7000 calorie deficit required to lose a pound?
Replies
-
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.0 -
500 calories is 500 calories no matter how much you weigh.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.
It's harder to keep the same deficit as you lose but, if you do, the loss will be the same.
0 -
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.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »0
-
If you're burning less then your deficit is lessening as well, not staying at 500.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!
0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0
-
jensquish1 wrote: »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.
I hope that's a typo - with only 13lbs to lose you should really only be aiming for 0.5lbs a week.
I'm sure it was a typo :flowerforyou:0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
500 calories is 500 calories no matter how much you weigh.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.
It's harder to keep the same deficit as you lose but, if you do, the loss will be the same.
Yeah I'm just not sure they adjusted their goal. So that 500 calorie deficit when you started would be like 100 calories when you've lost 40 pounds or something (I'm not checking the exact math, sorry).0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
500 calories is 500 calories no matter how much you weigh.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.
It's harder to keep the same deficit as you lose but, if you do, the loss will be the same.
Yeah I'm just not sure they adjusted their goal. So that 500 calorie deficit when you started would be like 100 calories when you've lost 40 pounds or something (I'm not checking the exact math, sorry).
No, the 500 calorie deficit (in food eaten) is still a 500 calorie deficit. But the less you weigh, the less you burn it off. So as you weigh less, you will burn less of those 500 calories off. So you either need to lower your calorie deficit or increase your exercise.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »Nope, nope, nope. 3,500 calories is a pound.
Yeah this. 3500 for a pound and I also hear 31000kj for a kilo. For those not speaking ye olde English.
I can't imagine weight loss if 7000 was needed to lose one pound. Would either be so slow or you would need to starve yourself.
or exercise more than 2 hours every day. Always stay active.
0 -
Steve_ApexNC wrote: »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.
If he was thinking of LBM loss, then the amount of calories per pound would be lower, bodyfat is more calorie dense than your lbm.
And the article outright says that 3500 per pound is false (which is false).0 -
I would be interested in the "controlled" studies behind it and the real results. The article sounds like it is just pumping something out based on the real research.
It is possible that there is something wrong with the old research and that losing isn't linear and not that simple. Yes that I believe, but saying 7,000 is the new number is just a new oversimplification.
FYI, every calculator I do tells me I should eat 1200 calories to lose, this one comes up 1800.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Steve_ApexNC wrote: »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.
If he was thinking of LBM loss, then the amount of calories per pound would be lower, bodyfat is more calorie dense than your lbm.
And the article outright says that 3500 per pound is false (which is false).
I took his intent to be your caloric deficit is higher to lose one pound of fat because you have to account for the calories that are also metabolised from LBM rather than fat. That is to say that the body in deficit does not just burn fat. Some fuzzy math or sake of demosntratio: for every 10 caloric deficit the body makes up that deficit by taking 5 calories from fat stores and 5 calories from muscle so to get to the point where you have burned 3500 calories from pure fat, you will also have burned 3500 calories from LBM. This is wrong, but I think that was his point. The LBM burned during deficit varies from person to person for many reasons, but it isn't 50%. More simply put, the human body doesn't make up for 100% of calorie deficit out of pure fatty tissue.
3500 calories is about the middle of the range of estimated calories per pound of human fat. I understand there is some precision and variance there, but it is an easy number for most people to remember and work with.
Either way, I agree his 7k calculation is absurd.0 -
fannyfrost wrote: »I would be interested in the "controlled" studies behind it and the real results. The article sounds like it is just pumping something out based on the real research.
It is possible that there is something wrong with the old research and that losing isn't linear and not that simple. Yes that I believe, but saying 7,000 is the new number is just a new oversimplification.
FYI, every calculator I do tells me I should eat 1200 calories to lose, this one comes up 1800.
It was based on a mathematicians model and not controlled studies.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
500 calories is 500 calories no matter how much you weigh.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.
It's harder to keep the same deficit as you lose but, if you do, the loss will be the same.
Yeah I'm just not sure they adjusted their goal. So that 500 calorie deficit when you started would be like 100 calories when you've lost 40 pounds or something (I'm not checking the exact math, sorry).
No, the 500 calorie deficit (in food eaten) is still a 500 calorie deficit. But the less you weigh, the less you burn it off. So as you weigh less, you will burn less of those 500 calories off. So you either need to lower your calorie deficit or increase your exercise.
Hmm what?
I do realize that a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit. I'm just not sure the people in the article do, because it just doesn't make any sense otherwise.0 -
It would not surprise me if someone found that for those people who track, but don't really like to track--and perhaps actively dislike it--adherence and logging accuracy is reduced. And in those circumstances, creating a larger, padded, deficit might help offset logging adherence and inaccuracy issues.
I think people get a little too latched onto what their goal "should be" according to some calculator; it's really just a starting point for personal experimentation. Also, weight loss tends not to be linear over time.0 -
Steve_ApexNC wrote: »fannyfrost wrote: »I would be interested in the "controlled" studies behind it and the real results. The article sounds like it is just pumping something out based on the real research.
It is possible that there is something wrong with the old research and that losing isn't linear and not that simple. Yes that I believe, but saying 7,000 is the new number is just a new oversimplification.
FYI, every calculator I do tells me I should eat 1200 calories to lose, this one comes up 1800.
It was based on a mathematicians model and not controlled studies.
The models are validated against studies like the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
The MFP "you will weigh x in 5 weeks" doesn't work for the reasons stated in the OP article.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »I'm going to go with 3500 for the win Alex!
Me too, because that's how my weight loss of 44 pounds worked out.
I also
0 -
Lol I was just giving an example. I'm definitely not trying to lose 5 lbs a week hahaIron_Feline wrote: »jensquish1 wrote: »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.
I hope that's a typo - with only 13lbs to lose you should really only be aiming for 0.5lbs a week.
I'm sure it was a typo :flowerforyou:
0 -
3500 kcal because of chemistry and physics.
Sometimes that number seems off because of biology. But it's still 3500.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions