Is 'eating at deficit' enough?

EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.

How do you know your TDEE was 2200? It sounds like your TDEE was under 1400 to me.

For the record, if you can store excess fat and put on weight overall while eating less calories than your body is using just to stay alive, your body holds the key to all the world's energy problems!

As an idea, if you were storing just 800 calories a day, over a year we are talking about 350kwh of energy that mas magically appeared in your body. If that were electrical energy, that could be worth £35 a year or more! As an idea, you could, say, run a freezer for a whole year with that energy!

Hey who knows? Maybe she was on a starvation diet for years before doing the study and her metabolism crashed to burning just 600 cals a day...unlikely but hey we don't know all the specifics. I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt and explore and research rather than shunt them and tell them they're lying. We don't learn anything that way.

Again. Do the math. The weight she gained, if it were in the form of calorie-containing molecules, would be more than ALL of the food she ingested during the entire 8 weeks. No matter how different two peoples' bodies might be, they are not so different that one of them can violate the laws of physics and conjure energy from nowhere. This is like claiming that I poured 1 liter of water into an empty bucket and it when I finished it contained 1.5 liters of water. It simply does not happen in this universe.

EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.

How do you know your TDEE was 2200? It sounds like your TDEE was under 1400 to me.

For the record, if you can store excess fat and put on weight overall while eating less calories than your body is using just to stay alive, your body holds the key to all the world's energy problems!

As an idea, if you were storing just 800 calories a day, over a year we are talking about 350kwh of energy that mas magically appeared in your body. If that were electrical energy, that could be worth £35 a year or more! As an idea, you could, say, run a freezer for a whole year with that energy!

Hey who knows? Maybe she was on a starvation diet for years before doing the study and her metabolism crashed to burning just 600 cals a day...unlikely but hey we don't know all the specifics. I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt and explore and research rather than shunt them and tell them they're lying. We don't learn anything that way.

Again. Do the math. The weight she gained, if it were in the form of calorie-containing molecules, would be more than ALL of the food she ingested during the entire 8 weeks. No matter how different two peoples' bodies might be, they are not so different that one of them can violate the laws of physics and conjure energy from nowhere. This is like claiming that I poured 1 liter of water into an empty bucket and it when I finished it contained 1.5 liters of water. It simply does not happen in this universe.

Yeah I don't think I ever claimed that someone could gain weight at a deficit of 800 cals a day, I'm simply trying to find out what has happened in this situation. I happen to be studying nutrition and therefore this kind of thing is something I would find helpful in looking into. If you see my post above, I think I have made it clear that I understand it's not possible to gain weight at such a deficit and I am simply looking for what the explanation might be.

After seeing how everyone was jumping on the OP, I was going to step in and try to give some validation to some of the points she made.

But I decided to check out her diary first, and NAHHHHH, she is on her own with this one.

In my opinion, Shakeology would fall under the garbage category. And I think even Jonny -'McDonalds'-than eats more veggies than OP does,

I don't see many jumping but because of this post I did look at her diary...

I want to find that bacon that is 69 calories for 1.5 slices...:laugh:

The kind I usually get is 80 calories for 2 slices

Yes I'm in here defending OP :smokin:

d I gained weight like no tomorrow.

I was in a steep deficit.

No.

You were in a calorie surplus.

If you are one of the 'special snowflakes' - and enough people out there do have bodies that behave significantly differently to the norm - then your body may have slowed down BMR and so, meaning you were in a surplus.

If you are gaining non-water weight, you are in a calorie surplus.

If you are in a deficit, you are losing weight (non-water) weight.

If you're suggesting otherwise, do explain where this mass has come from?

I was not in a calorie surplus. My TDEE was 2200, told to eat 1400 calories of low fat, high carb foods that were given to me, weighed, measured, etc. I gained almost 30 pounds in less than 8 weeks.

I eat almost 2400 calories per day of high fat, moderate protein, low carb and losing weight fine.

EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.

My explanation is that it isn't true...

My explaination is that you have grossly underestimated your level of activity. 20 pounds lost in 31 days says that you've been operating at a deficit of (on average) 2258.06 calories PER DAY so your TDEE must be higher or your scale is wrong or you are mistaken about your weight loss.

You don't have to create a deficit of 2258 calories per day to see a scale loss of 20lbs in 31 days, only to see actual fat and muscle loss. The more likely scenario is that after being on a diet that caused water retention, much of that has been lost and the actual fat and muscle loss is much lower than 20llbs. Water loss could be as much as 10lbs, which would then make fat and muscle loss at more like 10lbs over a month which is around 0.32lbs per day loss. As we don't know how much muscle and how much fat is being lost and in what ratio, that would make the deficit needed at around 1000 if it were all fat, less to allow for muscle loss but without knowing that it can't be determined exactly.

Using this, we can assume her maintenance may be 2200 plus around 600-800 cals from exercise. But if this is the case, it contradicts the idea that her she gained weight on a 1400 cal diet with a TDEE of 2200. There can't be such a huge discrepancy between TDEE on the 2 diets.

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

?????

No, it's not impossible to know what one's maintenance level is. It's different for every person, and by tracking calories in and weight changes it can then be determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Enough to allow one to maintain their own weight.

You seem to think that "maintenance" is defined by what some guesstimating calculator has spit out, rather than whatever has been observed for an individual. To point out that you have it backwards is not nitpicking. Stop being backwards so that you can make look like you are correcting someone else based on your misuse of the terms/concepts.

Do you have some device that determines exactly how your body processes every calorie from every type of food? If not then I've proved my point. If you eat the same foods every day and the same calories then you may be able to find a calorie level where you can maintain at, but even then you could still be over by 50 calories a day and you wouldn't know it until months later when you've accrued an extra few thousand calories and have gained a lb or 2. If you're eating a variety of foods (as many people do), it will be impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning, but again you may be able to find a calorie level where you maintain for that point in time but again you won't know until months later when you may have gained a lb and then you won't even know by how much you're going over. Anyway, you obviously have it all figured out. Good for you.

But here's the reality. If you truly care about just maintenance, a pound or two is nothing to panic about and can be burned off either with minimal calorie adjustment or exercise. If you're in a caloric deficit to lose weight , your deficit is probably something like 250 calories a day at the minimum, so even a discrepancy of 50 calories per day would not be the end of the world - you would still lose weight. This is also why we're advised to be very careful about logging. Weigh everything, and be careful eating foods you didn't make because of the inherent errors in estimating their calories. Even then, with consistent logging and enough of a buffer, things can still even out.

Your 2000 calories of kale vs 2000 calories of twinkies is actually what makes calories in calories out so simple. If two guys require 2000 calories to lose weight at the same rate, the Twinkie guy is gonna want some chicken at some point. The chicken guy is gonna want some twinkies every so often to mix things up. They can BOTH do this. They will both lose weight. I'm not saying don't eat veggies or clean or Taleo or whatever you want. It's just that making it seem like any kind of dietary restriction is needed for the average individual without unique medical issues I would say is responsible for many a failed attempt to lose weight. At some point you simply get tired of eating **** you don't like and decide to find something else to do with your time. Eating what you like, but "a little less" of it is much more sustainable.

So why does it ask you how often you exercise and increase cals based on that then?

If you're referring to the Goal setting part the exercise entered there has no effect on calories, it's a standalone goal for exercise for you to measure yourself against.

When you do exercise and log it then the food calories are increased in order to cancel out the exercise and maintain the original deficit.

No there's a section when you set your goals that asks how active you are and it changes your maintenance cals based on what you select, but that might just be down to how active you are in your day in general as opposed to working out.

I was pretty sure that the exercise goals are just there for motivational purposes and don't actually affect your calories.

I wasn't talking about exercise goals, I was referring to when they set your weight loss goals it asks for your activity level and ups your calories based on that. Aside from that there is also a setting for exercise goals which doesn't impact allowed calories unless you add that exercise to your diet every day.

That's the same as setting your activity level and then adding in exercise separately. I couldn't blanket enter my exercise since I can't be certain I'll burn the same amount every day. That's why it's best to add exercise after the fact.

It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.

?????

No, it's not impossible to know what one's maintenance level is. It's different for every person, and by tracking calories in and weight changes it can then be determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Enough to allow one to maintain their own weight.

You seem to think that "maintenance" is defined by what some guesstimating calculator has spit out, rather than whatever has been observed for an individual. To point out that you have it backwards is not nitpicking. Stop being backwards so that you can make look like you are correcting someone else based on your misuse of the terms/concepts.

Do you have some device that determines exactly how your body processes every calorie from every type of food? If not then I've proved my point. If you eat the same foods every day and the same calories then you may be able to find a calorie level where you can maintain at, but even then you could still be over by 50 calories a day and you wouldn't know it until months later when you've accrued an extra few thousand calories and have gained a lb or 2. If you're eating a variety of foods (as many people do), it will be impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning, but again you may be able to find a calorie level where you maintain for that point in time but again you won't know until months later when you may have gained a lb and then you won't even know by how much you're going over. Anyway, you obviously have it all figured out. Good for you.

But here's the reality. If you truly care about just maintenance, a pound or two is nothing to panic about and can be burned off either with minimal calorie adjustment or exercise. If you're in a caloric deficit to lose weight , your deficit is probably something like 250 calories a day at the minimum, so even a discrepancy of 50 calories per day would not be the end of the world - you would still lose weight. This is also why we're advised to be very careful about logging. Weigh everything, and be careful eating foods you didn't make because of the inherent errors in estimating their calories. Even then, with consistent logging and enough of a buffer, things can still even out.

Your 2000 calories of kale vs 2000 calories of twinkies is actually what makes calories in calories out so simple. If two guys require 2000 calories to lose weight at the same rate, the Twinkie guy is gonna want some chicken at some point. The chicken guy is gonna want some twinkies every so often to mix things up. They can BOTH do this. They will both lose weight. I'm not saying don't eat veggies or clean or Taleo or whatever you want. It's just that making it seem like any kind of dietary restriction is needed for the average individual without unique medical issues I would say is responsible for many a failed attempt to lose weight. At some point you simply get tired of eating **** you don't like and decide to find something else to do with your time. Eating what you like, but "a little less" of it is much more sustainable.

No I never said you couldn't easily just lower your calories again to make up for the gained weight, but my point was that you can't determine an exact amount of cals needed to maintain your weight or how many cals you are burning with each type of food. So the only way around it is to either be under calorie goals but not knowing by how much and therefore you maintain, or gain weight and count calories until you lose what you've gained. And no, a small discrepancy won't show up initially but over the course of a month going over by 50 cals a day is around 1500 calories. So if one person is burning 50 cals less a day than someone else because of what they're eating they will lose less weight in that month than the other person and when you're talking about someone with a lot of weight to lose, over a year that amounts to over 5lbs less just from 50 cals, but we don't know that the discrepancy is even that small. If you look at the study I quoted earlier, it shows a much larger discrepancy between people dependent on what they were eating. So this is why I've been saying that 2 people can be eating at the same calculated calories to lose 1lb per week, but dependent on what they're eating they will lose weight at different rates but I haven't said that the one WON'T lose weight - it will just take a lot longer unless they create a larger deficit or are eating foods that increase their energy expenditure.

I don't know what you're trying to say about the 2 people eating 2000 cals a day because as I've said, if there is a deficit both will lose weight, but the RATE of weight loss will be different because of how our bodies process different foods. The difference in rate will be even larger if the one eating twinkies has a medical condition. It's not the point that they will get tired of what they're eating, it's the fact that the body does not process those 2 foods in the same way. The guy eating the twinkies will need to lower his calories to have the same rate of weight loss as the other guy, even if their calorie requirements are the same because their energy expenditure will be different - related directly to WHAT they are eating.

I don't think I said at any time that people should stop eating what they like, but I think if you are willing to look at food as fuel rather than having an emotional attachment to it you will be much better off and when you look at it that way you will eat the foods that fuel your body the best and you will be more efficient at burning off fat and maintaining muscle. If you absolutely need things that taste good but aren't health giving then you'll need to accept that you'll lose more muscle and will have to create a larger deficit to lose weight at a decent rate. That's all it's about. Calories matter, but not all calories are created equal and that is just a fact. If you ate a bunch of plastic you'd be eating calories, but your body can't digest plastic or extract those calories. You have to give it calories that it can effectively use for fuel or everything stops working.

So why does it ask you how often you exercise and increase cals based on that then?

If you're referring to the Goal setting part the exercise entered there has no effect on calories, it's a standalone goal for exercise for you to measure yourself against.

When you do exercise and log it then the food calories are increased in order to cancel out the exercise and maintain the original deficit.

No there's a section when you set your goals that asks how active you are and it changes your maintenance cals based on what you select, but that might just be down to how active you are in your day in general as opposed to working out.

I was pretty sure that the exercise goals are just there for motivational purposes and don't actually affect your calories.

I wasn't talking about exercise goals, I was referring to when they set your weight loss goals it asks for your activity level and ups your calories based on that. Aside from that there is also a setting for exercise goals which doesn't impact allowed calories unless you add that exercise to your diet every day.

That's the same as setting your activity level and then adding in exercise separately. I couldn't blanket enter my exercise since I can't be certain I'll burn the same amount every day. That's why it's best to add exercise after the fact.

Well I mean it's a flexible tool. If you're a mover for a living you could always set your activity level as such if you prefer

No, if you're a mover you set your activity level to active, and if you go to the gym after work and burn 500 calories, you add them in separately.