7000 calorie deficit required to lose a pound?

Options
13»

Replies

  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Options
    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:
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 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...

    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.

    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).
  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    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...

    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.

    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.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    Merkavar wrote: »
    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    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).
  • fannyfrost
    fannyfrost Posts: 756 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Steve_ApexNC
    Steve_ApexNC Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Steve_ApexNC
    Steve_ApexNC Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    atypicalsmith wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    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...

    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.

    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.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DeterminedFee201426
    DeterminedFee201426 Posts: 859 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    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
  • jensquish1
    jensquish1 Posts: 499 Member
    Options
    Iron_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:
    Lol I was just giving an example. I'm definitely not trying to lose 5 lbs a week haha :)
  • pollypocket1021
    pollypocket1021 Posts: 533 Member
    Options
    3500 kcal because of chemistry and physics.

    Sometimes that number seems off because of biology. But it's still 3500.

Categories