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
Replies
-
What these researchers need is OCD loggers like some of us here, not someone who would self report fewer calories because they are "embarrassed".
Speaking of calculators. I like this one better:
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
Keep in mind MFP's activity multiplier for sedentary is 1.25 (I think?) so it's better to manually set it to that for calorie calculations than the built in multiplier estimator (which does not go lower than 1.4) if you are eating back exercise calories like MFP intended.7 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »What these researchers need is OCD loggers like some of us here, not someone who would self report fewer calories because they are "embarrassed".
Speaking of calculators. I like this one better:
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
Thank you for posting that. I wanted to but couldn't find my bookmark. I believe that one does what Symbolism wants in a calculator in that it accounts for decreasing BMR with decreasing weight over time, but it has better usability to adjust for differing activity levels. I've found that calculator to be pretty spot on.0 -
FWIW, once I "calibrated" my calorie goal (as a practical matter, by tweaking my MFP activity level setting until my loss rate was close to my stated goal), I found that 3500 calories = 1lb was a pretty accurate predictor of the effect of changes in my eating/exercise calories. I could accurately predict how long it would take me to catch up after a few days of accurately-logged way-over-goal eating, for example (once the water weight was out of the picture).
Of course, this is in a context where - no matter how OCD one is - eating and exercise estimates will be quite imprecise (even though they can still be useful).2 -
Regardless of the calculations, I think your hormone/insulin responses to different types of calories would make a difference in how much weight you lose. If I cut 3500 of protein vs those calories of sugar would yield different results, right?1
-
nataliehinkley2 wrote: »Regardless of the calculations, I think your hormone/insulin responses to different types of calories would make a difference in how much weight you lose. If I cut 3500 of protein vs those calories of sugar would yield different results, right?
Most people don't even eat 500 calories of protein per day total.3 -
nataliehinkley2 wrote: »Regardless of the calculations, I think your hormone/insulin responses to different types of calories would make a difference in how much weight you lose. If I cut 3500 of protein vs those calories of sugar would yield different results, right?
Why? I think there are other impacts from cutting one over the other, suck as more muscle vs. fat loss, but not sure it would change the overall loss? Is there something I don't understand?0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
I really need to do this calc for me. Just concerned my tracking is not 100%. Maybe tomorrow after repalcing a kitchen sink.0 -
nataliehinkley2 wrote: »Regardless of the calculations, I think your hormone/insulin responses to different types of calories would make a difference in how much weight you lose. If I cut 3500 of protein vs those calories of sugar would yield different results, right?
Well protein and carbs are both stimulate insulin. Protein is also a thermogenic, so if you cut a ton of protein, you would have a lower tdee and most likely be deficient in protein. If you look at isocaloric studies there is no difference in fat loss if carbs and fats are adjusted. Typically though, high protein diets do tend to have the greatest losses and greatest ability to maintain metabolism over time since protein maintains muscle.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »What these researchers need is OCD loggers like some of us here, not someone who would self report fewer calories because they are "embarrassed".
Speaking of calculators. I like this one better:
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
Thank you for posting that. I wanted to but couldn't find my bookmark. I believe that one does what Symbolism wants in a calculator in that it accounts for decreasing BMR with decreasing weight over time, but it has better usability to adjust for differing activity levels. I've found that calculator to be pretty spot on.
That's a superb calculator, interestingly it doesn't give too far different of a result in terms of projected weight loss for my metrics on the calculator I showed, although it states I could afford to eat another 500 calories a day with the exercise I do, I just don't buy it; the last time I made an attempt at tracking calories, I was eating around 2500-2800 a day and gaining weight (over a month period)
The 3500 calorie deficit for me hasn't really been consistent with my weight loss either, the most extreme example for me was when I was 24, I took 45KG ( a little more than 100lb) off my frame within 5 months through a combination of a VLCD (1200cal) and progressively building my daily running up to 12KM a day - my daily calorie deficit there would have been at least 1500-2000 based on the exercise - i.e 4.62lb per week, versus the 7.7lbish ( based on an average of 1750 deficit a day) per week it would estimate I'd lose.
0 -
nataliehinkley2 wrote: »Regardless of the calculations, I think your hormone/insulin responses to different types of calories would make a difference in how much weight you lose. If I cut 3500 of protein vs those calories of sugar would yield different results, right?
Well protein and carbs are both stimulate insulin. Protein is also a thermogenic, so if you cut a ton of protein, you would have a lower tdee and most likely be deficient in protein. If you look at isocaloric studies there is no difference in fat loss if carbs and fats are adjusted. Typically though, high protein diets do tend to have the greatest losses and greatest ability to maintain metabolism over time since protein maintains muscle.
This for me is the interesting thing; not just looking at the calories but the impact of certain foods on energy levels, ability to train and move yourself as close to peak optimal health as you can.0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »nataliehinkley2 wrote: »Regardless of the calculations, I think your hormone/insulin responses to different types of calories would make a difference in how much weight you lose. If I cut 3500 of protein vs those calories of sugar would yield different results, right?
Well protein and carbs are both stimulate insulin. Protein is also a thermogenic, so if you cut a ton of protein, you would have a lower tdee and most likely be deficient in protein. If you look at isocaloric studies there is no difference in fat loss if carbs and fats are adjusted. Typically though, high protein diets do tend to have the greatest losses and greatest ability to maintain metabolism over time since protein maintains muscle.
This for me is the interesting thing; not just looking at the calories but the impact of certain foods on energy levels, ability to train and move yourself as close to peak optimal health as you can.
Those things seem to vary by person, however.
For example, I don't think Rich Roll would be better on keto, but some really do seem to feel better and flourish on lower carb diets. Protein is really good for weight loss and satiety for most, and I think extremely important up to a point, but going beyond 1 g/lb of LBM seems to me likely (for many, anyway) not to maximize energy or cardio performance vs. pure weight loss, if that's a goal. (I don't think I'd feel great on a super high protein diet or -- maybe as significant -- find it sustainable, and I have some questions about how healthy it is. That goes to the fact that different goals might lead to different ideal diets.)
Don't think this is about 3500 cal/lb, though, unless I'm missing something, although I'd agree it's interesting.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Those things seem to vary by person, however.
For example, I don't think Rich Roll would be better on keto, but some really do seem to feel better and flourish on lower carb diets. Protein is really good for weight loss and satiety for most, and I think extremely important up to a point, but going beyond 1 g/lb of LBM seems to me likely (for many, anyway) not to maximize energy or cardio performance vs. pure weight loss, if that's a goal. (I don't think I'd feel great on a super high protein diet or -- maybe as significant -- find it sustainable, and I have some questions about how healthy it is. That goes to the fact that different goals might lead to different ideal diets.)
Don't think this is about 3500 cal/lb, though, unless I'm missing something, although I'd agree it's interesting.
Ironically even when I was running on 1200 calories a day for five months, I consistently increased my endurance performance on the rowing machine and exercycle which seems to defy common sense; increasing performance of running would make sense because you're dropping weight which means you're not burning as many calories nor stressing your body as much, but rowing machine + stationary bike shouldn't have any impact through weight loss.
Wouldn't suggest it to anyone though, I fainted a few times during that period and undoubtedly did a lot of damage to my body.
In terms of diet types; yeah an endurance athlete like Rich Roll who is consistently asking his muscles to perform would suffer a hit to their peak performance on a ketogenic diet and also a guy like Rich Roll would actually want to spike his body fat before races... an interesting thing though is Mark Sisson who ran marathons and triathlons into his forties believes that the next break through will be someone who combines IF/Ketones while training for the distance, with a carb smash in the final days to a race. He's been quoted as saying he thinks that this will be the next break through, an athlete in his prime that's able to blend the two types of energy your muscles are able to access.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-fuel-a-marathon/
When I was running marathons and half marathons, I'd spike my carbohydrates and rely on all sorts of *kitten* energy shots (gel pouches, etcetera) during the race, but I feel those are just acting on placebo impulse. The fastest one I ever ran (2 hours 57) came after I'd spent three months doing lower body weights and reducing the total amount of kilometers I was running per week; focusing on faster pace + hill sprints.
I'd be interested to see if I could at least match that pace over a half marathon while doing a keto state diet and using carbohydrates in the final few days to boost glycogen levels; seven years on.0 -
nataliehinkley2 wrote: »Regardless of the calculations, I think your hormone/insulin responses to different types of calories would make a difference in how much weight you lose. If I cut 3500 of protein vs those calories of sugar would yield different results, right?
Nah, not really.
Read this by James Krieger, who has a masters in nutrition:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »What these researchers need is OCD loggers like some of us here, not someone who would self report fewer calories because they are "embarrassed".
Speaking of calculators. I like this one better:
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
Thank you for posting that. I wanted to but couldn't find my bookmark. I believe that one does what Symbolism wants in a calculator in that it accounts for decreasing BMR with decreasing weight over time, but it has better usability to adjust for differing activity levels. I've found that calculator to be pretty spot on.
That's a superb calculator, interestingly it doesn't give too far different of a result in terms of projected weight loss for my metrics on the calculator I showed, although it states I could afford to eat another 500 calories a day with the exercise I do, I just don't buy it; the last time I made an attempt at tracking calories, I was eating around 2500-2800 a day and gaining weight (over a month period)
The 3500 calorie deficit for me hasn't really been consistent with my weight loss either, the most extreme example for me was when I was 24, I took 45KG ( a little more than 100lb) off my frame within 5 months through a combination of a VLCD (1200cal) and progressively building my daily running up to 12KM a day - my daily calorie deficit there would have been at least 1500-2000 based on the exercise - i.e 4.62lb per week, versus the 7.7lbish ( based on an average of 1750 deficit a day) per week it would estimate I'd lose.
I couldn't use the offline one you showed, so I couldn't compare.
I'd venture to say that when you were 24, back in the say, your tracking wasn't all that accurate. We can get more precision now than we used to.
I know that I had a harder time losing when I was younger and thought I was only eating that much too. It's because my tracking and the calorie counts were off. There was no food scale involved, no software, etc.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Nah, not really.
Read this by James Krieger, who has a masters in nutrition:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Interesting read and viewpoint; like everything in nutritional science though, there are counter points to that - Dr Rhonda Patrick is a nutritional scientist who has studied the impacts of spiking insulin on degenerative diseases in the brain.
The University of Michigan did a study on sucrose + high fat causing inflammation and thickening of the arterial wall in your heart.
University of Quebec released a study that showed sucrose alters your neurochemicals, promotes craving of more sucrose and triggers binge eating; although as a counter point is known to act as an anti-stress agent within the brain.
I think a lot of times people solely look at the weight aspect of nutrition, I've definitely been guilty of that.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'd venture to say that when you were 24, back in the say, your tracking wasn't all that accurate. We can get more precision now than we used to.
That was probably the only instance I could be sure of my calorie intake prior to tracking everything now; it was when I was drinking Optifast shakes and soups.2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Nah, not really.
Read this by James Krieger, who has a masters in nutrition:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Interesting read and viewpoint; like everything in nutritional science though, there are counter points to that - Dr Rhonda Patrick is a nutritional scientist who has studied the impacts of spiking insulin on degenerative diseases in the brain.
The University of Michigan did a study on sucrose + high fat causing inflammation and thickening of the arterial wall in your heart.
University of Quebec released a study that showed sucrose alters your neurochemicals, promotes craving of more sucrose and triggers binge eating; although as a counter point is known to act as an anti-stress agent within the brain.
I think a lot of times people solely look at the weight aspect of nutrition, I've definitely been guilty of that.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'd venture to say that when you were 24, back in the say, your tracking wasn't all that accurate. We can get more precision now than we used to.
That was probably the only instance I could be sure of my calorie intake prior to tracking everything now; it was when I was drinking Optifast shakes and soups.
Links to those studies?1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »What these researchers need is OCD loggers like some of us here, not someone who would self report fewer calories because they are "embarrassed".
Speaking of calculators. I like this one better:
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
Thank you for posting that. I wanted to but couldn't find my bookmark. I believe that one does what Symbolism wants in a calculator in that it accounts for decreasing BMR with decreasing weight over time, but it has better usability to adjust for differing activity levels. I've found that calculator to be pretty spot on.
That's a superb calculator, interestingly it doesn't give too far different of a result in terms of projected weight loss for my metrics on the calculator I showed, although it states I could afford to eat another 500 calories a day with the exercise I do, I just don't buy it; the last time I made an attempt at tracking calories, I was eating around 2500-2800 a day and gaining weight (over a month period)
The 3500 calorie deficit for me hasn't really been consistent with my weight loss either, the most extreme example for me was when I was 24, I took 45KG ( a little more than 100lb) off my frame within 5 months through a combination of a VLCD (1200cal) and progressively building my daily running up to 12KM a day - my daily calorie deficit there would have been at least 1500-2000 based on the exercise - i.e 4.62lb per week, versus the 7.7lbish ( based on an average of 1750 deficit a day) per week it would estimate I'd lose.
Note that VLCD is a whole different beast. Some fantastical changes and adaptations happen when you go too low, especially if you are also running 12 km a day. You have the general thriftiness of the body itself, and then you also have energy saving compensations during your non-exercise time. You may not notice it, but your movements become slower, fewer and as energy saving as possible.1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Nah, not really.
Read this by James Krieger, who has a masters in nutrition:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Interesting read and viewpoint; like everything in nutritional science though, there are counter points to that - Dr Rhonda Patrick is a nutritional scientist who has studied the impacts of spiking insulin on degenerative diseases in the brain.
The University of Michigan did a study on sucrose + high fat causing inflammation and thickening of the arterial wall in your heart.
University of Quebec released a study that showed sucrose alters your neurochemicals, promotes craving of more sucrose and triggers binge eating; although as a counter point is known to act as an anti-stress agent within the brain.
I think a lot of times people solely look at the weight aspect of nutrition, I've definitely been guilty of that.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'd venture to say that when you were 24, back in the say, your tracking wasn't all that accurate. We can get more precision now than we used to.
That was probably the only instance I could be sure of my calorie intake prior to tracking everything now; it was when I was drinking Optifast shakes and soups.
Ah. I wonder what the macro composition of those shakes and soups were, and what their effect on you was.
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Links to those studies?
Rhonda Patrick - Insulin impacts on degenerative disease in the brain: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5793/1604 - ( credited as Rhonda Perciavalle )
Inflammation/Arterial Wall Thickening: http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(02)00367-2/abstract
Impact of Resveratrol on reversing the impact of that diet (with more information of the impacts of it): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24882067
Sucrose altering neurochemicals, triggering binge eating:
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=43746
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ah. I wonder what the macro composition of those shakes and soups were, and what their effect on you was.
I'd hazard to say not good; the makeup of the shakes are below
Calories 160
Protein (g) 14
Carbohydrate (g) 20
Fat (g) 3
Sodium (mg) 230
Potassium (mg) 470
Fiber (g) 0
Vitamins & Minerals 10-40% of RDI
Lactose (g) 8-12
Also took a multi-vit + fibre (metamucil)
0 -
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.
That calculator is incredibly inaccurate for me. First of all, it says I burn 2600 calories which seems ridiculous since I do not exercise at all. Second, I checked from lowering my calories 500 all the way to 1100 per day and it only gave me a loss of 3-13lbs in 2 months. I lost 25lbs in less than 10 weeks and I was eating about 1200 calories per day with no exercise for the majority of that time. I live very close to sedentary. 5'4" started around 224 and ended up under 200 in a little over 2 months. It says it would take me 4 months to get to 198 but I actually went from Nov 6th being 219.8 to 198.8 on December 18th.1 -
Verity1111 wrote: »That calculator is incredibly inaccurate for me. First of all, it says I burn 2600 calories which seems ridiculous since I do not exercise at all. Second, I checked from lowering my calories 500 all the way to 1100 per day and it only gave me a loss of 3-13lbs in 2 months. I lost 25lbs in less than 10 weeks and I was eating about 1200 calories per day with no exercise for the majority of that time. I live very close to sedentary. 5'4" started around 224 and ended up under 200 in a little over 2 months. It says it would take me 4 months to get to 198 but I actually went from Nov 6th being 219.8 to 198.8 on December 18th.
I think there are definitely flaws in the logic but I do wonder the circumstances in which their calculations were created, for instance in your case (and mine), you made a pretty drastic change to your diet dropping to 1200 calories per day where as I think in their examples, they were looking at more moderate lifestyle changes.
For instance, I've made a pretty big change to my diet too over the last 15-20 days; first dropping sugar and then for the last 10 days going onto a keto diet for around 1725 calories a day; according to the scales I've dropped 9.5kg (20lb) in 15 days but a good chunk of that is likely just water retention leaving the body.
Because I'm a data/research geek, I've actually built an Excel model which takes their calculation, the calculation from the link that GottaBurnEmAll posted and the 3500 calories per pound rule, over the next 120 days I'm going to perform a test on all of the calculations to see which one is closest to the truth, however in order to counteract the spike that most people see when changing their diets in the first month, I'm ignoring the first 30 days and will start actively tracking from 31-90 days where I think things will be a little more consistent and a little less prone to massive fluctuation.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »What these researchers need is OCD loggers like some of us here, not someone who would self report fewer calories because they are "embarrassed".
Speaking of calculators. I like this one better:
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
Thank you for posting that. I wanted to but couldn't find my bookmark. I believe that one does what Symbolism wants in a calculator in that it accounts for decreasing BMR with decreasing weight over time, but it has better usability to adjust for differing activity levels. I've found that calculator to be pretty spot on.
That's a superb calculator, interestingly it doesn't give too far different of a result in terms of projected weight loss for my metrics on the calculator I showed, although it states I could afford to eat another 500 calories a day with the exercise I do, I just don't buy it; the last time I made an attempt at tracking calories, I was eating around 2500-2800 a day and gaining weight (over a month period)
The 3500 calorie deficit for me hasn't really been consistent with my weight loss either, the most extreme example for me was when I was 24, I took 45KG ( a little more than 100lb) off my frame within 5 months through a combination of a VLCD (1200cal) and progressively building my daily running up to 12KM a day - my daily calorie deficit there would have been at least 1500-2000 based on the exercise - i.e 4.62lb per week, versus the 7.7lbish ( based on an average of 1750 deficit a day) per week it would estimate I'd lose.
Note that VLCD is a whole different beast. Some fantastical changes and adaptations happen when you go too low, especially if you are also running 12 km a day. You have the general thriftiness of the body itself, and then you also have energy saving compensations during your non-exercise time. You may not notice it, but your movements become slower, fewer and as energy saving as possible.
I was going to go there, you beat me to it. I wanted to get the macronutrient composition out of the way first.
A lot of the research papers that I've read on adaptive thermogenesis/metabolic adaptation that cite drastic differences in metabolic rates for people who have dieted has used VLCD protocols on their test subjects. I can remember when I first came across the whole topic on these forums being confused by these studies vs. the stories of people on the maintenance forums where were eating pretty much what was their expected maintenance level. It took a while to suss it all out.2 -
Yeah; good points.
There are tons of research examples where food, pharmaceuticals and even certain injury/trauma types have impact on your metabolic rate and also how long it will take for you to rebound back to a normal level. It's why I'm skeptical of the usual BMR calculators personally because as someone who has undoubtedly damaged the machinery within my body through all of the above, I just don't believe that 2800 calories would maintain my body weight at 195lb if I was mostly sedentary.
I'm working on the pretense that my body BMR is around 2250 and will adjust over time/experiment to see how accurate that seems to be.
0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »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
This doesn't prove that it's a myth. 3500 calories refers to the deficit, and caloric needs decrease as weight is lost, so over time she's less and less of a calorie deficit. Her calories remain the same from week 1-15, but should be decreasing based on her weekly weight in order to see a straight line.5 -
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
Exactly, it shows a calorie reduction, not a calorie deficit. It essentially shows the effects of slowly reducing a calorie deficit which negates nothing. What it does is highlight the importance of adjusting your calorie goal as your weight drops.6 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Yeah; good points.
There are tons of research examples where food, pharmaceuticals and even certain injury/trauma types have impact on your metabolic rate and also how long it will take for you to rebound back to a normal level. It's why I'm skeptical of the usual BMR calculators personally because as someone who has undoubtedly damaged the machinery within my body through all of the above, I just don't believe that 2800 calories would maintain my body weight at 195lb if I was mostly sedentary.
I'm working on the pretense that my body BMR is around 2250 and will adjust over time/experiment to see how accurate that seems to be.
That's a good plan. For practical reasons you can't assume that all the numbers, the 3500 calorie rule, your calculated BMR and your exercise calories are all incorrect because you won't have an anchor to start from. You have to think of the numbers in terms of one of them even if they are all incorrect, and for that purpose assuming 3500 is accurate is easier and less error prone. Assuming one is accurate will help you determine the others in relation to it.
So, if you start on the pretense that your sedentary maintenance is 2350 and end up averaging a loss of half a kilo a week after a few weeks on 1800, this means your assumption is close to practical correctness. If you end up losing more or less you can then later calibrate your practical maintenance number accordingly. If you like numbers, you could also test if your exercise calories are on point (practically) by spending some weeks doing no exercise at all then a few exercising and eating back all the calories.
Exact numbers are fun to find out if you happen to know someone who runs a metabolic chamber, but for practical purposes a relative numbers are more than enough.
A side note: funny how people often like nicely rounded numbers, they're just easier to propagate. Since we use kilograms, in school we were taught that to lose 1 kg we needed to reduce our intake by 8000 calories. In pounds if you convert using the 3500 rule it would calculate to roughly 7700 calories. Close enough.
4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Yeah; good points.
There are tons of research examples where food, pharmaceuticals and even certain injury/trauma types have impact on your metabolic rate and also how long it will take for you to rebound back to a normal level. It's why I'm skeptical of the usual BMR calculators personally because as someone who has undoubtedly damaged the machinery within my body through all of the above, I just don't believe that 2800 calories would maintain my body weight at 195lb if I was mostly sedentary.
I'm working on the pretense that my body BMR is around 2250 and will adjust over time/experiment to see how accurate that seems to be.
That's a good plan. For practical reasons you can't assume that all the numbers, the 3500 calorie rule, your calculated BMR and your exercise calories are all incorrect because you won't have an anchor to start from. You have to think of the numbers in terms of one of them even if they are all incorrect, and for that purpose assuming 3500 is accurate is easier and less error prone. Assuming one is accurate will help you determine the others in relation to it.
So, if you start on the pretense that your sedentary maintenance is 2350 and end up averaging a loss of half a kilo a week after a few weeks on 1800, this means your assumption is close to practical correctness. If you end up losing more or less you can then later calibrate your practical maintenance number accordingly. If you like numbers, you could also test if your exercise calories are on point (practically) by spending some weeks doing no exercise at all then a few exercising and eating back all the calories.
Exact numbers are fun to find out if you happen to know someone who runs a metabolic chamber, but for practical purposes a relative numbers are more than enough.
A side note: funny how people often like nicely rounded numbers, they're just easier to propagate. Since we use kilograms, in school we were taught that to lose 1 kg we needed to reduce our intake by 8000 calories. In pounds if you convert using the 3500 rule it would calculate to roughly 7700 calories. Close enough.
I would tag "insightful" and "awesome" both on this post, if I could. Yes to this kind of practical!1 -
So, here's someone who ate pretty much what he wanted (i.e. not 'clean' by any standards), but under his calorie goal.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
His assessment after 128 days:
"
Yep, this is the reason I included this in the OP for the lazy:
Example of the accuracy of CICO:
As of Day 126
Total deficit 113033= 32.29
Deficit would put me at 183.71 lbs.
Todays morning weight 183 lbs.
"4 -
nataliehinkley2 wrote: »Regardless of the calculations, I think your hormone/insulin responses to different types of calories would make a difference in how much weight you lose. If I cut 3500 of protein vs those calories of sugar would yield different results, right?
Well protein and carbs are both stimulate insulin. Protein is also a thermogenic, so if you cut a ton of protein, you would have a lower tdee and most likely be deficient in protein. If you look at isocaloric studies there is no difference in fat loss if carbs and fats are adjusted. Typically though, high protein diets do tend to have the greatest losses and greatest ability to maintain metabolism over time since protein maintains muscle.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought calorie counts (speaking of U.S. food packaging labels regulated by the FDA) were based in part off of the Atwater formulas. If that is correct, isn't the thermogenic effect of protein built into the calories reported?
(1)Another factor rarely mentioned, though, is that Atwater's formulas are averages. Did his test subjects not return a range of results? So the true nutritional value is different for me than it is for you. For a single meal, that may not be enough to make a difference. In a year, though... it could mean substantially different weight loss results.
(2) And then finally, not all of the same macro is the same. Within carbs, for example, the nutritional calories of a mono-saccharide is different than a poly-saccharide. In proteins, different amino acids have different calorie amounts.
Now combine the estimate / average based on macros (2) and that we are all different anyway (1) to get an wonky estimate. Add that the FDA allows some variability. Now your calorie amounts could have quite significant discrepancies, particularly if you spread that over a long period of time.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
- 427 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