I don't get "not eating enough" for fat loss

[FitMomof4]

Someone please explain. Why isn't it just enough to make sure that calories in is less than calories out? If maintenance is, say, 1800, won't you lose weight if you eat 1500, or 1600, or 1700? And as long as you lift weights you shouldn't lose muscle, right? I suspect it's not so simplistic but I always wonder about this.

Also, while I'm at it, if 1800 is maintenance, wouldn't you still lose weight if you ate say 1300 "clean" calories and 300 calories worth of chocolate chip cookies? I understand you need certain foods to build muscle but what about losing fat? Is a chocolate chip cookie burned (or not burned) any differently than broccoli? Again I'm sure I'm not about to be told to go ahead and have cookies every night, but I wonder what the scientific answer is. thanks.

[Feather]

I think your protein intake is the most important to maintaining and not losing muscle when dieting but that's just what I've gathered from the info here. I could be wrong, I'm still sorting out the info myself and would also be interested in this answer as well.

[PowerManDL]

Originally posted by FitMomof4@Jun 2 2006, 08:48 PM
Someone please explain. Why isn't it just enough to make sure that calories in is less than calories out? If maintenance is, say, 1800, won't you lose weight if you eat 1500, or 1600, or 1700? And as long as you lift weights you shouldn't lose muscle, right? I suspect it's not so simplistic but I always wonder about this.


Because once calorie intake and adipose tissue drops below a certain point, leptin says "hold up bitch" and shuts everything down with the goal of storing as much energy as possible.


Also, while I'm at it, if 1800 is maintenance, wouldn't you still lose weight if you ate say 1300 "clean" calories and 300 calories worth of chocolate chip cookies?

Which is a trick I use quite often. Yes, it does work. How do you think I'm able to get away with pizza, beer, all the other shit I do?


I understand you need certain foods to build muscle but what about losing fat? Is a chocolate chip cookie burned (or not burned) any differently than broccoli? Again I'm sure I'm not about to be told to go ahead and have cookies every night, but I wonder what the scientific answer is. thanks.

No, you're pretty much right. Assuming the protein and EFAs are where they need to be, I see no problems.

[3sweeties]

Which is a trick I use quite often. Yes, it does work. How do you think I'm able to get away with pizza, beer, all the other shit I do?


Maybe I ought to have you plan my diet. :lol:

[homeschoolmom]

So now, let me see if I have this straight. If I stay below maintenance for my calorie level, continue to to keep up my protein intake and EFA's at the correct levels, lift heavy weights, I can still have room for some "junk" calories and still lose fat? What if my "junk" calories come from simple sugars or low GI carbohydrates? Wouldn't these simple sugars have a negative impact on my weight loss? Powerman straighten me out on this please if I've got this wrong.

[3sweeties]

Powerman, you better help us out or we'll be having a daily dose of chocolate and wine. :funny:

[homeschoolmom]

Someone pass me the bottle please... :lol:

[Inatic]

:blink:

You could technically lose that way. Cals in, cals out.

hmm wonder why none of T's clients have cookies on their daily menu. LOL

I'd think cals are better spent, then on a cookie every day. Free meal, maybe?

[PowerManDL]

Originally posted by homeschoolmom@Jun 2 2006, 10:52 PM
So now, let me see if I have this straight. If I stay below maintenance for my calorie level, continue to to keep up my protein intake and EFA's at the correct levels, lift heavy weights, I can still have room for some "junk" calories and still lose fat?
Yep.


What if my "junk" calories come from simple sugars or low GI carbohydrates? Wouldn't these simple sugars have a negative impact on my weight loss? Powerman straighten me out on this please if I've got this wrong.

Doesn't matter. If you're below maintenance, and getting the essentials (ie, protein and EFAs), the remainder isn't that big a deal.

Why is a simple sugar going to impact a calorie deficit any more than a complex carb?

[Erik]

And of course I have to come back to .... show me someone big and ripped, and drug free who does this? :p

Not that I necessarily disagree from a scientific standpoint.

[PowerManDL]

Originally posted by Thunder@Jun 2 2006, 11:04 PM
And of course I have to come back to .... show me someone big and ripped, and drug free who does this? :p

Not that I necessarily disagree from a scientific standpoint.
*waves*

I've been dropping fat steadily with a weekly intake of beer and pizza. And no drugs this time :D

[Erik]

Originally posted by PowerManDL+Jun 2 2006, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PowerManDL &#064; Jun 2 2006, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunder@Jun 2 2006, 11:04 PM
And of course I have to come back to .... show me someone big and ripped, and drug free who does this? :p

Not that I necessarily disagree from a scientific standpoint.
*waves*

I&#39;ve been dropping fat steadily with a weekly intake of beer and pizza. And no drugs this time :D [/b][/quote]
I never said anything about just dropping fat. You&#39;re not lean to start with and you&#39;re not lean yet either, or are you? (rereading that sounds a bit offensive, but I&#39;m sure you&#39;re not taking it that way)

Take it to very lean.

Mind you, we&#39;ve had this discussion three times now I think. :lol: And I really have no scientific dispute to your arguement, obviously.

[homeschoolmom]

Damn, I see the bottle and my chocolate slowly fading out of the picture...

I think I like Powerman&#39;s response better. j/k :lol:

[3sweeties]

Damn, I see the bottle and my chocolate slowly fading out of the picture...
Me too&#33; :dry:

[Erik]

Originally posted by homeschoolmom@Jun 2 2006, 11:13 PM
Damn, I see the bottle and my chocolate slowly fading out of the picture...

I think I like Powerman&#39;s response better. j/k :lol:
Then do it.

[PowerManDL]

Originally posted by Thunder@Jun 2 2006, 11:08 PM
I never said anything about just dropping fat. You&#39;re not lean to start with and you&#39;re not lean yet either, or are you? (rereading that sounds a bit offensive, but I&#39;m sure you&#39;re not taking it that way)

Take it to very lean.

Mind you, we&#39;ve had this discussion three times now I think. :lol: And I really have no scientific dispute to your arguement, obviously.
By "normal folk" standards, I&#39;m lean as hell.

By the standards you and I have, I&#39;m still a big fat pig.

However, as long as the fat keeps coming off, and it is, I don&#39;t see any reason to change.

[Erik]

Again, I can&#39;t argue with that ...

I need to come up with a good arguement for this topic somehow; even if I just start making stuff up. :lol:

Or maybe just resort to ad hominems or something.

[homeschoolmom]

Seriously T, I can&#39;t do that. It&#39;s like I tell my kids, junk goes in, junk comes out. If you put crap into your body, it won&#39;t perform the way you need or want it too.

[Vanessa]

There are several good reasons why eating junk when you&#39;re on a defecit is not the best idea.

1) It&#39;s very difficult to successfully meet all of your nutritional requirements on less than 1500 calories a day. If you eat 400 empty calories, then you only have 1100 calories to work with. It&#39;s almost impossible to consume all of the nutrients you need on a consistent basis with that.

2) Sugar, starch and alcohol are all appetite stimulants. They will make you hungry. Anytime you spike your insulin with highly refined, nutritionally empty carbs you can fully expect a subsequent drop in blood sugar. This makes your appetite much more difficult to control. If you have any tendency towards binging, the odds are very much against you staying within your planned calorie intake.

Has anyone read that study on liquid calories where the subjects who were given juice ate 30 percent more calories total than the group given water, and did not report feeling any more full?

3) Empty calories do not support satiety the way nutritionally dense foods do. Healthy fats and lean proteins are great for this, white bread, sugar and most of all liquid calories suck at this.

4) There is always the Thermic Effect of Food: Protein has the strongest effect. So a meal containing protein will increase the rate at which you burn calories more than one containing just sugars/fats (like cookies).

My opinion is that if you can perfectly and consistently stay within your caloric allowance without ever slipping or over eating and still eat junk, then go ahead and do this. (Unless you are concerned about such things as fiber, micronutrients, EFAs etc.)

But I believe that 95% people are incapable of this.

Why would you further stack the odds against your success by encouraging your body to work against you?

VanessaNicole

[PowerManDL]

Originally posted by Vanessa@Jun 3 2006, 02:40 AM
There are several good reasons why eating junk when you&#39;re on a defecit is not the best idea.

1) It&#39;s very difficult to successfully meet all of your nutritional requirements on less than 1500 calories a day. If you eat 400 empty calories, then you only have 1100 calories to work with. It&#39;s almost impossible to consume all of the nutrients you need on a consistent basis with that.
But it can be done.

Even easier for someone like myself, who has a relatively high maintenance level. I can diet successfully on 2500 calories. If I throw down a double cheeseburger or two, I still have more calories to work with than most of the girls here have for maintenance.

But that&#39;s me, and I concede that&#39;s not applicable to most reading this.


2) Sugar, starch and alcohol are all appetite stimulants. They will make you hungry. Anytime you spike your insulin with highly refined, nutritionally empty carbs you can fully expect a subsequent drop in blood sugar. This makes your appetite much more difficult to control. If you have any tendency towards binging, the odds are very much against you staying within your planned calorie intake.

Has anyone read that study on liquid calories where the subjects who were given juice ate 30 percent more calories total than the group given water, and did not report feeling any more full?

So, you&#39;d just be taking in sugar in a vacuum? Consumption of protein and fat would have nothing to do with rate of digestion or subsequent insulin levels? I mean, I&#39;m more likely to binge on double cheeseburgers than I am any sort of candy; even one double cheeseburger can keep me from eating for hours, despite the refined carbs in the bun.


3) Empty calories do not support satiety the way nutritionally dense foods do. Healthy fats and lean proteins are great for this, white bread, sugar and most of all liquid calories suck at this.

This is a practical concern, not an inherent property of the food.


4) There is always the Thermic Effect of Food: Protein has the strongest effect. So a meal containing protein will increase the rate at which you burn calories more than one containing just sugars/fats (like cookies).

It&#39;s also not a terribly significant effect in practice, either. Due to the above issue of not getting macros in a vacuum.


My opinion is that if you can perfectly and consistently stay within your caloric allowance without ever slipping or over eating and still eat junk, then go ahead and do this. (Unless you are concerned about such things as fiber, micronutrients, EFAs etc.)

But I believe that 95% people are incapable of this.

Again, no one is debating this point. But it&#39;s still not an inherent property of eating "clean".


Why would you further stack the odds against your success by encouraging your body to work against you?

Because that&#39;s not what&#39;s happening? Thermodynamics always wins.

[Sunshine]

Originally posted by PowerManDL@Jun 2 2006, 10:36 PM

Because once calorie intake and adipose tissue drops below a certain point, leptin says "hold up bitch" and shuts everything down with the goal of storing as much energy as possible.







Love this. This is new new sig. Thanks Matt&#33; :cool:

[FitMomof4]

We have this one acquaintance who is very fat, does not exercise on a regular basis and is not careful with her diet. She always tries these really strict diets that she cannot stick to. I always tell my husband, if she just walked around the block after dinner 5 nights a week, and cut her dessert and soda consumption in half, I be she&#39;d drop 20 pounds in a month just by doing that. I think if you have more to lose, it is "easier" to lose, meaning your diet has more leeway(although mentally maybe it&#39;s harder for these folks since they have a long way to go?). It&#39;s when you get down to the last 5 or 10 pounds(that&#39;s me), you really have to trim all the bad stuff out of your diet and it takes longer to see progress.

So when I feel like playing the victim, I say that it&#39;s harder for me to lose weight than these other people ;)

This turned out to be a good thread.

[krispy1138]

Originally posted by FitMomof4@Jun 3 2006, 04:48 AM
We have this one acquaintance who is very fat, does not exercise on a regular basis and is not careful with her diet. She always tries these really strict diets that she cannot stick to. I always tell my husband, if she just walked around the block after dinner 5 nights a week, and cut her dessert and soda consumption in half, I be she&#39;d drop 20 pounds in a month just by doing that. I think if you have more to lose, it is "easier" to lose, meaning your diet has more leeway(although mentally maybe it&#39;s harder for these folks since they have a long way to go?). It&#39;s when you get down to the last 5 or 10 pounds(that&#39;s me), you really have to trim all the bad stuff out of your diet and it takes longer to see progress.

So when I feel like playing the victim, I say that it&#39;s harder for me to lose weight than these other people ;)

This turned out to be a good thread.
I think this ties in with what PMDL is saying. Someone who has a lot more weight to lose has higher maintenance calories and can therefore eat more calories, including more junk. Someone leaner is at a much lower maintenance and as Vanessa was saying, it is much more difficult to get in all the nutrients you need and continue to eat junk. At lower levels, if half your calories come from junk and the other half from healthy food, I would think that would start to impede performance and you would start to feel like crap.

Just my opinion. :shrug:

[funnyesq]

Originally posted by Vanessa@Jun 3 2006, 01:40 AM

4) There is always the Thermic Effect of Food: Protein has the strongest effect. So a meal containing protein will increase the rate at which you burn calories more than one containing just sugars/fats (like cookies).



This is interesting. So this explains why the recommendation to eat what I perceive as "so much protein", i.e. 1+ grams per pound of body weight?

If I&#39;m eating 1/2 that or say 2/3&#39;s that, is it JUST that I&#39;m not getting as much thermic effect? I have more of a tendency to burn muscle rather than fat? I&#39;m trying to understand WHY soooooo much protein. It does seem a bit "too out there." Also the concern for me is turning too much acid in my already aging body. I don&#39;t want to lose calcium/bone because I&#39;m at that age where I&#39;m especially vulnerable and have been losing a small amount (even though I&#39;m still in the normal to slightly above). I take extra calcium but.....

[Brandi]

Originally posted by Thunder@Jun 2 2006, 08:24 PM
Again, I can&#39;t argue with that ...

I need to come up with a good arguement for this topic somehow; even if I just start making stuff up. :lol:

Or maybe just resort to ad hominems or something.
:lol:

[PowerManDL]

Originally posted by funnyesq+Jun 3 2006, 10:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (funnyesq @ Jun 3 2006, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vanessa@Jun 3 2006, 01:40 AM

4) There is always the Thermic Effect of Food: Protein has the strongest effect. So a meal containing protein will increase the rate at which you burn calories more than one containing just sugars/fats (like cookies).



This is interesting. So this explains why the recommendation to eat what I perceive as "so much protein", i.e. 1+ grams per pound of body weight?

If I&#39;m eating 1/2 that or say 2/3&#39;s that, is it JUST that I&#39;m not getting as much thermic effect? I have more of a tendency to burn muscle rather than fat? I&#39;m trying to understand WHY soooooo much protein. It does seem a bit "too out there." Also the concern for me is turning too much acid in my already aging body. I don&#39;t want to lose calcium/bone because I&#39;m at that age where I&#39;m especially vulnerable and have been losing a small amount (even though I&#39;m still in the normal to slightly above). I take extra calcium but..... [/b][/quote]
Protein turnover is a constant process.

If you&#39;re bringing in a lot, the body has less "incentive" to take it away from the muscle.

[sparkygirl]

Originally posted by Thunder@Jun 2 2006, 10:24 PM
Again, I can&#39;t argue with that ...

I need to come up with a good arguement for this topic somehow; even if I just start making stuff up. :lol:

Or maybe just resort to ad hominems or something.
:funny:

[NooHoo]

I think two many people combine "cannot get ripped" and "should not get ripped" on sugar into the same category. Really not the same argument at all.

We all know that when you are dieting to low levels of BF that you need as many filling calories as possible, hence not eating a tiny 200 calorie cookie. Sugar can also trigger hunger, etc. Duh.

However, while it may not be the "best idea", I really haven&#39;t seen anyone show or prove that you can&#39;t get very lean with simple sugars in your diet.

[Erik]

Originally posted by NooHoo@Jun 3 2006, 03:54 PM
However, while it may not be the "best idea", I really haven&#39;t seen anyone show or prove that you can&#39;t get very lean with simple sugars in your diet.
I haven&#39;t seen any drug free lifter (and ONE wouldn&#39;t mean much) post their ripped pictures after having met protein requirements, EFA requirements and then ate junk for the rest of their calories either.

And no, that is not proof that it can&#39;t be done, nor did I say it was.

And I don&#39;t think anyone said anything about just having simple sugars in your diet. Even I do that.

[jrb1980]

I think the issue of CAN it work scientifically and WILL it work practically in one&#39;s diet really depend on the person, obviously bigger people having more flexibility. Personally, I know my own hunger levels and diet history, and there just is no room in my diet for these foods on a daily basis.

From my personal experience, I have gotten pretty lean using the "room for junk" method in the past and felt terrible, day in and day out. Now, while I have hungry days, I feel pretty damn good in general.

That said, if you have a lot to lose and making room for a treat in your day is going to make you stick to your plan then do it.