5 ms·

is it possible to be in a caloric deficit and still gain weight if this is true? or is a caloric deficit + weight loss just a thermodynamics problem

by mylons 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago
I suspect it's a modifier at the edges; if X calories you gain Y weight per day, this can make that Y+(some percentage). All these "we found the cause of obesity" dance around the problem.
wyre 4y ago
Appetite and metabolism is much more complicated than a thermodynamics problem. A calorie deficit implies knowledge of metabolic rate which can be highly variable. While calories in can be trivially counted, calories out needs to be calculated and cannot assume a significant level of accuracy. Regardless, the problem with solving the obesity epidemic isn’t that people can’t lose weight, but is keeping weight off after reaching a goal weight.
tstrimple 4y ago
Sometimes it's a little more complicated than just calories in vs calories out. See Cushing syndrome. We are aware of hormone imbalances which promote excess fat build up, often at the expense of muscle mass. It's possible plastics could be effecting hormones in a similar way.
wtetzner 4y ago
> is it possible to be in a caloric deficit and still gain weight if this is true? No, that would defy the laws of thermodynamics. However, it is possible to consume more calories than you burn and lose weight, because there are complexities around how your body decides to store fat, signals to burn fat, etc. Even if it was simply a thermodynamics problem (which I don't think it is), there are also issues with appetite. Sure, you can count calories for the rest of your life, but doing that is not only difficult to measure correctly, but very difficult to maintain if you still feel hungry all the time. I think one of the reasons a ketogenic diet works for a lot of people is that after a period of adaptation, you stop getting hungry every 4 hours.
kazinator 4y ago
I believe it's thermodynamically possible to be in a caloric deficit while gaining fat. The body won't gain mass, because it will be losing lean tissue, and that has a lot more mass per calorie stored than fat, due to protein being less energy dense to begin with, but mainly due to lean tissue having a lot of water mass. Say that a body is in a caloric balance, and at the same time in a strange state in which it is storing N calories as fat, while releasing N calories from breakdown of lean tissue: a lean-to-fat conversion is going on, so to speak. That body will be losing mass, because a calorie of lean tissue represents much more mass than a calorie of fat storage. If that same body then starts to release N + M calories from lean tissue, it will still be losing mass, while gaining fat. The only question of how physiologically likely are these thermodynamically valid situations. We do know that people who experiment with "yo-yo dieting" can end up with worsened body compositions, but probably not due to gaining fat while dieting but rather (1) losing lean tissue while dieting, while losing some fat and (2) rebound weight gain while not dieting possibly exacerbated by a lowered metabolism due to less lean tissue. Still, consider this thought experiment. A dieting person wears a backpack which is considered part of their body. Every day, a hundred grams of lard is added to the backpack, and this lard is counted as part of their caloric intake. The person diets and exercises in such a way that there is a caloric deficit. That person will be undeniably gaining fat in that backpack. It's thermodynamically possible for the body to be promoting fat storage in some area, regardless of what else is happening.
BizarroLand 4y ago
Strictly, no, but it is possible to have the expectation that your body would be burning 1700 calories a day by simply existing (using any online calculator will give you a rough idea of what your "Basal Metabolic Rate", or BMR, should be. But if you have metabolic damage, you may have a lower metabolic rate than expected, meaning that the same 1200 calories a day that should cause you to lose a lb a week is actually just under maintenance calories. Anecdotal, but this happened to me. I lost 100 lbs through diet and just got stuck. Couldn't lose any more to save my life. I ate 300-500 calories under my expected calorie expenditure every day. Then, I got my metabolism tested and found that my BMR was at 300 calories a day under what it should have been, which meant that I was eating maintenance or overeating by 200 calories a day (and I was already feeling starving at that point!) To cut another 300-500 calories out of my diet would have been untenable. I'm still trying to figure out what I can do. Exercise more? Check. Do blood work and make sure everything is in order? Check. Vary my diet or try different diets? Check. I think the only thing left is to try chemicals. Nothing else seems to either raise by base metabolism or decrease my intake needs.
- docandrew 4y ago
  What does your exercise routine look like? If you’re going overboard on cardio you might have some better luck hitting the weights, _adding_ back in some calories in the form of extra protein and doing a bit of body recomp. It’s tough, mentally to increase calories after losing that much weight, and tougher still to see the scale increase after working for such a long time to drop weight. The nice thing about increasing strength and muscle mass is that it’s going to burn calories for you 24/7, not just while you’re doing the activity.
  - BizarroLand 4y ago
    I'm on the same line of thinking as you. I've been hitting the gym, doing mostly heavy lifting 2-3x a week and easing off on my calorie restriction. The weight is going back on fairly quickly but I'm also seeing good gains and progression in my strength & lifts. For instance, when I started, one arm curl was at about 35 lbs, now 3 months later I'm curling 55, bench was 120, now it's 160 (but I'm not pushing hard on gaining bench) and squat machine has gone from 175 to 280.

is it possible to be in a caloric deficit and still gain weight if this is true? or is a caloric deficit + weight loss just a thermodynamics problem

by mylons 4y ago

is it possible to be in a caloric deficit and still gain weight if this is true? or is a caloric deficit + weight loss just a thermodynamics problem

bombcar 4y ago

I suspect it's a modifier at the edges; if X calories you gain Y weight per day, this can make that Y+(some percentage). All these "we found the cause of obesity" dance around the problem.

wyre 4y ago

Appetite and metabolism is much more complicated than a thermodynamics problem. A calorie deficit implies knowledge of metabolic rate which can be highly variable. While calories in can be trivially counted, calories out needs to be calculated and cannot assume a significant level of accuracy. Regardless, the problem with solving the obesity epidemic isn’t that people can’t lose weight, but is keeping weight off after reaching a goal weight.

tstrimple 4y ago

Sometimes it's a little more complicated than just calories in vs calories out. See Cushing syndrome. We are aware of hormone imbalances which promote excess fat build up, often at the expense of muscle mass. It's possible plastics could be effecting hormones in a similar way.

wtetzner 4y ago

> is it possible to be in a caloric deficit and still gain weight if this is true? No, that would defy the laws of thermodynamics. However, it is possible to consume more calories than you burn and lose weight, because there are complexities around how your body decides to store fat, signals to burn fat, etc. Even if it was simply a thermodynamics problem (which I don't think it is), there are also issues with appetite. Sure, you can count calories for the rest of your life, but doing that is not only difficult to measure correctly, but very difficult to maintain if you still feel hungry all the time. I think one of the reasons a ketogenic diet works for a lot of people is that after a period of adaptation, you stop getting hungry every 4 hours.

kazinator 4y ago

I believe it's thermodynamically possible to be in a caloric deficit while gaining fat. The body won't gain mass, because it will be losing lean tissue, and that has a lot more mass per calorie stored than fat, due to protein being less energy dense to begin with, but mainly due to lean tissue having a lot of water mass. Say that a body is in a caloric balance, and at the same time in a strange state in which it is storing N calories as fat, while releasing N calories from breakdown of lean tissue: a lean-to-fat conversion is going on, so to speak. That body will be losing mass, because a calorie of lean tissue represents much more mass than a calorie of fat storage. If that same body then starts to release N + M calories from lean tissue, it will still be losing mass, while gaining fat. The only question of how physiologically likely are these thermodynamically valid situations. We do know that people who experiment with "yo-yo dieting" can end up with worsened body compositions, but probably not due to gaining fat while dieting but rather (1) losing lean tissue while dieting, while losing some fat and (2) rebound weight gain while not dieting possibly exacerbated by a lowered metabolism due to less lean tissue. Still, consider this thought experiment. A dieting person wears a backpack which is considered part of their body. Every day, a hundred grams of lard is added to the backpack, and this lard is counted as part of their caloric intake. The person diets and exercises in such a way that there is a caloric deficit. That person will be undeniably gaining fat in that backpack. It's thermodynamically possible for the body to be promoting fat storage in some area, regardless of what else is happening.

BizarroLand 4y ago

Strictly, no, but it is possible to have the expectation that your body would be burning 1700 calories a day by simply existing (using any online calculator will give you a rough idea of what your "Basal Metabolic Rate", or BMR, should be. But if you have metabolic damage, you may have a lower metabolic rate than expected, meaning that the same 1200 calories a day that should cause you to lose a lb a week is actually just under maintenance calories. Anecdotal, but this happened to me. I lost 100 lbs through diet and just got stuck. Couldn't lose any more to save my life. I ate 300-500 calories under my expected calorie expenditure every day. Then, I got my metabolism tested and found that my BMR was at 300 calories a day under what it should have been, which meant that I was eating maintenance or overeating by 200 calories a day (and I was already feeling starving at that point!) To cut another 300-500 calories out of my diet would have been untenable. I'm still trying to figure out what I can do. Exercise more? Check. Do blood work and make sure everything is in order? Check. Vary my diet or try different diets? Check. I think the only thing left is to try chemicals. Nothing else seems to either raise by base metabolism or decrease my intake needs.

docandrew 4y ago
What does your exercise routine look like? If you’re going overboard on cardio you might have some better luck hitting the weights, _adding_ back in some calories in the form of extra protein and doing a bit of body recomp. It’s tough, mentally to increase calories after losing that much weight, and tougher still to see the scale increase after working for such a long time to drop weight. The nice thing about increasing strength and muscle mass is that it’s going to burn calories for you 24/7, not just while you’re doing the activity.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  I'm on the same line of thinking as you. I've been hitting the gym, doing mostly heavy lifting 2-3x a week and easing off on my calorie restriction. The weight is going back on fairly quickly but I'm also seeing good gains and progression in my strength & lifts. For instance, when I started, one arm curl was at about 35 lbs, now 3 months later I'm curling 55, bench was 120, now it's 160 (but I'm not pushing hard on gaining bench) and squat machine has gone from 175 to 280.