Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
3500 = 1 lb myth
psuLemon
Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
This discussion was created from replies split from: Want to lose 30 lbs by end of Feb.
3
Replies
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
The "3500 calories = 1lb" myth has been proven wrong through so many trials and research.
I've never heard this. Are you saying that cutting my weekly calories by 3500 each week will not result from a 1 pound loss?1 -
lulalacroix wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »
The "3500 calories = 1lb" myth has been proven wrong through so many trials and research.
I've never heard this. Are you saying that cutting my weekly calories by 3500 each week will not result from a 1 pound loss?
Correct; Several studies have shown it's a myth, Pennington @ LSU has put together a whole series of weight loss models that are much better predictions of long term weight loss.
i.e here - a 30 yr old female, 200lbs (91kg), 165cm, consuming 1500 calories per day (BMR) - this is what her typical weight loss would look like
The Red Line indicates a typical "3500 deficit = 1 pound" rule, the blue line represents what their research and empirical studies predict for a female of those metrics
7 -
^ Which only goes to show, as we've already known for a long time, that weight loss is not a linear process. Nothing earth shattering there.20
-
^ Which only goes to show, as we've already known for a long time, that weight loss is not a linear process. Nothing earth shattering there.
Absolutely; It's common sense afterall when you also consider that your BMR goes down as you bring weight off, however common sense without empirical evidence is still subject to the type of bro-science where you hear people say "Oh yeah, you can smash 40lbs off in two months"2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »^ Which only goes to show, as we've already known for a long time, that weight loss is not a linear process. Nothing earth shattering there.
Absolutely; It's common sense afterall when you also consider that your BMR goes down as you bring weight off, however common sense without empirical evidence is still subject to the type of bro-science where you hear people say "Oh yeah, you can smash 40lbs off in two months"
It's not really negating the 3500 cal = 1lb though, because the hypothetical person has a steady intake of 1500 cals throughout; that drop in BMR is eating into her deficit, hence weight loss slows unless you recalculate. Cool chart though
16 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »^ Which only goes to show, as we've already known for a long time, that weight loss is not a linear process. Nothing earth shattering there.
Absolutely; It's common sense afterall when you also consider that your BMR goes down as you bring weight off, however common sense without empirical evidence is still subject to the type of bro-science where you hear people say "Oh yeah, you can smash 40lbs off in two months"
It's not really negating the 3500 cal = 1lb though, because the hypothetical person has a steady intake of 1500 cals throughout; that drop in BMR is eating into her deficit, hence weight loss slows unless you recalculate. Cool chart though
Yeah; that's the flaw of the tool they released, for some reason they didn't include BMR projections on their 3500 calorie deficit line, they just did a straight line calculation from the start date, at the start metrics
The actual research paper itself includes examples where they adjusted the 3500 rule to a BMR and showed itself to be more accurate.
The tool does allow for variable intakes too
Here is a link for anyone interested
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
Judging on what I can gather, MyFitnessPal's projections are using their method.3 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »^ Which only goes to show, as we've already known for a long time, that weight loss is not a linear process. Nothing earth shattering there.
Absolutely; It's common sense afterall when you also consider that your BMR goes down as you bring weight off, however common sense without empirical evidence is still subject to the type of bro-science where you hear people say "Oh yeah, you can smash 40lbs off in two months"
It's not really negating the 3500 cal = 1lb though, because the hypothetical person has a steady intake of 1500 cals throughout; that drop in BMR is eating into her deficit, hence weight loss slows unless you recalculate. Cool chart though
Yeah; that's the flaw of the tool they released, for some reason they didn't include BMR projections on their 3500 calorie deficit line, they just did a straight line calculation from the start date, at the start metrics
The actual research paper itself includes examples where they adjusted the 3500 rule to a BMR and showed itself to be more accurate.
The tool does allow for variable intakes too
Here is a link for anyone interested
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
Judging on what I can gather, MyFitnessPal's projections are using their method.
Continuing the derail, but since OP has listened to sage advice and is upping her cals and realising weight loss will be slower, hopefully we're all good....
I just had a play with the calculator, using my original start weight. Unfortunately MFP no longer shows my weight loss phase in my records since it only goes back one year, but the calculator predicted 12 months to lose 8.4kg. Reality was much more in line with the 3500 cal = 1lb, though I can't remember exact details. I know I was definitely down ~11kg in 6 months, and I certainly wasn't diligent throughout. I'm all for being realistic, and it's important that people understand that weight loss isn't linear etc, but I think that calculator is a little on the pessimistic side. Many, many people here have found that, when looking at trends over time, sticking to a 500 cal deficit generally averages out at about 1lb per week weight loss.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »I just had a play with the calculator, using my original start weight. Unfortunately MFP no longer shows my weight loss phase in my records since it only goes back one year, but the calculator predicted 12 months to lose 8.4kg. Reality was much more in line with the 3500 cal = 1lb, though I can't remember exact details. I know I was definitely down ~11kg in 6 months, and I certainly wasn't diligent throughout. I'm all for being realistic, and it's important that people understand that weight loss isn't linear etc, but I think that calculator is a little on the pessimistic side. Many, many people here have found that, when looking at trends over time, sticking to a 500 cal deficit generally averages out at about 1lb per week weight loss.
What the calculator doesn't have (and I wish it did) is the ability to input exercise; it assumes only a weight loss against your BMR versus the intake you have for your body type, it's not taking into account calories burnt, or the boost to your metabolism post a workout.
The other thing to keep in mind is that when we're stating "Oh, I have a BMR of 2750 calories because I'm a 110KG, 186cm male therefore 2250 calories would give me a deficit of 500" -
1. Our BMR is inaccurate and fluctuates based on a number of different things, it's a rough guide.
2. We often understate/overstate how much exercise we actually get, gym equipment is the worst for over-stating that 40 minute workout burning 800 calories for instance
3. Our weight has dependencies on hydration levels, water retention and other factors that aren't entirely to do with calories in, calories out.
1 -
Maybe we can get a mod to separate this conversation off from the OP and make a new thread in Debate, since we're technically derailing, but it's an interesting conversation. @psuLemon (I forget who else is a mod these days!)SymbolismNZ wrote: »
What the calculator doesn't have (and I wish it did) is the ability to input exercise; it assumes only a weight loss against your BMR versus the intake you have for your body type, it's not taking into account calories burnt, or the boost to your metabolism post a workout.
The other thing to keep in mind is that when we're stating "Oh, I have a BMR of 2750 calories because I'm a 110KG, 186cm male therefore 2250 calories would give me a deficit of 500" -
1. Our BMR is inaccurate and fluctuates based on a number of different things, it's a rough guide.
2. We often understate/overstate how much exercise we actually get, gym equipment is the worst for over-stating that 40 minute workout burning 800 calories for instance
3. Our weight has dependencies on hydration levels, water retention and other factors that aren't entirely to do with calories in, calories out.
Yeah, the estimated calories it had for me down the bottom, for probably many women my age, weight and height, would be way too high, which suggests they're either giving really high BMRs, or they assume most people are way more active than what they are. As it happens it was pretty accurate for me for my current exercise level (cos summer, lots of day hikes, clocked over 600000 steps on my Fitbit last month). Maybe that's part of the problem, they actually set calorie intakes above what was really a 500 cal deficit. I also wonder how they tracked adherence etc during the study. If people were all self reporting, the tailing off may also be a result of people getting lax about proper logging as time went on, and thus not actually having a 500 cal a day deficit.
Since I have some winter/sickness weight I hadn't bothered to lose, plus some Xmas weight, maybe I'll attempt to be diligent about logging for a couple of months (ugh) just to prove the calculator wrong
(oh, and because I want my damn clothes to fit properly again). 2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »^ Which only goes to show, as we've already known for a long time, that weight loss is not a linear process. Nothing earth shattering there.
Absolutely; It's common sense afterall when you also consider that your BMR goes down as you bring weight off, however common sense without empirical evidence is still subject to the type of bro-science where you hear people say "Oh yeah, you can smash 40lbs off in two months"
It's not really negating the 3500 cal = 1lb though, because the hypothetical person has a steady intake of 1500 cals throughout; that drop in BMR is eating into her deficit, hence weight loss slows unless you recalculate. Cool chart though
Yeah; that's the flaw of the tool they released, for some reason they didn't include BMR projections on their 3500 calorie deficit line, they just did a straight line calculation from the start date, at the start metrics
The actual research paper itself includes examples where they adjusted the 3500 rule to a BMR and showed itself to be more accurate.
The tool does allow for variable intakes too
Here is a link for anyone interested
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
Judging on what I can gather, MyFitnessPal's projections are using their method.
Continuing the derail, but since OP has listened to sage advice and is upping her cals and realising weight loss will be slower, hopefully we're all good....
I just had a play with the calculator, using my original start weight. Unfortunately MFP no longer shows my weight loss phase in my records since it only goes back one year, but the calculator predicted 12 months to lose 8.4kg. Reality was much more in line with the 3500 cal = 1lb, though I can't remember exact details. I know I was definitely down ~11kg in 6 months, and I certainly wasn't diligent throughout. I'm all for being realistic, and it's important that people understand that weight loss isn't linear etc, but I think that calculator is a little on the pessimistic side. Many, many people here have found that, when looking at trends over time, sticking to a 500 cal deficit generally averages out at about 1lb per week weight loss.
I have a record of my daily weigh-ins for more than the past 16 months. Putting my start weight stats into that calculator, it says I should have lost exactly 14 pounds in a year at a 500 calorie deficit. My actual experience was that I lost 42.78 pounds in that 52 week period, or about 0.82 pounds/week (with a projected loss of 1 lb. week at a 500 calorie deficit). That makes sense because a) I had plenty of days in which I ate well over my calorie goal and b) I didn't appreciably adjust my intake downward as I lost weight, so my deficit became smaller. It also gives an obscenely high TDEE figure at my start weight, almost 150% of what other calculators indicate.4 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Yeah, the estimated calories it had for me down the bottom, for probably many women my age, weight and height, would be way too high, which suggests they're either giving really high BMRs, or they assume most people are way more active than what they are. As it happens it was pretty accurate for me for my current exercise level (cos summer, lots of day hikes, clocked over 600000 steps on my Fitbit last month). Maybe that's part of the problem, they actually set calorie intakes above what was really a 500 cal deficit. I also wonder how they tracked adherence etc during the study. If people were all self reporting, the tailing off may also be a result of people getting lax about proper logging as time went on, and thus not actually having a 500 cal a day deficit.
Since I have some winter/sickness weight I hadn't bothered to lose, plus some Xmas weight, maybe I'll attempt to be diligent about logging for a couple of months (ugh) just to prove the calculator wrong (oh, and because I want my damn clothes to fit properly again).
I've never actually tracked my calories properly before, but I do think if I was consuming 2700 calories a day like most calculators suggest, I'd be putting weight on, rather than maintaining weight.
Apologies for derailing the thread; I find all of this stuff highly interesting, for the past few months I've been absorbing information and reading as much material as I can around building an optimal body state over the next five years; for me it's less about the weight loss and more about building a lifestyle that will ensure I'm healthy and active into my eventual retirement age. Previously I've only cared about the weight loss and exercised like a savage while being ridiculous around not eating and while it brings results, it really doesn't change the underlying psychology or the reason why whenever I'm not running 12KM a day, I'm gaining weight.
0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Yeah, the estimated calories it had for me down the bottom, for probably many women my age, weight and height, would be way too high, which suggests they're either giving really high BMRs, or they assume most people are way more active than what they are. As it happens it was pretty accurate for me for my current exercise level (cos summer, lots of day hikes, clocked over 600000 steps on my Fitbit last month). Maybe that's part of the problem, they actually set calorie intakes above what was really a 500 cal deficit. I also wonder how they tracked adherence etc during the study. If people were all self reporting, the tailing off may also be a result of people getting lax about proper logging as time went on, and thus not actually having a 500 cal a day deficit.
Since I have some winter/sickness weight I hadn't bothered to lose, plus some Xmas weight, maybe I'll attempt to be diligent about logging for a couple of months (ugh) just to prove the calculator wrong (oh, and because I want my damn clothes to fit properly again).
I've never actually tracked my calories properly before, but I do think if I was consuming 2700 calories a day like most calculators suggest, I'd be putting weight on, rather than maintaining weight.
Apologies for derailing the thread; I find all of this stuff highly interesting, for the past few months I've been absorbing information and reading as much material as I can around building an optimal body state over the next five years; for me it's less about the weight loss and more about building a lifestyle that will ensure I'm healthy and active into my eventual retirement age. Previously I've only cared about the weight loss and exercised like a savage while being ridiculous around not eating and while it brings results, it really doesn't change the underlying psychology or the reason why whenever I'm not running 12KM a day, I'm gaining weight.
Those two things are probably related.6 -
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how much more quickly the weight comes off than what that calculator predicts, even doing it the 'slow and sensible' way.
And at your height and current weight I'd say 2700 is a pretty good estimate of your maintenance calories, though I don't know your current exercise level of course.1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how much more quickly the weight comes off than what that calculator predicts, even doing it the 'slow and sensible' way.
And at your height and current weight I'd say 2700 is a pretty good estimate of your maintenance calories, though I don't know your current exercise level of course.
I've been pretty sedentary for the last two years but am doing 30-45 minutes of cardio five days a week, doing yoga three days a week and a full kettlebell workout twice a week. I'm actually surprised that despite not doing much recently, my base level of fitness is still pretty good and I have to work pretty damn hard to get my heart rate into the 150s.
I'm also aware that weight isn't a reliable indicator at the start; my body is shedding water like crazy at the moment, so the whole "moving the scale" vanity tracking people do, I'm 8KG down in the last 10 days, working off of a 1725 per day intake plus eating back the 300-500 calories that I burn in exercise.
If you compared that to the calculator, it would say it's going to take me six weeks to lose those eight kilos based on a 1725 a day diet; which I think is key, no point putting in your variables at the very start of your eating period because your body goes through that initial shock when you change things up (especially mine, as it's going keto) -I'm going to leave it a month before I put my variables into that calculator and use it as a guide.
For me, weight is the secondary goal, the primary goal is getting as close as I can to optimal state body and mind.1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how much more quickly the weight comes off than what that calculator predicts, even doing it the 'slow and sensible' way.
And at your height and current weight I'd say 2700 is a pretty good estimate of your maintenance calories, though I don't know your current exercise level of course.
I've been pretty sedentary for the last two years but am doing 30-45 minutes of cardio five days a week, doing yoga three days a week and a full kettlebell workout twice a week. I'm actually surprised that despite not doing much recently, my base level of fitness is still pretty good and I have to work pretty damn hard to get my heart rate into the 150s.
I'm also aware that weight isn't a reliable indicator at the start; my body is shedding water like crazy at the moment, so the whole "moving the scale" vanity tracking people do, I'm 8KG down in the last 10 days, working off of a 1725 per day intake plus eating back the 300-500 calories that I burn in exercise.
If you compared that to the calculator, it would say it's going to take me six weeks to lose those eight kilos based on a 1725 a day diet; which I think is key, no point putting in your variables at the very start of your eating period because your body goes through that initial shock when you change things up (especially mine, as it's going keto) -I'm going to leave it a month before I put my variables into that calculator and use it as a guide.
For me, weight is the secondary goal, the primary goal is getting as close as I can to optimal state body and mind.
Yeah, it'll take a couple of weeks for you to settle into true weight loss, so very sensible to not put too much stock in the initial whoosh (lovely as it is!!). Are you sure you're not looking at months, not weeks, on the calculator? It shows months for me (10 months to lose 8kg on a 500 cal deficit, which luckily I don't need to lose, though still four months for the 5kg I do want to lose), hence my thinking it's ridiculously pessimistic. Eight kg in six weeks is pretty quick (though probably okay for you initially with having a bit to lose).0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how much more quickly the weight comes off than what that calculator predicts, even doing it the 'slow and sensible' way.
And at your height and current weight I'd say 2700 is a pretty good estimate of your maintenance calories, though I don't know your current exercise level of course.
I've been pretty sedentary for the last two years but am doing 30-45 minutes of cardio five days a week, doing yoga three days a week and a full kettlebell workout twice a week. I'm actually surprised that despite not doing much recently, my base level of fitness is still pretty good and I have to work pretty damn hard to get my heart rate into the 150s.
I'm also aware that weight isn't a reliable indicator at the start; my body is shedding water like crazy at the moment, so the whole "moving the scale" vanity tracking people do, I'm 8KG down in the last 10 days, working off of a 1725 per day intake plus eating back the 300-500 calories that I burn in exercise.
If you compared that to the calculator, it would say it's going to take me six weeks to lose those eight kilos based on a 1725 a day diet; which I think is key, no point putting in your variables at the very start of your eating period because your body goes through that initial shock when you change things up (especially mine, as it's going keto) -I'm going to leave it a month before I put my variables into that calculator and use it as a guide.
For me, weight is the secondary goal, the primary goal is getting as close as I can to optimal state body and mind.
Yeah, it'll take a couple of weeks for you to settle into true weight loss, so very sensible to not put too much stock in the initial whoosh (lovely as it is!!). Are you sure you're not looking at months, not weeks, on the calculator? It shows months for me (10 months to lose 8kg on a 500 cal deficit, which luckily I don't need to lose, though still four months for the 5kg I do want to lose), hence my thinking it's ridiculously pessimistic. Eight kg in six weeks is pretty quick (though probably okay for you initially with having a bit to lose).
Yeah, the only advantage of being a big *kitten* at the moment is that at 1725 calorie intake, I'm supposedly running up a 1000 calorie deficit, according to that calculator, to get to my current weight (133KG) from where I was (141.4) was going to take 5-6 weeks.
Graph plots months; Table plots weeks.
I'll probably retain my 1725 calorie intake (plus eat back exercise) until around 100KG which due to my structure and previous muscle building is quite slim for me; then move to 2150 and see if that stabilises my weight, at that point I'll experiment with a view to taking 12-16 months as according to both Bioelectrical Impedence and DEXA, My lean body mass was between 92 and 95KG when I was at 125KG so I'll need to cut a bit of muscle off my frame as well (which will naturally happen anyway as I lose weight)0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how much more quickly the weight comes off than what that calculator predicts, even doing it the 'slow and sensible' way.
And at your height and current weight I'd say 2700 is a pretty good estimate of your maintenance calories, though I don't know your current exercise level of course.
I've been pretty sedentary for the last two years but am doing 30-45 minutes of cardio five days a week, doing yoga three days a week and a full kettlebell workout twice a week. I'm actually surprised that despite not doing much recently, my base level of fitness is still pretty good and I have to work pretty damn hard to get my heart rate into the 150s.
I'm also aware that weight isn't a reliable indicator at the start; my body is shedding water like crazy at the moment, so the whole "moving the scale" vanity tracking people do, I'm 8KG down in the last 10 days, working off of a 1725 per day intake plus eating back the 300-500 calories that I burn in exercise.
If you compared that to the calculator, it would say it's going to take me six weeks to lose those eight kilos based on a 1725 a day diet; which I think is key, no point putting in your variables at the very start of your eating period because your body goes through that initial shock when you change things up (especially mine, as it's going keto) -I'm going to leave it a month before I put my variables into that calculator and use it as a guide.
For me, weight is the secondary goal, the primary goal is getting as close as I can to optimal state body and mind.
Yeah, it'll take a couple of weeks for you to settle into true weight loss, so very sensible to not put too much stock in the initial whoosh (lovely as it is!!). Are you sure you're not looking at months, not weeks, on the calculator? It shows months for me (10 months to lose 8kg on a 500 cal deficit, which luckily I don't need to lose, though still four months for the 5kg I do want to lose), hence my thinking it's ridiculously pessimistic. Eight kg in six weeks is pretty quick (though probably okay for you initially with having a bit to lose).
Yeah, the only advantage of being a big *kitten* at the moment is that at 1725 calorie intake, I'm supposedly running up a 1000 calorie deficit, according to that calculator, to get to my current weight (133KG) from where I was (141.4) was going to take 5-6 weeks.
Graph plots months; Table plots weeks.
I'll probably retain my 1725 calorie intake (plus eat back exercise) until around 100KG which due to my structure and previous muscle building is quite slim for me; then move to 2150 and see if that stabilises my weight, at that point I'll experiment with a view to taking 12-16 months as according to both Bioelectrical Impedence and DEXA, My lean body mass was between 92 and 95KG when I was at 125KG so I'll need to cut a bit of muscle off my frame as well (which will naturally happen anyway as I lose weight)
I'm seeing a different graph from what you get (I don't see the table when I do it), think it's a Java thing that I can't be bothered working out! I suspect the calculator doesn't allow for initial water weight, which we all know can be quite significant, especially if you have a lot to lose, and even more so if you're doing low carb/keto.
Definitely eat back at least some of your exercise cals (most people recommend 50 - 75% of what MFP gives you). Hell, I eat your baseline on high exercise days (though without exercise that's about what my sedentary TDEE is, screw that!). I bet you will be able to eat way more than 2150 to maintain (being that I'm 5 inches shorter and half your weight ). 0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »I'm seeing a different graph from what you get (I don't see the table when I do it),
Oh, I have an offline version, I thought it was on the same page
Here is the link to the offline version ( either a JAR file which loads with Java on your machine, or a Excel file with an inbuilt Macro)
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/sswcp/
0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I'm seeing a different graph from what you get (I don't see the table when I do it),
Oh, I have an offline version, I thought it was on the same page
Here is the link to the offline version ( either a JAR file which loads with Java on your machine, or a Excel file with an inbuilt Macro)
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/sswcp/
Okay that works better! Still think it's out of whack, but that's because it's starting from a high TDEE. It's basically assuming the user is highly active.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Maybe we can get a mod to separate this conversation off from the OP and make a new thread in Debate, since we're technically derailing, but it's an interesting conversation. @psuLemon (I forget who else is a mod these days!)SymbolismNZ wrote: »
What the calculator doesn't have (and I wish it did) is the ability to input exercise; it assumes only a weight loss against your BMR versus the intake you have for your body type, it's not taking into account calories burnt, or the boost to your metabolism post a workout.
The other thing to keep in mind is that when we're stating "Oh, I have a BMR of 2750 calories because I'm a 110KG, 186cm male therefore 2250 calories would give me a deficit of 500" -
1. Our BMR is inaccurate and fluctuates based on a number of different things, it's a rough guide.
2. We often understate/overstate how much exercise we actually get, gym equipment is the worst for over-stating that 40 minute workout burning 800 calories for instance
3. Our weight has dependencies on hydration levels, water retention and other factors that aren't entirely to do with calories in, calories out.
Yeah, the estimated calories it had for me down the bottom, for probably many women my age, weight and height, would be way too high, which suggests they're either giving really high BMRs, or they assume most people are way more active than what they are. As it happens it was pretty accurate for me for my current exercise level (cos summer, lots of day hikes, clocked over 600000 steps on my Fitbit last month). Maybe that's part of the problem, they actually set calorie intakes above what was really a 500 cal deficit. I also wonder how they tracked adherence etc during the study. If people were all self reporting, the tailing off may also be a result of people getting lax about proper logging as time went on, and thus not actually having a 500 cal a day deficit.
Since I have some winter/sickness weight I hadn't bothered to lose, plus some Xmas weight, maybe I'll attempt to be diligent about logging for a couple of months (ugh) just to prove the calculator wrong (oh, and because I want my damn clothes to fit properly again).
I checked their methods and the RMR formula they had was from this "E.H. Livingston, I. Kohlstadt, Simplified resting metabolic rate—predicting formulas for normal-sized and obese individuals", put my numbers through the equation and it looks normal, so the calculator must give ridiculous amounts of calories for perceived activity.
Or have a calculation error they didn't notice.0 -
Can't seem to get it to work either. Gives me funny results, showing me being below a healthy BMI in a half year. Something seems off.
But I'm not sure how this relates to 3500 cals = 1 lb? If I eat 3500 under my TDEE each week, with the TDEE being adjusted down as I go, how does this not equal a 1 lb loss on average?2 -
Let's not forget the most fundamental aspect of all of this.... calculators are estimates. They can't estimate actual BMR, NEAT, TEF, or TEA. It can't compensate for adjustments to glycogen levels, food waste or month cycles for the ladies. That in no way, disproves the 3500 calories = 1 lb.8
-
Thanks @psuLemonstevencloser wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Maybe we can get a mod to separate this conversation off from the OP and make a new thread in Debate, since we're technically derailing, but it's an interesting conversation. @psuLemon (I forget who else is a mod these days!)SymbolismNZ wrote: »
What the calculator doesn't have (and I wish it did) is the ability to input exercise; it assumes only a weight loss against your BMR versus the intake you have for your body type, it's not taking into account calories burnt, or the boost to your metabolism post a workout.
The other thing to keep in mind is that when we're stating "Oh, I have a BMR of 2750 calories because I'm a 110KG, 186cm male therefore 2250 calories would give me a deficit of 500" -
1. Our BMR is inaccurate and fluctuates based on a number of different things, it's a rough guide.
2. We often understate/overstate how much exercise we actually get, gym equipment is the worst for over-stating that 40 minute workout burning 800 calories for instance
3. Our weight has dependencies on hydration levels, water retention and other factors that aren't entirely to do with calories in, calories out.
Yeah, the estimated calories it had for me down the bottom, for probably many women my age, weight and height, would be way too high, which suggests they're either giving really high BMRs, or they assume most people are way more active than what they are. As it happens it was pretty accurate for me for my current exercise level (cos summer, lots of day hikes, clocked over 600000 steps on my Fitbit last month). Maybe that's part of the problem, they actually set calorie intakes above what was really a 500 cal deficit. I also wonder how they tracked adherence etc during the study. If people were all self reporting, the tailing off may also be a result of people getting lax about proper logging as time went on, and thus not actually having a 500 cal a day deficit.
Since I have some winter/sickness weight I hadn't bothered to lose, plus some Xmas weight, maybe I'll attempt to be diligent about logging for a couple of months (ugh) just to prove the calculator wrong (oh, and because I want my damn clothes to fit properly again).
I checked their methods and the RMR formula they had was from this "E.H. Livingston, I. Kohlstadt, Simplified resting metabolic rate—predicting formulas for normal-sized and obese individuals", put my numbers through the equation and it looks normal, so the calculator must give ridiculous amounts of calories for perceived activity.
Or have a calculation error they didn't notice.
Yep, that's what I'm thinking. It gives me a TDEE of ~2500, which if I'm on a good streak exercise-wise (aka have the time and my dumbass fatigue isn't rearing it's ugly head) is fairly accurate. Every other calculator on the planet* gives me a sedentary TDEE in the 1700s. So it's allowing for a fairly substantial exercise burn.Tacklewasher wrote: »Can't seem to get it to work either. Gives me funny results, showing me being below a healthy BMI in a half year. Something seems off.
But I'm not sure how this relates to 3500 cals = 1 lb? If I eat 3500 under my TDEE each week, with the TDEE being adjusted down as I go, how does this not equal a 1 lb loss on average?
Basically they're saying 3500 cal per week deficit per week doesn't result in a 1lb per week weight loss, even averaged over time, and that it tails off substantially over time. Without reading the paper it's hard to know how they came to those results, but my money is on their hokey overestimates of TDEE, non-adjustment of calorie intake to keep deficit at 500 (though I think @SymbolismNZ said they corrected for that in the study?), and participant adherence and 'diet fatigue' (people getting more lax over time, hormones going whacky without diet breaks etc).
Again, from personal experience and the many other MFP members who've seen the same, I think the 3500 cals = 1lb 'rule' is pretty accurate.
*Possible exaggeration1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I just had a play with the calculator, using my original start weight. Unfortunately MFP no longer shows my weight loss phase in my records since it only goes back one year, but the calculator predicted 12 months to lose 8.4kg. Reality was much more in line with the 3500 cal = 1lb, though I can't remember exact details. I know I was definitely down ~11kg in 6 months, and I certainly wasn't diligent throughout. I'm all for being realistic, and it's important that people understand that weight loss isn't linear etc, but I think that calculator is a little on the pessimistic side. Many, many people here have found that, when looking at trends over time, sticking to a 500 cal deficit generally averages out at about 1lb per week weight loss.
What the calculator doesn't have (and I wish it did) is the ability to input exercise; it assumes only a weight loss against your BMR versus the intake you have for your body type, it's not taking into account calories burnt, or the boost to your metabolism post a workout.
The other thing to keep in mind is that when we're stating "Oh, I have a BMR of 2750 calories because I'm a 110KG, 186cm male therefore 2250 calories would give me a deficit of 500" -
1. Our BMR is inaccurate and fluctuates based on a number of different things, it's a rough guide.
2. We often understate/overstate how much exercise we actually get, gym equipment is the worst for over-stating that 40 minute workout burning 800 calories for instance
3. Our weight has dependencies on hydration levels, water retention and other factors that aren't entirely to do with calories in, calories out.
CICO and BMR are guessimations at best so the term MYTH really does not apply perhaps. Weight loss will never be a mathematical only science. @SymbolismNZ makes great sense.2 -
Numbers and such tend to make my eyes glaze over in my old age (which is hilarious considering that I used to be a bookkeeper and total math nerd).
I can only share my experience.
Though they are all only estimates, and factors can mitigate them, the basic CICO calculations that give you the old 3500 myth have been pretty spot on for me.
Being in the ballpark instead of on the nose doesn't mean that it's a myth.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Can't seem to get it to work either. Gives me funny results, showing me being below a healthy BMI in a half year. Something seems off.
But I'm not sure how this relates to 3500 cals = 1 lb? If I eat 3500 under my TDEE each week, with the TDEE being adjusted down as I go, how does this not equal a 1 lb loss on average?
Yes, I'm also not seeing how it relates. I'd love a better explanation.
The numbers are really wacky for me too. It says my current (assuming maintenance) intake is about 2200, which it sometimes is, but only when I'm quite active, otherwise I would gain on 2200. Scooby (which is generally about right for me), says 1520 to maintain if sedentary, and agrees with the number given only if you assume 5-6 hours per week of strenuous activity (which seems roughly right).
On the other hand, I lost pretty consistently with 3500=1 lb (slightly more, but I will assume that's due to not accounting enough for activity) through my active weight loss period. Certainly much faster than the chart predicted despite mostly eating at around 1000 cal under what it predicted as my TDEE (much higher than anything I calculated, again, without assuming very active, which I was not at the time).0 -
On the other hand, I agree, of course with these:
"1. Our BMR is inaccurate and fluctuates based on a number of different things, it's a rough guide.
2. We often understate/overstate how much exercise we actually get, gym equipment is the worst for over-stating that 40 minute workout burning 800 calories for instance
3. Our weight has dependencies on hydration levels, water retention and other factors that aren't entirely to do with calories in, calories out."
Those things are commonly said on MFP, too.
I'm just not seeing why they make 3500 cal=lb "a myth." Are you going to lose like clockwork without fluctuations or be able to calculate everything perfectly? Of course not, and no one reasonable thinks otherwise (although my losses were weirdly consistent for quite some time).1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »^ Which only goes to show, as we've already known for a long time, that weight loss is not a linear process. Nothing earth shattering there.
Absolutely; It's common sense afterall when you also consider that your BMR goes down as you bring weight off, however common sense without empirical evidence is still subject to the type of bro-science where you hear people say "Oh yeah, you can smash 40lbs off in two months"
It's not really negating the 3500 cal = 1lb though, because the hypothetical person has a steady intake of 1500 cals throughout; that drop in BMR is eating into her deficit, hence weight loss slows unless you recalculate. Cool chart though
Yeah; that's the flaw of the tool they released, for some reason they didn't include BMR projections on their 3500 calorie deficit line, they just did a straight line calculation from the start date, at the start metrics
The actual research paper itself includes examples where they adjusted the 3500 rule to a BMR and showed itself to be more accurate.
The tool does allow for variable intakes too
Here is a link for anyone interested
http://www.pbrc.edu/research-and-faculty/calculators/weight-loss-predictor/
Judging on what I can gather, MyFitnessPal's projections are using their method.
This calculator was miles off for me. It states my current intake (500cal reduction) is 2649 which is way way way off (my sedentary TDEE is 1700 and my TDEE with exercise is 2200), and it also tells me that I'd lose only 20lbs by December.. This wouldn't work for me.
I I were to lose 1lb per week , it would take up to May to lose 20lbs, not December.1 -
The calculator looks way off for me. I entered my last year's weight and average deficit and it gave me a number 15 kg higher than my current weight.
I have logged my intake and activity every single day between Jan 1 last year and Jan 1 this year. I like numbers, so I summarized my year. One of the numbers is my total deficit for the year, and it was 183595 calories or an average net deficit (regardless of BMR) of 503 calories. I lost a total of 22 kg (48.5 pounds), so it's pretty darn close to the 3500 calorie rule which predicts I would have lost 52.5 pounds.
5
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