cannot spot reduce?

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Goi

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: Goi
Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit.

If calories are controlled it matters very little what the source is, given there is adequate protein intake. The source of those calories and different macronutrient breakdowns may just make it much easier to stick to.

It is all about a calorie deficit.

No, it really isn't. I know people who lose fat on a 5000 calorie diet. I also know people who don't lose any on a 1200 calorie diet. It's not about caloric deficit. If only it were that simple...

Where does the magical mass come from then? What exactly do you think happens if you eat less?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Goi
No, it really isn't. I know people who lose fat on a 5000 calorie diet. I also know people who don't lose any on a 1200 calorie diet. It's not about caloric deficit. If only it were that simple...

Sounds to me like you, along with many other people, do not understand things such as the basal metabolic rate. There are people who cannot lose weight on a 1200 calorie diet for several reasons:
- They have a serious muscle deficiency and thus their BMR is incredibly low.
- They perform very little exercise relying solely on their BMR to do the work.
- Perhaps they are not watching their calories as closely as they think they are. "Off the records" snacking is one possibility.

It also matters what those calories consist of. Things such as high GI items are going to cause a lot more damage to the average sedentary person. Things high in fiber can also be deceptive for opposite reasons.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Goi

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: Goi
Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit.

If calories are controlled it matters very little what the source is, given there is adequate protein intake. The source of those calories and different macronutrient breakdowns may just make it much easier to stick to.

It is all about a calorie deficit.

No, it really isn't. I know people who lose fat on a 5000 calorie diet. I also know people who don't lose any on a 1200 calorie diet. It's not about caloric deficit. If only it were that simple...

And your point being? You assume it's more or less than their maintenance. The fact is if you eat more than maintenance, you will gain weight. If you eat less, you will lose weight. Maintenance being determined by size, activity levels, genetics, etc.

You will always lose weight on 1200 calories - I really don't know what you're talking about.

To be fair, a lot of women tend to have to lower calories very low in order to lose weight and going all the way down to 1200 or further may be necessary depending on their size, genetics, activity levels, etc.

Not that I recommend anybody go that low for an extended period of time. I'd rather see women up activity instead of lowering calories that low. Women tend to have more stubborn fat issues as well, so the increased activity will help in that regard.

No matter what, it still comes down to calories in versus calories out. Outside of calories, a sufficient protein intake is what matters most. With the exception of the extremes (6-7% bodyfat) messing around with different carb and fat ratios or different sources of each will have a negligible effect. Most people just need to worry about calories and protein intake.

 

[Java Cafe]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Java Cafe
Thank you for the wonderful response. I see what you mean about losing fat, while keeping muscle. Would you mind recommend a beginner's regimen for me? I will post my particulars, goals included, only if you agree. I think you convinced me. I will not be averse to heavy lifting. But, I want to do it at home. I don't like gyms.

Thanks, again.

I can try to come up with a regimen for ya. Post your particulars and I'll do my best. Why don't ya like gyms? It's gonna be pretty hard to get access to certain things if you don't go to the gym. Screw what people think. You're there for you. Reply and I'll do what I can

Originally posted by: Goi
Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit. It's about the endocrine system. To think otherwise would be to think that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, which is not true.

Well, when you're 500+ calories under your intake, you're gonna lose weight no matter what calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It is all about caloric deficit.

SociallyChallenged: Since you offered to help, I would like to direct your attention to a new post I made (instead of cluttering this one up). I'd appreciate it if you would read and and give me your thoughts. Thank you.

Thread

 

[Goi]

Again, I would imagine that it's fat loss people are after here, not weight loss...

Fat loss is more about the endocrine system than how many calories you eat, the most important being insulin. You control it with your diet, but with what you eat rather than how much you eat. Countless studies have been carried out on semi starvation diets(which is exactly what yall are prescribing, regardless of the amount of caloric deficit) that show that they do not work in the long term.

 

[RaiderJ]

It's a bit more complicated than just caloric excess/deficit to gain/lose muscle/fat. WHAT you're eating makes a big difference. 3000 calories of sugar has an effect much different that 3000 calories of protein or a carb/protein blend.

Argue all you want about if you can simultaneously build muscle and burn fat - if you have a good diet along with cardio and resistance training, your body will respond positively in both appearance and performance.