Does one *really* need a calorie deficit to lose weight?

[shipo]

Hey gang, I've been using a Fitbit Surge for about a year now and am just finding about these forums (I sorta knew they existed, but never paid much attention to them), and have seen numerous references to a calorie deficit diet as a requirement for losing weight.  So, as the title of this thread suggests, I'm curious as to whether this is truly a physiological requirement, or just a basic suggestion.

Why do I ask?  Personal experience suggests something contrary to the conventional "calorie deficit" wisdom; consider the following.

I am what may well be termed an "off again/on again" runner (more off than on).  It seems like changing life dynamics, be it job, family, injury, whatever, has always managed to muck things up with my running just when things were going well, and whenever stuff happened, I'd quit running for years at a time.  Case in point, I broke my leg in 2003 and it took until 2009 before I found a formula which allowed me to start running again pain free.  I ran into 2010 and then got involved in a work project which required 80+ hours of work per week, plus a significant commute, and that lasted until April of 2013.  In the 2003-2009 time period I gained about 100 pounds, in 2009 and 2010 I lost maybe half of that weight through running, only to gain it all back by 2013.

I told y'all that to tell you this; I started running again in April of 2013 when I was 250+ (don't know how much on the plus side I was because I was too afraid to get on the scale); at the time I was a month shy of 56, had a 40+ inch waist, and needless to say, that much weight on my 5' 8" frame was, ummm, pretty non-attractive.  I gradually ramped up my running, always on dirt or grass to avoid the typical injuries associated with running/weight/frequency, and by August I was running over 200 miles per month.  The thing is, I was eating everything in sight, literally, like to the tune of 5,000-6,000 calories per day (against what my Fitbit Surge guesstimates, to be a calorie burn in the 4,500-5,000 per day range); and yet, I was losing weight quite rapidly.  By September I was down under the 200 pound threshold for the first time in over a decade, and by November I was down to 190.

So, my question is, with enough physical activity, does it make sense one can lose weight even when he/she is consuming significantly more calories than one is burning?

[Dominique]

This would fly in the face of the first law of thermodynamics.

Either your Surge underestimated your expenditure, or you overestimated your intake, or a combination of both. See:

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/problem-with-calorie-counting-calories-in

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/problem-with-calorie-counting-calories-out

When we are talking about energy amounts of 5000 calories per day, 25% of that (error margin) is 1250 calories.

Your expenditure was higher than your intake, even if you believe it was the other way round. 

[shipo]

The first law of thermodynamics has zero bearing on how much of the caloric intake any given human body chooses to absorb and how much it chooses to simply discard; said another way, not relevant to this discussion.

Sorry, cannot accept either of your other explanations.

Yesterday I happened to have an exercise day right in line with what was my daily typical during July and August of 2013, my stats were as follows:

Total steps: 30,653

• Run: 8.0 miles (9:39 pace, 141 Avg BPM, 12,423 steps, 1,171 calories)

Resting BPM: 43

Active Minutes: 296

Floors: 158

Distance 16.15

Heart Rate:

• Peak zone: 56
• Cardio zone: 75
• Fat Burn zone: 178

Total Calories: 5,096

For my food intake:

Breakfast: two to three "Sausage McMuffin with Egg" look-alike sandwiches: 900-1,350 calories

Snack: pretty much non-stop between breakfast and lunch, nuts, pastries, whatever was lying around the office: 500-1,000 calories

Lunch: whatever the cafeteria at my company had as the feature entree; tyically at least 1,200 calories

Snack: pretty much non-stop between lunch and 3:30(ish): 300-1,000 calories

Dinner:

• A Bertolli "Classic Meal for Two": 1,000 calories
• Two IPA style beers: 400 calories
• One liter of whole milk: 600 calories
• Full loaf of toasted cinnamon rasin bread (14 slices) with lots of butter: 1,500 calories

Total: 6,600-8,050 calories on any given day; a few days were a bit lower such as days when I was racing, other days were much higher.

[JohnRi]

Some notes...  Your Resting BMI, indicates that your heart and cardio system are in the Athlete range.  296 Active minutes is A LOT of active minutes.

I once had an arguement a guy on here about can someone out exercise a bad diet.  While I think it's possible, your would have to exercise 3 to 4 hour at least a day.  Assuming 158 floors isn't an error, that's a lot of steps too.  And 16.15 is a lot of miles.  58 minutes in PEAK heart zone burns the most calories and fat.  Cardio burns a ton of calories and fat, and 178 in fat burn burns mainly fat calories.  Still these are insane stats.  I'm very active these days compared to my seditary days, but I rarely have more than 90 active minutes.

I look at the info on your profile, and even on "inactive days" you still have 30 minutes of elevated exercise minutes.  Many of your days are in the 20,000 to 30,000 steps a day area.

Bottom line, you are burning a ton of calories.  Since you do not log what you eat, and are guessing as to what you eat, you must be eat less than you burn.  Clearly you like to eat, and you gained a weight when you didn't run. 

Have you seen the show the biggest loser?  The contestants during the first 12 weeks are at a camp, where they exercise 4-6 hours a day, burning 5000-6000+ calories a day, and eat only 1300 calories.  They lose 1-2 lbs a day.  I want you to let that sink in, they lose 1-2 lbs a day.  You are doing the same thing.  Only reason you aren't seeing a 1-2 lbs loss everyday is that you are eating so many calories that you only lose a small amount each day. 

Keep in mind that how much you eat each day, really doesn't matter much.  What I mean, if you were to eat 8000 calories today, and only burned 6000 today, and tomorrow you eat 6000 calories, but burned 8000 calories, then it would even out. 

I suspect that the Surge, I had one too, is underestimating the calories you are burning.  I find that the Surge heart rate monitor to be quite wrong after 120-140 bpm, often under estimating your actually BPM.  The fact that you get the stats you do, make me wonder if you are really working HARDER than the Surge is reporting, and burning even more calories.  You would need something like a Polar heart rate monitor across your chest to get a more accurate reading.

But to answer your question, yes, you have to have a calorie deficit to lose weight.  Eat too much, it gets stored as fat, eat too little and you body has to burn your fat reserves.  I will say this, you are definately out exercising a bad diet.  Amazing...

[shipo]

A few comments about my lifestyle (might help):

• I live on a horse farm as a caretaker and several days per week (can be as few as 3 and as many as 7) I take care of 11 horses, by that I mean, up at 5:00, get them fed their morning grain, walk them out to the pastures, clean up the barn (typically 2 to 2.5 hours of fairly heavy labor), then head to work.
• I do some walking at work, typically no more than 5,000 steps.
• On the way home I stop off at a local rail-trail and put in some miles, typically my minimum run is 6-8, but 10, 12, or even more is not uncommon.
• Once home I lay out the evening grain; fetch the horses back in from the pastures, feed them, and then lay out the next morning's grain.

Long story short, running, cleaning up the barn, moving willful horses around, tossing around hay bales and grain bags, I burn a lot of calories.  That said, I rather doubt I'm burning much over 5,000 on any given day; pretty much in line with what the Fitbit says.

Regarding the heart rate zones; many in the running community think the different zones are pretty meaningless; regardless of which zone the heart rate is in, the calories burned for any given activity are still sourced pretty much one-for-one from energy reserves.

Regarding what I eat; I listed a fairly typical day in my original post in this thread; I'm pretty sure I consume will over 5,000 calories on most days, and when I have a race day (don't like racing on a full stomach), I more than make up for the lack of calories the next day.

Regarding the "floor count", nope, not in error; I climb maybe 30 "floors" worth just moving the horses around (it's pretty hilly here in New Hampshire), another 15-20 floors of actual stair climbing at work, and then the remaining "floors" come from my normal daily trail run.

Regarding running huge calorie deficits; if I was to try and operate with such huge calorie deficits like they don the the Biggest Loser, I'd shrivel up into a fetal shaped ball and die.  What trigged me to increace my food intake back in 2013 was working in the barn one morning and darn near passing out.  Bumped my food consumption up by 1.5 to 2 times over the (then) norm, and problem solved.

Regarding my high end exercise related BPM; my Garmin with a chest strap are pretty much in line with what my Surge reports.  I rather doubt my BPM is much higher than reported.  Why?  I'll be 59 in a few weeks and I can already get my BPM up into the 180s; any higher would suggest I have the heart and circulatory system of a 20-30 year old in good shape (assuming the silly 220-Age formula is to be believed).

[shipo]

Regarding the oft cited assertion excess calories in (i.e. calories in - calories burned = stored energy in the form of fat) will result in weight gain; we've all knows folks who are rail thin, eat everything in sight, and never gain a pound.  Then there are other folks who eat like Sparrows and gain weight on a regular basis.  If nothing else, the above two body types disprove the 3,500 calorie (surplus/fat gain or deficit/fat loss) per pound of body weight is patently false.

[Xakka]

There is a little disparity in the calories eaten versus calories absorbed, energy cant come from nothing so you must have calories as either food, fat or muscle in order to burn. Although everyone doesn't get the same deal as to absorbing the calories. Evolutionarily it is in the best benefit of any species to easily store excess food or calories as fat for times of famine which has become less relevant for many humans with our over abundance of food. Unfortunately in a hunter gather setting those people that can eat all day and not gain weight in our evolution as humans would have probably had a rough time surviving.

The thing is sometimes given hormones, bodily stress or just bad genetics (or good in this day) your body may absorb less of the food you eat causing you to be less efficient in creating fat reserves or if i am not mistake a similar result can happen from some medical conditions such as being a celiac and at alot of gluten the reaction it has with your intestines hinders your ability to absorb nutrients from your food by blocking the receptors which i believe are villa or micro villa (i am rusty on intestinal biology) allowing you the perception of eating more calories and not gaining weight, even if in the case of a celiac this can cause long term damage if constantly in this state wher ethe intestines are inhibited.

End of the day it will be the amount of calories you happen to absorb from the foods you eat under influenced by your personal genetics and environment stresses VS the amount of energy you burn that is measured in calories.

Eating something doesn't mean you absorb all of the calories and nutrients from your food, alternative factors such as cooking some food will change the availabilty of nutrition and caloric load to your body for the exact same quantity of the food with the only difference being cooked or uncooked.

[Caputor]

If part of your caloric intake includes artificial fat absorption blocking agents like Olean, then although you may be putting calories in your mouth, they may not actually be absorbed through your gut wall to be metabolized. 

You will notice a distinct yellow liquid being expelled or leaking from your anus if this is the case.   Too high a fatty diet while eating items which contain Olean will usually result in uncontrollable diarrhea or "**ahem** seepage" of the aforementioned yellow fluid.

Similarly, if you have a gut abnormality such as Chron's Disease or Celiac disease, both of which interfere with gut absorbtion, you may be putting food in your mouth, but the calories aren't being truly taken into your body and so won't truly "count" in your metabolic balance.

Otherwise, yes.  You need to burn more calories than you absorb in order to lose weight.

[OCDOC]

---

@shipo wrote:

Regarding the oft cited assertion excess calories in (i.e. calories in - calories burned = stored energy in the form of fat) will result in weight gain; we've all knows folks who are rail thin, eat everything in sight, and never gain a pound.  Then there are other folks who eat like Sparrows and gain weight on a regular basis.  If nothing else, the above two body types disprove the 3,500 calorie (surplus/fat gain or deficit/fat loss) per pound of body weight is patently false.

---

The human body the most marvelously complex creation on God's Green Earth. There's no way that body weight and metabolism can be reduced to grade 2-level arithmetic 'aphorisms'. Science is trying to figure it all out (there is a long way to go), and I agree with you that '3500-cal-for-pound-of-fat', 'a calorie is a calorie' and other such nursery rhymes are poppycock.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[emili]

I think most people who have gone through losing weight will tell you that it didn't magically fall of. That they counted calories, ate in a deficit and exercised in order to create more deficit. If yours falls off while you run, you are a very lucky man. Mine did not and I worked my butt off to get to my current fitness level. As we are all aware for every scientific proven fact, there is a counter. However, the deficit theory is an oldie but goody and probably proven a million times over.

[Dominique]

---

@shipo wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics has zero bearing on how much of the caloric intake any given human body chooses to absorb and how much it chooses to simply discard; said another way, not relevant to this discussion.

---

Well, you are free to believe whatever you want, and to promote your own shipo’s law, according to which a high enough level of activity can result in a weight loss even when eating at a surplus. According to the same law, I suppose it’s possible to gain weight when eating at a deficit.

[OCDOC]

---

@Dominique wrote:

---

shipo wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics has zero bearing on how much of the caloric intake any given human body chooses to absorb and how much it chooses to simply discard; said another way, not relevant to this discussion.

---

"Well, you are free to believe whatever you want, and to promote your own shipo’s law, according to which a high enough level of activity can result in a weight loss even when eating at a surplus. According to the same law, I suppose it’s possible to gain weight when eating at a deficit."

This is actually true, but not because of any violation of natural laws. The reason this appears to happen (as well as the @shipo phenomenon) is that our 'estimates' of actual burn are usually wildly wrong. You posted Kevin Hill's NIH adjustment algorithm (body weight planner), but even this improvement is based on limited test subjects. The doubly-labeled water to do metabolism studies is stupid expensive!

'Spend more calories than one eats to lose weight' is always going to be true, just like making more money than one spends will create savings/wealth. The devil (as always) is in the details..the infinite and perplexing details.

PS @emili I don't think it's fair to say that for every scientific opinion there is a putatively valid rebuttal. Read up on what happened when the first studies linking tobacco to cancer were published. The outrage and backlash were shocking! Implying 'any opinion can have a contrary opinion', while semantically true, often isn't 'true' when the dust settles. I strongly believe the case against unnecessary sugars and refined grains will be as 'obvious' in 20 years as 'tobacco is bad for you' is today.

[emili]

I didn't say the counter was valid. I didn't say the original was wrong. In fact I clearly stated that the calorie one is proven to be true. That's what this topic is about. What I'm saying is that when one researches there will be views from both sides. That's it. Nothing more.

[OCDOC]

---

@emili wrote:
I didn't say the counter was valid. I didn't say the original was wrong. In fact I clearly stated that the calorie one is proven to be true. That's what this topic is about. What I'm saying is that when one researches there will be views from both sides. That's it. Nothing more.

---

Fair enough; my response was to the "As we are all aware for every scientific proven fact, there is a counter." line.

If you were simply confirming the 'Earn more, spend less, get rich' rule of calorie balance then we agree.

PS the gnomes had it figured out too! 🙂

[shipo]

---

@Caputor wrote:

If part of your caloric intake includes artificial fat absorption blocking agents like Olean, then although you may be putting calories in your mouth, they may not actually be absorbed through your gut wall to be metabolized. 

You will notice a distinct yellow liquid being expelled or leaking from your anus if this is the case.   Too high a fatty diet while eating items which contain Olean will usually result in uncontrollable diarrhea or "**ahem** seepage" of the aforementioned yellow fluid.

Similarly, if you have a gut abnormality such as Chron's Disease or Celiac disease, both of which interfere with gut absorbtion, you may be putting food in your mouth, but the calories aren't being truly taken into your body and so won't truly "count" in your metabolic balance.

Otherwise, yes.  You need to burn more calories than you absorb in order to lose weight.

---

I completely disagree.

The above said, for a sedentary individual eating a relatively moderate amount of food you are most likely spot on, however, the discussion here is taking an extremely active person who happens to consume considerable amounts of food beyond what would be considered the normal calorie burn achieved by the active lifestyle.

Note, I'm not saying there wasn't a moderate calorie deficit when comparing food processed by the body versus burned; just that it is a fallacy to say one needs to eat in a deficit manner to lose weight.

[shipo]

---

@Caputor wrote:

If part of your caloric intake includes artificial fat absorption blocking agents like Olean, then although you may be putting calories in your mouth, they may not actually be absorbed through your gut wall to be metabolized. 

You will notice a distinct yellow liquid being expelled or leaking from your anus if this is the case.   Too high a fatty diet while eating items which contain Olean will usually result in uncontrollable diarrhea or "**ahem** seepage" of the aforementioned yellow fluid.

Similarly, if you have a gut abnormality such as Chron's Disease or Celiac disease, both of which interfere with gut absorbtion, you may be putting food in your mouth, but the calories aren't being truly taken into your body and so won't truly "count" in your metabolic balance.

Otherwise, yes.  You need to burn more calories than you absorb in order to lose weight.

---

I completely disagree.

The above said, for a sedentary individual eating a relatively moderate amount of food you are most likely spot on, however, the discussion here is taking an extremely active person who happens to consume considerable amounts of food beyond what would be considered the normal calorie burn achieved by the active lifestyle.

Note, I'm not saying there wasn't a moderate calorie deficit when comparing food processed by the body versus burned, just that it is a fallacy to say one needs to eat in a deficit manner to lose weight

[shipo]

---

@OCDOC wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

Regarding the oft cited assertion excess calories in (i.e. calories in - calories burned = stored energy in the form of fat) will result in weight gain; we've all knows folks who are rail thin, eat everything in sight, and never gain a pound.  Then there are other folks who eat like Sparrows and gain weight on a regular basis.  If nothing else, the above two body types disprove the 3,500 calorie (surplus/fat gain or deficit/fat loss) per pound of body weight is patently false.

---

The human body the most marvelously complex creation on God's Green Earth. There's no way that body weight and metabolism can be reduced to grade 2-level arithmetic 'aphorisms'. Science is trying to figure it all out (there is a long way to go), and I agree with you that '3500-cal-for-pound-of-fat', 'a calorie is a calorie' and other such nursery rhymes are poppycock.

---

Bingo!  Exactly what I'm trying to say.

[shipo]

---

@emili wrote:

I think most people who have gone through losing weight will tell you that it didn't magically fall of. That they counted calories, ate in a deficit and exercised in order to create more deficit. If yours falls off while you run, you are a very lucky man. Mine did not and I worked my butt off to get to my current fitness level. As we are all aware for every scientific proven fact, there is a counter. However, the deficit theory is an oldie but goody and probably proven a million times over.

---

Nothing lucky about it.  The year I lost all of the weight (2013) I ran over 1,700 miles between April and the end of December; that's a lot of miles.  That and shovelling a ton (literally) of horse poop per week along with other equine related activities didn't hurt either.

As for it being a scientifically proven fact, ummm, sorry, not buying.  If it were so, then all of my fat (and getting fatter) co-workers on deficit diets would be losing weight rapidly.

[shipo]

---

@Dominique wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics has zero bearing on how much of the caloric intake any given human body chooses to absorb and how much it chooses to simply discard; said another way, not relevant to this discussion.

---

Well, you are free to believe whatever you want, and to promote your own shipo’s law, according to which a high enough level of activity can result in a weight loss even when eating at a surplus. According to the same law, I suppose it’s possible to gain weight when eating at a deficit.

---

While the first law may well be relatively accurate when it comes to calories processed versus calories burned, it in no way takes into account the unprocessed calories.  Like it or don't believe it or not, the first law does not apply to calories eaten versus calories burned.  As such it is irrelevant for this discussion.

[JohnRi]

Ok, while I can't say this is true for EVERYONE, I can say it is TRUE for me.  At October 1, 2015 I was 281 lbs.  In 2007 I was 227 lbs.  I was eating around 2800-4000 calories a day for 8 years.  During that time I was mostly seditary as the IRS had me in a vice for most of that time, and I had to eat CHEAP food, and was unable to do anything but sit at home when not at work.  During that time I ballooned to 281.

Starting in September I started to improve my diet, and I started walking every other day, but during September I rarely walked more than 20-30 minutes.  I was in terrible shape, and could only walk less than 1/4 of a mile at first.  I didn't get to over a mile until November. But I lost around 6 lbs that month.

In November I got my fitbit Surge and I started tracking my diet, and started a calorie deficit.  250 at first.  Then 500.  Due to winter and the holidays, I exercised very little.  Maybe once or twice a week at mosth.  By January I had lost 20 lbs.  I made huge changes to my diet, changing the types of food I ate.  Changes that are permanant.

I changed to a 750 and then 1000 deficit and by February I was eating 1800 calories a day.  Something I still do now.  In January I was up to 3-4 miles walking every other day.  In February I hit 6 miles, and switched to walking every day 4-6 miles.

Now when I started walking every other day, I was walking from 1:15 hours, to 2:00 hours long. 

This was my only form of exercise.  The rest of the day I sit in front of a computer at work, or at home.

A few weeks ago I replaced walking with cycling. I now walk every other day, and bike every other day.  I take about 4 rest days a month.  Otherwise I'm getting 1 to 2 hours of exercise each day.

On my rest days, even eating just 1800 calories, I do not make my 1000 calorie deficit.  I'm usually 250-300 calories over.  Which is completely normal.  My BMR has dropped from 2600 calories to 2300 calories.  I just don't burn as many calories as I have now lost 54 lbs.  When I get to my goal of 183 lbs, my BMR will then be 2000 calories. 

When I exercise, I rarely burn more than 3200 total calories for that day.  I have to be super active to burn 4000 calories or more.  As in 120+ active minutes.  I usually only average 60-90 minutes most days.

So for me a calorie deficit since September 2015, and with limited exercise, I have lost 54 lbs.  Proof that a calorie deficit works.  The exercise has helped by me by making my 1000 calorie deficit, but I would have lost weigth even if I had sat on the couch.

I still think you are out exercising your diet.  Which very few people can do. 

The problem with doing what you are doing, is that if you ever stop the exercise, you will gain weight by keeping your current diet.  My way means that I've learned better eating habits, and if I stop exercising, I should not gain any of it back as long as I keep my good eating habits.

You have to keep active to keep the weight off, I do not.  That's the only difference I see.