It's NOT always as simple as a deficit

I can't believe how many people on this site seriously believe "a calorie is a calorie." That is no true. Yes, a deficit is all you need to lose weight… AT FIRST. This is true when you have a lot of weight to lose. But if you're like me, it is always about 3-5 lbs of weight.

I can eat at a calorie deficit, meticulously weighing my food and I will NOT lose weight. And I have done this for months on end with no result. I have maybe 5 pounds to lose to where I would be at about 17%BF we (me and my trainer) figure. Those final pounds are incredibly difficult to lose and a deficit does not result in that for everybody, and certainly not me. I fluctuate between where I am now and 5 lbs less and it is purely based on what I eat. It doesn't matter how much I exercise or workout or how many calories in deficit I am. It is completely about not eating processed foods, too much sugar, too much salt, etc. FOR ME.

I find it hilarious how many of you seem to think you are the expert on this topic. If a deficit gets you to where you want to be, then great. I'm glad that works for you. But it will not work for everybody. And for so many of you to come on here state so a matter of fact like… well you have no credibility. Different foods are digested differently by different people. If that weren't true, then why does broccoli turn my best friends stomach upside down? If that weren't true, then I could sit here and eat a whole avocado without feeling like a knife is going through me. So how could you even begin to think that digestion doesn't play into this in terms of weight loss? And for so many of you to completely disregard that and act like a "calorie is a calorie" for everybody, well maybe you need to speak to a respected nutritionist. Or maybe several.

Thankfully I understand MY body and know how to get it where I want it, because it would seem pretty gloomy if I had to rely on the "expertise" of the people posting in this thread. I'd be sitting here eating bread and drink soda wondering why I can't lose weight even though I was very carefully counting my calories.

So to the OP, you're absolutely right and don't let the last 11 pages of completely madness get to you. Deficits are great and probably worked for you to a point. And if they don't anymore, then you figure out what does. For those that it's as simple as a deficit, well lucky them.

I can't believe how many people on this site seriously believe "a calorie is a calorie."

for me i had to eat more calories to lose weight....at 1200 calories a day was too low for me which put my body in starvation mode which can slow down weight loss. I now eat 1600 calories a day and when i exercise i eat the calories i've burned off to net 1600 calories a day. Working well for me!

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?

It depends on if you are talking about weight loss only. For weight loss only, the only thing that matters is that you be in a calorie deficit (see 'The Twinkie Diet). If you want a nice end result, then macros matter a great deal.

Well yes, in terms of this thread topic, weight loss is what we are talking about.

With regards to the Twinkie Diet you cannot claim he was eating an unbalanced mix of macros http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/diary/who/haub/ as he ate a fair mix of foods, not just Twinkies. For a man the diet is VLC and I have never said weight loss does not correlate with calorie deficit!

However macros are metabolised and affect satiety levels differently.

Abhorrent huh? Pretty strong word there...

Here's the thing. If you are going to post about the virtues of a particular diet plan because it worked for you, then be prepared for people to look at your diary to see what's working! Otherwise, hide your diary.

If you go back and actually read the posts, there aren't that many haters here at all. It's a pretty tame thread. 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.

There are other boards set up for dietary nitpicking, such as the Food and Nutrition one. In case you hadn't noticed the OP was giving motivation and support in the appropriately named Motivation and Support board! She did not post the virtues of a particular type of diet, merely shared that people who are experiencing difficulties might have more success by tweaking their macro proportions and basically not to give up trying.

And yes, I do find online bullying or personal attacks abhorrent; and shameful

Since you quoted me here, please show me one of my posts that was bullying or a personal attack?

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.

The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.

I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?

of course he wasn't going to gain muscle- he was eating at a deficit.

The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.

FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:

I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?

No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.

I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!

The professor drank a protein shake every day. I highly doubt it was what we would consider enough protein for a grown man (in fact he was publicly criticized for low protein intake). The remainder of his diet was junk food - lots of sugar and what most would consider unhealthy fats. But he still lost weight and improved his cholesterol markers.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

He had enough protein http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein and probably more than most people who eat junk food as their staple diet. It looks like he was getting just under 20% of his calories from protein, the minimum recommendation is 10%.

FDA recommendations are outdated. There are new studies that show 1g/lb lean body mass is optimal during calorie restriction. How does any of this show that I do not understand the dynamics of weight loss?? Honestly, I think you are having to dig REAL deep to find an argument. It's to the point of absurdity. :ohwell:

I can't really see an argument here at all, I'm just pointing out the anecdotal evidence given here is not quite the extreme diet the title suggests. Yeah, he was getting enough protein to not put his health at risk and he was obviously not planning to build muscle during his experiment. He lost weight because he put himself through a VLC diet but despite the junk he was still getting a balance of macros, albeit not optimal. But there again I thought you had been arguing that there was no such thing as optimal macros for weight loss?

No, you are confused. I said all that is needed is a calorie deficit to lose weight. And that is true.

I am confused, because you just mentioned studies that show a specific protein intake optimises calorie restricted diets. I think you meant this optimises building muscle mass not calorie restriction!

You are not going to build muscle while in a calorie deficit. :huh: