If 3500kcal deficit = 1lb weight loss, why doesn't it work?

[Watchkeys]

I'm just curious to know what people think about this. Lots of people on here are sticking to a deficit. It might not be 500kcal per day, but some increment of that would incur some increment of weight loss, if the theory holds. Millions of people are on kcal controlled diets, and mostly, they don't work, especially not long term.

What's going on?

Sums it up nicely.

I also think that people have no idea of how many calories are in foods.

At work ppl are always making comments and indeed taking the piss about my lunch and faux-surprised at how much I eat and how can I eat all that food and not get fat whilst they’ve just eaten a Pot Noodle that’s got more calories and they’re still hungry after so add in a packet of crisps and a bag of Maltesers and they’re still hungry as none of it is satiating. So they’ve actually eaten 730 calories of shite and are still hungry and still wondering why they’re not losing weight. It’s their behaviour and lack of knowledge that’s sabotaging their efforts not that a calorie deficit doesn’t work.

And on here, oh yeah calorie deficit doesn’t work, I’m now snacking on apples and peanut butter instead of biscuits and I’m not losing weight. All the while paying no attention to the calories that are in PB which are huge, not weighing it so underestimating their portions and so on.

The trouble is that people believe a load of guff.

When I say deficit, I mean deficit. Lets dismiss the people who only think they're in a deficit. They're doing it wrong so we can't count them.

If a body is in calorific deficit, it can reduce its need for calories, rather than lose fat. That's being said here by the same person who is saying that if a body is in a calorie deficit, it will necessarily lose fat. How are both things true at the same time, how can we predict how much any given body will assign to each, and what does thermodynamics have to do with it? The first law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, in thermal equilibrium, 'energy can be neither created nor destroyed' (Robert Mayer, 1841) but so what? We are not closed systems. We are not in thermal equilibrium. What about the second law, regarding entropy? The seat you are sitting on is warm. Where did that energy come from? How much of it did you use? How much of it would you use if the seat had been 10 degrees colder, or if you'd just been running, or if you'd just had a banana?

This is exactly why I was asking the question I initially asked; to see what 'science' people were applying, what science people actually believed to be relevant and true. It's fascinating how much people believe what they're told, without looking deeper.

"If a body is in calorific deficit, it can reduce its need for calories, rather than lose fat."

This is literally what I have been trying to say all along - your BMR+NEAT reduce to the extent that you are no longer in deficit, and therefore you do not lose weight. We're not disagreeing here.

So, how do you create a deficit? For those millions of fools who simply can't do sums?

Eat less - get a smaller Plate if you don't want to calorie count
Move more at the same time - move around every half hour as well as exercise and going for walks
Keep doing it for a long time

Suggest avoid sugar , eat more veg and protein as it's more likely to make you feel ok

I’m afraid the only people I know who’ve done it, and kept it off, have done so by a wholesale lifestyle change: less stress, less car use and far more outdoor physical activity combined with a healthy diet. Effectively they have escaped the obesogenic environment that was making them fat in the first place.

For those who remain convinced it's not about calories deficit , my (Jewish) Endocrinology professor used to tell patients 'There were no fat people in Belsen' Brutal, but sadly true

@Lilybetsey

That's not really appropriate here. We all know that a starved person will become thin. We're trying to talk about healthy weight loss.

It's inappropriate for other reasons too, as I'm sure you recognise, to talk about concentration camps on a dieting thread.

Thanks for your tenacity, @BCCoach What would you call a healthy diet? Do you think much of the Eatwell Plate, or have you other ideas? And do you think the calorie deficit is a must? There's people on the thread (and clients of mine) who have lost weight not by lowering calories, but by changing their macros. The hormonal impact of that, along with the thermic effects of digestion, can do it without lowering calories into a deficit, from what I've seen. What are your thoughts?

If you starve people they lose weight.
If you want people to lose weight in a healthy and sustainable, you don't starve them.

Some people do quite like starvation, the result can be quick, no need to make long term lifestyle changes and you can repeat the procedure multiple times.

The experiments were all done on men. Women have more fat, more hormones and more variation.

Totally this! I think there is a huge variation between the sexes. When I was starved and sleep deprived for 2 weeks under stress, I gained weight (a decent amount). The stress did the exact opposite to my body. Admittedly I was very sedentary, sitting at an ICU bed isn’t physically active, but I still shouldn’t have gained weight. It’s well known though that particularly for women, high stress and sleep deprivation can lead to insulin and hormonal issues.

I don’t think the Eatwell plate is suitable for many sedentary individuals as it is contains too much high glycemic index carbs. It would be better to up the amount of pulses and reduce the amount of potatoes/rice/pasta/bread etc. Or at least ensure that you eat whole meal versions of all of those to reduce the speed at which they are digested. Everyone is different though.

12 years ago I was 20kg overweight and I lost it over 18 months by basically changing what I eat to what I describe above and massively increasing my EAT - spin/gym classes every day at lunchtime, cycling and running every weekend. Often a gym class at lunchtime and then a run in the evening. I found I really liked being fit so keeping it off is no bother. I don’t believe I was ever in calorie deficit due to diet, but the increase in EAT was enough to push me into a small deficit which worked, while also increasing my BMR and NEAT.

I also now coach an endurance sport (as my username suggests) primarily with youth athletes which keeps me ‘honest’ in my own training. I average 600kcal per day of EAT but this can be over 2000kcal on some big days on the bike. I also sleep as much as I possibly can!

This is what I mean by wholesale lifestyle change: no more long commutes, no more sitting all day in an office, no more works drinks nights, no more 10 minute lunches. I centred my life around being present for my family, and being fit and active, rather than around work. I realise that I am enormously privileged to be able to do so, and very lucky to have an employer who supports employees in healthy lifestyles.

Do you think that the reduction in carbs and resultant effects on insulin/glucagon will have had any effect, @BCCoach , and if so, how much?

This is where my original query comes from. People put weight loss down to kcal deficit, but if they just ate carbs, they would be practically unable to lose any fat, even if they were in quite a large deficit. The deficit would be compensated for in other ways, and this is a familiar situation; 'I'm eating barely any kcal, I feel like shit, and I'm still not losing weight, I don't get it!' I think this is what happens, when you think that people are calculating their TDEE poorly. It's not about sums, it's about not understanding the hormonal impact and thermic affect of the different macronutrients.

Otherwise we'd be in a position where many many highly educated, successful, intelligent people were failing on something really important to them, personally, simply because they can't add up.

Most people have heard of insulin (the 'burn sugar!' hormone) but generally, nobody has heard of glucagon (the 'burn fat!' hormone) It's a big omission.

I don't really know enough about insulin resistance and spiking to comment but suspect that it played a part for me. I think that carb-heavy meals also reduce my NEAT - normally I'm a terribly annoying fidgeter/wiggler/leg jiggler.

I'll reiterate my point (for the umpteenth time...) if you are in deficit, you WILL lose weight. If you are not losing weight, you are, by definition of the term "deficit" not actually in deficit. I don't know how to state this any more clearly I'm afraid.

If you are in actual 500kCal deficit, you will lose weight. If you are not losing weight you are, by definition, not in deficit. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can state this so I'll bow out now.

What is a deficit, by your definition? Maybe we're defining it differently, and that's why I'm not getting what you're saying.

By my definition, a deficit of kcal means ' fewer kcal than required to function at optimal levels'. This means that the body could choose to^^ function at less-than optimal levels, rather than burn fat.

Your definition must differ, and I'm curious to know how, given that many people are both malnourished and overweight.

Your definition of deficit is not the standard one which perhaps explains why we are talking at cross purposes.

Caloric deficit is when you take in less food energy than you expend in a given time period. So if your food energy ingested during a day is less than your BMR+NEAT+EAT that day then you were in deficit.

Glad we got that cleared up. Thanks @BCCoach