Calorie Deficit (Is it a Myth)

On a high(er)-fat diet, calorie deficit and CICO are important as the body will easily store excess fat consumed, with very little energy required to do so. It's widely shared and assumed that a calorie is a calorie but diets high in starch and fiber and low in fat do not and will not have the same impact calorie-for-calorie in the long-run compared to a high(er) fat diet that includes animal products. Beyond this being studied and documented, it is representative within some of the longest living, healthiest cultures / communities.

As my understanding evolves and I see the changes that my body experiences, calorie restriction is no longer a part of my life. Satiety and calorie quality (i.e., really nutrient density) are the foundation of good nutrition which supports healthy bodily function of which the byproduct is normalized weight in the long-run. I understand everyone may not agree with this position. This is my answer based on my understanding and research interest in nutrition and it's impact on health and body structure.

B_TEEN wrote: »

On a high(er)-fat diet, calorie deficit and CICO are important as the body will easily store excess fat consumed, with very little energy required to do so. It's widely shared and assumed that a calorie is a calorie but diets high in starch and fiber and low in fat do not and will not have the same impact calorie-for-calorie in the long-run compared to a high(er) fat diet that includes animal products. Beyond this being studied and documented, it is representative within some of the longest living, healthiest cultures / communities.

As my understanding evolves and I see the changes that my body experiences, calorie restriction is no longer a part of my life. Satiety and calorie quality (i.e., really nutrient density) are the foundation of good nutrition which supports healthy bodily function of which the byproduct is normalized weight in the long-run. I understand everyone may not agree with this position. This is my answer based on my understanding and research interest in nutrition and it's impact on health and body structure.

dietary fat does not = body fat. If you are in a deficit it wont matter the make up of the cals as you wont be storing fat, you will be burning body fat to make up for the majority of the deficit of calories.

Sternjohn662200 wrote: »

Thanks for all the responses, really appreciate it.

I weigh all the solids i eat where i can. Started doing that when i realised what the actual weight was of the weekend bowl of cereal i was having. (80g not 30g like i was logging so huge difference). Liquids i try to measure using measuring cups - not always possible though like with the food if i have lunch out. Good shout with the entries though as i have noticed occasionally there are various ones for the same food so i could be making a mistake there.

I was thinking it could be the fitbit overestimating the calorie burn as the majority of my weight loss previously came through a healthy diet and exercise. I used to use TDEE calculators and estimated this to be 2400 using various calculators and taking the average.

I wouldn't really eat the exercise calories back which i do now because of fitbit as i would eat 1600 calories a day but now eat 1800 due to the fitbit stats. Looks like these 200 calories seems to be part of the issue so its really a deficit of 500 calories a day then not 750. If im 200 calories out with food then its only a 300 calories a day deficit which probably equates to the 0.3lbs a week weight loss.

If its all about calories in vs calories out does the quality of the calorie not affect weight loss. Surely 100 kcals for a banana is better than 100kcals for a bag of salt & vinegar squares. Surely it cant be that simple, what about fats, salt etc.

Re. the bold: a calorie is a calorie. For energy purposes, your body does not care if the calories come from bananas or salt and vinegar squares (what is this sorcery??? Must try salt and vinegar squares....).

Someone already spoke about the (obvious) nutritional differences between fruit/veg and less nutritional alternatives (i.e., chips, candy, etc.); salt will affect weight loss in that it causes temporary water retention (which is why you might see a gain on the scale the day after you have salty chips/crisps), but it is temporary, it's just water, and drinking a little more water than you usually drink will help to flush some of that excess away.

Sternjohn662200 wrote: »

I have a Fitbit charge hr which has been worn for when im exercising and throughout the day and looking at the data for the last 30 days i have an average burn of 2604 calories (appreciate its not an exact science) and an average intake of 1849 calories so an average deficit of 750 calories a day.

Although 9 times out of 10 logging is the issue, I also think the calorie counts given by the fitness trackers can be inflated for some people. Maybe for obese people? There have been a lot of folks on here with 20-30 lbs to lose who say their Fitbit is really accurate for them. I am obese and use an UP3 and it gives me an insane amount of extra calories for walking. I wonder if it does some adjustment for my weight that is way off.

I don't think eating healthier necessarily helps the numbers game. Other than that I eat out a lot, and calories from fast food will obviously be a lot less accurate than something you weighed from ingredients and cooked yourself. I know water retention can also be a huge factor for women, not sure how much it affects men.

I think if you are happy with your rate you should stick with it, but I have the same problem, my numbers were adding up but then stopped after I started exercising more. So my theory was I was overestimating exercise calories. I now use the calculation of .33 x (weigh in lbs) x miles = calories burned on a walk. When I put my walks into MFP I change the calorie number to reflect that. I use 90% of the calories my Garmin (with chest strap HR monitor) gives me for my running. I am still collecting the UP3 data because I think it is cool (and tracks sleep which is important) but I am not syncing it with MFP now. Also, I always look at what I can do to be more accurate with logging. Hopefully after a couple more weeks of this the numbers will add up again. But if I want to lose faster, the best way is just to eat less.

erickirb wrote: »

[....] If you are in a deficit it wont matter the make up of the cals as you wont be storing fat, you will be burning body fat to make up for the majority of the deficit of calories.

I understand the principal of CICO and calorie restriction but it does not appear sustainable for most people in duration as calorie restriction is not how our mind or body prefers to work.

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].

So, 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.

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.