You Need to Burn 7,000 Calories to Lose a Pound, Not 3,500
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Derp lifehacker article is derp.
They don't link to the actual research.
The whole point of the article can be summed up as "There's no truly accurate way to measure exactly what one's 'CO' is, so many people probably overestimate it and as a result what they think is a 500 calorie daily deficit is really probably closer to a 200 calorie daily deficit"
Actually if you follow the links enough you come up to this tool : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/body-weight-planner/Pages/bwp.aspx But life hacker is just a click bait site so overblows it. If you want to lose a pound this week it's 3500 calories, but if you want to lose that same pound in the future, and have lost some already then it will, in theory, cost you more in the present. It's like calculating present value of an financial intrument in a way. It's a fairly sound model from what I see but you have to actually understand what you are looking at and the article doesn't really explain it properly.
Yeah I found the tool, but the article makes the claim that it's based on research by the NIH, but they don't ever point you TO said research to see what it really said. If they're making the claim based on the mathematical model of constant calorie intake in the face of a declining CO as one loses weight, then they should say that, not cite 'research'. And yes, I'm fully aware that expecting anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity from lifehacker is a laughable concept in and of itself.
I get all my information from BuzzFeed and LifeHacker -- doesn't everyone?
You forgot Daily Mail! Good stuff there!
You guys are newbies. Everyone knows that all the best nutritional and fitness information comes from PopSugar.
Oh did you forget Food Babe?
*barf*
That's the normal reaction.
Barfing is very detoxifying though.0 -
I disagree. I've lost 40 pounds on natural burns. It takes dedicating to not eating anything bad and following what your dietitian recommends. I burn up to 3,500 calories and I eat 1,200 to 1,700 calories a day. Correct dieting and exercises drops body fat which is where some of that 7,000 calories idea comes from. But I went down to 17% once not by that many calories so that's incorrect.0
-
ladyreva78 wrote: »mmmm didn't read the article... but conversion error?
Maybe they really meant you need to burn 7000 to lose 1kg and not 1lbs.
I mean, those pesky different measurements that don't seem to add up with each other. Easy enough mistake to make...
No, I wish they were just making a measurement mistake but the article is clearly convinced that math is not, in fact, math. They mean lb, and they are wrong on oh so many intricate little levels.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »mmmm didn't read the article... but conversion error?
Maybe they really meant you need to burn 7000 to lose 1kg and not 1lbs.
I mean, those pesky different measurements that don't seem to add up with each other. Easy enough mistake to make...
No, I wish they were just making a measurement mistake but the article is clearly convinced that math is not, in fact, math. They mean lb, and they are wrong on oh so many intricate little levels.
I had some hope there...0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Derp lifehacker article is derp.
They don't link to the actual research.
The whole point of the article can be summed up as "There's no truly accurate way to measure exactly what one's 'CO' is, so many people probably overestimate it and as a result what they think is a 500 calorie daily deficit is really probably closer to a 200 calorie daily deficit"
Actually if you follow the links enough you come up to this tool : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/body-weight-planner/Pages/bwp.aspx But life hacker is just a click bait site so overblows it. If you want to lose a pound this week it's 3500 calories, but if you want to lose that same pound in the future, and have lost some already then it will, in theory, cost you more in the present. It's like calculating present value of an financial intrument in a way. It's a fairly sound model from what I see but you have to actually understand what you are looking at and the article doesn't really explain it properly.
Yeah I found the tool, but the article makes the claim that it's based on research by the NIH, but they don't ever point you TO said research to see what it really said. If they're making the claim based on the mathematical model of constant calorie intake in the face of a declining CO as one loses weight, then they should say that, not cite 'research'. And yes, I'm fully aware that expecting anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity from lifehacker is a laughable concept in and of itself.
I get all my information from BuzzFeed and LifeHacker -- doesn't everyone?
You forgot Daily Mail! Good stuff there!
You guys are newbies. Everyone knows that all the best nutritional and fitness information comes from PopSugar.
Oh did you forget Food Babe?
*barf*
That's the normal reaction.
Barfing is very detoxifying though.
0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »mmmm didn't read the article... but conversion error?
Maybe they really meant you need to burn 7000 to lose 1kg and not 1lbs.
I mean, those pesky different measurements that don't seem to add up with each other. Easy enough mistake to make...
No, I wish they were just making a measurement mistake but the article is clearly convinced that math is not, in fact, math. They mean lb, and they are wrong on oh so many intricate little levels.
Never let logic get in the way of a good argument!0 -
makingmark wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »mmmm didn't read the article... but conversion error?
Maybe they really meant you need to burn 7000 to lose 1kg and not 1lbs.
I mean, those pesky different measurements that don't seem to add up with each other. Easy enough mistake to make...
No, I wish they were just making a measurement mistake but the article is clearly convinced that math is not, in fact, math. They mean lb, and they are wrong on oh so many intricate little levels.
Never let logic get in the way of a good argument!
0 -
I have 58 weeks worth of data that says otherwise.0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Derp lifehacker article is derp.
They don't link to the actual research.
The whole point of the article can be summed up as "There's no truly accurate way to measure exactly what one's 'CO' is, so many people probably overestimate it and as a result what they think is a 500 calorie daily deficit is really probably closer to a 200 calorie daily deficit"
Actually if you follow the links enough you come up to this tool : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/body-weight-planner/Pages/bwp.aspx But life hacker is just a click bait site so overblows it. If you want to lose a pound this week it's 3500 calories, but if you want to lose that same pound in the future, and have lost some already then it will, in theory, cost you more in the present. It's like calculating present value of an financial intrument in a way. It's a fairly sound model from what I see but you have to actually understand what you are looking at and the article doesn't really explain it properly.
Thanks I was just looking for my link for this. I actually found the original research and their 'Body Weight Planner' pretty cool. You plug in various variables and it will chart your weight loss over time. It compensates for your BMR dropping as you lose weight. Personally I don't find I track with the chart but I think that's because I'll go a certain amount of time losing nothing, then lose a little, then a period where I lose nothing again. So basically my scale weight is always lagging behind. But I did think it was sort of cool to play with.
*Actually I just looked at the numbers I pulled in January and I am literally within .2 lbs of what it says I'm supposed to be today. So that's not bad at all. But my daily weight fluctuates a lot more than the chart compensates for.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Derp lifehacker article is derp.
They don't link to the actual research.
The whole point of the article can be summed up as "There's no truly accurate way to measure exactly what one's 'CO' is, so many people probably overestimate it and as a result what they think is a 500 calorie daily deficit is really probably closer to a 200 calorie daily deficit"
Actually if you follow the links enough you come up to this tool : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/body-weight-planner/Pages/bwp.aspx But life hacker is just a click bait site so overblows it. If you want to lose a pound this week it's 3500 calories, but if you want to lose that same pound in the future, and have lost some already then it will, in theory, cost you more in the present. It's like calculating present value of an financial intrument in a way. It's a fairly sound model from what I see but you have to actually understand what you are looking at and the article doesn't really explain it properly.
Yeah I found the tool, but the article makes the claim that it's based on research by the NIH, but they don't ever point you TO said research to see what it really said. If they're making the claim based on the mathematical model of constant calorie intake in the face of a declining CO as one loses weight, then they should say that, not cite 'research'. And yes, I'm fully aware that expecting anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity from lifehacker is a laughable concept in and of itself.
I get all my information from BuzzFeed and LifeHacker -- doesn't everyone?
You forgot Daily Mail! Good stuff there!
You guys are newbies. Everyone knows that all the best nutritional and fitness information comes from PopSugar.
Oh did you forget Food Babe?
*barf*
That's the normal reaction.
Barfing is very detoxifying though.
Does that mean I can give up my green tea cleanse this weekend if I just read her blog? Cool!
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Derp lifehacker article is derp.
They don't link to the actual research.
The whole point of the article can be summed up as "There's no truly accurate way to measure exactly what one's 'CO' is, so many people probably overestimate it and as a result what they think is a 500 calorie daily deficit is really probably closer to a 200 calorie daily deficit"
Actually if you follow the links enough you come up to this tool : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/body-weight-planner/Pages/bwp.aspx But life hacker is just a click bait site so overblows it. If you want to lose a pound this week it's 3500 calories, but if you want to lose that same pound in the future, and have lost some already then it will, in theory, cost you more in the present. It's like calculating present value of an financial intrument in a way. It's a fairly sound model from what I see but you have to actually understand what you are looking at and the article doesn't really explain it properly.
Good that you could understand and explain it. The guy (or group) doing this research is a serious guy who is using some type of modeling to develop tools for predicting/tracking weight loss. Some of what I have read is pretty complex so it doesn't surprise me that it might be misrepresented.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »williams969 wrote: »I managed to lose 48 pounds using based on 3500 cals/lb. I guess I must have imagined it.
I'm delusional, too. 24 lbs in 24 weeks. Eating 1750 a day on average. Either my daily total burn was 2750 (nope, not obese, not very active, not a young male), or I did lose at a 500 cal deficit (yep, cuz science, real science, not 7000 cal/lb fat derp science).
To be fair, it's not the science it's the explaination. It's a mathematical model that tries to show you how future weight loss affects present planning for constant calorie intake over a period of time. However, NOBODY every does it this way, we make adjustments as we go.
Yep, it's a silly tool.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »williams969 wrote: »I managed to lose 48 pounds using based on 3500 cals/lb. I guess I must have imagined it.
I'm delusional, too. 24 lbs in 24 weeks. Eating 1750 a day on average. Either my daily total burn was 2750 (nope, not obese, not very active, not a young male), or I did lose at a 500 cal deficit (yep, cuz science, real science, not 7000 cal/lb fat derp science).
To be fair, it's not the science it's the explaination. It's a mathematical model that tries to show you how future weight loss affects present planning for constant calorie intake over a period of time. However, NOBODY every does it this way, we make adjustments as we go.
Yep, it's a silly tool.
I would say it's useful if you want to look at a long-term level calorie consumption. It would be like the idea of eating at the maintenance level of your target weight, but it would actually work better since that style of eating will lose rapidly at first then crawl forever for the last few pounds. However, most people look at weekly or monthly losses and adjust as they drop since they are trying to consistently be at 500 calories, or whatever, below current maintenance.
So, most people wouldn't find it useful unless they just want to eat the same level all year.
0 -
“The biggest flaw with the 500-calorie-rule is that it assumes weight loss will continue in a linear fashion over time,” says [mathematician Kevin] Hall. “That’s not the way the body responds. The body is a very dynamic system, and a change in one part of the system always produces changes in other parts.”
Derp Derpington doesn't understand that the 500 calorie rule is based on a 500 calorie deficit below TDEE and not just 500 calories less than you already eat. As your TDEE goes down with weight loss, so does your calorie goal, thus a 500 calorie deficit is maintained and fat loss of 1 pound per week continues.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Derp lifehacker article is derp.
They don't link to the actual research.
The whole point of the article can be summed up as "There's no truly accurate way to measure exactly what one's 'CO' is, so many people probably overestimate it and as a result what they think is a 500 calorie daily deficit is really probably closer to a 200 calorie daily deficit"
Actually if you follow the links enough you come up to this tool : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/body-weight-planner/Pages/bwp.aspx But life hacker is just a click bait site so overblows it. If you want to lose a pound this week it's 3500 calories, but if you want to lose that same pound in the future, and have lost some already then it will, in theory, cost you more in the present. It's like calculating present value of an financial intrument in a way. It's a fairly sound model from what I see but you have to actually understand what you are looking at and the article doesn't really explain it properly.
Good that you could understand and explain it. The guy (or group) doing this research is a serious guy who is using some type of modeling to develop tools for predicting/tracking weight loss. Some of what I have read is pretty complex so it doesn't surprise me that it might be misrepresented.
It's definitely complex since it basically starts off with a declining balance then adjusts it for a number of factors. I haven't taken an in depth look but I would assume that it would include factors such as: LBM loss, overall weight loss, and changes due to adaptive thermogenesis. That's a lot of stuff to throw into a model.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Derp lifehacker article is derp.
They don't link to the actual research.
The whole point of the article can be summed up as "There's no truly accurate way to measure exactly what one's 'CO' is, so many people probably overestimate it and as a result what they think is a 500 calorie daily deficit is really probably closer to a 200 calorie daily deficit"
Actually if you follow the links enough you come up to this tool : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/body-weight-planner/Pages/bwp.aspx But life hacker is just a click bait site so overblows it. If you want to lose a pound this week it's 3500 calories, but if you want to lose that same pound in the future, and have lost some already then it will, in theory, cost you more in the present. It's like calculating present value of an financial intrument in a way. It's a fairly sound model from what I see but you have to actually understand what you are looking at and the article doesn't really explain it properly.
Good that you could understand and explain it. The guy (or group) doing this research is a serious guy who is using some type of modeling to develop tools for predicting/tracking weight loss. Some of what I have read is pretty complex so it doesn't surprise me that it might be misrepresented.
It's definitely complex since it basically starts off with a declining balance then adjusts it for a number of factors. I haven't taken an in depth look but I would assume that it would include factors such as: LBM loss, overall weight loss, and changes due to adaptive thermogenesis. That's a lot of stuff to throw into a model.
Yeah if you run the tool it gives you daily predictions for weight, with an upper and lower numbers, BMI with upper and lower numbers, and estimates for fat mass and fat free mass. It also estimates your daily expenditure. So like mine started with 2215 (that's TDEE plus it lets you plug in exercise you plan to do) and give lbs later was around 2115 instead or so. I bet it's a smart enough model that it's not only compensating for BMR getting lower, but also maybe fewer calories burned from exercise for doing the same activity at a lower weight. Is it useful for day to day predictions? Of course not. It flattened my intake to a single number until I hit goal weight. The chances of me even averaging that number consistently are pretty low (I'll either be above or below it). But I think it's still a neat "oh if I eat x calories a day I can meet my weight goal in 8 months" or "if I want to meet my weight goal in 12 months I need to eat y calories, hmm, what happens if I add exercise to that" that sort of thing.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Derp lifehacker article is derp.
They don't link to the actual research.
The whole point of the article can be summed up as "There's no truly accurate way to measure exactly what one's 'CO' is, so many people probably overestimate it and as a result what they think is a 500 calorie daily deficit is really probably closer to a 200 calorie daily deficit"
Actually if you follow the links enough you come up to this tool : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/body-weight-planner/Pages/bwp.aspx But life hacker is just a click bait site so overblows it. If you want to lose a pound this week it's 3500 calories, but if you want to lose that same pound in the future, and have lost some already then it will, in theory, cost you more in the present. It's like calculating present value of an financial intrument in a way. It's a fairly sound model from what I see but you have to actually understand what you are looking at and the article doesn't really explain it properly.
Good that you could understand and explain it. The guy (or group) doing this research is a serious guy who is using some type of modeling to develop tools for predicting/tracking weight loss. Some of what I have read is pretty complex so it doesn't surprise me that it might be misrepresented.
It's definitely complex since it basically starts off with a declining balance then adjusts it for a number of factors. I haven't taken an in depth look but I would assume that it would include factors such as: LBM loss, overall weight loss, and changes due to adaptive thermogenesis. That's a lot of stuff to throw into a model.
Yeah if you run the tool it gives you daily predictions for weight, with an upper and lower numbers, BMI with upper and lower numbers, and estimates for fat mass and fat free mass. It also estimates your daily expenditure. So like mine started with 2215 (that's TDEE plus it lets you plug in exercise you plan to do) and give lbs later was around 2115 instead or so. I bet it's a smart enough model that it's not only compensating for BMR getting lower, but also maybe fewer calories burned from exercise for doing the same activity at a lower weight. Is it useful for day to day predictions? Of course not. It flattened my intake to a single number until I hit goal weight. The chances of me even averaging that number consistently are pretty low (I'll either be above or below it). But I think it's still a neat "oh if I eat x calories a day I can meet my weight goal in 8 months" or "if I want to meet my weight goal in 12 months I need to eat y calories, hmm, what happens if I add exercise to that" that sort of thing.
It would be nice if they had a better interactive "what if" feature where you could us a slider for time, target weight, and activities to see how those affect the final number.0 -
Using 15lbs weight loss in 160 days...
Interesting that my projected weight loss is VERY linear... I was expecting it to be more, um, parabolic leading to my target weight. Perhaps my assumed weight loss isn't significant enough, but I would have expected a consistent intake would lead to a diminishing rate of loss over time.0 -
-
Total nonsense.0
-
And Bingo!Wheelhouse15 wrote: »It's definitely complex since it basically starts off with a declining balance then adjusts it for a number of factors. I haven't taken an in depth look but I would assume that it would include factors such as: LBM loss, overall weight loss, and changes due to adaptive thermogenesis. That's a lot of stuff to throw into a model.
0 -
The 3500 cals = 1 pound worked pretty well for me. I often lost faster than expected once I was accurately counting. People are just always trying to find something else to blame when they don't want to be honest and admit they have no one to blame but themselves for giving into temptation and not being consistent.0
-
My weight loss has been linear. I wonder why?!?! Perhaps it's because CICO and MFP work.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions