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?

[SunsetRunner]

@Berripity well, no, just personal experience, what the docs etc tell me

but the body slows down when you go to sleep, heart rate, breathing etc, so it would be normal to presume that the digestive system does the same, true or not, I don't know for 100%, but that is what other people tell me, including docs etc

just like eat slowly, because it takes time for the stomach to tell the brain that it is full

whether any of it is true, but I rather believe them and follow them, than see if they are true or not

people say to eat a small breakfast to get the body going, then healthy dinner and then a small evening meal

the 1000 calories was just an example

you could eat all you want, but if the body digested less calories/food than it needs to maintain it's weight, then you should lose weight

gastric bypass for example, limiting the amount of calories that can be absorbed to lose weight

[SunsetRunner]

I think I may have to revise my opinion. I came across this article recently that seems to corroborate your idea that (calories in - calories burned < 0 does not necessarily equate to weight loss).

defense-of-the-insulin-carbohydrate-model-redux

This concept seems to indicate that high insulin levels and other factors such as lack of sleep, stress and being sedentary to name just a few can all causes our fat cells to go into storage mode and start hoarding the calories ingested before the body can utilize them for energy.

This can create a viscous cycle where you are then hungry and eat more to get the required energy but if its fast digesting carbohydrates it starts the insulin spike that makes the fat cells store more etc. etc.

[Punkynn01]

I agree.

I believe that when a body is healthy and there are no health issues or hidden issues that, yes, when you do all the things that NORMALLY allow you to lose....that you will lose weight.  There are so many reasons why a person will not lose weight even if they are seemingly doing all the right things.  

It can be something as simple as miscalculating or lack of sleep or  or it could be a health issue that they aren't even aware of.  

This is why so many give up or get frustrated.  It's why I try to encourage people who seem down or want to give up.  I have read many posts where people can be very judgmental and are quick to say that the person who isn't seeing results on the scale are just being lazy or not doing enough...or that they are just giving up too soon.  I struggled with weight for most of my life...and the biggest thing that made a difference was being educated and knowing my body.  The more you know about diet, exercise and what it actually takes to make changes the better off you will be.  Knowing that there are more goals than the number on the scale is important too.  Being fit and seeing my clothes get bigger and bigger and seeing my body change even when the scale doesn't move has opened my eyes.  

Education is power. 

[GershonSurge]

@shipo,

The original post asked the question if a person can lose weight while burning fewer calories than they consume. My answer is "I don't know" unless a person is eating a ketogenic diet. This is something people don't want to mess with for health reasons, so I'll exclude it.

Along the way, some suggested it would take a lab to settle the matter. First, there is the problem of counting calories consumed. Every study I've seen referenced people estimating calories on a plate set in front of them. These estimates are worthless as they vary widely. However, manufacturer's labels and nutrition content online for fruits and vegetables are fairly accurate if a person weighs all their food. If a person eats a variety of food, they are likely to be accurate enough collectively.

Last year, I did a scientific level test as I lost about 30 pounds. I counted calories as accurately as I could, and I measured calories consumed using the Fitbit Zip. We all know the Zip is going to be wrong, but it will be consistently wrong  as long as the exercise profile doesn't change during the test. For instance, if a person took up bicycling during the test, all bets would be off. My exercise was walking and lifestyle steps.

I found it took 2,789 Fitbit Zip calories to lose a pound. This doesn't say the 3,500 calorie standard is incorrect. What it says is the Zip may measure consistantly low. Here is a graph of the results.

\

The black line is the expected weight predicted by the total calorie deficit. The blue line is the actual weight. The dashed yellow line is a 97.5% confidence interval meaning 97.5% of the time my weight would fall between them.

After 84 days of testing, the actual weight was 169.6 pounds and the predicted weight was 168.9 pounds. The difference is about the weight of a good bowel movement. 

It's not in this chart, but the R-squared, which is the percentage of change caused by the independent variable is 0.97. The independent variable in this experiment was total calorie deficit. The dependent variable was weight. 97% of my weight change was explanable by the calculated calorie deficit. The other 3% was other factors. 

I'm running a similar test this year using the Surge. The weight loss constant appears to be about 4,000 calories/pound vs. 2879 calories/pound for the Zip. This is because the Surge says I burn more calories than the Zip. My exercise profile has also changed.

Anyone can run a similar experiment to test the accuracy of predicting weight loss through the calculated calorie deficit. If you have any questions about setting it up, ask here or send a pm. 

[Dominique]

@GershonSurge: one thing your study doesn’t take into account is the metabolic adaptation that took place as you lost 30 lbs in 90 days. At 170 lbs today, you’re no longer the same "patient" or "subject" as at 200 lbs three months ago. You cannot expect to lose another 30 lbs with the same deficit. Even if you were still using the Zip, you would probably have noticed it would take you more calories for each pound lost.

If you wanted to compare the Surge and the Zip you would need to use both under the same conditions, ie. at the same starting weight.

[GershonSurge]

---

@Dominique wrote:

@GershonSurge: one thing your study doesn’t take into account is the metabolic adaptation that took place as you lost 30 lbs in 90 days. At 170 lbs today, you’re no longer the same "patient" or "subject" as at 200 lbs three months ago. You cannot expect to lose another 30 lbs with the same deficit. Even if you were still using the Zip, you would probably have noticed it would take you more calories for each pound lost.

If you wanted to compare the Surge and the Zip you would need to use both under the same conditions, ie. at the same starting weight.

---

I'm quite embarrassed to admit I gained a good bit of that weight back. I got distracted by writing a couple of books and let my diet and exercise slack off. 

The good news is I wore both the Surge and Zip this time using separate accounts. My average calorie burn in the last 30 days on the Surge was 3,967 calories. The Zip was 3,386 calores. For some reason, Surge isn't showing my total calorie consumption for the period. My average deficit was about 1,700 calories a day as calculated by the Surge.

You can see the Zip charts here.

I had to take three days off due to a minor muscle sprain. I may take another couple days off. I'm still making certain I maintain a calorie deficit. 

[GershonSurge]

I know people like to see real numbers in a discussion like this. The information was recorded by my Aria scale. It's hard to see from the chart. I went from 191.3 to 181.7 pounds.

The mysterious part is the large gain in lean mass. There are at least two explanations. The first is the scale is wrong. The other is an extremely low fat diet affects lean mass. Since another user reported the same gain in lean mass at the same time, I tend to go with the explanation there was some sort of update for the Aria. The argument against this is my other scale shows the same lean mass gain.

Ocham's Razor would suggest saying the increase in lean mass happened. I'm reserving judgment until there is more data. 

[dnai]

Perhaps you have some type of tumor.  It might be utilizing more calories than your caloric intake.  I would consult a doctor about this....I hope you are not sick!

[shipo]

I'm not sick; far from it actually.  🙂

[rneverette]

If that is your typical day, you are doing around a 1/2 marathon each day,if not more.  The only time that I've reached 30,000 steps/day, was running 10 miles or a 1/2 marathon and the rest of day that followed.  You are definitely burning more than y.ou consume.

You also have to remember that when you ramp up your fat burning, it will continue at the level for several hours after. So, if you are going from one activity to another, it sounds like it's pretty much continous.  Much like the previous comment about the Biggest Loser, high levels of continuous activity burns a lot, allowing you to consume more than most people.

If that is your typical day, I'd be exhausted!  I teach middle school students and do my fair share of walking around, but nothing to let level, and I have to "schedule" my fitness into my day/week.  My running events gets me those 25,000-30,000 steps in a day.  (I'm also 58, and age and metabolism plays a part too) 

Kudos to you and the condition you must be in!

[shipo]

Yesterday was a pretty good day; horses at 5:00 (~9,000 steps), day in the office sitting at my desk and walking to meetings (~4,000 steps), 12.5 mile trail run after work (21,000 steps), bring the horses in before dark (~2,500 steps), and a little walking around; finished the day with 36,830 steps.  Funny thing, over the last 14 months since I've had my Fitbit, I've been in the 35,000-40,000 step in a day category dozens of times, but never once have I crossed the 40,000 step threshold.

The above said, per my original post, I maintain during my period of weight loss back in 2013 I ate (and continue to eat) considerably more calories than I burn.  How is that possible?  As I understand it, at some level the body cannot process all of the calories eaten and simply passes them on through.  So, what I would say is, I burned more calories than my body processed.

[Dominique]

---

@shipo wrote:

during my period of weight loss back in 2013 I ate (and continue to eat) considerably more calories than I burn.  How is that possible?

---

It’s possible because you didn’t actually count your intake. Winging isn’t the same as counting.

[shipo]

---

@Dominique wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

during my period of weight loss back in 2013 I ate (and continue to eat) considerably more calories than I burn.  How is that possible?

---

It’s possible because you didn’t actually count your intake. Winging isn’t the same as counting.

---

It's certainly possible; that said, while it is likely I'm off by a few hundred calories, there is no way I'm off by a few thousand, and that's what the delta is between calorie burn and food consumed.

[GershonSurge]

@shipo

When there is an outlying datapoint, first I look for a measurement error. If there is none, then I assume the result is accurate and there is another explanation. You have tracked your information long enough that I consider your data accurate. 

Yesterday, I read a study of some native tribe living in the jungle. Supposedly, they were the most active tribe of its type ever discovered. Even though they did about 5,000 calories of work a day, they only ate about 2,500 calories a day. In another source, I read most tribe of this sort eat about 2,500 calories a day. 

The anecdote appears to refute your case until the study is done in the opposite direction. Suppose one of the tribe members studied Americans. They would find we burn 5,000 calories a day for 2,500 calories of work. The answer may lie in neuromuscular inefficiency.

You hadn't been running for a long time, and perhaps your body had to reconnect the mind with the muscles. Meanwhile, you ran less efficiently than you used to. Although the Surge indicated you were burning fewer calories, in reality, you may have been burning over 5,000 calories.

There is some support in our experiences. We have both found that when we gradually increased our distances and speeds, we burned fewer calories. I think you mentioned it was a measurement error. I'm suggesting the neuromuscular connections were improving, and we actually were burning fewer calories.

[ballyshea]

Helpful post and graph, GershonSurge. Thank you.

[AndyDandyPandy]

From my experience if you want to lose weight just don't over eat and make better decisions when eating. 

Exercise is a bonus if you want to lose weight more efficiently. (Highly Recommended)