Is weight loss only based on calorie intake?
itsLuciaxo
Posts: 17 Member
If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
0
Replies
-
Probably, at least for a while. Someone's doing a week on snickers.0
-
-
Over time you need an intake of fats and proteins, minerals and vitamins, that "sweets and chocolate" may not provide. Without them things may happen that compromise your weight loss (illness or death, for example).
Some of the prescribed PSMF weight loss diets have sugar, protein powder and a small amount of essential fats but are reinforced with vits and minerals to meet RDIs. You wouldn't at face value expect a diet product used by professionals to be based on sugar, but some are.1 -
Google the Twinkies diet.....a reporter did it eating nothing but Twinkies. Hardly optimal for health but works for weight loss.......1
-
Strictly speaking it's calorie balance not calorie intake alone.
You could eat all your intake in low nutrient foods (lettuce or sweets) and lose weight if you kept under your calorie needs for the day - but unless it's for an experiment it would be weird to put your health at risk.1 -
As long as you eat less kcal than your burn you will lose weight, depending on the difference you may lose it slower or faster. I watched a show about different diets in different time periods and they were also consulting a physician before and after about the results. Quite interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supersizers...1
-
itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
Not only able to, your body wouldn't have any other choice unless it wanted to kill you.0 -
There's already been a few scientists or nutritionists or whatever that did that just to prove that its based on calories. They went a month or two drinking coke and eating twinkies and other junk food only, and 0 real/healthy food. And they lost weight perfectly fine.
But weight loss. Fat loss. And health, are 3 different things.
You can lose a few pounds of weight (maybe up past a few kg even) just by losing water weight and glycogen stores, with all of that weight returning within 1-2 days once you start eating enough carbs again.
You can lose alot of weight with very little fat loss, with the majority of that weight being muscle or lean mass. If you were to eat a very very low protein diet and be sedentary, that would probably be what would happen.
And you can lose weight eating anything. But to be healthy you need to eat a varied and balanced diet, with most of the nutrients you need (Personally and just for my own situation, I think a multi vitamin is perfect since my diet, even though mostly healthy, in no way encompasses all the vitamins and minerals i'd need, or at least not in the amounts needed for optimal health).
And to minimize lean mass loss and prioritize almost pure fat loss, you'd want to eat a medium-high protein diet, and preferably do strength work outs (even just working out each muscle group once a week should be enough to almost ensure minimum to no muscle loss), providing your daily or weekly calorie deficit isn't too severe of course.
Also the leaner you are (both with more muscle mass, or less fat mass), the more careful you have to be with your diet and total calorie deficit. The lower your bf%, the slower you can lose fat. As your body would start to prioritize losing muscle mass. For the majority of people, it wouldn't matter too much or even be much of a concern. but for example;
A natural body builder trying to get down to competition type body fat percentage. I think they would struggle to lose half a pound of pure fat / week, without losing equal amounts or even more muscle mass.
While on the other extreme, someone that's morbidly obese, could probably safely lose 3-4 pounds of pure fat / week (under medical supervision, to ensure they're still supplying the body with its needs to maintain some modicum of health)3 -
You would but that weight loss is virtual. You'll gain all that back very easily. Weight loss is about eating within your caloric goals along with taking care of your macro and micro nutrient requirements. That kind of weight/fatloss attains some kind of permanency.1
-
There's already been a few scientists or nutritionists or whatever that did that just to prove that its based on calories. They went a month or two drinking coke and eating twinkies and other junk food only, and 0 real/healthy food. And they lost weight perfectly fine.
But weight loss. Fat loss. And health, are 3 different things.
You can lose a few pounds of weight (maybe up past a few kg even) just by losing water weight and glycogen stores, with all of that weight returning within 1-2 days once you start eating enough carbs again.
You can lose alot of weight with very little fat loss, with the majority of that weight being muscle or lean mass. If you were to eat a very very low protein diet and be sedentary, that would probably be what would happen.
And you can lose weight eating anything. But to be healthy you need to eat a varied and balanced diet, with most of the nutrients you need (Personally and just for my own situation, I think a multi vitamin is perfect since my diet, even though mostly healthy, in no way encompasses all the vitamins and minerals i'd need, or at least not in the amounts needed for optimal health).
And to minimize lean mass loss and prioritize almost pure fat loss, you'd want to eat a medium-high protein diet, and preferably do strength work outs (even just working out each muscle group once a week should be enough to almost ensure minimum to no muscle loss), providing your daily or weekly calorie deficit isn't too severe of course.
Also the leaner you are (both with more muscle mass, or less fat mass), the more careful you have to be with your diet and total calorie deficit. The lower your bf%, the slower you can lose fat. As your body would start to prioritize losing muscle mass. For the majority of people, it wouldn't matter too much or even be much of a concern. but for example;
A natural body builder trying to get down to competition type body fat percentage. I think they would struggle to lose half a pound of pure fat / week, without losing equal amounts or even more muscle mass.
While on the other extreme, someone that's morbidly obese, could probably safely lose 3-4 pounds of pure fat / week (under medical supervision, to ensure they're still supplying the body with its needs to maintain some modicum of health)
I'd doubt it unless you're very lean and muscular. Muscle that is needed will stay with you unless there's an emergency. Weight loss ends up being mostly fat loss the more fat you have.0 -
itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
Yep. As long as you're eating at an appropriate calorie deficit for your goals you'll lose weight, regardless of what foods your calories are made from. However, only eating one type of food would be incredibly boring. You wouldn't be getting all the nutrients your body needs either (this would be the same if you were only eating chocolate or only eating spinach ). Eating a varied diet with all sorts of foods is way more fun and more healthy. Nothing wrong with chocolate and sweets, but variety is the spice of life
1 -
For weight loss purposes, yes. It really is only calories in and calories out. However, for health, it's important to eat a wide variety of foods.1
-
This question gets asked a lot and I always wonder why. Are you worried that you won't lose unless you eat a specific diet or if you include certain foods?
Anyway, like others said, sure, in theory. It's not going to make you feel good (assuming an unhealthy diet where you are missing lots of nutrients), and I'd find it hard not to be hungry or to be overall satisfied. I mean, I want to eat a mix of foods including savory stuff like meat and vegetables. But if you eat fewer calories than you burn you lose weight -- that's how it works. What you eat may have an influence on how much you burn (for example, if you feel better and are more energetic or worse and are sluggish), but if you keep calories below what you actually burn you will lose, just not necessarily in the healthiest way.1 -
weightloss and optimum health are two different things. Lose weight? yes. Be the healiest you can be? probably not. No one on here as ever said "you can only eat twinkies, lose weight, and be the healthiest".1
-
Not true. Weight loss is about calorie deficit only. Eat less than your body needs to maintain. It doesn't matter what type of food you eat, but nutritious foods are much more filling, so it makes more sense to combine nutritious foods and tasty snacks.pallavnarang92 wrote: »You would but that weight loss is virtual. You'll gain all that back very easily. Weight loss is about eating within your caloric goals along with taking care of your macro and micro nutrient requirements. That kind of weight/fatloss attains some kind of permanency.
Health is about hitting macros and micros. You can still gain weight by hitting macros and micros if you're above maintenance.
1 -
itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
Yes, until the diabetes really screwed you up.1 -
MissusMoon wrote: »itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
Yes, until the diabetes really screwed you up.
You don't get diabetes simply by eating sweets or carbs. Too many calories and being overweight/obese is usually the culprit.3 -
Ive lost all my 30lbs from eating right. I do exercise lile 2-3 times a week but i skipped working out for over a month due to some personal reasons and i lost 5 lbs still doing my 1200 calories a day. Yes you could lose weight but your body would be unhealthy and youd probably feel like crap.1
-
itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
No. It's about balance of nutrition, not just hitting calorie numbers. For weight loss you should try a 40% Protein 40% HEALTHY Fat and 20% COMPLEX Carb diet.
That in joint with a calorie deficiency.1 -
itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
No. It's about balance of nutrition, not just hitting calorie numbers. For weight loss you should try a 40% Protein 40% HEALTHY Fat and 20% COMPLEX Carb diet.
That in joint with a calorie deficiency.
I've seen you throw macro goals out to several people. While I can see that you are varying these numbers per person, how are you deciding what is the appropriate ratio for each person? You don't know very much about the OP, or their goals, so where are the numbers coming from?2 -
itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
No. It's about balance of nutrition, not just hitting calorie numbers. For weight loss you should try a 40% Protein 40% HEALTHY Fat and 20% COMPLEX Carb diet.
That in joint with a calorie deficiency.
Yeah, no. Tons of people ignore macros and lose weight solely from counting calories. There's no denying that weight loss is simple math of intake and burn. Health is macro dependent, fat loss is not.2 -
I find that where my calories comes from matters for retaining water. If I have a day or two eating high amounts of fat or salt, my weight goes up due to water retention and I can feel my clothes getting tight. I have to remind myself that it will come off again once I go back to eating normally. So I would still be losing fat eating X calories of sweets, but with the water belly bulging out, it wouldn't look like it!1
-
itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
No. It's about balance of nutrition, not just hitting calorie numbers. For weight loss you should try a 40% Protein 40% HEALTHY Fat and 20% COMPLEX Carb diet.
That in joint with a calorie deficiency.
For many people 40% protein would be way more than necessary.
I can lose weight on 1800 calories (about a lb a week), and 40% protein of that is 180 grams. Given that I'm 125 and estimate my LBM at 95, that's nuts. I have no reason to aim for more than 100 grams of protein.1 -
itsLuciaxo wrote: »If weight loss is all about your calorie intake, Say I were to eat sweets and chocolate as my meals but ensured that they only amounted to 1200 calories at the end of each day, would I still be able to lose weight?
No. It's about balance of nutrition, not just hitting calorie numbers. For weight loss you should try a 40% Protein 40% HEALTHY Fat and 20% COMPLEX Carb diet.
That in joint with a calorie deficiency.
It terms of weight loss, macros mean absolutely nothing. As long as you're eating at an appropriate calorie deficit then you'll lose weight.
I've never tracked macros and not only did I lose over 50lbs, but I've also been in maintenance for several years now. I eat a varied diet that includes all sorts of foods and my macros fall where they fall.
1 -
Overall nutrition is extremely important, otherwise you mess with your metabolism and organs. As a stabilized diabetic from a family of diabetics who did not take proper care of themselves. It is incredibly important to eat (even for non-diabetics) in a way that keeps your glucose going level, instead of up and down. Eating only junk food will hype you up and drop your energy levels, do it over time and your metabolism, sleeping patterns, digestion will be the first to suffer. You can mess with your magnesium and D levels which will cause cramps and spasms even when you are not working out. Your potassium can drop which is EXTREMELY dangerous, etc. Aside from the fact that researchers keep coming up with all kinds of other diseases caused by white sugars, non sweetners and processed foods in general. To me, the diabetes and weight issues are enough (don't need to rush my demise or make myself suffer anymore. Best of luck!1
-
khernan1964 wrote: »Overall nutrition is extremely important, otherwise you mess with your metabolism and organs. As a stabilized diabetic from a family of diabetics who did not take proper care of themselves. It is incredibly important to eat (even for non-diabetics) in a way that keeps your glucose going level, instead of up and down. Eating only junk food will hype you up and drop your energy levels, do it over time and your metabolism, sleeping patterns, digestion will be the first to suffer. You can mess with your magnesium and D levels which will cause cramps and spasms even when you are not working out. Your potassium can drop which is EXTREMELY dangerous, etc. Aside from the fact that researchers keep coming up with all kinds of other diseases caused by white sugars, non sweetners and processed foods in general. To me, the diabetes and weight issues are enough (don't need to rush my demise or make myself suffer anymore. Best of luck!
I used to have a higher glucose number and I also come from a big family tree of T2. Funny thing is, while we've all been labeled 'genetically pre-disposed' to be diabetic, everyone who has/had it is/was overweight or obese. Wonder of all wonders-my glucose number stabilized as I lost the extra poundage, not because I cut certain things out of my diet.
I still eat sugary foods every day, I still eat 'processed' foods, I eat fast food several times a week, I use artificial sweeteners. I also eat veggies, whole grains, fish, chicken etc etc. Throughout this whole process I've continued to eat all the foods that I enjoy, just less of them. My glucose number has been stabilized into the 80s since 2013, the year I finished losing 50lbs and I transitioned into maintenance. By every health marker I'm now in fantastic health.
My problem wasn't that I was eating 'wrong' foods, it was that I was eating too much food. Period.
3 -
Not to mention if you ate candy and sweets only to get to 1200 it wouldnt take much and you would be starving all the time and probably binge before to long. But yeah totally possible according to the math.1
-
Actually i eat sweets all the time in calorie goal and ive lost 8 pounds just need exercise1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions