You can eat at a deficit and not lose weight.

new_arc87

Please correct me if I'm spouting falsehoods anywhere in this post.

People always quote that a deficit of 3500 calories will lose you one pound. BUT, this is assuming all that weight loss is fat. If 3500 calories is equivalent to one pound of fat, then one pound of muscle has to be significantly less than that, right?

Afterall, one gram of fat is 9 calories while a gram of protein is merely 4.

SO, mathematically, you could be eating at a deficit, losing fat, gaining muscle, AND due to the discrepancy in calories/pound, not actually be losing weight.

Do you agree? Or is this just the ramblings of some poor guy trying to justify why he's not losing weight.

Alatariel75

Gaining muscle is significantly harder than most people think, particularly if you're eating at a deficit. You certainly wouldn't be gaining a lb of muscle for each lb of fat lost.

amtyrell

Yes the 3500 is an average but not why you Are not losing weight. If you have stuck with diet for at least 3 weeks and not losing you are either eating more then you think or burning less then you think

rileysowner

Maybe if a person is on performance enhancing drugs they might gain enough muscle to mask fat loss when in a calorie deficit. I would suggest that for most people, this is not going to happen.

earlnabby

new_arc87 wrote: »

Afterall, one gram of fat is 9 calories while a gram of protein is merely 4.

Those numbers are the nutritional caloric amounts and have nothing to do with how you lose.

RoxieDawn

.

AnvilHead

It's not that simple. Under optimal diet/training conditions, a male can gain about a half pound of muscle per week. And a calorie deficit isn't "optimal conditions" for mass gain.

The whole "3500 calorie rule", and why it doesn't work out that neatly, is explained pretty thoroughly here: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/3500-calorie-rule.html/