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?

[shipo]

John, please understand I never said a calorie deficit, if extensive enough, wouldn't cause weight loss (I mean hey, how many folks on a starvation diet have you ever seen to be fat?); someone else is trying to put words in my mouth if you think I said that.  The discussion I was trying to drive when I started this thread is, "can an active person lose weight even though they are consuming more calories than they are burning?"  I say "Yes".  Most folks here say, "No".

As for needing to exercise to maintain my weight; I have no problem with that, I love to cook and I love to eat, and if running is the price of eating, then I'll gladly pay the price.  That said, not only do I love to run, I'm pretty good at it.  Next year I'll be racing as a 60 year old, I have two racing goals, to break twenty minutes for a 5K, and to break ninety minutes for a half-marathon, and if my training and such continues apace, I should be able to meet those goals.  Even if I don't improve one bit, I'm still assured a podium finish for most races; the thing is, in the last three years I think I've only run a handful of races where anybody older than me beat me, however, this year I'm racing as a 59 year old and and some of those young-punk 50 and 51 year olds are pretty quick.  🙂

[OCDOC · Accepted solution]

@shipo

The discussion I was trying to drive when I started this thread is, "can an active person lose weight even though they are consuming more calories than they are burning?"  I say "Yes".  Most folks here say, "No".

Can we agree that everybody is right? 🙂  Unless you have access to a 5-figure bottle of doubly labeled water AND access to the labs that can analyze you, you can never be accurate about your metabolic rate. I would wager that if you did this, you'd find a pretty close energy balance.

The problem with handy-dandy BMR estimates and 'calories burned' estimates on fitness sites/cardio machines is that they are so inaccurate to be almost meaningless. Not to mention the energy content and processing of foods!

Therefore, I agree with you that any estimates of calories in-calories out can err wildly in any direction..including the manner you describe in your opening statement.

Calorie counting is as accurate as using a Ouija board, but if it keeps people motivated to eat better and exercise then ok..  🙂  Rob

[SunsetRunner]

Yes you do.

Track your weight everyday and average out your weekly totals.  Do this for two-three weeks and look at what directiont he averages are moving.  Not losing or gaining?  Eat less, or burn more calories.

Very simple thermodynamics and has worked for me over the last 18 months like a charm. 

[shipo]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:

Yes you do.

Track your weight everyday and average out your weekly totals.  Do this for two-three weeks and look at what directiont he averages are moving.  Not losing or gaining?  Eat less, or burn more calories.

Very simple thermodynamics and has worked for me over the last 18 months like a charm. 

---

Context?

No idea who or what you're referring to.

[Mukluk4]

Honestly, everyone in this thread is correct.

We all have a natural weight/look (call it an equilibrium) where we don't have to do anything spectacular to see growth or shrinkage.  To skew that equilibrium you need to alter either Caloric Intake or Caloric Expenditure.

You can lose weight by adjusting either the intake or the expenditure, but it will only get you to a certain point. At some point, you can only spend so much (or intake so little), that you'll have to adjust the other to lose anymore.

[DudeOMG]

You asked for our help seeming like a nice guy but you reject everyones opinion if they say you are consuming too many calories. Maybe try listening to people they are only trying to help and most of the advice I've read is pretty solid.

[shipo]

To be honest, I wasn't asking for help; I was posing a rhetorical question to start a discussion.  The fact remains, given enough physical activity, one can over eat (from a caloric persperctive) and still lose weight.

[FitBeforeFifty]

---

@shipo wrote:

....

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.

---

Your method of measuring calorie intake isn't even close to accurate, so I'm not sure how anyone can draw any conclusion from this. There is nothing accurate about "snack non-stop = 1000 calories" or "whatever is in the cafeteria = 1200 calories" etc...

I don't know how many calories you are eating a day for certain but what I am certain of is neither do you.

As someone who has sustained running 200 miles per month during Marathon training, I can tell you there is nothing magical about running. During my training I tracked everything I ate (accurately, not just random guesses) and it matched the CICO model precisely. I normally burn about 2100 calories per day without exercise. I burn about 100 calories per mile running, so 50 miles per week gives me an extra 5000 calories. My average intake during my training was 2850 calories per day and I maintained my weight of 143 lbs.

I think you have too many variables in your equations to attempt to make any kind of conclusion.

[shipo]

Sustaining 200 miles per month as well (I even threw in a 100+ mile week for good measure), albiet at a 150 calorie per mile burn rate, saw me shedding 70 pounds in six months while literally eating from dawn to getting in bed that night.  There is no way my burn rate was anywhere near as high as the number of calories I consumed.

[bcalvanese]

---

@shipo wrote:

Sustaining 200 miles per month as well (I even threw in a 100+ mile week for good measure), albiet at a 150 calorie per mile burn rate, saw me shedding 70 pounds in six months while literally eating from dawn to getting in bed that night.  There is no way my burn rate was anywhere near as high as the number of calories I consumed.

---

Sounds like you are either not calculating your calories eaten or your calories burned correctly. There is only 2 ways to lose weight.

1. Burn more than you eat

2. Eat less than you burn

Also, you should probably lose weight a little slower as it's not healthy to lose too much weight too fast.

[shipo]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

Sustaining 200 miles per month as well (I even threw in a 100+ mile week for good measure), albiet at a 150 calorie per mile burn rate, saw me shedding 70 pounds in six months while literally eating from dawn to getting in bed that night.  There is no way my burn rate was anywhere near as high as the number of calories I consumed.

---

Sounds like you are either not calculating your calories eaten or your calories burned correctly. There is only 2 ways to lose weight.

1. Burn more than you eat

2. Eat less than you burn

Also, you should probably lose weight a little slower as it's not healthy to lose too much weight too fast.

---

While the whole calorie deficit factoid may well be true for sedintary or relatively sedintary folks, there is plenty of evidence to suggest at a high enough level of exertion, one can easily lose weight, even if a calorie surplus, even a significant calorie surplus, is consumed.  More than one study has shown your body can only process a certain number of calories in a day, the rest are simply passed through.

I know a lot of folks are upset by my challenging the conventional wisdom of weight loss, but hey, that's what I do, I love slaying old wive's tales and paper dragons.

As for advising me how fast one should lose weight, once again, yet another worthless old wive's tale; when I lost the weight I was in excelent health and even my doctor, six months shy of becoming a cardiologist, said, "Keep doing exactly what you're doing."

[bcalvanese]

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

Sustaining 200 miles per month as well (I even threw in a 100+ mile week for good measure), albiet at a 150 calorie per mile burn rate, saw me shedding 70 pounds in six months while literally eating from dawn to getting in bed that night.  There is no way my burn rate was anywhere near as high as the number of calories I consumed.

---

Sounds like you are either not calculating your calories eaten or your calories burned correctly. There is only 2 ways to lose weight.

1. Burn more than you eat

2. Eat less than you burn

Also, you should probably lose weight a little slower as it's not healthy to lose too much weight too fast.

---

While the whole calorie deficit factoid may well be true for sedintary or relatively sedintary folks, there is plenty of evidence to suggest at a high enough level of exertion, one can easily lose weight, even if a calorie surplus, even a significant calorie surplus, is consumed.  More than one study has shown your body can only process a certain number of calories in a day, the rest are simply passed through.

I know a lot of folks are upset by my challenging the conventional wisdom of weight loss, but hey, that's what I do, I love slaying old wive's tales and paper dragons.

As for advising me how fast one should lose weight, once again, yet another worthless old wive's tale; when I lost the weight I was in excelent health and even my doctor, six months shy of becoming a cardiologist, said, "Keep doing exactly what you're doing."

---

Ok. So now you are making me think that you know that you are miscalculating your numbers and just dont want to admit it to yourself or anyone else.

Eating that many calories per day is gluttony, and you should weigh 500+ lbs. by now.

Oh, and your doctor is a quack too.

[SunsetRunner]

"While the whole calorie deficit factoid may well be true for sedintary or relatively sedintary folks, there is plenty of evidence to suggest at a high enough level of exertion, one can easily lose weight, even if a calorie surplus, even a significant calorie surplus, is consumed.  More than one study has shown your body can only process a certain number of calories in a day, the rest are simply passed through."

Incorrect.  Laws of thermodynamics apply.  No rigorous scientific studies support this at all.  Your body is incredibly efficient at storing calories.

"I know a lot of folks are upset by my challenging the conventional wisdom of weight loss, but hey, that's what I do, I love slaying old wive's tales and paper dragons."

I'm not upset, I'm just chalking you up as a troll at this point.  You're not challenging conventional wisdow, old wives tales or paper dragons, you're just factually incorrect.  You can believe whatever you want, but if you start spouting nonesense online people will respond.

"As for advising me how fast one should lose weight, once again, yet another worthless old wive's tale;

If you lose weight too fast you will lose lean muscle mass and look skinny fat.

"when I lost the weight I was in excelent health and even my doctor, six months shy of becoming a cardiologist, said, "Keep doing exactly what you're doing.""

And that cardiologists name - Albert Einstein #thatTotallyHappened.

Doctors say "Keep doing what you're doing" when they don't want to argue with people who are so off base a beneficial discussion just isn't possible.  Sort of like this thread.

I trust with all of these "secrets" you know that everyone else doesn't you're about 10% bodyfat right now and completely ripped?  Proof is in the pudding lets see some pics dude.

[BWright1175]

The way to settle this debate would be to actually test it, minus the widely inaccurate estimates for food intake, calories burned, etc.

Keep precise track of your calories in vs calories out for the next month, eating at what you describe as a minimum of over 6,000 calories per day, as well as posting your daily fitbit data for exercise, calories burned, etc.

[OCDOC]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:

I trust with all of these "secrets" you know that everyone else doesn't you're about 10% bodyfat right now and completely ripped?  Proof is in the pudding lets see some pics dude.

---

@shipo, I couldn't resist posting your pics in response to the demand lol.

https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Weight-Loss/Post-Your-Before-After-Pics/m-p/1229727#U1229727

Near the bottom dude

[shipo]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

Ok. So now you are making me think that you know that you are miscalculating your numbers and just dont want to admit it to yourself or anyone else.

Eating that many calories per day is gluttony, and you should weigh 500+ lbs. by now.

Oh, and your doctor is a quack too.

---

You're missing the point entirely (deliberately?); the point I'm trying to make is that calories eaten do not necessarily translate to calories processed/consumed.

As for my doctor being a quack; yikes, use your head man, there is weight loss due to starvation (your mode?) and weight loss due to significant activity, my mode.  The two are very different, like it or don't, believe it or not.

[shipo]

---

@OCDOC wrote:

---

---

@shipo, I couldn't resist posting your pics in response to the demand lol.

---

Cool; beat me to the punch.

[SunsetRunner]

All due respect that appears to be good progress but not really impresive enough to convinve me your pet theories have any weight, especially since you're just posting generalities and opinions that really aren't clear and don't match the scientific literature or my own anecdotal experiences.

You do you though man.  If whatever you're doing works for you I'm not going to tell you it doesnt.   Eat and train for your goals your way.  I'll eat and train for mine, my way.

BTW my profile has a link to my progress pics.  Think I'm starving myself? 

Cheers.

[shipo]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:

Incorrect.  Laws of thermodynamics apply.  No rigorous scientific studies support this at all.  Your body is incredibly efficient at storing calories.

I'm not upset, I'm just chalking you up as a troll at this point.  You're not challenging conventional wisdow, old wives tales or paper dragons, you're just factually incorrect.  You can believe whatever you want, but if you start spouting nonesense online people will respond.

If you lose weight too fast you will lose lean muscle mass and look skinny fat.

And that cardiologists name - Albert Einstein #thatTotallyHappened.

Doctors say "Keep doing what you're doing" when they don't want to argue with people who are so off base a beneficial discussion just isn't possible.  Sort of like this thread.

I trust with all of these "secrets" you know that everyone else doesn't you're about 10% bodyfat right now and completely ripped?  Proof is in the pudding lets see some pics dude.

---

Well here we go...

1. Thermodynamics do NOT apply when considering calories eaten versus work done.  Why?  Because any given body/digestive system does NOT process calories the same as the next body.  That said, thermodynamics does in fact apply if you can determine how many of the calories were processed by the body; a task which I don't believe is possible shy of a REALLY expensive analysis.
2. The proof is in the pudding; and granted I'm only a study of one, but whether you want to believe it or not, it is possible to lose weight while consuming (as in eating) more calories than one burns.
3. Losing weight quickly may well reduce muscle mass; that said, it surely didn't do that in my case (see the my before/after photos referenced above).  Did my thigh and calf muscles reduce a bit in circumference?  Yes, probably a bit, but as you can see, I still carry a very significant amount of muscle in my legs.
4. Regarding your last few comments, as you can see from my before/after photos, I lost a dramatic amount of weight beween mid may 2013 and 50 weeks later in May of 2014.  Am I completely ripped with 10% body fat?  No, not even close, but I'm pretty darn fast, strong, and can endure hours upon hours of running.

[emili]

I think it's important to express opinion and share best practices. You both have huge successes and I think you both did it, are doing it in a way that works for you. Kudos to you both and continued success.