"all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight." is this true?

[ChokingDrama]

saw someone here post this on a message board "all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight." so...sugary smoothies and carby sandwiches don't matter? what the hell is the deal with "no carb diets" and "quitting sugar"?
i might be thinking of this quote {"all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight."} in an extreme way, but..i can eat chips, popcorn, chocolate, and cookies and as long as i am eating at a calorie deficit i'll lose weight??? it doesn't seem true...

someone also followed up to this quote with "if you're meeting your macro and micronutrient goals, and staying under your calorie limit they are perfectly fine. but even if you're not, staying in a calorie deficit will result in weightloss." i just can't seem to understand this.

[Sh724]

saw someone here post this on a message board "all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight." so...sugary smoothies and carby sandwiches don't matter? what the hell is the deal with "no carb diets" and "quitting sugar"?
i might be thinking of this quote {"all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight."} in an extreme way, but..i can eat chips, popcorn, chocolate, and cookies and as long as i am eating at a calorie deficit i'll lose weight??? it doesn't seem true...

someone also followed up to this quote with "if you're meeting your macro and micronutrient goals, and staying under your calorie limit they are perfectly fine. but even if you're not, staying in a calorie deficit will result in weightloss." i just can't seem to understand this.

Its true.

If you burn 2,000 cals a day on average yet only eat 1500 cals, your body still needs 2,000 cals to operate. Your body doesnt just shut down until you get more cals to burn. So where does it get that extra 500 cals? It burns your fat stores.

As far as weight goes it doesnt matter what you eat as long as you are a deficit you will lose weight. Now, if you get all of your cals from nothing but say soda for example you are going to have other health issues bc you wont be hitting your macros and micros. Some ppl believe carbs are bad other ppl think carbs are fine just not carbs from sugar. Other ppl want to get virtually no cals from fat. Its really just personal preferences. I don't try to limit anything other than cals, i try to cook most of my food so im not getting trans fats and foods full of chemicals I cant pronounce, but those have no bearing on my weight.

[EjnarKolinkar]

People make dieting hard. It's stupid.

someone also followed up to this quote with "if you're meeting your macro and micronutrient goals, and staying under your calorie limit they are perfectly fine. but even if you're not, staying in a calorie deficit will result in weightloss." i just can't seem to understand this.

What that means is if you eat well in general and keep to a deficit you can enjoy a treat if you can fit it in.

Eat well, train hard.

[dipatel13]

saw someone here post this on a message board "all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight." so...sugary smoothies and carby sandwiches don't matter? what the hell is the deal with "no carb diets" and "quitting sugar"?
i might be thinking of this quote {"all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight."} in an extreme way, but..i can eat chips, popcorn, chocolate, and cookies and as long as i am eating at a calorie deficit i'll lose weight??? it doesn't seem true...

someone also followed up to this quote with "if you're meeting your macro and micronutrient goals, and staying under your calorie limit they are perfectly fine. but even if you're not, staying in a calorie deficit will result in weightloss." i just can't seem to understand this.

In the broadest aspect, it comes down to calories in vs calories out. That's science based on the first law of thermodynamics. You delve into macros and micros in order to maintain muscle mass(protein), hormone balance and body function(fats), and sufficient vitamins and minerals(micros).

[Mythenthefang]

saw someone here post this on a message board "all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight." so...sugary smoothies and carby sandwiches don't matter? what the hell is the deal with "no carb diets" and "quitting sugar"?
i might be thinking of this quote {"all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight."} in an extreme way, but..i can eat chips, popcorn, chocolate, and cookies and as long as i am eating at a calorie deficit i'll lose weight??? it doesn't seem true...

someone also followed up to this quote with "if you're meeting your macro and micronutrient goals, and staying under your calorie limit they are perfectly fine. but even if you're not, staying in a calorie deficit will result in weightloss." i just can't seem to understand this.

It's 100% true

But "losing weight" isn't your goal, your goal is more along the lines of "change my body composition from higher fat to higher lean mass" and that's slightly more difficult.

So, go to the stickies in the nutrition section, work out you TDEE (this is not accurate but it's better than random number) take 500 ish cals off that (depending how patient you are etc) and then figure out how to hit your minimums of 0.8g BROtein per lb of bodyweight and 0.4g fat per lb of bodyweight, fill the rest of your calorie needs with carbs fats or BROteins as you wish.

If you did eat cookies chips ice cream chocolate exclusively and at a calorie deficit you would lose overall bodymass but you're also likely to lose a significant amount of lean body mass AND have some serious micronutrient deficiencies.

Eat less calories than maintenance for mass reduction and eat a varied "healthy" diet for optimal body functioning

[Caezar07]

i can eat chips, popcorn, chocolate, and cookies and as long as i am eating at a calorie deficit i'll lose weight??? it doesn't seem true...

This is an extreme example, but I have a question for you. Do you think that if a person ate 1 cookie and 1 spoonful of ice cream per day they'd lose weight?

[birdlegs]

saw someone here post this on a message board "all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight." so...sugary smoothies and carby sandwiches don't matter? what the hell is the deal with "no carb diets" and "quitting sugar"?
i might be thinking of this quote {"all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight."} in an extreme way, but..i can eat chips, popcorn, chocolate, and cookies and as long as i am eating at a calorie deficit i'll lose weight??? it doesn't seem true...

someone also followed up to this quote with "if you're meeting your macro and micronutrient goals, and staying under your calorie limit they are perfectly fine. but even if you're not, staying in a calorie deficit will result in weightloss." i just can't seem to understand this.

Somebody with your height/weight probably has a TDEE around 1800-2000 calories. To lose weight, you should be around 1300-1500 calories depending on your activity level. Remember, calories are a running total. There are 3500 calories in 1 LB, so to lose 1 LB, you need to have a 3500 calorie deficit for the week. One bad day can blow your entire weeks deficit out of the water. If you want to lose more than 1 LB per week, add it cardio along with your deficit. Also, lifting weights is important for overall body development. Muscles make nice curves, not bones. LIfting weights also burns calories.

[Serpentarius]

What you eat doesnt matter, the mathematical value of what you eat does. Dont think of food as cookies and chicken, think of it as math.

[rockangel]

saw someone here post this on a message board "all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight." so...sugary smoothies and carby sandwiches don't matter? what the hell is the deal with "no carb diets" and "quitting sugar"?
i might be thinking of this quote {"all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight."} in an extreme way, but..i can eat chips, popcorn, chocolate, and cookies and as long as i am eating at a calorie deficit i'll lose weight??? it doesn't seem true...

someone also followed up to this quote with "if you're meeting your macro and micronutrient goals, and staying under your calorie limit they are perfectly fine. but even if you're not, staying in a calorie deficit will result in weightloss." i just can't seem to understand this.

I will use myself as an example because I know my own numbers best and maybe it will help.

My nutrition is set at 140g protein, 180g carbs and 35 g fat at the moment, and I am losing weight on this at about a rate of 1 pound per week. That is roughly 1600 cals a day.

I can choose any type of food to fill the above requirements because it is less than what my body needs to maintain. ( I had been maintaining at around 2000 cals a day)

Now, most of what I eat is "clean" or rather nutritious. Generally includes things like eggs, beef, chicken, pork, and a variety of veggies and fruits, as well as breads, dairy, and fats such as peanut butter or olive oil.

However, I can add in things like an ice cream sandwich or cookie every day because it fits my macros. (my go to is skinny cow because it helps stay on the lower fat side)

Simply being in the calorie deficit ensures I will lose weight, making most of my choices "healthy" ensures I get the proper nutrition, and adding in a small treat to my macros helps me not feel "deprived" so that I can keep on plan without binging or blowing my deficit (which would cause a weight loss stall or even gain).

Now I could eat ice cream and cookies, popcorn etc all I want, but then that does not mean I am eating for nutrition and health. So no, you should not fill your nutrition plan with ONLY these things..... but if they work into your overall calories and macros, then you can still enjoy things.

The "cutting sugar" and "low carb" stuff you hear is just fad diet rubbish. It is people not being honest with themselves or with others. Carbs do not make you fat, and neither does sugar, there is not one food or food groups that are evil. Overeating makes one fat (calorie surplus) and a calorie deficit (eating less than you need) leads to weight loss. It really is that simple overall.

You don't need to go to extremes, and its best not to.

But you can learn how to incorporate nutritious eating while enjoying sweets and such as a lifestyle.

[ChokingDrama]

thank you everyone.

[Tombanelas]

Ofc if you eat too much chips or cookies or cakes, whatever, it will fill your Macro's goal in no time and you'll probably feel hungry. What I mean is, using an extreme example, let's imagine that you eat 20 cookies in a day, making it 1k cals. And your goal is 1500 cals. You will only have 500 cals left and all you've eaten was 20 cookies, that won't leave you satisfied for the day. Hope I'm making myself clear

But I guess rockangel's coment explains it pretty well.

[SteelBrotherhoD]

The calories totals are what matters the most and actually makes you lose or gain weight. It is not all that goes on, and definitely isnt the same 1000 cals of beef as 1000 cals of cornflakes, but ultimately when it comes to weight change, is the most important factor. On the other hand, macros, micros, fiber, water, all this stuff will have a great impact on how that weight change happens and the results will be greatly influenced by this in keeping muscle, strenght, being able to perform, energy and how you feel throughout the day, health, fullness or hunger, muscle quality... etc.

1000 cals of beef are 1000 cals of cornflakes just like 1lb of steel weights the same as 1lb of cornflakes. But you wouldnt get the same result if you used that steel to build a pullup as you would if you used the flakes, right?

Makes more sense now?

[rockangel]

Ofc if you eat too much chips or cookies or cakes, whatever, it will fill your Macro's goal in no time and you'll probably feel hungry. What I mean is, using an extreme example, let's imagine that you eat 20 cookies in a day, making it 1k cals. And your goal is 1500 cals. You will only have 500 cals left and all you've eaten was 20 cookies, that won't leave you satisfied for the day. Hope I'm making myself clear

But I guess rockangel's coment explains it pretty well.

Actually, what you are speaking of is more along the lines of energy density and nutritional density of food, which may be a harder concept than the simple "calorie in calorie out" of what the op was asking.

This is part of the whole, but is one I usually save for when people understand the difference in the macros and have a bit more experience in counting cals/macros and just getting the idea down of flexibile dieting.

I don't want to over complicate it for op

For right now, OP should know that the first step is about calories and macros.