It’s not just about calories
Replies
-
There are several prominent coaches (Helms, Revelia, etc...) that talk about this when prepping people to get stage lean. And in their experiences, more whole foods and less ultra processed foods can lead to better results. Given the OP is likely the only one in this thread with a six pack, his needs are likely different than those who are not that lean.
IME, i could eat whatever to be average. To keep getting leaner, I have seen better results when i clean up my diet, even with the same calories.
Considering there are programs like UD2 and discussions i have listened to from people like Helms, Menno, etc..., i believe the conventional wisdom is fine for most people. I believe there are additional variables that can come into play for people trying to get pretty lean. It seems likely the OP is one of those people given his leanness as compared to most.
@psuLemon
I don't know if anyone is arguing against more whole nutrient dense foods, less processed foods especially when it comes to fighting the hunger at ultra lean levels and body composition as well as maximizing workout performance. If you feel like crap due to your eating and you aren't getting proper nutrition, then your workouts are going to suffer. And yes that could indirectly lead to weight loss stalls due to less energy output and other possible issues. However, if you are able to fit those foods into your day, still eat relatively nutrient dense and find your workout performance actually benefits... then there is nothing wrong with that either. That has been my experience. OK I don't have a 6-pack (mainly due to my training/muscle development not leanness) and I am not a bodybuilder so I am able to be more flexible in my dieting but I do consider myself lean and have achieved lean levels of body composition (at least for my standards).
A few years ago I wanted to cut a little faster before a vacation, so for 2 weeks I cut out the alcohol, reduced the snacks significantly and upped the cardio a bit. What happened? I lost faster, my deficit increased due to cutting those things out because I was eating less. It wasn't because of the magical properties of those foods or processed foods in and of themselves causing weight stalls. The way the OP worded his post it sounded like that since he claimed to keep calories the same (including protein levels if I'm not mistaken). If he was talking about it working just for him (which it sounds like he has clarified), then that's a different story since I do a lot of things that work well for me without scientific backing or that can be controversial that I wouldn't preach to people since it could be a placebo effect or something else.
I do think OP should keep doing what he is doing if he feels like he is benefiting from it. And if someone reading this has issues with hunger or their progress and eats a lot of packaged, high salt, processed or restaurant food, might be a good idea to consider cutting down on those foods to see if that helps with hunger, adherence, workout performance, sleep, etc.
The discussions around minimally processed vs highly processed diets where based on quality, not so much the hunger aspect. I'll see if i can find the video to post here.
Its certainly possible that a poor diet in a very lean individual had a greater impact. There is current evidence showing vitamin deficiencies causing metabolic rate reductions. We know deficiencies can lead to mood changes and effect NEAT. So yes, while weight loss is driven by energy balance, there are things that impact weight loss through reductions in BMR, NEAT, TEF or TEA. I suspect this is what the OP experienced which effected his weight loss.
And hell, if we get into anecdotal evidence, I can you i have increased calories several times and saw increased fat loss. But lets not go down that rabbit hole because it blows peoples mind, even though there are tons of people seeing that with refeeding.
The overall problem I typically see on the forum, outside of the "personalities", is things are often oversimplified. Yes, energy balance matters, but getting people to the end goal, requires a different conversation.3 -
digestibleplastic wrote: »Nutrition matters when wanting to get healthier.
Get healthier doesn't necessarily mean lose weight.
Lose weight doesn't necessarily mean get healthier.
Simply touting CICO is overly simplistic. It can be detrimental for many of us who don't understand the ins and outs of nutrition. Your body needs protein, fats, vitamins, minerals to function and the only way to get those things is through calories.
The balancing act is to ensure you can get all of the necessities while also being in a caloric deficit. This becomes more complicated when you have certain medical issues. Personally, I was unable to lose weight for a sustained period of time without becoming severely vitamin deficient until I corrected some medical problems first.
You could say "If you just kept doing CICO you'd have lost all the weight" But I couldn't continue doing CICO because my body was completely breaking down and deteriorating because I wasn't absorbing necessary nutrients!
So, no, it's not all about calories but it also kind of is...
I both agree and disagree with this. (I guess I'm sort of echoing your last line?
).
And I 100% agree with you that balancing calories and nutrition is a vital point (and balancing satiation, gustatory enjoyment, meal prep practicality and cost, social connection via food, and more, in there, too).
Nutrition is important for health and performance. (Well rounded, complete nutrition, not just protein, which sometimes seems like an extra-special star in posts here
).
But (as others have said) people who are obese typically improve their health simply through weight loss. I did. I don't eat dramatically differently now, in maintenance, than I did when I was obese. (I was already eating nutritious foods, but my portions were too big, I ate too often, and I included treats too often, so the calories stacked up.) I was already active and strong (even competing athletically) while obese. My health markers - cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure - were bad. Simply losing weight put them solidly in the normal range, plus reduced pain from my osteoarthritis and torn meniscus, because of being lighter. Weight loss improved my health, objectively and subjectively. (BTW: I still eat treats and drink alcohol . . . in a context of good nutrition and health-promoting activity.)
I agree with others that if someone is overweight enough to create health risk, calorie management is the first priority, at least for someone who doesn't have any diagnosed pre-existing health conditions or deficiencies that suggest another priority is higher. (I'd point out that the "why am I not losing" flowchart that's reposted regularly on threads here already includes a "see your doctor" box, once common causes are ruled out.)
I also agree with others who say that, for some people, trying to fix everything at once can be overwhelming to the point of causing failure (if simultaneously trying to "fix" calories, nutrition, exercise, more, all at once).
I think there are two ways in which unclarity of thinking and writing can be a problem, in this context, too:
1. Weight loss vs. fat loss: Most of us care about losing fat. Fat is only part of weight. Some medical conditions involve water weight regulation problems that profoundly confuse the matter by affecting weight dramatically. (And that's not the only source of water weight fluctuation, obviously, plus digestive contents have a weight as well. Muscle mass and skeletal bits have weight, but those are usually slow to change.)
2. Human bodies are a dynamic system, in health or illness. Even at consistent body size, we don't have "a TDEE" that's more-or-less invariant. Both sides of the calorie balance equation can change, and they change in response to each other. Undernutrition (or excessively low calories) can lead to fatigue, which leads to lower calorie expenditure, in ways obvious (example: more resting), subtle (ex: less fidgeting), and even invisible (ex. slowed hair growth). Some health conditions cause fatigue or similar slowing, lowering calorie expenditure. Some may affect how calories are burned (but I'd note that a impaired body - any body, actually - can't absorb and store more calories than are in a person's intake). Extremes of undernutrition or too-low calories can increase water weight fluctuation, so affect the scale. It's complicated. Calories in and calories out aren't independent of one another, and nutrition affects both.
Beyond that, though, I think - with thin scientific evidence - that composition of eating may matter to calorie utilization (calories out), even beyond the well-documented higher TEF of protein. There's a bit of research I've seen about the TEF of "whole foods" vs. "highly processed foods" (using the common, poorly defined terms here consciously, with the assumption you'll know generally what I'm getting at). It suggests an effect, but it doesn't really rise to the level of evidence in my mind, let alone proof. And the more careful studies seem to be trying to assess the effects that occur via satiation, not so much TEF. (Maybe someone has seen something more persuasive; I've looked, but not researched carefully.) How much would dietary composition matter, if it does? No idea.
In some disease states, things get even more complicated, because of water weight effects, fatigue, impacts on mood, reduced willpower budget, and more. But in some cases, the disease becomes a convenient excuse. (As one example, I'm thinking of people who are having the same difficulties losing weight that nearly everyone has, but decide the reason is that "hypothyroidism makes weight loss impossible". (I'm hypo, by the way, or I wouldn't use that example.))
Personally, I think it's most helpful to try to tease out what's really likely going on. Just shouting "calories in and calories out!" doesn't get us there, but neither does shouting "not all calories are equal!".
If someone, like you, has a medical condition that has an impact, then yes, part of the solution is getting that treated as effectively as possible. It can also be useful, IMO to look at the underlying mechanisms that may be at play in a person's weight loss scenario, in a dynamic sense: Are they losing fat, but not weight, perhaps? Might they have fatigue effects that can be managed and countered? . . . and that sort of thing.
The bottom line, though, for me: I've not seen anything persuasive that says something other than calorie balance is the basis of fat loss. But calories in, and calories out, are both quite complicated, and dynamic.
5 -
There are several prominent coaches (Helms, Revelia, etc...) that talk about this when prepping people to get stage lean. And in their experiences, more whole foods and less ultra processed foods can lead to better results. Given the OP is likely the only one in this thread with a six pack, his needs are likely different than those who are not that lean.
IME, i could eat whatever to be average. To keep getting leaner, I have seen better results when i clean up my diet, even with the same calories.
Considering there are programs like UD2 and discussions i have listened to from people like Helms, Menno, etc..., i believe the conventional wisdom is fine for most people. I believe there are additional variables that can come into play for people trying to get pretty lean. It seems likely the OP is one of those people given his leanness as compared to most.
@psuLemon
I don't know if anyone is arguing against more whole nutrient dense foods, less processed foods especially when it comes to fighting the hunger at ultra lean levels and body composition as well as maximizing workout performance. If you feel like crap due to your eating and you aren't getting proper nutrition, then your workouts are going to suffer. And yes that could indirectly lead to weight loss stalls due to less energy output and other possible issues. However, if you are able to fit those foods into your day, still eat relatively nutrient dense and find your workout performance actually benefits... then there is nothing wrong with that either. That has been my experience. OK I don't have a 6-pack (mainly due to my training/muscle development not leanness) and I am not a bodybuilder so I am able to be more flexible in my dieting but I do consider myself lean and have achieved lean levels of body composition (at least for my standards).
A few years ago I wanted to cut a little faster before a vacation, so for 2 weeks I cut out the alcohol, reduced the snacks significantly and upped the cardio a bit. What happened? I lost faster, my deficit increased due to cutting those things out because I was eating less. It wasn't because of the magical properties of those foods or processed foods in and of themselves causing weight stalls. The way the OP worded his post it sounded like that since he claimed to keep calories the same (including protein levels if I'm not mistaken). If he was talking about it working just for him (which it sounds like he has clarified), then that's a different story since I do a lot of things that work well for me without scientific backing or that can be controversial that I wouldn't preach to people since it could be a placebo effect or something else.
I do think OP should keep doing what he is doing if he feels like he is benefiting from it. And if someone reading this has issues with hunger or their progress and eats a lot of packaged, high salt, processed or restaurant food, might be a good idea to consider cutting down on those foods to see if that helps with hunger, adherence, workout performance, sleep, etc.
The discussions around minimally processed vs highly processed diets where based on quality, not so much the hunger aspect. I'll see if i can find the video to post here.
Its certainly possible that a poor diet in a very lean individual had a greater impact. There is current evidence showing vitamin deficiencies causing metabolic rate reductions. We know deficiencies can lead to mood changes and effect NEAT. So yes, while weight loss is driven by energy balance, there are things that impact weight loss through reductions in BMR, NEAT, TEF or TEA. I suspect this is what the OP experienced which effected his weight loss.
I think this is possible, but I think it's also quite likely that loosening up one's diet to the extent mentioned led to more calories, even if not picked up on by the counter.
I also think there's some evidence that we get fewer cals than logging would indicate from some sources of cals (nuts, higher fiber foods, and lean meats, are some I've seen identified). It's also possible that some tend to actually digest fewer of the cals from some foods than others.
When I was first losing, I consistently lost more than expected, often quite a bit more. I think the main reason was I'd underestimated my activity level, but that I ate -- and still do eat -- a diet with lots of veg, lots of fiber from whole foods, and mostly based on whole foods in general, and was somewhat higher protein per cal, and so I think it was quite possible I was inadvertently undercounting my cals or burning more through digestion than accounted for.
And certainly I found that weight loss for me tended to result in more energy and more inadvertent movement, so that could be part of it too.The overall problem I typically see on the forum, outside of the "personalities", is things are often oversimplified. Yes, energy balance matters, but getting people to the end goal, requires a different conversation.
The problem I see -- and I'm not referring to OP here but some of the subsequent comments -- is that some seem to assume that if you say cals are what matter for weight loss, and that in fact eating some processed foods (and remember processed includes such things as plain greek yogurt or tofu) is totally fine in the context of a healthy diet, one gets accused of not caring about nutrition and advising people that nutrition doesn't matter for health.
I personally think good nutrition and focusing mostly on whole foods can -- for many of us -- help with weight loss and weight maintenance too, of course, but I also think SOME people find the idea that they must eat "perfectly" to lose discouraging and unhelpful. That's why I try to point out that there are many ways to eat healthfully that don't involve never eating something processed (not possible anyway) or giving up all treats, etc. It's incredibly frustrating when people respond to that by pretending that I and others were saying nutrition does not matter. I actually find the idea that people don't already know it's beneficial to eat a nutritious diet so need to be told that or risk not doing so rather shocking and depressing.
I also think too often people think "focusing on nutrition" means only "focusing on macros" or else "focusing only on what I cut out, and not on actually including in important foods," but that's another topic.9 -
Calories aren't the most important thing - they are the only thing at least as far as weight loss goes.9
-
How are you just giving that up so easily!!! The willpower is real!0
-
I am going to weigh in here now because there is a lot of valid points being made and I want to share my opinion.
To clarify my position.
I am not somebody who believes in eating “clean” to reach a goal. I honestly think that moderation and self love is the best way to lose weight. we are all human we have vices, take a day at time and eat the best you can but don’t beat yourself up for slipping.
Calories are key to fat loss, however I personally see no point in trying to better ones health without trying to understand that what you eat will directly affect the health risks we all face.
I agree that most people on here just need to get their weight down to a healthy range and I completely understand that.
As many of you mentioned I am lean. And in order for me to get leaner (sub 10% body fat) I have to make extra sacrifices in order to reach that goal.
In order to achieve this I have to reduce the consumption of certain foods. I would love to say drinking every night and having chocolate and staying within my calories will give me the same result but it just doesn’t. This is MY experience tho, I’m sure others will say differently.
Is sub 10% sustainable? No it is not because anybody who has been sub 10% will know how weak you become. You can not be strong and sub 10%. Your body needs more nutrients than that in order to get stronger. So there is a logical balance that must be struck between your physical strength and your body composition.
I have found that if I limit my “treats” to two days a week then I can get below 10% and still enjoy myself. But will sit between 10% - 12% and be able to get stronger.
My diet is as follows:
Monday - Friday 1500 calories a day. - I don’t drink or have cheats. I stick within my calorie goal. I aim for 120-150grams of Protein a day and don’t worry about fat or carbs.
Saturday - Sunday i don’t track calories and drink like a fish. I will consume well over 3000 on a Saturday and Sunday.
I will lose around 1lbs a week following this protocol.
I have followed this diet on and off for around 6 years. It works for ME every single time.
I also fast 16hours a day Monday - Friday purely to help me control my calories.
I don't know why limiting the “fun” food and drink to weekends works for me instead of spreading it across the week. It just works.7 -
I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
Has that even been questioned at all in this thread? He even mentioned calories are key.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
Has that even been questioned at all in this thread? He even mentioned calories are key.
I believe it was this statement in the OP he made:
"However, As soon as I cut out the junk and drink and ate at the same calories I started dropping again."
Then he went on to say it wasn't water retention and his activity was the same so it sounded as if it was just those foods that made a difference.
But then @lukejoycePT I am a bit confused since you do actually eat those foods regularly on the weekends just not on weekdays? And in your experiment you decided to add them to your weekly plan? It sounds to me that you were possibly eating less than you thought during the week (before the experiment) and since you changed your food intake (it could have been anything but it was treats in this case) it offset your deficit and you maintained. That's just my guess.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
Has that even been questioned at all in this thread? He even mentioned calories are key.
The OP was about how he wasn't losing weight at one calorie goal when he eats certain foods, but will lose at the same calorie level when he eliminates those foods. That's why I'm asking.
8 -
Now this thread is getting interesting! Good points coming out. OP, if you'd come out with more information in the beginning, things might have gone differently. I also wonder if this thread had come out in the bodybuilding section or debate, it might have attracted more people that have knowledge on this question.4
-
I will agree with this 100% - calories are NOT the only factor.
I've lost weight before eating ANYTHING I wanted if it fit my calories ANYTIME...I got results but it was difficult in many ways, mostly mentally because I constantly would give in to cravings (which often would result in going over calories ever so slightly, or even if not going over I would still feel like I wanted more).
Now that I am doing this a different way...still counting calories, but making sure about 75% or more (weekly) of the food I eat is good for me (filling, meets macros, balanced ect) it is SO much easier. I'm not hungry all the time even though I am eating based on the same small amount. It is easier to eat less calories when they are balanced foods and not filled with sugar and garbage that makes your body want more because it hasn't gotten enough.
Yes, many people can lose with just CICO, but will it be easy or quick if you eat poorly? Probably not.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
Has that even been questioned at all in this thread? He even mentioned calories are key.
I believe it was this statement in the OP he made:
"However, As soon as I cut out the junk and drink and ate at the same calories I started dropping again."
Then he went on to say it wasn't water retention and his activity was the same so it sounded as if it was just those foods that made a difference.
But then @lukejoycePT I am a bit confused since you do actually eat those foods regularly on the weekends just not on weekdays? And in your experiment you decided to add them to your weekly plan? It sounds to me that you were possibly eating less than you thought during the week (before the experiment) and since you changed your food intake (it could have been anything but it was treats in this case) it offset your deficit and you maintained. That's just my guess.
Sorry I should have been clearer. When I was having treats during the week i actually consumed a lot less of these foods and drink on the weekends. I was tracking on the weekends too actually, which I never do.1 -
pandagalaxy wrote: »Now that I am doing this a different way...still counting calories, but making sure about 75% or more (weekly) of the food I eat is good for me (filling, meets macros, balanced ect) it is SO much easier. I'm not hungry all the time even though I am eating based on the same small amount. It is easier to eat less calories when they are balanced foods and not filled with sugar and garbage that makes your body want more because it hasn't gotten enough.
Yes, many people can lose with just CICO, but will it be easy or quick if you eat poorly? Probably not.
You are also losing with CICO. CICO means the calorie balance determines whether you lose or not. It seems obvious to me that food choice and other things may make hitting certain calorie totals more or less easy, and I've never seen anyone here claim otherwise. Similarly, nutrition matters for health, and I've not seen people claim otherwise.
OP is saying he lost on the same calories at he had been maintaining on by putting his alcohol and treats on the weekend only. I still suspect the issue is overall counting, but it's possible there's some other reason for this that is not immediately apparent (such as more activity on weekdays).
I eat about 80-90% of my cals from nutrient dense foods (hard to say exactly since people disagree on what's nutrient dense -- I wouldn't really include olive oil, although I think it's not bad for me -- and because a meal incorporates both (such as skin-on chicken breast or some cheese for accent). I did this when losing too. The reason is NOT that eating something sugary causes me to be unable to stick to a calorie total (I'd include 200 cal of ice cream in my calorie goal a few times a week when losing while overall eating mostly nutrient dense foods or have a restaurant meal -- higher cal, although still nutrient dense foods, typically -- on the weekend and still have no issue with hitting my calorie goal). The reason for me -- and what I think most of us who will say CICO is what matters for weight loss -- is because I think OF COURSE nutrition matters. It never would have crossed my mind that what anyone meant by CICO or what losing by counting cals implied was that one should not care about food choice or nutrition at all.
If anything, even though I ate a pretty nutrition dense diet before losing, counting cals made me much more picky about what I wasted cals on. Before I might have eating some donut holes because they turned up in the breakroom at work without thinking about it. Once I was calorie counting I automatically would think "is it worth the cals"? Is it worth not being able to have all of my planned dinner or even my planned dessert? And that make it easy not to consume those things (unless it was really something special worth the tradeoff).
I will never understand why some think "calories are what matters for weight loss" or CICO implies not caring about what you eat at all, or not being concerned with nutrition.10 -
pandagalaxy wrote: »I will agree with this 100% - calories are NOT the only factor.
I've lost weight before eating ANYTHING I wanted if it fit my calories ANYTIME...I got results but it was difficult in many ways, mostly mentally because I constantly would give in to cravings (which often would result in going over calories ever so slightly, or even if not going over I would still feel like I wanted more).
Now that I am doing this a different way...still counting calories, but making sure about 75% or more (weekly) of the food I eat is good for me (filling, meets macros, balanced ect) it is SO much easier. I'm not hungry all the time even though I am eating based on the same small amount. It is easier to eat less calories when they are balanced foods and not filled with sugar and garbage that makes your body want more because it hasn't gotten enough.
Yes, many people can lose with just CICO, but will it be easy or quick if you eat poorly? Probably not.
I don't think many people (maybe no one?) explicitly argued that calories are the only factor in successful weight loss as a practical undertaking. We have to factor in satiation, other compliance issues, energy level, and more. I think what is being said is that calories are the key underlying difference between fat loss or gain or maintenance.
Absolutely, satiation matters, and for some (probably many) satiation is easier with nutrient-dense foods. At the same time - because satisfaction with one's eating can also be a factor - some people will have higher odds of success if they realize they don't have to eat all and only nutrient-dense foods, always. It's a balance.
Calories are just the physics of it. CICO is just the calorie balance idea.
(Strictly speaking, CICO isn't even calorie counting: calorie counting is a weight management method, CICO is the balance equation that applies to and is the physics foundation for all weight management methods (and that's the nub of the argument). Calorie counting is just one method that uses the equation explicitly. Others depend on CICO, whether they ever mention calories or not.)
Nutrition isn't calories, but nutrition can make the weight loss process easier and more successful. So can many, many other physical and psychological factors . . . like realizing it's not essential to cut out all treat foods always, in order to lose weight.
Weight management, as a whole practical totality -- physiology and psychology and methods/mechanics and logistical practicality included -- is complicated. Calories (explicitly mentioned or not) are a vital piece, but not the whole story.
7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
I 1000% agree with this. With my clients I would always start we reducing calories as little as possible. Pull them into a slight deficit as normally this will produce some decent results right off the bat. Then decrease calories depending on how they respond. Once a lower body fat is reached 12-16% I would then introduce a few extra tools to help kick the extra lbs such as keeping the “fun” foods to weekends and only drinking certain alcohol such as red wine and spirits1 -
There are several prominent coaches (Helms, Revelia, etc...) that talk about this when prepping people to get stage lean. And in their experiences, more whole foods and less ultra processed foods can lead to better results. Given the OP is likely the only one in this thread with a six pack, his needs are likely different than those who are not that lean.
IME, i could eat whatever to be average. To keep getting leaner, I have seen better results when i clean up my diet, even with the same calories.
Considering there are programs like UD2 and discussions i have listened to from people like Helms, Menno, etc..., i believe the conventional wisdom is fine for most people. I believe there are additional variables that can come into play for people trying to get pretty lean. It seems likely the OP is one of those people given his leanness as compared to most.
@psuLemon
I don't know if anyone is arguing against more whole nutrient dense foods, less processed foods especially when it comes to fighting the hunger at ultra lean levels and body composition as well as maximizing workout performance. If you feel like crap due to your eating and you aren't getting proper nutrition, then your workouts are going to suffer. And yes that could indirectly lead to weight loss stalls due to less energy output and other possible issues. However, if you are able to fit those foods into your day, still eat relatively nutrient dense and find your workout performance actually benefits... then there is nothing wrong with that either. That has been my experience. OK I don't have a 6-pack (mainly due to my training/muscle development not leanness) and I am not a bodybuilder so I am able to be more flexible in my dieting but I do consider myself lean and have achieved lean levels of body composition (at least for my standards).
A few years ago I wanted to cut a little faster before a vacation, so for 2 weeks I cut out the alcohol, reduced the snacks significantly and upped the cardio a bit. What happened? I lost faster, my deficit increased due to cutting those things out because I was eating less. It wasn't because of the magical properties of those foods or processed foods in and of themselves causing weight stalls. The way the OP worded his post it sounded like that since he claimed to keep calories the same (including protein levels if I'm not mistaken). If he was talking about it working just for him (which it sounds like he has clarified), then that's a different story since I do a lot of things that work well for me without scientific backing or that can be controversial that I wouldn't preach to people since it could be a placebo effect or something else.
I do think OP should keep doing what he is doing if he feels like he is benefiting from it. And if someone reading this has issues with hunger or their progress and eats a lot of packaged, high salt, processed or restaurant food, might be a good idea to consider cutting down on those foods to see if that helps with hunger, adherence, workout performance, sleep, etc.
The discussions around minimally processed vs highly processed diets where based on quality, not so much the hunger aspect. I'll see if i can find the video to post here.
Its certainly possible that a poor diet in a very lean individual had a greater impact. There is current evidence showing vitamin deficiencies causing metabolic rate reductions. We know deficiencies can lead to mood changes and effect NEAT. So yes, while weight loss is driven by energy balance, there are things that impact weight loss through reductions in BMR, NEAT, TEF or TEA. I suspect this is what the OP experienced which effected his weight loss.
And hell, if we get into anecdotal evidence, I can you i have increased calories several times and saw increased fat loss. But lets not go down that rabbit hole because it blows peoples mind, even though there are tons of people seeing that with refeeding.
The overall problem I typically see on the forum, outside of the "personalities", is things are often oversimplified. Yes, energy balance matters, but getting people to the end goal, requires a different conversation.
Could you please post this research for me please!?!?!?!?3 -
I think it was me that called BS. Because I believe in science, not wives tales, anecdotes, superstition etc., I believe that CICO is the only factor for weight loss. Everything else is an excuse or a mistake. Adjustments to metabolism do occur . . . in minuscule amounts compared with the enormous calorie intake required to maintain an overweight body which are offset by the reduced energy consumed in locomotion and temperature maintenance.
Just log the calories better, and stop making excuses for not losing weight.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »There are several prominent coaches (Helms, Revelia, etc...) that talk about this when prepping people to get stage lean. And in their experiences, more whole foods and less ultra processed foods can lead to better results. Given the OP is likely the only one in this thread with a six pack, his needs are likely different than those who are not that lean.
IME, i could eat whatever to be average. To keep getting leaner, I have seen better results when i clean up my diet, even with the same calories.
Considering there are programs like UD2 and discussions i have listened to from people like Helms, Menno, etc..., i believe the conventional wisdom is fine for most people. I believe there are additional variables that can come into play for people trying to get pretty lean. It seems likely the OP is one of those people given his leanness as compared to most.
@psuLemon
I don't know if anyone is arguing against more whole nutrient dense foods, less processed foods especially when it comes to fighting the hunger at ultra lean levels and body composition as well as maximizing workout performance. If you feel like crap due to your eating and you aren't getting proper nutrition, then your workouts are going to suffer. And yes that could indirectly lead to weight loss stalls due to less energy output and other possible issues. However, if you are able to fit those foods into your day, still eat relatively nutrient dense and find your workout performance actually benefits... then there is nothing wrong with that either. That has been my experience. OK I don't have a 6-pack (mainly due to my training/muscle development not leanness) and I am not a bodybuilder so I am able to be more flexible in my dieting but I do consider myself lean and have achieved lean levels of body composition (at least for my standards).
A few years ago I wanted to cut a little faster before a vacation, so for 2 weeks I cut out the alcohol, reduced the snacks significantly and upped the cardio a bit. What happened? I lost faster, my deficit increased due to cutting those things out because I was eating less. It wasn't because of the magical properties of those foods or processed foods in and of themselves causing weight stalls. The way the OP worded his post it sounded like that since he claimed to keep calories the same (including protein levels if I'm not mistaken). If he was talking about it working just for him (which it sounds like he has clarified), then that's a different story since I do a lot of things that work well for me without scientific backing or that can be controversial that I wouldn't preach to people since it could be a placebo effect or something else.
I do think OP should keep doing what he is doing if he feels like he is benefiting from it. And if someone reading this has issues with hunger or their progress and eats a lot of packaged, high salt, processed or restaurant food, might be a good idea to consider cutting down on those foods to see if that helps with hunger, adherence, workout performance, sleep, etc.
The discussions around minimally processed vs highly processed diets where based on quality, not so much the hunger aspect. I'll see if i can find the video to post here.
Its certainly possible that a poor diet in a very lean individual had a greater impact. There is current evidence showing vitamin deficiencies causing metabolic rate reductions. We know deficiencies can lead to mood changes and effect NEAT. So yes, while weight loss is driven by energy balance, there are things that impact weight loss through reductions in BMR, NEAT, TEF or TEA. I suspect this is what the OP experienced which effected his weight loss.
And hell, if we get into anecdotal evidence, I can you i have increased calories several times and saw increased fat loss. But lets not go down that rabbit hole because it blows peoples mind, even though there are tons of people seeing that with refeeding.
The overall problem I typically see on the forum, outside of the "personalities", is things are often oversimplified. Yes, energy balance matters, but getting people to the end goal, requires a different conversation.
Could you please post this research for me please!?!?!?!?
I seemingly can't find the reference podcast; i believe it was from Mike Matthews who is pretty good with referencing his data, so i will probably retract that statement until i can dig into research.2 -
Google the twinkie diet (not that I would ever recommend just eating something as disgusting as twinkies).
2 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »
... could eat just donuts and still get a six pack.gallicinvasion wrote: »You say nothing about your activity.
Of course not. You need adequate protein for six packs, plus some other stuff you won't get from pastry. You could get a flat stomach though. If you could handle how hungry a donut only diet would leave you for long enough anyway. Most can't.
I refer you to the Twinkie Diet as evidence. Google it, dude lost 30-something pounds just eating twinkies and a small amount of scurvy-preventing green beans.
Just to be a semantics twit: https://www.doughbardoughnuts.com/pages/frontpage
You could potentially hit a decent but not necessarily optimal protein level putting that in the doughnut mix - probably want to throw in a multivitamin too just in case. It would definitely be a pretty YOLO IIFYM diet.3 -
Hmmm I would love a peanut butter diet but 1200 calories of peanut butter is not even a whole one jar! A typical jar is like 2000 calories I can buy a small jar then add 2 heads of lettucd and decaf coffee... 😂😂😂3
-
lukejoycePT wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
I 1000% agree with this. With my clients I would always start we reducing calories as little as possible. Pull them into a slight deficit as normally this will produce some decent results right off the bat. Then decrease calories depending on how they respond. Once a lower body fat is reached 12-16% I would then introduce a few extra tools to help kick the extra lbs such as keeping the “fun” foods to weekends and only drinking certain alcohol such as red wine and spirits
I would think red wine would be one of the worst choices for that. Generally, when drinking while trying to be lean, you're looking for the most alcohol to the least calories and least congeners. Congeners are byproducts of alcohol fermentation that are generally associated with the negative effects, like hangover, that happen. Red wine is one of the worst alcoholic drinks in terms of congeners along with brandy and rum. Generally clear spirits like vodka are good, as well as beer.
I also don't understand that idea earlier in the thread of calling alcohol a carb by virtue of them being created through sugar fermentation. When you get down to it, plenty of fat in animals comes from turning sugars into pyruvate and then short fatty acids, and usually esterifying them with glcyerol (derived also from sugar) to make triglcyerides. Yet I wouldn't call fats just a different form of carbs. By a similar metric, testosterone is a cholesterol derived hormone - so it comes from a lipid / fat - yet I've never heard of a bodybuilder referring to it as getting fatter because their testosterone levels went up.10 -
I agree with op, when I was losing, I lost more consistently when I ate "simply" & "healthy" as in a protein simply cooked, as in a lean ground turkey patty or any kind of meat/poultry sauteed in a bit of olive oil plus fresh/frozen veggies with a little butter or such on them as opposed to the same protein cooked in a bit of sauce, no veggies but baked potato or rice on side. It also had the same effect when instead of having my yogurt for snack, I had bowl of cereal. It was all the same calories0
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
I 1000% agree with this. With my clients I would always start we reducing calories as little as possible. Pull them into a slight deficit as normally this will produce some decent results right off the bat. Then decrease calories depending on how they respond. Once a lower body fat is reached 12-16% I would then introduce a few extra tools to help kick the extra lbs such as keeping the “fun” foods to weekends and only drinking certain alcohol such as red wine and spirits
I would think red wine would be one of the worst choices for that. Generally, when drinking while trying to be lean, you're looking for the most alcohol to the least calories and least congeners. Congeners are byproducts of alcohol fermentation that are generally associated with the negative effects, like hangover, that happen. Red wine is one of the worst alcoholic drinks in terms of congeners along with brandy and rum. Generally clear spirits like vodka are good, as well as beer.
I also don't understand that idea earlier in the thread of calling alcohol a carb by virtue of them being created through sugar fermentation. When you get down to it, plenty of fat in animals comes from turning sugars into pyruvate and then short fatty acids, and usually esterifying them with glcyerol (derived also from sugar) to make triglcyerides. Yet I wouldn't call fats just a different form of carbs. By a similar metric, testosterone is a cholesterol derived hormone - so it comes from a lipid / fat - yet I've never heard of a bodybuilder referring to it as getting fatter because their testosterone levels went up.
Wow you really want to go deep with this.
Let me clarify. People tend to gravitate toward wine, beer or spirits. Beer in my opinion isn’t the best drink in this situation for several fairly obvious reasons.
So if someone was to chose wine I’d go for red over white. Red has far more health benefits going for it, if you believe in anti oxidants, it’s better for you.
Spirits wise, not many people enjoy vodka at home. If I was out I’d drink vodka, soda water and fresh lime. It’s refreshing, tastes good, gets you drunk and has the least calories. However most people prefer gin and tonic so I’d recommend that too.
The reason why I simplify alcohol as an “empty carb” is because people want it simple. They don’t need to know that alcohol is basically a poison in your body that’s causes mass inflammation. That’s not going to get them motivated. People enjoy a drink and why shouldn’t they? So I’d rather just say it’s got nothing good in it. It’s an empty carb so don’t over consume it. It may not be scientifically correct but a client isn’t after a science lesson they just want to be able to enjoy themselves and still look and feel better.
This post wasn’t really about what alcohol t consume tho and if calories are king to then as long as they beverage is tracked correctly then it would change the rate of fat loss. My point is, that for me. It does make a difference.
0 -
pancakerunner wrote: »pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??
I don't think I clicked disagree, but for starters, "Processed foods (broadly defined)" is darn near everything anybody eats, so it seems a fairly useless assertion even if it's true. In the second place, "Processed foods (broadly defined" makes me wonder what aspect of having more than five ingredients or having ingredients that some given individual can't pronounce or is unfamiliar with or being located in an interior aisle of the grocery store causes "a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect."
"Aggh! Dihydrogen monoxide! There go my hormones!"8 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
Has that even been questioned at all in this thread? He even mentioned calories are key.
I believe it was this statement in the OP he made:
"However, As soon as I cut out the junk and drink and ate at the same calories I started dropping again."
Then he went on to say it wasn't water retention and his activity was the same so it sounded as if it was just those foods that made a difference.
But then @lukejoycePT I am a bit confused since you do actually eat those foods regularly on the weekends just not on weekdays? And in your experiment you decided to add them to your weekly plan? It sounds to me that you were possibly eating less than you thought during the week (before the experiment) and since you changed your food intake (it could have been anything but it was treats in this case) it offset your deficit and you maintained. That's just my guess.
Sorry I should have been clearer. When I was having treats during the week i actually consumed a lot less of these foods and drink on the weekends. I was tracking on the weekends too actually, which I never do.
This is still confusing. If you don't normally track on the weekends, how can you know that your calorie intake in a normal week was the same as your calorie intake during the two weeks of your experiment with not having alcohol?11 -
If you knew alcohol isn't a carb then why did you respond to someone pointing out exactly that fact with...
"And the guy above talking about alcohol being a 4th macro is talking nonsense. It’s essentially carbs that’s it. You can’t have alcohol without sugar."
Suggestion for you, if you want to simplify the message for people that want simplicity then surely you should say alcohol has empty calories not empty carbs?
This was a very good sentiment though -"Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble" - but that needs to be a two way street.13 -
Don't they teach science in high school anymore?
A carbohydrate is any of a number of molecules with one thing in common. Made entirely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Guess what alcohol is? Right answer gets the hall pass.2 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »Don't they teach science in high school anymore?
A carbohydrate is any of a number of molecules with one thing in common. Made entirely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Guess what alcohol is? Right answer gets the hall pass.
I laughed at this--I forgot high school. I wanted to forget high school.......2
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
- 426 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