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?

I have thirty years of dieting experience behind me, and I have had periods - sometimes extended, sometimes brief - of doing every imaginable diet in existence. When I did meal replacement shakes that added up to 750 calories per day, I lost weight. When I ate 2000+ calories a day on low carb, I lost weight. So vlcd and low carb equated to pounds of fat gone, though my calorie intake on either varied a lot. I certainly know from experience that I can lose weight eating more calories of low carb, than I can if eating a higher carb diet. So I know that all calories are not equal. I've lost weight doing intense exercise regimes but not changing my diet much. I've lost weight skipping meals, intermittent fasting, Slimming World and WeightWatchers.

What did they all have in common? I put it back on, and more, every time.

There is a dogged mindset on here about calories and tracking that doesn't take anything else into account, but I know that bodies and minds are complex and unpredictable and don't always do exactly what you expect them to do.

I also know that spending my entire life on diets, from being prepubescent, has damaged me physically and mentally in ways I can't even begin to count. If there was a simple, straightforward answer I would have found it by now. And some of the calorie based threads on here are terrifying - breastfeeding mothers told to reduce to 800 calories a day because 'eat less move more' is infallible science - it's absolutely insane.

Because it's only true in lab conditions?

My phone says that my resting energy expenditure is about 1300 calories a day. My active energy expenditure about 300 on a good day.

I eat and drink 2000-3000 calories a day, I would say. The squash, juice, kefir, gin, tonic and wine alone is at least 500 calories a day. So why am I not gaining weight? Where is the other 1000 calories or so going?

@ThinkTheresBeenAGlitch

D'you suppose it's hormonal, then? Sounds like a tough experience you've had. I'm very interested to know more, about what you've tried and what has/hasn't worked.

The fat loss is the final part. There are lots of factors that affect it before that.

So even if you want to simplify it and say it's always a calorie deficit, well a person could try one diet at 1600kcal and lose nothing, and then a different diet plan of 1600kcal and start to lose. So there is more at play rather than the calorie amount.

Others increase their calories and that's when they lose weight.

Their bodies runs more efficiently on the new diet or with more food, when I am healthy I can eat a huge amount of food for a slim person....(well for anyone).

So the issue is that people think well Mary needs to be in a calorie deficit so therefore Mary has to reduce her calories from what she is eating now.

But the other option (which often gets far better results) is to make Marys body need and use MORE calories.

The same person could be in calorie deficit at 1200kcal or 2000kcal depending on what they're eating and how their body is running at the time.

The reason many people on the low calorie diets can't eat much and can't lose is because they've fucked their metabolism, but unfortunately far too many people just advise them to keep cutting some more.

I don't know why you have misquoted my post. I'm simply pointing out that the halcyon days might not have been completely glorious.

And remember you need to consider the whole picture when looking at population statistics. On average, people didn't live as long, there was higher child mortality, more deaths from infectious diseases, not to mention the impact of WW2. A 3% obesity statistic is only a fraction of the picture of the public health of the nation.

That doesn't mean I disagree that obesity isn't a serious public health issue . Just that it's important not to oversimplify so called solutions based on misconceptions.

Everyone focusses on the calories in but not on the calories out. The cast majority of our body's calorie expenditure is spent on existing. Respiration, digestion, cell renewal etc. if calories are cut too drastically or for a long time, the body slows down the autonomous functions. That's why people with under-active thyroids lose eye brow hair, head hair thins, skin dries and a bunch of other things.
Just cutting calories is missing half the equation

I also know that spending my entire life on diets, from being prepubescent, has damaged me physically and mentally in ways I can't even begin to count. If there was a simple, straightforward answer I would have found it by now. And some of the calorie based threads on here are terrifying - breastfeeding mothers told to reduce to 800 calories a day because 'eat less move more' is infallible science - it's absolutely insane.

Sorry to hear that. It's shocking the advice people give to people in regards to dropping calories. I mentioned nurses etc who are on their feet all day, and I see you said that even breastfeeding mothers aren't safe. 😔

It's not really that much different to pro anorexia/bulimia sites, people are literally encouraging disordered eating and unhealthy diets but saying "that's the science". The posters often mention that they're already starving, no energy etc. and it's "drop your kcals some more, it's the only way, basic science".

@Dinopawus

I directly quoted you (copy and paste), and am citing the obesity statistic as an obesity statistic. Anything further is surmised by yourself.

Yes. Yes yes. Then the treadmill tells us we have burnt 300kcal in the 'fat loss' zone. It's so misleading. There's no wonder people feel confused and overwhelmed. Then you've got the 'you're just lazy and you can't count' mob, as evidenced by this thread.

Haven’t you? What about this post from you:
”No, @titchy

You have assumed a kcal deficit into my method that isn't actually there.”
?

Mainly I think because we moved more and ate less
Our economic base still involved heavy industry and manufacturing and other physical jobs.
Fewer people had cars.
There were fewer sedentary distractions.
Kids especially moved a lot more. Played out. Walked to school. Biked. TV was restricted to 2 hours a day for kids. There was nothing to do!
Alcohol was much more difficult to get hold of.
Snack foods and ready meals and sauces for pasta didn't exist.
I remember my mum coming home in the mid 1970s with a dried sachet of chicken coq au vin seasoning which was a brand new thing. She cooked everything from scratch.
I ate a proper school lunch made in site from scratch.
My mum did housework every day.
This all started to change in the 1980s. Shift in economic basis. Food inventions. And Its only been exacerbated by technology.

Oh and people tended their gardens instead of paving over them and sticking down artificial grass...... etc etc
We've all become incredibly lazy.
No one went to the gym or body pump or yoga in the 1970s. Not in my recollection.

@Watchkeys you realize there was FOOD RATIONING during the war years, food scarcity prior to the war years and massive recessions? Depression eras that lasted 10+ years.

The term 'calorie deficit' has a very specific simplified common usage meaning when it comes to dieting though.

Most assume you eat less than you're eating now, that's it.
Or get an idea of the BMR and eat less than that. Simple

Lots of trainers these days do NOT try to reduce calories, they try to increase them, or get the person eating healthier foods and get the body running better.

That can often improve how the body runs, and/or along with increased muscle etc. can certainly put a person into a deficit.

Fuelling properly, making sure the person is well nourished and healthy and not hungry is the aim, often trainers who do it that way increase calories through the weeks, even among clients who aren't bulking.

So considering how the term 'calorie deficit' is most commonly used it confuses the situation to make out that one trainer who plans for a calorie deficit by cutting the amount of calories in, is doing the same thing as a trainer who doesn't tell their clients to actively cut the number of calories taken in or who keeps actually increasing the amount of calories.

There are other ways to create a kcal deficit than by cutting it from the diet.

Are you just here to make me look inconsistent, or did you have any other points to make?

@Boomshock

Thank you for explaining that... I lose the will a bit when faced with obtuseness!

Talking of diets that don't ask you to reduce calories but result in weight loss.
Stanford did an interesting one comparing a well formulated keto with a Mediterranean one.
Interesting read https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/116/3/640/6596279#380631755
The compliance study is also fascinating https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/3/967
The rant on Zoe is entertaining and educational

There is a lot of contemporary science about the focus on calories.
I honestly think some women are so fixated on calories because controlled semi-starvation works short term to make the numbers on the scales lower. Long term it leads to yoyoing. Most people want a quick fix, not a lifestyle change.

"This idea of 'a calorie in and a calorie out' when it comes to weight loss is not only antiquated, it's just wrong," says Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity specialist and assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting-calories

I dunno about the science behind it but I do know that calorie counting has worked for me. However I know lots of other people who it doesn’t work for either because, they don’t accurately count their calories, they eat low calories but don’t eat things that keep them full and satisfied so they end up eating over calories or they eat in a calorie deficit all week but drink and eat high calorie at the weekend.

I think a lot of the issues people have is trying “crash” diets that are physically and psychologically hard to maintain, instead of making sustainable life style and diet changes over time.

I've always thought it really simplistic and obviously it is assuming a whole bunch of things, for example, that hormones are in balance and working as they need to be. The best trainers I had achieved great results with efficient, easy-to-maintain and enjoyable training or exercise sessions, along with promoting good basic tips for a healthy lifestyle, like walking around as much as possible staying hydrated, getting adequate sleep regularly etc and eating as much healthy whole foods as possible, over processed foods. I did not calorie count with these PT's.

As a reformed fatty, I lost four stones without calorie counting at all. I ate ( and still,do) substantial portions of high quality meat and fish, a great deal,of full fat dairy, and a wide variety of fresh vegetables. I fry in extra virgin olive oil or lard.

I never eat u pf, ( especially low fat products) or veg oil apart from extra virgin olive , cook everything from scratch, greatly reduce sugar and wheat intake and eat a moderate amount of carbs. So basically a fairly low GI, Mediterranean style diet.

I feel and look the best I have ever done, and am in my late 50s and menopausal.I go to the gym for cardio and weights, do,Pilates and a lot of hillwalking but I have never restricted my calorie intake - quite the opposite.

My annual blood tests and health check revealed a very healthy picture indeed.

I can't pretend to understand the ins and outs of the science but I am convinced there are many more factors than simply calories in versus calories out. Andrew Jenkinson's book 'why we eat too much' was a game changer for me.

I’m still trying to work out what your point is.

That’s good to know @Words.

I am undecided on whether it’s as simple as calories in, versus calories out for everyone, but I do suspect you may be onto something with this considering all the failed diets . I did one of those meal replacement diets which amounted to 1000 calories of packet shakes, porridge etc (don’t recommend it!) for a short period of time and lost about 3 pounds compared to others who lost about three times that much. I didn’t eat any other snacks or meals etc so I was definitely only eating 1000 calories.

Also I used to count the calories in my head when I was in my 20s pre-apps and I lost a lot of weight at 1500 calories. Now I try and eat the same and even have increased accuracy using MyFitness pal and the weight seems to be coming off slower although part of that might be because I’m building muscle but I can see i have too much abdominal fat right now.

There does seem to be a devotion to the 3500 calorie formula, I guess because it is a simple and proven one as a mechanism for burning calories. But our bodies are more complicated than raising thr temperature of water!

I am no scientist but anecdotally would not be at all surprised to learn it was much more complex in a human body. In my 20s I probably drank my recommended cal intake in booze alone, and lived on pizza and ready meals, yet I was always fairly slim. Now, older and more sensible, I have lost more weight recently doing weight exercise and eating more - albeit trying to focus on eating more veg/protein etc, but not being super strict on diet.

Similarly my husband eats probably slightly more than me but not a vast amount and he's much taller. Yet he's always been overweight and I never have