does make the whole journey much harder.

I have PCOS and am having a terrible time. I eat 1200 cals/day. Eat 30-50% exercise calories back. I've lost right at 25 lbs which sounds great but I've stalled out there and the past month I've hovered at the same weight +/- a lb. I've not changed anything i'm doing. I still have a long way to go so its not like i'm close to my goal so im slowing down. The fact is, you are right. Its NOT always simple. I am very frustrated and while I am not giving up, it does make the whole journey much harder.

Have you considered eating back less of your exercise calories? 25 pounds is not a small a amount of weight and as you lose it's normal for the amount you started at to have to lower some.

Doing the exact same thing for a month even though there has been no change is pretty much the definition of making things harder than they have to be.

I corrected my post, but that is OK - I will reiterate here what I said: MY POST CLEARLY STATES THE IMPORTANCE OF MACROS. So no, you didn't misquote me, but my post also doesn't say that macros don't matter for end results. I don't know why you even included it.

Dear God, is it possible for you to be any more dense?

So you edited your post AFTER I quoted you? That makes it mighty hard for anyone to check the veracity of your claims against me and in your support.

No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.

*headdesk*

No it doesn't. I quoted your post in full and you stated "Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals".

Blurred your profile pic and name out of courtesy.

"Adjusted according to our goals" isn't an acknowledgement of the role varying macro percentages can play?


Interesting.



Also worst blurring ever.

Yeah, I keep waiting for her 'get' it. Glad I'm not holding my breath.

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.

You are not an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. That's what "law" means.

But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.

I have hypothyroid as well, and it DOESN'T make me a special snowflake. I still lose weight when in a calorie deficit. Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals.

the simple part is - yes it really is - calories in vs calories out

the really hard part - calculating the caloric level at which you maintain and then figuring out how much to cut. I think that is something that we all struggle with …hell, I know I still do...

But people then take this to say well "calories in vs calories out does not work for me, so I went to low carb and now I am losing.." well no, you did not estimate your maintenance level or deficit correctly and going to low carb created a larger deficit, hence you started to lose again. It is still calories in vs calories out….

Even people with thyroid issues can lose weight via calorie deficit, they just have a harder time finding the right deficit level.

Oh look, another one of these threads about how OP defies the laws of thermodynamics. And then 20,000 people point it out, and 5 argue that OP is right.

She's swapped some of her calorie dense food that is incredibly easy to overeat if you don't weigh it or purchase it ready made and presume the nutritional value the store/takeaway gives you is 100% every time for calorie sparse vegetables that if you eyeball and eat an extra 50g will only amount to a negligable increase in calories.

Alternatively the OP is defying science.

In.

People post several short cuts and attempt to consider a generalization of the law of conservation of energy to either suggest that:

- All things considered and constant except total calories, the creation of a deficit results in weight loss
Or
- independent of macro nutrient composition, total calories in a diet being exactly equivalent will result in the same weight gain of loss
Or
- the most significant factor in weight loss is total calorie consumption versus needs and use.

The first is true, the second false and the third a generally good yardstick in weight loss.

That article not only sets up a very poor straw-man. Quite simply, anyone attempting to argue either side of Second Law arguments fails to understand that the Second Law stand for isolated systems. No second law needs to be upheld or suspended or abused in any way with regard to a biological entity because these are not isolated energy measurements. To argue about laws in terms of irreversible reactions is in fact, incorrect for biological respiration and glucose oxidation which is a reversible process (with the required thermal inefficiencies), the article fails to even make mention of these. Poor biology.

This would be the same as arguing that biological systems break the first law because as it states "heat is a form of energy" and since cellular systems (with the exception of some interesting Cyanobacteria in heat vents) do not use heat as a calorific energy source then the first law is not observed. Very poor.

Nutritional energy and heat calories are not the same. The units used are common and are substrate - reaction dependent but this is not what discussions about diet of nutrition talk about. This is so simple as to be ridiculous a calorie from burning gasoline won't fuel any cellular processes. It's really a tree and forest or as someone earlier wrote about hoofbeats, horses and zebras.

Yet, it is as simple as a deficit. Just that making a deficit, keeping it can be quite complex.

Keep it simple.

All things considered long term fat focused weight loss requires a conservation of energy such that the calories consumed are less than the calories "out". However complex those "out" equations might be.

Reduce calories by diet or exercise is the first, second and third thing to look at.
Treat exceptions, preferences and medical conditions as such.

[ultra geek /on]
And forget the thermodynamic arguments in terms of biochemical processes - these are all dissipative processes, energy is lost and Noether's Theorem has already dealt a blow to the need of a conservation law in these cases. (Ref - The Noether theorems: Invariance and conservation laws in the twentieth century). The math is beyond my attention span.
[ultra geek /off]

No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.

*headdesk*

No it doesn't. I quoted your post in full and you stated "Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals".

Blurred your profile pic and name out of courtesy.

"Adjusted according to our goals" isn't an acknowledgement of the role varying macro percentages can play?

In response to the previous poster it is quite clear that QuietBloom does not believe that varying macronutrients play a part in weight reduction.

Yeah, I keep waiting for her 'get' it. Glad I'm not holding my breath.

So then what goals do you vary your macros for? You claim you "clearly stated the importance of macros" without explaining what goals.

edited to fix quote tags.

No. I edited my RESPONSE to you, not my original post (the one that you quoted) that was made hours ago, that clearly stated the importance of macros.

*headdesk*

No it doesn't. I quoted your post in full and you stated "Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals".

Blurred your profile pic and name out of courtesy.

"Adjusted according to our goals" isn't an acknowledgement of the role varying macro percentages can play?

In response to the previous poster it is quite clear that QuietBloom does not believe that varying macronutrients play a part in weight reduction.

Yeah, I keep waiting for her 'get' it. Glad I'm not holding my breath.

So then what goals do you vary your macros for? You claim you "clearly stated the importance of macros" without explaining what goals.

edited to fix quote tags.

One might vary macronutrient intake to increase performance, improve dietary adherence, maximize muscle retention, blunt hunger, increase enjoyment of the overall diet due to taste preferences.. These would be some reasons to change macronutrient composition.

So then what goals do you vary your macros for? You claim you "clearly stated the importance of macros" without explaining what goals.

edited to fix quote tags.

One might vary macronutrient intake to increase performance, improve dietary adherence, maximize muscle retention, blunt hunger, increase enjoyment of the overall diet due to taste preferences.. These would be some reasons to change macronutrient composition.

^Yep. /discussion (Sorry guys, I know you all are entertained, but I'm getting tired of posting to someone who thinks I have something to defend against.)

But if the OP does have PCOS (and insulin resistance), then carbs are a key factor in reasonable weight loss for most people with that condition. Not just a calorie deficit -- specifically carbs. For folks without a condition, I can see where carbs don't matter.

So the OP isn't a special snowflake or breaking any laws of physics. She just has a known condition with known remedies. (Yawn ).

I agree. I see more weight loss in the weeks I do not eat processed foods. I can eat more calories in foods with less processing and lose more weight than weeks when I eat processed foods and less calories. So I can understand how what you eat makes more of a difference than the calorie deficit.

And every single one of you has missed the point of the post.

There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.

I'm with you ... they were all missing the point of the post!
I agree with you. It simply is NOT all about intake vs output or calories in vs out.

The book "Why we get fat" is soooo good.

Loosing weight is NEVER black and white ... ppl who think so are well ... mistaken.