7000 calorie deficit required to lose a pound?

Options
2

Replies

  • ramepithecus
    ramepithecus Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    Regarding the "1 pound of fat = 3500 calories"... this is just where my mind is going, but does that mean that if you ATE a pound of fat it would have 3500 calories in it? Because it seems like a pound of fat would actually contain more calories than that.

    I promise I'm not thinking about eating a pound of fat. Okay - well now I am, but I'm not *really* considering it.
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    Options
    traceywoody wrote: »
    I read that article and I have found that my rate of loss had almost stopped after a year or so, so all I did was adjust my deficit down a bit to see if that would help me lose. It has! It is still slower than it was in the beginning, but I am seeing the scale go down. I think we need to be aware of our body and then adjust as we need to for us. I think we are all different and will lose differently too. I am also nearly 50, so I think I needed a little less than I was allowing myself.

    Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking.

    I played around with the BWP and set it up with my stats exactly as I inputted them into MFP.

    It gave me exactly the same calorie limit I'm currently on.

    See for yourselves.

    https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/index.html

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,925 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    I don't know where they got their numbers, I can only offer than the numbers I've seen in the past for muscle adaptation are up to 15-20%, and for adaptive thermogenesis up to 15%, adding up together to up to 25 to 30% as opposed to a 100% slow down.

    Basic math. On a starting TDEE of 2500, a deficit of 500 gets cut in half by a relatively modest 10% drop in TDEE.
    I guess their numbers sound right then as I would think a 10% drop to TDEE as likely. Seems an *kitten* backwards way to change the calories for a lb of fat to account for TDEE changes....
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,925 Member
    Options
    ramepithecus wrote: »
    Regarding the "1 pound of fat = 3500 calories"... this is just where my mind is going, but does that mean that if you ATE a pound of fat it would have 3500 calories in it? Because it seems like a pound of fat would actually contain more calories than that.

    I promise I'm not thinking about eating a pound of fat. Okay - well now I am, but I'm not *really* considering it.

    453.6g x 9Cal per g....

  • ramepithecus
    ramepithecus Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    ramepithecus wrote: »
    Regarding the "1 pound of fat = 3500 calories"... this is just where my mind is going, but does that mean that if you ATE a pound of fat it would have 3500 calories in it? Because it seems like a pound of fat would actually contain more calories than that.

    I promise I'm not thinking about eating a pound of fat. Okay - well now I am, but I'm not *really* considering it.

    453.6g x 9Cal per g....

    That works out to a little over 4000 calories, which is also what I get for olive oil. Is the 3500 the calories for *human* fat? I really really hope that's not in the database.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,925 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    A lb of human fat is conventionally estimated to be about 87% lipids. Your olive oil is 100%
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    It's a bad headline, but the article isn't that horrible. What it's really saying is that the typical dieter will lose half the weight they think they should be losing. If anything, based on the posts on MFP, that might even be an optimistic perspective. :smiley:

    The difference is all coming from logging errors and/or poor expectation because of BMR Calculator Abuse, but many people will never figure that out. So to them...yeah...it "looks like" a pound of fat has 7000 calories...

    So they blame the rule for people not understanding proper calorie counting and never adjusting their intake as they lose weight. Great.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    BTW. that same calculator they linked tells me I can lose a pound in a week with a 185 calorie deficit.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Options
    The article talks about metabolic adaptation, which is certainly an effect, but I find it extremely hard to believe it is a first order effect of this magnitude.

    Echoing others that my losses and maintenances closely mirror what my calorie budget says.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    Given that the calories in fat measures out to be 3500 if you stick it in a fire and burn it, you can be certain that you won't get more energy than that when your body uses it. It is more likely that people are overestimating their activity level.

    And for what it's worth, the tool they linked to in the article grossly overestimates the calories burned at my activity level.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    Yeahno. The reason you lose less with the same 500 calories deficit is because you're eating the same, but weighing less...

    But that calculator gave me exactly my TDEE to maintain. Interesting, lol.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Yeahno. The reason you lose less with the same 500 calories deficit is because you're eating the same, but weighing less...

    But that calculator gave me exactly my TDEE to maintain. Interesting, lol.
    500 calories is 500 calories no matter how much you weigh.

    It's harder to keep the same deficit as you lose but, if you do, the loss will be the same.

  • cityruss
    cityruss Posts: 2,493 Member
    Options
    intangiblemango wrote: »
    If you look at the actual NIH report, they are not reeeeally saying that 7000 calories is a pound. They are saying that the 3500 calorie rule is regularly misapplied and people keep eating the same number of calories, but their weight loss slows... which is why we re-adjust our calories as we lose! And since one of the main points emphasized in the reports is that weight loss often happens on a curve rather than linearly, I doubt the authors of the report would be super happy with people just changing the number and pretending that is what the report is about... I think this is bad science journalism, personally.

    This.
  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Yeahno. The reason you lose less with the same 500 calories deficit is because you're eating the same, but weighing less...

    For CI, yes. But for CO, you're going to burn less calories the less you weigh. Of course the less you weigh, the easier it is to exercise!
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    atypicalsmith wrote: »


    For CI, yes. But for CO, you're going to burn less calories the less you weigh. Of course the less you weigh, the easier it is to exercise!
    If you're burning less then your deficit is lessening as well, not staying at 500.

  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    BTW. that same calculator they linked tells me I can lose a pound in a week with a 185 calorie deficit.

    Yeah - those calculators are ... interesting. I get a 4lb a week loss on a 750 deficit for the first few weeks.
  • jensquish1
    jensquish1 Posts: 499 Member
    Options
    Assuming it's true that after about a year or so of religiously staying at a certain deficit and weightloss slowing or stopping... It just has to do with the fact that your stats change and therefore your caloric deficit changes as well? Like if I'm 5'11 and weigh 190 I could eat more calories and lose weight than if I'm 5'11 and weigh 160? I am sticking to the 3500 but I also know I'm not gonna lose exactly 5 lbs every week. I think a lot of people either underestimate or overestimate their calorie intake.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    I take the math with a grain of salt. If the math is to be believed, I should've gained a LOT more than I did.

    I should also lose more than I do. But my rate of loss is closer to the math than my gaining was. I should've gained about a pound a day, according to the math.
  • Steve_ApexNC
    Steve_ApexNC Posts: 210 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Given that the calories in fat measures out to be 3500 if you stick it in a fire and burn it, you can be certain that you won't get more energy than that when your body uses it.

    I don't think the point was that the body magically burns 7k calories per pound of fat. I think the point he was making is that the body doesn't make up the energy deficit by burning 100% adipose (fat). This is true; weight loss also composed of some LBM loss as well. I think he is also trying to say that the body adapts and fights further loss of its energy stores the lower they get. Further, he does state he is looking at math over the course of a year and not a week or month loss - some sort of long term average of total body weight loss (both adipose and LBM). That said, I agree with others the article is poorly presented.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    I think 3500 is just an estimate. It goes up or down depending on how accurately one tracks and how efficient their body is. My personal tested number is about 3800-4000 per pound, but then again I have borderline thyroid so there is that.

Categories