The 3,500 calories-per-pound myth...

favabean1982
favabean1982 Posts: 28 Member
edited December 26 in Health and Weight Loss
So, since this has been established to be a myth, how do you really know if you’re in trouble as far as weight gain is concerned? Say, for example, I burn 2,500 calories over the course of 24-hours but I consume 3,000 calories during that same time period. Now, the myth says that, if I continue to do this over the course of the next seven days/week, which is 500 extra calories per day for a total of 3,500 calories, I’ll gain a true pound of body fat.

However, since 3,500 calories-per-pound of body fat has now been established to be a myth, how do I know if I’m in trouble as far as any excess calories and, subsequently, extra pounds is/are concerned? I know everyone’s different, I know you need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight and I highly doubt if I’m over my calorie burn by a calorie or two I’ll be in trouble in terms of weight gain, but how do I know the limit? I had been operating with the mentality that, if you wanted to gain a true pound of body fat over, say, a 24-hour time period, you needed to consume the calories you burned in addition to the previously established 3,500 calories, which is a pretty hefty amount of calories. However, if that’s incorrect, what is correct?

I apologize for the length!
«1

Replies

  • dragon_girl26
    dragon_girl26 Posts: 2,187 Member
    The 3500 calorie estimate always worked well for me. In the beginning of the weight loss stage, though, it seemed like figuring out my maintenance calories to subtract from was always the moving target.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    favabean1982 wrote: »
    So, since this has been established to be a myth, how do you really know if you’re in trouble as far as weight gain is concerned? Say, for example, I burn 2,500 calories over the course of 24-hours but I consume 3,000 calories during that same time period. Now, the myth says that, if I continue to do this over the course of the next seven days/week, which is 500 extra calories per day for a total of 3,500 calories, I’ll gain a true pound of body fat.

    However, since 3,500 calories-per-pound of body fat has now been established to be a myth, how do I know if I’m in trouble as far as any excess calories and, subsequently, extra pounds is/are concerned? I know everyone’s different, I know you need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight and I highly doubt if I’m over my calorie burn by a calorie or two I’ll be in trouble in terms of weight gain, but how do I know the limit? I had been operating with the mentality that, if you wanted to gain a true pound of body fat over, say, a 24-hour time period, you needed to consume the calories you burned in addition to the previously established 3,500 calories, which is a pretty hefty amount of calories. However, if that’s incorrect, what is correct?

    I apologize for the length!

    You're not going to gain a pound of fat in 24 hours no matter how many calories are in that pound. Your body just simply can't digest, process, and store that much food energy that quickly.

    Whether a pound of fat is 3,500 calories or 50,000 or 50, you'll gain weight if you eat more than you burn and you'll lose weight if you burn more than you eat.

    Whenever I gain or lose weight at a different speed than a 3,500 C pound would predict, it's because my food logging is sloppy.
  • Dogmom1978
    Dogmom1978 Posts: 1,580 Member
    Redordeadhead wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    A ramdom Google search is pretty much guaranteed to return nonsense answers near the top, when it's in the realm of health, diet or fitness. There's money to be made by convincing people that the simple truth is not really true, and that the site (with something to sell) knows the secret tricks/hacks/strategies.

    Yes, and even more so when your search is so leading. If you search for the words "3500 calories 1lb myth", of course you're going to pull up sites featuring the same words. I just searched "earth is flat" and some of the first results are "5 facts that prove the earth is flat" and "why the earth is actually 100% flat".

    Hold on! You mean the earth ISNT flat?!?!
  • gisem17
    gisem17 Posts: 50 Member
    I cant believe I'm encouraging the blatant hijacking of this threat. But...
    Of course the Earth is flat. Just look at a map. The confusion comes from higher dimentional geometry. 2 dimensional planes are curved in 3 dimensional space (just like 3D space is curved in 4D spacetime). So someone looking at our 2D world from a point outside will see a sphere, but that's only because they're seeing it from a higher dimensional perspective.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    Don't fall for the "myth" thing, OP. There's an entire diet industry that feeds and sustains itself by taking uncontroversial, established facts or axioms, like "eat less and move more to lose weight", and declaring them myths. Shockingly, the way you get past the myth is by adopting some kind of New Thinking, which means buying some dumb product or joining some program/plan at a cost.

    Myth: "calories matter". New Thinking: Anything but calories matter. Reality: only calories matter.

    Myth: "a pound of fat = 3500 calories". New Thinking: That's a myth. Reality: A pound of fat = 3500 calories.

    And so on.

    Been weighing myself daily and tracking calories and exercise very precisely for a year and a half, and a pound of fat = 3500 calories. Could it be 3498 or 3505? Sure, I guess. It isn't more than 5 or 10 calories off.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    Avidkeo wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    gisem17 wrote: »
    ... Of course the Earth is flat. Just look at a map...

    16-9.jpg

    I know you're actually trying to be helpful here, I'm posting this in response because it's funny. I'm having a stressful day and a laugh helped.

    I hope we've helped the OP, before this thread went off the rails. The key takeaway is the first few results from a Google probably aren't reliable, you have to be discerning about how and where you get information. Also, 3,500 has worked well for many in here. Finally, the actual number isn't worth getting hung up on because of CICO, you'll lose weight, mostly fat, by eating a calorie deficit, and hopefully doing strength training.

    That map is really wrong. Nz is in the absolute wrong place. At least its on there I guess

    Came to say the same thing! We are, sadly, most definitely not tropical. But yeah, at least we're on that one.
  • zebasschick
    zebasschick Posts: 1,071 Member
    but... but... but it must be true... the OP read it on the internet!
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,986 Member
    gisem17 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    I know you're actually trying to be helpful here, I'm posting this in response because it's funny. I'm having a stressful day and a laugh helped.
    Actually I'm not. I'm taking a silly idea to ridiculous levels. That's just my sense of humor. I'm glad you found it amusing. I think I owe the OP an apology. So sorry.

    You certainly made me laugh and provided some desperately needed distraction from a statistical and fluid in porous media movement problem. <3:D (I just hope nobody though you were serious, as you got a big fat Disagree)
  • SeanD2407
    SeanD2407 Posts: 139 Member
    It's around that number.
    Just like 2000 calories a day for women and 2500 calories a day for men to "maintain and be healthy" are general guidelines on nutrition labels.
    3500 is a general guideline. It's very safe logic though that eating 500 calories less or 500 calories will generally make you lose or gain around a lb. Of course it always fluctuates.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Avidkeo wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    gisem17 wrote: »
    ... Of course the Earth is flat. Just look at a map...

    16-9.jpg

    I know you're actually trying to be helpful here, I'm posting this in response because it's funny. I'm having a stressful day and a laugh helped.

    I hope we've helped the OP, before this thread went off the rails. The key takeaway is the first few results from a Google probably aren't reliable, you have to be discerning about how and where you get information. Also, 3,500 has worked well for many in here. Finally, the actual number isn't worth getting hung up on because of CICO, you'll lose weight, mostly fat, by eating a calorie deficit, and hopefully doing strength training.

    That map is really wrong. Nz is in the absolute wrong place. At least its on there I guess

    And there's no Mongolia! It's just not even there at all.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories