Calorie Deficit (Is it a Myth)

I don't think the calorie deficit is a myth, but I do think it is harder to lose weight when not eating healthy foods. For me I found it is a heck of lot easier losing weight by switching to a plant based diet. Before I would eat meat and vegetables, but I had to micromanage my calorie intake. I would still be hungry. After switching to a plant based diet I am losing weight at a faster rate and I'm not hungry. I'll lose about 2 pounds a week maybe a little more depending on what activities I'm doing compared to 1 pound or less from before I switched to plant based. For me it's not just about losing weight. It's also about optimal health.

B_TEEN wrote: »

erickirb wrote: »

If you eat unprocessed plant foods (starches and grains, fruits and vegetables), you won't need to compute an estimated caloric deficit as your body will regulate how to process plant foods between energy/nutrients sources and waste; plus, you can reach a point of satiety [without guilt].

Yeah, no. I'm perfectly happy overeating healthy food. If I don't weigh, measure, and track my intake (even while eating "clean") I gain weight.

And this may seem counter intuitive, but tracking actually makes me feel LESS guilty. So if I want to have a splurge or treat, or eat some fast food because I'm wiped out for the day (I work full time and have two small kids), I can work it into my calorie budget, balance out the next meal, and I feel fine about it.

I tend to gravitate toward healthy food, and love fish and salad and veggies, but for me, eating "intuitively" is a disaster.

[....] it takes about 20 minutes for your brain to register that your stomach is full.
And, it doesn't matter where your calories come from, your body does not differentiate what foods the calories are coming from.

Agree that it takes time for your brain to register "fullness" but keep in mind that 100 calories from fat versus 100 calories from carbohydrates and protein ARE NOT the same in density. So, if you can get more "bang" for the buck in volume from plants, which is a source of carbs + protein, you can eat more for the same cost [in calories]. The greater volume plus added fiber of plants/grains/beans will more likely register a feeling of satiety than the same caloric value of fat.

blues4miles wrote: »

But I know plenty of overweight and obese vegetarians and vegans, it's not a perfect method for everyone.

I hear you but vegans make food choices for ethical reasons and vegetarians may make food choices often based on religion or other preference. Therefore, a vegan and vegetarian diet may be highly-processed and high in fat. So, I think experiences of those that follow a "plant-based lifestyle", those who eat for optimal healthy, will vary to traditional vegan and vegetarians.

Not only should you continue counting calories, but you should count them more accurately. While it is a good idea to mind the quality of your food, when it comes to weight loss, quantity is what matters (not quality). Poor foods could cause other health issues, inflammation, and other problems; however, even if all you eat is McDonald's, you will in fact lose weight if you are in a caloric deficit. In addition to health though...eating quality foods do (for me) cause a higher satiety than junk foods that are not nutrient dense. Nutrient dense whole foods simply satisfy me more than garbage.

According to Scooby, my BMR is 1487. Completely sedentary, my BMR is around 1600 according to my Fibit, and with my TDEE, Fitbit says it's 2100-2500 since I take anywhere between 10k-17k steps from jogging. Another calc has my BMR at 1612, shrug.

I don't know what to believe, but they're all just estimates anyway.

B_TEEN wrote: »

[....] it takes about 20 minutes for your brain to register that your stomach is full.
And, it doesn't matter where your calories come from, your body does not differentiate what foods the calories are coming from.

Agree that it takes time for your brain to register "fullness" but keep in mind that 100 calories from fat versus 100 calories from carbohydrates and protein ARE NOT the same in density. So, if you can get more "bang" for the buck in volume from plants, which is a source of carbs + protein, you can eat more for the same cost [in calories]. The greater volume plus added fiber of plants/grains/beans will more likely register a feeling of satiety than the same caloric value of fat.

blues4miles wrote: »

But I know plenty of overweight and obese vegetarians and vegans, it's not a perfect method for everyone.

I hear you but vegans make food choices for ethical reasons and vegetarians may make food choices often based on religion or other preference. Therefore, a vegan and vegetarian diet may be highly-processed and high in fat. So, I think experiences of those that follow a "plant-based lifestyle", those who eat for optimal healthy, will vary to traditional vegan and vegetarians.

Sounds like you are trying to make a "no true Scotsman" argument about vegans/vegetarians to justify your personal beliefs.

Chicken breast, tuna, yogurt are all good sources as well. Plant-based is not the answer for everyone. CICO, however, is the answer for everyone.

stevencloser wrote: »

B_TEEN wrote: »

[...] I like to eat until I'm full (which the body physically prefers) and know what I eat fuels my energy and health equally. On some days, it's going to be a large volume of food and on others maybe not as much. When I feed my body a variety of food from the major food groups (starches, grains, fruits and veg), I trust that it will process and waste without long-term harm, internal damage or excessive weight gain, as it was programmed to do.

That's not what it was programmed to do. It's programmed to shove whatever it can into your emergency stores, [....]

Okay, but I'm missing what you're trying to refute.

Whole plant foods that are high in fiber and low in fat are not going to be stored in the body to the point of excess weight gain is caused; often, the inverse occurs -- weight loss occurs until stable weight is reached. This point is consistent when examining people who follow a plant/starch centered diet in rural China and various countries in Africa.

The fact that weight is based on calorie intake is science. No anecdotal evidence will disprove the laws of physics.

In this case, it is the simple rule that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Every time you move, you must be burning calories equal to that movement. Otherwise it would mean your body would be summoning energy from nothing; thus, your body is breaking the laws of physics. It isn't.

This puts an end to all anecdotes about how calories in vs. calories out might be a myth. You might as well say gravity might be a myth.

So, any time anybody (I'm not targeting you, I'm just speaking generally because I see this a lot) claims that they are eating at a deficit but not losing weight, the simple answer is that they are not actually eating at a deficit like they think they are. They are eating more than they think and/or they are moving less than they think. There is no third option.