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?

Read why we eat (too much) by Andrew Jenkinson which explains why it's not straightforward calories out = pounds lost. Very depressing but will give you some answers

@WhatWouldJeevesDo

My post wasn't making a point, it was asking a question. That might be where you're struggling. Of course I have views and opinions, but that's not why I posted.

I suppose one reason I’m struggling is that calorie-controlled diets have been out of fashion for about the last twenty years. Since Atkins, all I’ve heard about is controlling hunger: low-carb, high-protein, high-fat, keto, 5:2. They are all about reducing hunger to make creating a calorie deficit easier. I don’t really recognise the mindset you appear to be talking about.
I was also a bit nonplussed by your idea that a pound of my fat might be significantly different from a pound of your fat or anybody else’s.
I get the impression that you have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
I took your question literally and answered it, then your responses seemed to get a bit wild and weird.
Anyway, has this thread helped you to find out whatever it was you wanted to know?

It's definitely interesting to me. If you don't get it, or get what I'm saying/asking, don't worry too much. You 'getting it' isn't of much consequence to me, and you can just stop reading rather than bother yourself further. If you'd rather.

I suppose one reason I’m struggling is that calorie-controlled diets have been out of fashion for about the last twenty years. Since Atkins, all I’ve heard about is controlling hunger: low-carb, high-protein, high-fat, keto, 5:2. They are all about reducing hunger to make creating a calorie deficit easier.

Some who advocate those diets might think that they're all about reducing hunger making a calorie deficit easier, but then others will explain that there's a whole list of reasons why those diets help to lose weight and that it's not simply due to having less calories.

The ‘simple’ calories in vs calories out theory is known to be flawed. There is truth to it but also it will massively vary for individuals. As time goes on the longer you’re in calorie deficit the more your body will compensate. That’s why you’ve got lifelong dieters who are still overweight and eat very little. The body isn’t a computer, lots of processes going on and many of them directly preventing weight loss.

The body isn’t a computer, lots of processes going on and many of them directly preventing weight loss

This is the bit that the kcal in = kcal out believers don't seem to understand. Kcal out isn't just 'fat used'. There's so much else going on.

If you believe kcal in = kcal out = corresponding kcal of fat burn, what do you think is fuelling the other myriad functions your body is performing, and why don't you think that your body can give more/less kcal to those, in times of excess/deficit?

But, it’s always about creating a deficit.
My main point is that people aren’t stupid. If x equals y then y equals x. If a pound of fat contains 3500kcals then you need to create a deficit of 3500kcals to lose it, and actually losing weight does seem to be that simple for most people. It’s keeping it off that gets tricky.
Where people go wrong, I think, is by underestimating the difficulty of resisting hunger long-term.
Your ‘whole list of reasons why those diets help’ are presumably to do with making the body accept living at a lower weight, aren’t they? That means you aren’t constantly battling hunger while eating very little. That makes creating a deficit or avoiding a surplus easier.
It does seem to me that you and @Watchkeys want to play down the importance of hunger.

Thank you for your point and opinion, @WhatWouldJeevesDo

It isn't though.
Sometimes, (a lot of the time) it's about fixing what is going on in the body first, because without that then a calorie deficit won't work anyway.

You don't seem to realise that a lot of peoples bodies are malfunctioning.

There are people who eat low calorie diets and they don't lose weight and their body shuts down certain things in the body assuming it's starving and it doesn't touch the fat that's there as an available source.

There are overweight people who go on diets but their body is malfunctioning and storing as much fat as possible even though the kcal would be better off used elsewhere in the body.

If cortisol caused the weight gain and someone is told to keep cutting their calories they're likely to get even more stressed which makes the problem even worse.

Your ‘whole list of reasons why those diets help’ are presumably to do with making the body accept living at a lower weight, aren’t they?

No, it's definitely not all about that at all.
A malfunctioning body doesn't feel healthy, it doesn't run in a healthy way, it's not all about weight at all, it's also about how a person feels etc.

People might often start a new plan to lose weight but many are sick of how they feel too, no energy, sluggish, sick etc.

From the trainers I know who consider themselves to be 'feeders' when their clients post their results sure they say the weight lost and inches loss was great but most of them say the biggest change was in my energy, motivation, mood etc. and write an even longer paragraph on all of the other benefits they got from it.

That means you aren’t constantly battling hunger while eating very little. That makes creating a deficit or avoiding a surplus easier.
It does seem to me that you and @Watchkeys want to play down the importance of hunger.
There's no need to eat very little though, and it's not just about battling hunger.

For a PT, ideally you want the client to feel amazing, to feel energised, healthy, motivated etc, to get a boost in mental health etc. as well as reaching the body goals they want.

Some will argue that starting to lose weight is what will give people the energy boost, motivation etc. and that's what makes them continue but I believe that's just a small part of it.

Inflammation messes with the brain as well as the body, so do gut issues....a drop in calories doesn't tend to fix those things and can make them worse, low calorie diets can wreck the gut and gut issues can be remarkably persistant.

It all depends on what is going on in individuals bodies. Apparently keto can wreck the gut for some too. Luckily keto did the opposite for me and cut inflammation,, reduced cortisol and helped my gut. It totally reset my body and fixed me. I felt amazing on it from very early on too so that was a good sign to continue.

Any trainer/nutritionist etc. who advocates the same approach for everyone and thinks it all boils down to just a calorie deficit is doing their clients a major disservice and could be harming them.

@Boomshock

Well said. The idea that eating plenty, and sometimes upping kcal, can be a route to weight loss, is lost on some, who insist that losing weight means starving the body and finding a way to cope with it. They have presumably never had a body that runs healthily, has lots of energy, and consumes waaay more kcal than it 'should' without getting out of shape. Bodies self regulate. Put one in a hot place, and it's internal temperature will stay the same as if you put it in a cold place, if it is healthy. Give one loads of kcal, it will stay the same weight as it will if you give it just enough, if it is healthy. The danger lies in looking at kcal without looking at nutrients. There are very few nutrients in carbs, comparative to fats and proteins. We get all the good stuff from fats and proteins. It's hard to hit the micronutrient balance we need even if we live entirely on fats and proteins, without replacing half or more with empty carbohydrates.

We need to nourish ourselves, not 'learn how to deal with the hunger' of just existing.

I totally agree @Watchkeys . And what you say mirrors my own experience of weight loss. There have been times when I have consistently eaten way more than my daily 'allowance' and continued to,lose weight. And more importantly, felt fabulous - physically and mentally.

Restrictive diets worked for me in the short term but at huge cost. They made me lethargic, miserable and stressed. I am not a numbers person either so calorie counting sapped all the joy out of cooking and eating for me. And all of the weight always came back, and more besides.

I now eat a 'clean' healthy diet with plenty of veg, good quality protein, fats and dairy. I don't eat low fat anything, never eat ultra processed stuff and avoid sugar, wheat and veg oil, apart from extra virgin olive oil. It works for me. Yes I fall off plan sometimes , life happens and I am only human, but that way of eating is so enjoyable it is easy to get back on track.

I would highly recommend Andrew Jenkinson's ' why we eat too much'. There's a long running thread in weight loss chat too.

Four stones off so far.

@Boomshock
The initial post said:
“Millions of people are on kcal controlled diets, and mostly, they don't work, especially not long term.”
so my first thought was not extreme cases. No. It doesn’t surprise me that the body has some extreme ways of reducing its calorific requirements. I talked about people battling hunger whilst eating very little so obviously I do see that the body can reduce its calorie requirements to very little. Metabolic rates can’t just go down without some effect on function. Even in famines, people don’t starve to death as quickly as one might expect. However, hunger comes first, so I see it as the most important factor initially affecting those millions of people.
I thought ‘Words’s’ post above was interesting as to how you can maintain a healthy weight.
I do see it as getting the body to accept living at a lower weight. If you can do that then no, you don’t need to permanently reduce your intake to very little.

@EdinaCrump

in a laboratory the science of 1lb of fat = 3500kcal is true

According to what lab? There is no evidence of any studies to say that this is true, as far as I know. That's what I'm querying: why do people say 'It's true scientifically, but it's hard to apply in real life', without actually having established that there is a scientific proof first? Has anybody got a link to the studies we're talking about?

However, hunger comes first, so I see it as the most important factor initially affecting those millions of people

I guess the question is why are people so hungry when they're overweight. This is what fuels my thinking that it's not about the kcal. You can eat 2000kcal in chocolate and croissants first thing in the morning, and you'll still be hungry at 11am. Hunger isn't about kcal.

The way I look at it is that refined carbohydrates get laid down as fat, so then you need more energy to function, so then you get hungry. This may be an oversimplification but I’m not a personal trainer so it doesn’t matter greatly what I think.

The fat in your body isn't immediate available - it's like the cake in the box - waiting but not in use

Your hunger is driven by your tunmy and blood sugar levels and I suspect a lot of head things

Your body prefers to hang onto fat in case there is a real emergency like winter when food may become scarce - your body is still in the Stone Age / Iron Age in many respects

I dont have a reference, but my understanding is that humans are programmed to become satiated by eating food volume not actual calories. So it’s the volume (weight?) of food that helps keep hunger at bay.

So chicken rice and veg for lunch is a better option than say a sandwich or a pot noodle. It takes much longer to eat food volume too, lots of chewing etc. Yet the chicken rice and veg will/can be fewer actual calories and much higher protein. Added to that, it takes more energy to digest protein so more calories used.

Well if you put 454g of some fat say lard into a calories counter, it gives you 4077kcal.
So it's probably a comparison between the calories of fat you eat and the theoretical calories you could gain from your fat stores?

I can see all kinds of reasons why those are not the same process or in any way equivalent.

Calorie counting works extremely well in individuals in which EAT (exercise related activity) and NEAT (non-exercise related activity) form a high proportion of TEE (total energy expenditure). Most endurance athletes maintain their weight by calorie counting (weighing food) and tracking their EAT.

However, I am wholly unconvinced that it works for sedentary individuals where their TEE is basically BMR plus a small amount of NEAT. BMR is not fixed and can reduce in response to calorie deficit. Individuals who are motivated by weight loss rather than athletic performance are perhaps more likely to underestimate food calories and overestimate their EAT and NEAT. NEAT is very low in individuals with sedentary jobs who use private cars as their primary means of transport (the so-called obesogenic environment).

All this requires a different approach and I do think that Michael Mosley is worth reading here. His approach seems to be very much about putting yourself into calorie deficit while "tricking" your body into thinking that you are not, so that your BMR does not reduce as a consequence.

Nothing I’ve seen suggests the figure is far out. The main variable seems to be water content. I do feel it’s a bit of a distraction.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat

That makes sense. I like Michael Mosley.

I find people who are militant about calorie deficit = weight loss tend to be quite ignorant about things like insulin resistance.
I never spent a day with a BMI over about 21 (other than pregnancies) until I was in a severely stressful situation where my youngest child was critically ill and in intensive care. I didn’t sleep more than an hour for about 2 weeks, and I rarely ate. I gained about 5lb in that fortnight, despite eating very little. That period of sustained stress appeared to set off serious insulin resistance. I started gaining weight rapidly and nothing helped. At one stage I had a severe bout of gastro and would have been lucky to hold down a piece of toast that week. When I actually gained 2lb, my GP finally believed me that it was out of my control. Being put on a high dose of Metformin stabilized the weight gain, and after 3-4 months the weight started dropping off, despite the fact I was doing nothing different.

I think the focus on calories severely underestimated the role that stress, sleep, and hormones play in weight control.

Nothing I’ve seen suggests the figure is far out

But people are trying to eat correctly to the calorie, for months and years. The figure being even a little bit out could skew the figures by something like 12st over 20 years, according to calculations done by Zoe Harcombe in 'The Obesity Epidemic', and she was being pretty specific. I've not got the reference to hand but it's something like that.

Has anything anybody has seen so far suggested that the figure is correct?