3500 calorie deficit is a myth?

debsdoingthis

Hi-jacked from another thread. A member told some one looking for weight loss advice that:
You don't need to be burn 3500 calories for one pound. That's a myth.
I didn't want to hijack the OP's thread, but question remains, how is this a myth? What haven't I learned or should be un-learning?

DeguelloTex

My food log, scale, and Excel say it's pretty dang close.

juggernaut1974

I didn't see the other thread or the context...so I'm guessing.

"One Pound" (as in one pound on the scale) can fluctuate due to any number of things - water/hydration, excrement in the bowels, bones, fat, muscle, etc.

A 3500 calorie deficit will lead to a pound of FAT loss over the long term. But the scale may move up or down by a pound due to fluctuations in any of the other above as well.

TimothyFish

That's not really a myth, but if you lose muscle instead of fat, it would take less than 3500 calories to lose a pound of weight.

tulips_and_tea

I don't know what other thread you're talking about, but the thing that came to mind was maybe the poster meant you didn't necessarily have to BURN 3500 cals. because you could also eat 3500 cals. less. Just a thought, though.

NoIdea101NoIdea

I would LOVE to know their reasoning behind calling it a myth.

discretekim

I agree with the above 3500 cals is a pound of fat, but no one is losing only fat. So it usually takes a lower deficit to lose 1 pound.

Samenamenewlook

BZAH10 wrote: »

I don't know what other thread you're talking about, but the thing that came to mind was maybe the poster meant you didn't necessarily have to BURN 3500 cals. because you could also eat 3500 cals. less. Just a thought, though.

My thought exactly.

terar21

I would assume they mean burn via exercise. That would indeed be a myth. It would make sense for someone to say that on here since we see quite a few posts on here of people thinking they need to burn 500 calories a day from cardio to lose a pound a week.

ManiacalLaugh

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10186266/im-determined-to-lose-15-20lbs-in-30-days#latest

By Kyleh206, if anyone's still curious.

Note: And I appreciate OP's efforts towards anonymity, but I was really curious about this too, and I think people require context to give informed responses.

jemhh

TimothyFish wrote: »

That's not really a myth, but if you lose muscle instead of fat, it would take less than 3500 calories to lose a pound of weight.

discretekim wrote: »

I agree with the above 3500 cals is a pound of fat, but no one is losing only fat. So it usually takes a lower deficit to lose 1 pound.

Yep. 3500 is based on fat loss. It's also rounded and easily divisible by 7 so you can split it up over a week so that makes it nice to use.

yarwell

Things like this might be what the reference is to

There's often a poor correlation.

debsdoingthis

The OP was advised to create a 3500 cal deficit, that was followed by the bolded comment regarding the myth. I found the statement confusing. I'm sure others would as well.

yarwell

Weight loss isn't 100% fat, adipose tissue isn't 100% fat either, 9 cal/g is probably rounded up anyway, etc.

NoIdea101NoIdea

BFDeal wrote: »

So 3500 calories equals a pound then? OK, there are 9 calories per gram of fat. There are 453.592g in a pound. 453.592x9=4082.328. Explanations? Go...

EDIT: Heat lost during the conversion back and forth causes the difference?

So how does this work, when say, you have two grilled sausages that come out at 277 calories, but their fat content is 20.9g? I've just looked at the closest food packet to me, and that was it.

20.9 x 9 = 188.1, not 277.

I am confused. More so than usual. Not going to lie, maths is most definitely my weakest subject!

WaterBunnie

We lose hydrated fat when we lose weight so we don't actually lose a whole pound of fat for each pound lost and the general rule is 3500 calories per pound. As for how it's burned I don't think it really matters whether you do it with exercise or eating less - you're still creating a deficit and that's all that really matters.

yarwell

NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »

BFDeal wrote: »

So 3500 calories equals a pound then? OK, there are 9 calories per gram of fat. There are 453.592g in a pound. 453.592x9=4082.328. Explanations? Go...

EDIT: Heat lost during the conversion back and forth causes the difference?

So how does this work, when say, you have two grilled sausages that come out at 277 calories, but their fat content is 20.9g? I've just looked at the closest food packet to me, and that was it.

20.9 x 9 = 188.1, not 277.

I am confused. More so than usual. Not going to lie, maths is most definitely my weakest subject!

you forgot the protein, and perhaps the carbs if present.

yopeeps025

That poster is right for if you want to lose more muscle instead of fat. If your muscle loss ratio increases it will take less than 3500 calories to lose a pound on the scale.

Katiebear_81

NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »

BFDeal wrote: »

So 3500 calories equals a pound then? OK, there are 9 calories per gram of fat. There are 453.592g in a pound. 453.592x9=4082.328. Explanations? Go...

EDIT: Heat lost during the conversion back and forth causes the difference?

So how does this work, when say, you have two grilled sausages that come out at 277 calories, but their fat content is 20.9g? I've just looked at the closest food packet to me, and that was it.

20.9 x 9 = 188.1, not 277.

I am confused. More so than usual. Not going to lie, maths is most definitely my weakest subject!

Sausages aren't pure fat? Your math isn't accounting for the protein, carbs, etc. that make up the rest of that sausage.

SergeantSausage

If by "myth" you mean "approximation, on average" ... then sure. It's a "myth".


<boggle>

PaulaWallaDingDong

NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »

BFDeal wrote: »

So 3500 calories equals a pound then? OK, there are 9 calories per gram of fat. There are 453.592g in a pound. 453.592x9=4082.328. Explanations? Go...

EDIT: Heat lost during the conversion back and forth causes the difference?

So how does this work, when say, you have two grilled sausages that come out at 277 calories, but their fat content is 20.9g? I've just looked at the closest food packet to me, and that was it.

20.9 x 9 = 188.1, not 277.

I am confused. More so than usual. Not going to lie, maths is most definitely my weakest subject!

You forgot the other 50 ingredients, which usually include meat, seasonings, and sometimes fillers.