Burn 7000 calories to lose 1 pound

treesloth
treesloth Posts: 162 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
Just found this article, thought it would be worth sharing. I haven't evaluated it too much, but it mentions an interesting model of weight loss.

http://vitals.lifehacker.com/you-need-to-burn-7-000-calories-to-lose-a-pound-not-3-1719560948?utm_source=taboola

Replies

  • galgenstrick
    galgenstrick Posts: 2,086 Member
    This article just confirms the 3500 calorie rule... It says weight loss slows down as you lose weight, so over the course of a year if you don't adjust your calories, you average half the weight loss as your original goal of 1 pound per week.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Is this the same article that was posted last week.

    So are they still your body adjusts and becomes more efficient or are they saying that as you lose weight your deficit compare to your original diet increases.

    So that in 12 months you are eating 1000 calories less than probably.

    You have to keep calculation your bmr and tdee as you lose weight. So it seem that the 3500 cal rule is correct if you actually update your tdee and bmr with your new weight.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    The model points out the flaw in MFP's "in 5 weeks you will weigh x" projection as it extrapolates without considering the body's response.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    The model points out the flaw in MFP's "in 5 weeks you will weigh x" projection as it extrapolates without considering the body's response.

    Does it?

    Apart from every day likely to be different and that 5 week thing being an estimate.

    5 weeks isn't very long, you not going to lose enough weight to affect your tdee etc

    The article seems to assume people eat say 3000 calories to maintain, then eat 2500 to lose and then 12 months later they are no longer losing.

    Instead of recommending eating 2000 now since your maknenace after 12 months of weight loss is now 2500 they seem to recommend that 3500 isn't equal to one pound of fat.

    If that makes sense.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    yep, Hall's model takes a deficit from a start point and assumes your Ein stays at that level for the duration. 2 days in it isn't the deficit you started with, and it declines thereafter until it hits an equilibrium.

    So goodbye 500 cals/day = 1lb/week and hello 500 cals/day = 50 lb loss over several years with about 25 lbs in the first year. Or 500 cals/day = 0.5 lbs/week average over the first year. Hmm.

    By year 3 you get 95% of the weight loss, from the fixed initial deficit.

    The model is used to predict things like the population effect of taking 100 cals/day out of the diet (eg by a soda tax). It is somewhat simple but the maths has been validated and could be built into a more dynamic model with the Ein adapting to weight loss with time.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I had a play, told it I wanted to lose 20 lbs over 280 days ie 0.5 lbs/week -
    unzg7n0fmmnm.png

    In the first 14 days it has me losing 2.6 lbs, 2.0 of which were in the first 7 days. Looking at week 3 the prediction is 0.5 lbs with an energy deficit of 1772 cals for the week = 3544 cals/lb (it is rounded to one d.p of weight loss).

    By week 39 I lose 0.3 lbs/week and the deficit has ebbed away to about 150 cals/day.
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    galgenstrick wrote: »
    This article just confirms the 3500 calorie rule... It says weight loss slows down as you lose weight, so over the course of a year if you don't adjust your calories, you average half the weight loss as your original goal of 1 pound per week.

    Exactly this.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    I had a play, told it I wanted to lose 20 lbs over 280 days ie 0.5 lbs/week -
    unzg7n0fmmnm.png

    In the first 14 days it has me losing 2.6 lbs, 2.0 of which were in the first 7 days. Looking at week 3 the prediction is 0.5 lbs with an energy deficit of 1772 cals for the week = 3544 cals/lb (it is rounded to one d.p of weight loss).

    By week 39 I lose 0.3 lbs/week and the deficit has ebbed away to about 150 cals/day.

    The equation they're using falls on its nose if you put in short amounts of time. When I put in I wanted to lose 1 pound in 1 week it told me I need a 185 Calorie deficit. (yes, I'm going to mention that every time someone posts that article).
  • Blueseraphchaos
    Blueseraphchaos Posts: 843 Member
    edited July 2015
    I found the title of this article to be ridiculously misleading, personally.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    It may be correct, given the water weight loss it seems to account for in the first week. My run lost 2 lbs in the first week with a deficit under 400.
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    I got some decidedly squiffy numbers from that thing.

    Apparently to lose 4lbs in 60 days (so about 0.5 lbs per week) I should be eating around 3,100 cals per day when I know from long periods of trial and error it is around 2,400 cals...
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Change the activity level to suit. It seems to default high.
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    Change the activity level to suit. It seems to default high.

    I tried it with the 1.6 setting and that does bring it closer to 2,600.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I had it at 1.4 from memory. That's 300 cals above sedentary for me.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories