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?

Yes, I know this to be true in terms of how our bodies consume and store energy, but in a laboratory the science of 1lb of fat = 3500kcal is true.

Our bodies are not laboratories though - they are engines that adapt to our needs. Our bodies can ramp up or down organs to keep us warm or allow more energy to be used when in fight of flight mode for example. We don’t live our lives in a coma - if we did we could rely on maintenance calories - but we don’t so we can’t.

Because calorie deficit doesn't work. Read the obesity code by Dr Jason Fung or any of Michael Mosley's books to understand why managing your insulin response is more important.

Most calories we use are spent on just keeping us alive, coma calories if you like. It’s about 70%. The rest is used on NEAT, non exercise activity thermogenesis, TEF, thermic effect of food and a super tiny amount on actual planned exercise.

Any surplus calories are stored as fat.

This has been studied for decades and the only way to lose weight is to create a caloric deficit. Lo carb, high carb, low fat, keto, one meal a day, eating window. All of these are ways of creating a deficit.

Behaviour around food is a completely different thing and behaviour change is the difficult bit.

Ppl totally underestimate the calorie values of food. Keep everything else the same and just eat one chocolate digestive a day then after year you’ll have gained half a stone.

You can go back to maintenance for a little while, you may gain some water weight but no body fat.

In a couple months try a deficit again and you should see some success.

I suppose a pound of fat burnt in laboratory conditions will always produce 3500kcal of energy.
I’ve never given this much thought and I don’t really follow your argument.

But what about the excess kcal that can be consumed by, say, a Type 1 diabetic, @Irritateandunreasonable ? They have the same mechanisms as everybody else, they just don't 'do' insulin, so the kcal are simply lost. Why do those kcal not = 1lb of fat (average) per 3500?

There's so much more going on than just putting the numbers in and getting the numbers out... it's like saying that if you put petrol in a car, it'll go. It is true, but you have to make all the assumptions about it having wheels and a driver and pedals and sufficient oil and water and not too much rust, and the key not being in the pocket of the coat you left in the library etc.... Do people genuinely think that if you wolfed down 389g of butter, you'd put on 1lb? Or 875g of sugar? Or a mix of those 2 things? And that if you did that every couple of days, you'd routinely put on 1lb every couple of days, until kingdom come?

It definitely works!

I bet loads of people are letting themselves have a day off a the weekend though and consuming a lot of extra calories!

@PortiaWithNoBreaks

Lo carb, high carb, low fat, keto, one meal a day, eating window. All of these are ways of creating a deficit

No, they're not. 'Lo' carb, keto, OMAD, certainly, all are to do with getting the right kcal in the right way. Not in getting too few.

I think there's lots of research to say to 3500 calories equals 1lb of fat is not accurate. So there's that.

You seem to be talking about omg term sticking to a diet rather than saying restricting calories doesn't work for loss. But I think that's the thing isn't it. Restriction and having to pay very close ttention to your food intake long term isn't sustainable

Well, that's definitely not true. Your fat and my fat will be different, and potentially vastly different. Just like I'm taller than you (likely) and my nose is bigger than yours (also likely!) Most humans are nothing like the average human.

I’m not well versed on what is going on in the bodies of diabetic people so I cannot comment on that. Obviously the way they digest and perhaps metabolise food is different to that of your average Joe.

So for people not suffering from diabetes other serious health issues:
I think there is some confusion here over weight loss and overall health. You say there is nothing going on here but numbers and you’re absolutely correct, when we are talking about a deficit from our maintenance for weight loss we are just looking at numbers, not overall health.

@Bargellobitch

Restriction and having to pay very close ttention to your food intake long term isn't sustainable

So, it doesn't work, then? Or, you're saying, scientifically, it would work, but we can't replicate it in real life?

Where did I mention humans?
I genuinely don’t understand your point. It feels as though you are setting up a straw man.

packaging laws allow for calories listed on a label to be off by 10%.
then you have web sites like mfp where people self input the calories of a certain product often inaccurately.
some sites are better such as cronometer.
calorie counting is tedious and that's where it fails. it's hard to maintain, and those reasons can be from financial to lack of support to a busy life.
planning/weighing/logging is much more time consuming than you initially think.
add hormones into the mix (female ever fluctuating ones) and it's not easy.
so the failure isn't the concept it's the execution.
and yes if you look at the statistics the poorest countries have the lowest obesity rate.

It’s 20%

Obviously the way they digest and perhaps metabolise food is different to that of your average Joe

Yes, it's not complicated. They don't have insulin. So they pee out sugar. That's it. You don't need a degree to understand it. 'Diabetes' means 'sweet urine'.

We must all have/use different amounts of insulin, because we are all different. So how can the production of fat be so regular that the counting of kcal is meant to be so precise?

@Irritateandunreasonable

You say there is nothing going on here but numbers and you’re absolutely correct

This is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.

thank you @Irritateandunreasonable it's enough that for a old shorty like me it makes a huge difference at the end of the day/week/month.
also the reason i pay for chronometer.

It depends which "science" you read. A lot of people claim science when what they've really heard is soundbites and half truths from people that are trying to sell a diet.

If you go to the British Nutrition Foundation website there's loads of sensible advice which doesn't involve bullshit. The general advice on there has always been consistent with legitimate scientific theory.

If it was easy no-one would be overweight. Losing weight and keeping it off is less about calorie counting and more about living a healthy lifestyle and being active.

Are you agreeing that 3500kcal can't = 1lb of fat? That's my point... I can see lots of people will argue against it, whilst also arguing that metabolism can change per person, and be different for different people.

Of course 3500kcal equates to approximately 1lb of stored fat. Or approximately 2lb of carbohydrate or protein. The difference in metabolism is how your body uses the calories and how it releases the energy. If you are eating sufficient nutrients and everything is working well then your body (under a 3500 kcal deficit) will burn 3500 kcal of whatever your body has spare. For an overweight person this will be body fat.

As most of the pp said: the problem is generally that people underestimate the calories in what they eat and drink.

It'd really not as simple as calories in/calories out

Firstly how do we accurately measure how many calories each food contains? You have to take into account the body digesting food, absorbing and processing. Everyone's metabolism is different.

Our body is not an engine and doesn't just take in fuel, use it and switch to fat when it runs out. Its way way more complex, anyone who thinks it's a simple equation has no understanding of the human body

@greenspaces4peace

add hormones into the mix (female ever fluctuating ones) and it's not easy.
so the failure isn't the concept it's the execution

Isn't the adding of hormones the bit that makes the execution impossible, though? If you can drop kcal significantly, but hormones say 'hold onto that fat!', then a kcal controlled diet as a means of weight loss is rendered useless, surely?

well first off we are all born with a set amount of fat cells, this is set and the number unless surgically removed is always the same.
what is different is the water stored in those fat cells. when you exercise it's the water component that is excreted out of the cells and the cells shink back BUT they never go away. they are forever there just waiting for excess (combination of salt fat sugar etc) to infuse into those cells for storage.

I guess the thing is burning 1 LB of fat, burnt will always produce 35000kcal. But that doesn't mean that a 3500kcal deficit will burn 1lb of fat

There’s no need for you to be rude. So they are also peeing out calories then? Which would explain why an undiagnosed diabetic would loose a huge amount of weight all of a sudden (I’m thinking of my friends daughter diagnosed suddenly at 9).

Aha. Ok, well I misread then. But as much as you want to argue it, you can’t. A deficit = weight loss. As I’ve explained previously maintenance and deficit will be different for everyone even people with identical stats. 3500 cals = 1lbs is just a ball point figure.

the hormones don't cause you to "hold on" to the fat, they trigger cravings the desire for certain foods which may not be the healthiest choice.