It's NOT always as simple as a 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.

Wait... When did "equals" stop meaning "equals"?

Cat.gif

I had to look up the second law to see if it was what I thought it was. It is and I'm more confused on how that applies to raising the temperature of 1g of water 1 degree Celsius DOES NOT EQUAL raising the temperature of 1g of water 1 degree Celsius. Keep in mind I only took the minimum of science required for high school graduation.

Everyone is unique and there are certainly people that do have medical issues that create problems.

On the other hand, the point about people eating more than they think is valid more often than not. For instance, I know that when I pour a bowl of cereal in the morning, the serving size is 3/4 of cereal and 1 cup of milk. The reality is that is often closer to 1 cup of cereal and 1 1/4 cups of milk. By doing that, my breakfast is now 330 calories instead of 260. When I eat a banana for a snack in the morning, do I select the wrong one and end up with an extra 30 calories? When I'm eating dinner, do I write down 1 1/2 cups instead of the 2 cups of whatever I'm eating and underestimate by 100 calories? At that point, even though it's only minor differences, I'm off by half of my deficit for the day. Eat a snack because I was good all day and than I'm at such a small deficit that it will take months to notice much of a difference. Some people throw in a cheat day once a week and by doing that, they will never lose weight and they will say that they don't know why.

The honest truth is that someone who is significantly overweight is that they have demonstrated a history of lacking discipline when it comes to food. It is incredibly difficult to break that cycle and they do need support, but it's important that they really look at what they are eating. Again, I say that knowing that some people are screwed by medical conditions that change the math completely.

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 have a condition (type 2 diabetic) and don't avoid carbs as a matter of fact they have and still do make up the largest part of my macro's, in the end after trial in error with logging, weighing, and measuring my food to find my deficit range, it came down to calories in vs calories out which is the only true way to lose weight whether you have a so called condition or not...

Do you take insulin-sensitizing meds like Metformin? That really helps the metabolism of carbs, since that what it's supposed to do and all

No, actually. There isn't any evidence that that is true. Low carbing nets you more up front loss, but that is mostly water weight. In the end, either method is equally effective.

And now, really out!

So I didn't misquote you or misunderstand your reference to macros then, when I was asked:

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 have a condition (type 2 diabetic) and don't avoid carbs as a matter of fact they have and still do make up the largest part of my macro's, in the end after trial in error with logging, weighing, and measuring my food to find my deficit range, it came down to calories in vs calories out which is the only true way to lose weight whether you have a so called condition or not...

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.

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

Taubes LOL
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

This entire study is essentially making a strawman out of the energy balance concept:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/


It's been well known for a while now that each macronutrient has a different thermic effect and is utilized differently. Isocaloric diets with different macronutrient composition do not show identical results and we've known this for a while now. EDIT: Important clarification -- typically protein isn't held constant in many of these comparisons.

This doesn't invalidate calories in vs out. These differences are in the "out" side of the equation.


Now as it pertains to the original topic ---

There's certainly merit to the idea that different macronutrient profiles are going to have an effect on how the individual performs, feels, and adheres to their energy intake. There could be minor differences in energy output and certainly massive differences in mood and how you feel.

But none of this means that a calorie isn't a calorie.

1) You are required to create and maintain an energy deficit in order to lose weight.
2) Even these metabolic differences do not change the value of a calorie.

Yes, that means you who believes you are special and that calorie deficits don't apply to you -- they do. Do you do better on a low carb diet? You might have much better dietary adherence and blunted hunger signaling which leads you to long term compliance which leads you to greater fat loss. But you are still required to be in an energy deficit. This isn't optional and none of the above invalidates a calorie being a calorie.

Regarding the logging issue, we have ample data showing that people routinely eat more than they log even under conditions where people are trained properly on how to log and under conditions where these people know they are being monitored for logging accuracy. They still over-eat, by a significant amount. It stands to reason that the average person who is NOT trained and is NOT being monitored, probably does this to a greater degree.

Combine estimation errors with nibbles of this or that, and add to it licking the peanut butter spoon, and these calories add up. Now take this type of thing and instead of looking at a day or a week, look at 6 months. Add to it the number of unlogged meals or entire days in that 6 month period, and the number of "taking a day off of my diet" days in that period, and you'll see many, many people eating much closer to maintenance than their supposed dietary intake, which may not be correct in the first place.

This does not make anyone a liar, a thief, a bandit, or any other insulting word you can think of. It is not intellectually dishonest, but it still happens.

The best support is to suggest the most logical course of action, such weighing your food, logging accurately etc, as that is most often where the issues lie. To flirt around the edges of the problem, will often only make the problem worse.