Is 'eating at deficit' enough?
Replies
-
Wow! Thanks for this amazing mind-boggling new information that nobody talking about CICO ever heard of or considered as a possibility or anything.So 2 people of the same body composition, height, weight, age could be put on the same amount of calories and one could maintain whilst the other gains.
Except someone who I was responding to was actually claiming that could not happen. It'd be great if everyone could accept that we're all different but many people can't, so you have to repeat stuff. Hardly my fault is it and really no need for the condescending attitude is there?0 -
?????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.0 -
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.
MFP is not a TDEE calculator, so it would be 1750 PLUS deliberate exercise.0 -
?????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.0 -
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.
MFP is not a TDEE calculator, so it would be 1750 PLUS deliberate exercise.
It allows you to select activity level. I do set mine at sedentary and then put exercise cals on top of that, but that's not really the point I'm getting at. I'm quite sure, based on experience, that 1750 is too high for my body if I am sedentary because I've gained weight on less than that and gained a lot more than I should have by only eating a little over that.0 -
The person you were arguing with was saying that anyone eating at maintenance would maintain their weight. They did not say or imply that any two people of the same weight/size have the same maintenance calories. I have never ever seen anyone suggest this. Ever. What they clearly meant by "maintenance" was that individual's TDEE. Which again, everyone already knows that any two individuals will have their own maint calories. But you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge this and keep inserting your strawman and then arguing against a position that nobody has taken.
Wow! Thanks for this amazing mind-boggling new information that nobody talking about CICO ever heard of or considered as a possibility or anything.So 2 people of the same body composition, height, weight, age could be put on the same amount of calories and one could maintain whilst the other gains.
Except someone who I was responding to was actually claiming that could not happen. It'd be great if everyone could accept that we're all different but many people can't, so you have to repeat stuff. Hardly my fault is it and really no need for the condescending attitude is there?0 -
Yes, I have such a device. I call it "my body."
?????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.
And yes I do have it all figured out. That is why I am successful in attaining my goals.0 -
The person you were arguing with was saying that anyone eating at maintenance would maintain their weight. They did not say or imply that any two people of the same weight/size have the same maintenance calories. I have never ever seen anyone suggest this. Ever. What they clearly meant by "maintenance" was that individual's TDEE. Which again, everyone already knows that any two individuals will have their own maint calories. But you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge this and keep inserting your strawman and then arguing against a position that nobody has taken.
Wow! Thanks for this amazing mind-boggling new information that nobody talking about CICO ever heard of or considered as a possibility or anything.So 2 people of the same body composition, height, weight, age could be put on the same amount of calories and one could maintain whilst the other gains.
Except someone who I was responding to was actually claiming that could not happen. It'd be great if everyone could accept that we're all different but many people can't, so you have to repeat stuff. Hardly my fault is it and really no need for the condescending attitude is there?
My example was in response to another user who claimed that weight loss rates between people will be exactly the same if they were on the same diet. I was saying that wasn't true and that we don't all have the same rate of burning fat and we process different foods differently. Maybe you missed those posts, I don't know, but I'm not making ANY strawman argument. If I'm saying something you already know good for you. The point here is that people are claiming we all burn calories at the same rate and my example was refuting that.0 -
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.
MFP is not a TDEE calculator, so it would be 1750 PLUS deliberate exercise.
It allows you to select activity level. I do set mine at sedentary and then put exercise cals on top of that, but that's not really the point I'm getting at. I'm quite sure, based on experience, that 1750 is too high for my body if I am sedentary because I've gained weight on less than that and gained a lot more than I should have by only eating a little over that.
MFP is a Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) calculator. This is why when you exercise, it adds more for you to eat. When it asks your activity level, it is asking for normal daily activity NOT including exercise.0 -
Yes, I have such a device. I call it "my body."
?????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.
And yes I do have it all figured out. That is why I am successful in attaining my goals.
Oh well that's great that you can see into your body and track everything it's doing. You are obviously very special.0 -
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.
MFP is not a TDEE calculator, so it would be 1750 PLUS deliberate exercise.
It allows you to select activity level. I do set mine at sedentary and then put exercise cals on top of that, but that's not really the point I'm getting at. I'm quite sure, based on experience, that 1750 is too high for my body if I am sedentary because I've gained weight on less than that and gained a lot more than I should have by only eating a little over that.
MFP is a Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) calculator. This is why when you exercise, it adds more for you to eat. When it asks your activity level, it is asking for normal daily activity NOT including exercise.
So why does it ask you how often you exercise and increase cals based on that then? I figured you can either just eat those cals it gives you for the estimated exercise OR you take your maintenance cals and then add exercise. Anyway, I base it on being sedentary anyway and then add my exercise. But as I say, I think the estimation is too high for my body.0 -
How do you know your TDEE was 2200? It sounds like your TDEE was under 1400 to me.EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.
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!0 -
0 -
EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.
[/quote]
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!
[/quote]
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.0 -
I had pizza a flamin' hot cheetos today. I feel great and have lost 12lbs since Sept.
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
I had pizza a flamin' hot cheetos today. I feel great and have lost 12lbs since Sept.
0 -
I had pizza a flamin' hot cheetos today. I feel great and have lost 12lbs since Sept.
Jeez, why is everyone here so obsessed with food??
0 -
Where did I tell her she was lying?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.
I asked her how she knew that was her TDEE.
I suspect she doesn't have the correct information.
Though, lets say someone came and told you that when they drove their car, it actually filled the fuel tank up with fuel?
Would you say "err, no, I don't think you're telling truth"? Or perhaps you might ask how they had been calculating the figures and wonder if they had missed something?0 -
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.
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!
How do you know your TDEE was 2200? It sounds like your TDEE was under 1400 to me.
EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.
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.0 -
Where did I tell her she was lying?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.
I asked her how she knew that was her TDEE.
I suspect she doesn't have the correct information.
Though, lets say someone came and told you that when they drove their car, it actually filled the fuel tank up with fuel?
Would you say "err, no, I don't think you're telling truth"? Or perhaps you might ask how they had been calculating the figures and wonder if they had missed something?
Even if her TDEE was overestimated, it seems highly unlikely that it was so low to enable a gain of 30lbs in 8 weeks. As someone above said, she would have had to have been eating an excess of 1875 calories to gain that amount of fat so her TDEE would have to have been less than zero. Impossible obviously. Even if we assume that half was water and the other half fat, that would require an excess of 937 cals per day making her TDEE at just under 500. Also highly unlikely. It is possible that the people who designed the study got it wrong and were feeding her more than 1400 cals a day - I don't know the specifics of the study. Either way I'd like to know because it's a very unusual situation.0 -
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.
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!
How do you know your TDEE was 2200? It sounds like your TDEE was under 1400 to me.
EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.
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.
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.0 -
No.d I gained weight like no tomorrow.
I was in a steep deficit.
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.
you really at above your TDEE …..
either that or you are the one person on the planet that can eat in a 800 calorie deficit and gain weight…neat trick0 -
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:0 -
Bacon medallions here in the UK are typically around 40 calories per slice with very little fat.0
-
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:
oscar meyer no nitrates is 80 cals for two ...0 -
No.d I gained weight like no tomorrow.
I was in a steep deficit.
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 explanation 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.
Oh and that's a 4 1/2 pound PER WEEK loss which is probably too much to be healthy unless you have a LOT of weight to lose but if your TDEE is 2200 you probably don't.0 -
No.d I gained weight like no tomorrow.
I was in a steep deficit.
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.0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions