Gaining a pound

favabean1982

So, I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts-how exactly do you gain a pound? I was just reading about how the whole 3,500 calories per pound number is a myth, so if I go even one calorie over my number of calories burned for the day am I in trouble? I find it very hard to believe that, even if I were to burn between 2,000 and 3,000 calories a day, for example, and I went over that by, say, a few hundred calories that my weight would go up. That said, what do I know? I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts on this-I know everyone’s built different, but still...

the_stained_ape

It's not what you do in a day that matters.

If you stray over your intake figure consistently, you will gain. Having the odd cheat day/meal is having a life! It would be boring not to enjoy things from time to time. Just as long as the cheat days/meals don't become a staple part of your regimen, theres no problem.

Consistency is key.

Lietchi

favabean1982 wrote: »

So, I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts-how exactly do you gain a pound? I was just reading about how the whole 3,500 calories per pound number is a myth, so if I go even one calorie over my number of calories burned for the day am I in trouble? I find it very hard to believe that, even if I were to burn between 2,000 and 3,000 calories a day, for example, and I went over that by, say, a few hundred calories that my weight would go up. That said, what do I know? I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts on this-I know everyone’s built different, but still...

I've never heard that this is a myth, I'm curious as to the source(s)?

BarbaraHelen2013

I’m pretty sure it’s neither a myth nor an exact set in stone number for every single person on the planet.

Just like everything to do with the human body and calories, intake level is by necessity an approximation. Even the most assiduous, accurate logging is never going to be able to record down to the last calorie. Manufacturers margins for error, different growing seasons must have a minuscule effect on the sugar content of fruit and veg etc. Different levels of fat marbling in meat etc. Everything we record is a ‘best estimate’.

Likewise calorie burn isn’t accurate either. Again, the best we can do is record and analyse results and adjust to cater to our own individual bodies.

That 3,500 number may be spot on for some, it may be that I as a short, older woman would gain faster at that excess level than a 6ft, 30 year old man. That might make sense, right? But it’s not going to vary wildly. The 3,500 calories to gain/lose a lb has been around for as long as I remember (~45 years) and has never changed as science’s ‘best estimate’. I doubt it’s going to change soon!

sardelsa

It's not 3500 calories total, it's 3500 above your maintenance calories.
So if you maintain your weight on 2500 calories (including how many you burn in a day) you would need to eat around 6000 calories to gain 1lb (approximately).

When I'm gaining/bulking I usually gain at 0.5lb per week, which works out to be around 250cals extra per day. So in about two weeks I gain 1lb. It takes consistency to gain weight though not just one day.

It's all an estimate really but I find it helpful if you track your calories and weigh yourself over time, look for net reduction, maintenance or gain in weight to know what is going on.

Dante_80

Lietchi wrote: »

I've never heard that this is a myth, I'm curious as to the source(s)?

The myth part is about the actual effect of certain calorie deficits, not the amount of kcal per fat pound itself. This might help:

How Many Calories Are in a Pound of Body Fat?

(...)

A pound of body fat may contain anywhere between 3,436 and 3,752 calories, roughly estimated.

(...)

It is a common myth that if you eat 500 fewer calories each day, or 3,500 fewer calories a week, you will lose one pound of fat each week.

This would equal a total of 52 pounds in a year.

However, the reality is very different.

The 500-calorie deficit myth significantly overestimates the potential weight loss that can be achieved over a period of time.

This estimate seems to work fairly well in the short term, for moderate weight loss in overweight and obese people. But it falls apart in the long term, and sets people up for failure and disappointment.

What this myth fails to account for is the body’s response to the changes in body composition and diet.

(...)

HeidiCooksSupper

Yes, indeed, 3500 and 500/day are estimates but we might consider them "best estimates." Individuals vary and an individual's weight and weight loss varies. The variations, however, do not make the basic idea a lie.

I read the article linked above from Healthlink. It relies on the existence of "adaptive thermogenesis" and "starvation mode" for its statement about the 500-calorie deficit not working long term. There is no such thing as "starvation mode" and adaptive thermogenesis has much less effect than some suggest it does. A study published in 2012 indicates the small effect of adaptive thermogenesis on resting energy use diminishes over time such that, even having maintained the lower weights, the effect disappears with time. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11877013/3760199.pdf?sequence=1

Fundamentally, we are working with best estimates when it comes to calculating calories. Even at the same weights, for example, an individual vegetable's calorie density will vary with the weather in which it grew and how it is stored. Just like us, the percentage of "water weight" in a fresh veggie is variable and difficult to determine without testing. That process would destroy that vegetable and remove that particular veg from the food chain.

If we each walked a mile, we would each burn a different number of calories depending on how much we weigh, how long our strides are, how efficient our muscles are, how springy our shoes are, how much our clothing weighs, etc. Our weight will also be affected by how much we sweat and ambient humidity. Did I mention wind direction and speed for outside walks? Oh, and ambient temperature, too. We use estimates that are our best guesses.

So, we basically have two choices. We can argue that it's all bunk because it isn't perfectly accurate all the time or we can accept best estimates and adjust our expectations.

If I eat about 3500 fewer calories per week than I estimate I expend, I am likely to lose about 1 pound per week.

janejellyroll

I think you're framing this in a way that is confusing yourself.

Our bodies are always shifting in weight -- we're processing food and water and responding to our environment all the time. This means when we step on the scale and are slightly heavier or lighter, we can't immediately draw a direct correlation between that and whether or not we've actually shed/stored energy stored in our body as fat. This constant shift of water, muscle, food, waste, and fat in our body is why it makes the most sense to focus on longer-term trends instead of looking at each day's weight and trying to draw conclusions based on what happened the day before.

A pound is a meaningful unit of measure for us, but our body doesn't operate on the "everything below 3,500 won't be stored" and "everything over 3,500 will get stored." We can gain or lose fat in much smaller units. If I consume 100 calories more than I need each day, I will store those calories in my body. I might not notice right away, since it's a small amount. But it will happen.

The issue is that since we're always making estimates about what we're consuming and what we're burning, it's hard to track consequences of these daily small amounts. Again, this is a good reason to focus on longer-term trends instead of trying to make adjustments based on daily results.

Dante_80

favabean1982 wrote: »

So, I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts-how exactly do you gain a pound? I was just reading about how the whole 3,500 calories per pound number is a myth, so if I go even one calorie over my number of calories burned for the day am I in trouble? I find it very hard to believe that, even if I were to burn between 2,000 and 3,000 calories a day, for example, and I went over that by, say, a few hundred calories that my weight would go up. That said, what do I know? I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts on this-I know everyone’s built different, but still...

Think of it like this. Let's say a man burns about 2,500 calories per day, and maintains his weight for a year. This means that at the end of the year he has eaten 912,500 calories. And he has also burned/metabolized 912,500 calories. That is a huge amount of energy, isn't it?

Now, let's say he eats 50 more calories than what he burns, and he does this for a year. At the end of it he will have stored 18,250 kcal, and thus have gained about five pounds of fat. 50 calories is only 2% of his daily energy budget. Really, an infinitesimal amount. It's half a banana, or two carrots, or a very small pear. But, averaged out over a big enough time-frame, even small changes in our energy equilibrium can make a notable difference.

Of course, the above is a very rough and oversimplified example, in real life things are a lot more complicated, and with a lot more co- and inter-dependent factors to take into account. Humans are living, breathing organisms after all, not mathematical singularities. Which is why, As Heidi explains above, we always have to deal with estimates, not certainties!

But at the end of the day, it goes like this. To lose a notable amount of body fat you have to maintain an energy deficit, over a notable period of time. It is a long, most times non-linear process. And it requires patience!

lynn_glenmont

BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »

I’m pretty sure it’s neither a myth nor an exact set in stone number for every single person on the planet.

Just like everything to do with the human body and calories, intake level is by necessity an approximation. Even the most assiduous, accurate logging is never going to be able to record down to the last calorie. Manufacturers margins for error, different growing seasons must have a minuscule effect on the sugar content of fruit and veg etc. Different levels of fat marbling in meat etc. Everything we record is a ‘best estimate’.

Likewise calorie burn isn’t accurate either. Again, the best we can do is record and analyse results and adjust to cater to our own individual bodies.

That 3,500 number may be spot on for some, it may be that I as a short, older woman would gain faster at that excess level than a 6ft, 30 year old man. That might make sense, right? But it’s not going to vary wildly. The 3,500 calories to gain/lose a lb has been around for as long as I remember (~45 years) and has never changed as science’s ‘best estimate’. I doubt it’s going to change soon!

I can't speak for anyone else, but that doesn't make sense to me. Storage of excess energy should work the same in one human as in another.

cwolfman13

favabean1982 wrote: »

So, I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts-how exactly do you gain a pound? I was just reading about how the whole 3,500 calories per pound number is a myth, so if I go even one calorie over my number of calories burned for the day am I in trouble? I find it very hard to believe that, even if I were to burn between 2,000 and 3,000 calories a day, for example, and I went over that by, say, a few hundred calories that my weight would go up. That said, what do I know? I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts on this-I know everyone’s built different, but still...

It's not a myth, nor is it an exact thing...calories aren't an exact science and maintenance calorie needs are a range, not an exact figure either. In the short run, the human body strives for homeostasis which is why you don't lose weight (fat) or gain weight (fat) just because you overate or underate for a day or something. To override your body's ability to maintain homeostasis requires consistently underfeeding or overfeeding.

briscogun

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »

I’m pretty sure it’s neither a myth nor an exact set in stone number for every single person on the planet.

Just like everything to do with the human body and calories, intake level is by necessity an approximation. Even the most assiduous, accurate logging is never going to be able to record down to the last calorie. Manufacturers margins for error, different growing seasons must have a minuscule effect on the sugar content of fruit and veg etc. Different levels of fat marbling in meat etc. Everything we record is a ‘best estimate’.

Likewise calorie burn isn’t accurate either. Again, the best we can do is record and analyse results and adjust to cater to our own individual bodies.

That 3,500 number may be spot on for some, it may be that I as a short, older woman would gain faster at that excess level than a 6ft, 30 year old man. That might make sense, right? But it’s not going to vary wildly. The 3,500 calories to gain/lose a lb has been around for as long as I remember (~45 years) and has never changed as science’s ‘best estimate’. I doubt it’s going to change soon!

I can't speak for anyone else, but that doesn't make sense to me. Storage of excess energy should work the same in one human as in another.

Yes, the storage process works the same, but at what caloric intake number that storage process begins is different for everyone. It's not an exact 3,500 on the nose for everyone. I understood that to be what @BarbaraHelen2013 was saying.

AnnPT77

OP, the "3500 calories is one pound" thing is close enough to be a practical approximation.

To apply it, we need to know our maintenance calories. We can only estimate them (and the calculators or fitness trackers can be wrong). We need to know many calories we burn. That changes every day, and again, we can only estimate it (unless we lock ourselves in a metabolic chamber for the rest of life, which isn't very practical). We need to know how many calories we eat, but we can only approximate them (because one apple is sweeter than the next, and that sort of thing, food labels are allowed some wiggle room, and logging is a skill that one needs to invest a bit of work into to get good at).

But, at the end of all of those approximations and experimentations, the calorie counting process can work. Hundreds of people here, maybe thousands, have used it to lose weight. I can't speak for all of the others, but for me, once I experimentally figured out my approximate maintenance calories, I would lose about a pound by eating under that by a cumulative amount that eventually added up to 3500 calories, averaged over the long term. Close enough for gubmint work, fershure/ (And I actually *am* a not-tall older woman, besides. 😆)

I've been calorie counting for well over 5 years now, and at a healthy weight for around 5 years, after previous multiple decades of obesity. Calorie counting can work, when consistently and sensibly applied.

lynn_glenmont

briscogun wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »

I’m pretty sure it’s neither a myth nor an exact set in stone number for every single person on the planet.

Just like everything to do with the human body and calories, intake level is by necessity an approximation. Even the most assiduous, accurate logging is never going to be able to record down to the last calorie. Manufacturers margins for error, different growing seasons must have a minuscule effect on the sugar content of fruit and veg etc. Different levels of fat marbling in meat etc. Everything we record is a ‘best estimate’.

Likewise calorie burn isn’t accurate either. Again, the best we can do is record and analyse results and adjust to cater to our own individual bodies.

That 3,500 number may be spot on for some, it may be that I as a short, older woman would gain faster at that excess level than a 6ft, 30 year old man. That might make sense, right? But it’s not going to vary wildly. The 3,500 calories to gain/lose a lb has been around for as long as I remember (~45 years) and has never changed as science’s ‘best estimate’. I doubt it’s going to change soon!

I can't speak for anyone else, but that doesn't make sense to me. Storage of excess energy should work the same in one human as in another.

Yes, the storage process works the same, but at what caloric intake number that storage process begins is different for everyone. It's not an exact 3,500 on the nose for everyone. I understood that to be what @BarbaraHelen2013 was saying.

It's not an exact 3,500 on the nose for anyone. First, that's a nice round somebody chose that was in the ballpark of the actual numbers they were getting. Second, people don't gain weight only in whole pound increments. Eat an extra 110 calories above maintenance today, gain a half ounce. You scale likely won't notice, but some fat cells or glycogen storage spot, etc., somewhere in your body will notice.

ETA: i.e., store begins at just above a person's maintenance level, in whatever tiny increment that might be.

SModa61

From someone that has done long stretches of daily weigh-ins at times, one of the things I learned is that some of what I see on the scale is fat loss and some if it is not. In my WW years, I learned to not eat a large amount of pasta the night before my weight in even if I stayed under my total points (translate to < goal calories). If I did, it was a guaranteed gain - was that pasta sitting in my intestinal track? or water that was tied to all those carbs? I don't know but it was there. I also found that my menstral cycle (when I used to have one) messed with those numbers and my pattern was different than most women. The day my period started, I could drop as much as 4 pounds in a few hours. There are plenty of things that can mess with that number in the short run as well. But what I came away with from all those years of weigh-ins is that I learned about some of my weight nuances which helped me to more fully understand the number on the scale and prevent an unexplained number to negatively impact me. Also, remember, it is the long term results that matter the most. Good luck!