Weight loss is not as straight forward as counting calories

oscar_mike

If the average person is trying to loose some weight, it requires a reasonably good diet, some exercise and most importantly patience. However some people on this board like to give like to give redundant advice such as "Eat less" and "its that simple".

I contend that not only is this unhelpful to the average person, but the principle of calorie counting does not work so well nor does it manifest so apparently on the scales:cool:.

(Please note my argument does not violate any laws of physics, and lectures on such should be reserved for the science board:D)

siochain

How so, what's the answer?

AltAccount

It worked for me.

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

If the average person is trying to loose some weight, it requires a reasonably good diet, some exercise and most importantly patience. However some people on this board like to give like to give redundant advice such as "Eat less" and "its that simple".

I contend that not only is this unhelpful to the average person, but the principle of calorie counting does not work so well nor does it manifest so apparently on the scales:cool:.

(Please note my argument does not violate any laws of physics, and lectures on such should be reserved for the science board:D)

Oh hi. Please explain why someone would not lose weight on a calorie deficient.

I contend that you are eating more than you think you are if you believe eating at a deficient isn't causing you to lose weight.

Also, some people? Stop being so passive aggressive :rolleyes:

Danger781

All calories are not equal. If I ate 2000 calories worth of ice cream every day, as opposed to 2000 calories of a balanced diet, I almost guarantee I would gain weight.

Theoretically.

oscar_mike

Im not stating outright that a calorie deficit does not cause a decrease in mass, i am saying that there are physiological responses that compensate for loss which negates results on the scales. This may not be the same for everybody but the calorie trap does cause alot of people to become frustrated and give up.

Essien

So if I exercise and am patient enough I can lose weight in a caloric surplus?

FWIW I've also lost plenty of weight counting calories.

oscar_mike

Agreed, you would retain a lot more water with 2000 calories of ice cream

oscar_mike

No not at all, my op is prob out of context for you, i set this tread up to continue a debate with another user

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

Im not stating outright that a calorie deficit does not cause a decrease in mass, i am saying that there are physiological responses that compensate for loss which negates results on the scales. This may not be the same for everybody but the calorie trap does cause alot of people to become frustrated and give up.

What would these physiological responses be that will stop weight loss on a calorie deficient? I am not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested in why you believe your body is able to negate weight loss on a deficient.

oscar_mike

Negates results on the scales. . . if you want to re read my last comment

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

Negates results on the scales. . . if you want to re read my last comment

And what are they?

oscar_mike

Water retention, calorie processing and hormonal regulation being the major ones. The opposite can also be the case where a thin person can eat and eat and seemingly not gain.

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

Water retention, calorie processing and hormonal regulation being the major ones. The opposite can also be the case where a thin person can eat and eat and seemingly not gain.

Water retention is irrelevant. The same could be said to any argument about any diet.

Calorie processing and hormonal regulation will not stop you losing weight on a calorie deficient. At most they will slow weightloss slightly. If your weight loss stops you are not calculating your calories deficient correctly.

In reality what usually happens is the people overestimate their calorie requirements or they underestimate their calorie intake.

There are no studies that show a deficient will not cause weight loss. Not one.

Danger781

I regret joining / reading this thread.

It's turning into a silly argument. Should be closed.

oscar_mike

For the second time... i am not saying a calorie deficit does not cause weight loss. And for the average dieter tracking their progress on a scales water is relevant as it contributes to overall weight. Or do you believe water has no weight???

oscar_mike

Feel free to leave

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

For the second time... i am not saying a calorie deficit does not cause weight loss. And for the average dieter tracking their progress on a scales water is relevant as it contributes to overall weight. Or do you believe water has no weight???

And secondly

Do you actually believe that someone is cumulatively gaining water sufficient to cause them to think they aren't losing weight? At a weight loss of 1 lb a week you'd be looking at water retention of an additional 500 ml a week. This is unrealistic.

Essien

So if you agree that a caloric deficit causes weight loss, what exactly is wrong with suggesting 'eat less'? It's the correct first step for 99% if not all the people who ask how to lose weight.

oscar_mike

Yes, hence peoples frustration with the scales and giving up. Eventually this effect will subside but the body can easily retain between 5-15 pounds of water depending on ones intake of carbs. Weather you believe its unrealistic or not is irrelevant, its based on sound bio-chemistry. Or in physics terms if you prefer; the body is not a closed system nor is it 100% efficient.

rubadub

runawaybishop wrote: »

If your weight loss stops you are not calculating your calories deficient correctly.

+1, by definition you are not on an energy deficit. (note I don't say calorie deficit)

runawaybishop wrote: »

In reality what usually happens is the people overestimate their calorie requirements or they underestimate their calorie intake.

And people put too much trust in calories, treating them like an exact mathematical science. They are only a rough guide. Eat 500kcal of raw rice and you will not get as much energy from it as 500kcal of overcooked rice. Peanut butter will give more energy than barely chewed peanuts. So even the same food can vary, let alone pointing out that some foods might give different energy or have different effects on the body. In another thread one poster seriously thought drinking 500kcal of petrol per day would have the same effect on your fat gain as drinking 500kcal of sugary water.

Some restaurants are now quoting ridiculously low calorie estimates for their foods too.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/health/why-the-body-may-waste-the-calories-from-alcohol.html

weight gain was negligible in alcoholics who were given 2,000 calories of alcohol daily on top of the 2,500 calories from foods they consumed to maintain their weight. But when the same number of additional calories were fed as chocolate, a steady weight gain resulted.

As a heavy drinker I pay little attention to the calories of it, I don't need a study. I lost a fair amount of weight with little cutting back on alcohol, if you went with the "an excess of 3500kcal gives 1lb fat gain" rule I would have been morbidly obese.

oscar_mike

Some interesting pieces moderator.... if you had to come down on it would you agree that weight gain/loss results is not always as straight forward as simply counting calories?

Alf Veedersane

Two pages in and no one's mentioned the role of voodoo. Mockery.

rubadub

oscar_mike wrote: »

Some interesting pieces moderator.... if you had to come down on it would you agree that weight gain/loss results is not always as straight forward as simply counting calories?

I'm not sure how to answer since I'm wary of what my answer might make you think I mean.

I already said calories are only an estimate. I would not recommend taking in less food energy as the sole means of losing fat either.

oscar_mike wrote: »

However some people on this board like to give like to give redundant advice such as "Eat less" and "its that simple".

I contend that not only is this unhelpful to the average person...

Eating less than you need will make you lose fat, I do think it is that "simple" -however I certainly do not think figuring out how much you need to eat is simple, and actually being able to eat less and resist hunger is most certainly not simple. So I do agree that simplistic view is unhelpful to most.

There was one poster/troll recently who kept trotting out lines like that, and how its so simple, and people must be thick if they cannot figure it out. If somebody was running out of petrol each day to work they need to put more fuel in the car, even if the estimated MPG is a lot more, if they do not understand this they are thick, but they might not physically be able find a way to get the money they need. If a doctor finds his coma patient is getting fat he can feed him less via the tubes or whatever, that is simple, controlling free eating people in a normal environment is certainly not.