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?

Probably best to consider a career change then if you have no understanding of how to lose weight. 🙄

People miscount
People fail to notice somethings - a swipe at the dinner as it cooks, an emergency biscuit
They overestimate what they need especially if they exercise
They stop moving as much

If they are in calorie deficit
They lose weight and then go back to their old eating habits and the cycle begins again

It does work.

When I weigh, measure and track my food I lose weight.

When i get lax about it, stop tracking and 'eyeball' my portions I gain weight.

People who say they are in deficit but aren't actually weighing their food are eating bigger portions than they think they are.

Sorry, keeping it a little more diplomatic, I was asking which credible sources you were referring to?

Calorie deficit works but you have to be honest about portion sizes and exercise.
I managed to lose nearly 2 stone (obesity down to overweight) using calorie deficit and my Fitbit. Tried to keep to 2,000 cals in food eaten and 2,500-3,000 in calories burnt. Agonisingly slow weight loss but it did come off at 1lb a week. And I didn't feel deprived in any way. I did try to keep the protein intake high and carbs low, but by that I mean not too much bread, rice, potatoes and all sweet things.
It was a good exercise to see how much you can eat if you cut down on the rubbish.

I am glad you are pleased my DD had an eating disorder.....
Anyway in answer to your questions she ate less of everything except fruit and veg and moved more. Eventually to extremes. Weight loss happened. And yes to begin with she lost all surplus body fat.
That's what the body does. It uses surplus stores first.
It protects the organs and lower body.
Having watched my daughter experience starvation I can tell you there is a process the body follows

It's not daft, @PortiaWithNoBreaks , and nor was I being daft. People who eat OMAD, keto etc are trying to get the right nutrition for their bodies. If they're using it for weight loss, they might try to create a deficit too, but that's not what these diets are about.

There's really no need to be personally insulting.

@Lottsbiffandsmudge

I'm really sorry, I'd misread what you wrote. I apologise for being insensitive.

The thing is, it's easy to measure your calories "in". But not "out".

Calories used by your body vary due to all kinds of factors, age, hormones, metabolism and probably gut related reasons. You can't force your body to burn its fat reserves if it doesn't want to. The "TDEE" numbers are loose estimates. So you may not be in deficit at all despite reducing food calories.

Also, what you eat has to matter. Calories in petrol or diesel are about the same but my car only runs properly on one of them. A body is way more complicated than a car.

If you eat little enough you will lsoe weight - in those awful pictures from concentration camps there's never one tubby one is there?

oh @Watchkeys most people are not concerned about nutrition and follow omad, keto, low carb, ww, slimming world etc NOT for the nutrition but for the number on the scale.
all those "diets" are indeed calorie counting and deficit inducing IF followed according to the way it was planned.
although dr mary claire does say the double cheeseburger concept is not a diet for women.

@Watchkeys As you're a PT, if you haven't already, read Roar and Next Level Fitness by Stacey Sims as these books concentrate on women's bodies and how their biology, hormones etc affects not only how to train, but how their bodies store fat and lose weight too.

Really interesting stuff. It totally transformed my own training.

It’s exactly what the science says.

Your anecdotal evidence that it didn’t work for some people doesn’t mean it’s not true.

the problem is humans are complicated, and psychology plays a big part in weight loss.

As PPs have said, people underestimate the calories they are eating. Some studies have found by as much as 50%.

Portion size is the biggest thing.

when is come to exercise people like to take the biggest number of calories typically burnt for that type of exercise. But 30 minutes in the gym might be 15 minutes chatting etc…

It's definitely to do with weight set points, hormones, inflammation and health etc.

Anyone who still tries to maintain that it's as simple as calories in versus calories out is wrong.
It can be as simple as that if the person is in good health etc. and their body is running efficiently, but it is definitely not as simple as that for many.

I'm a lifelong slim person who always ate more than I should and never could get over my weight set point.

I gained during a period of poor health brought on by chronic stress, I never got to the point of being overweight but when I gained I had been eating a lot less than normal because all of the joy had been sucked out of eating for me, I also had weeks at a time barely eating a thing because my body responded badly to all food and didn't lose anything.

It was only when I got my health under control and reduced inflammation that my body went back to normal.

While I was always sympathetic to people who were overweight and couldn't lose it even before that, I have even more now after my own struggle trying to get my body to work properly and efficiently again. Sometimes it just won't!!

@ferneytorro

If you eat little enough you will lsoe weight - in those awful pictures from concentration camps there's never one tubby one is there

No, but that's unhealthy weight loss, makes no comment on the 3500kcal formula, and is therefore irrelevant, if not inappropriate. We all know that if you stop eating, you waste away and die.

@Boomshock

It can be as simple as that if the person is in good health etc. and their body is running efficiently, but it is definitely not as simple as that for many

I agree and I think this is a really good point. The eatwell plate, as I see it, is a 'weight maintenance diet'. It's a way for a healthy, active person to maintain equilibrium. It's not a way for an unhealthy person to get healthy, and yet people believe it to be 'a healthy diet'. It's very misleading.

People also generally don't realise that there's very little in the way of nutrients in carbs, particularly processed stuff, so we're being advised to have 55% of our diet as something with barely any nutrition in it.

People are very misled, and believe what they're told. I've been told on this thread to drop my career, just for challenging it - it's amazing what people lap up as truth, with no evidence whatsoever, or with the evidence funded by Monsanto, Pepsi and Glaxo.

I find it difficult to believe that a personal trainer can be so lacking in the basic science behind how to lose weight.

Which science are you referring to? I'm fairly well read.

Also, what sort of training do you think personal trainers get? It's a 6 week course, very basic biology, mostly about gaining muscle.

If you know better, and I'm sure you do, please provide some references to studies, and I'll see if I can pull up some articles to refute them. This will be fun!

I agree and I think this is a really good point. The eatwell plate, as I see it, is a 'weight maintenance diet'. It's a way for a healthy, active person to maintain equilibrium. It's not a way for an unhealthy person to get healthy, and yet people believe it to be 'a healthy diet'. It's very misleading.

The eat well plate really isn't a weight maintenance diet. For most, even healthy, active people, it's a ticket to gain weight.

@Watchkeys

I agree and I think this is a really good point. The eatwell plate, as I see it, is a 'weight maintenance diet'. It's a way for a healthy, active person to maintain equilibrium. It's not a way for an unhealthy person to get healthy, and yet people believe it to be 'a healthy diet'. It's very misleading.

Absolutely. Obesity prevention or unhealthy lifestyle prevention really is the key.
People think that those kind of things reversible but many people find out the hard way that they're not, even if they put a lot of effort in, and then they fight a losing battle being told to 'just eat less calories' etc. but unfortunately that often doesn't work.

Fair point, @highfidelity . I've thought about it a lot but hadn't thought of it that way round!

A lot of PTs I know who are having the best results with their clients are 'feeders' who have actually upped their clients calories, and the clients get amazing results, far better than what they got with previous PTs who encouraged a deficit.

I forgot to say on my earlier post I think certain medications and age make a huge difference too. Eating a diet where I would have easily lost 7lbs every month and then doing exactly the same post 60 , post menopause and taking beta blockers and statins - it's far, far harder.

Yes, @Boomshock Healthy kcal can fuel a body to build more muscle, leading to an elevated TDEE. Deficits just lead to a body dragging itself around with no energy; not an ideal fat-burning, health-inducing environment.

There’s new studies that actually suggest the matrix of different foods (e.g nuts) means that the amount of calories absorbed by eating them whole is far less than what the label said. Most people in a low calorie diet would avoid high fat/ calorie foods like nuts. Interestingly but butters and ground nuts don’t seem to have the same and more calories are absorbed from these.

I guess this sort of makes sense as there is energy expenditure in digesting foods, so whole foods that require breaking down more and contain more fibre will lead to less energy being stored.

Lots if low calorie foods are processed or low in fibre so this might be contributing to the lack of weigh loss some people experience. This might also explain why Ultra processed foods contribute to obesity is such a huge way.

Add to this, the methods used for energy on package labels are varied and often taken from a database rather than actually testing the foods. The methods in which estimate calories is also very old in scientific terms (Atwater factors) and some questions have been raised about how reliable these are.

Considering all of the above it is easy to see how people can vastly underestimating the amount of calories not only consumed but actually absorbed.