The 500 calorie deficit myth

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I noticed she said in the article that the participants were on 500 calorie deficits.

But then the next day I read an article by the BBC on how the volunteers in the study were conscientious objectors, and that article said they were on over 1,000 calorie deficits.

So, that just undermines her WHOLE article.

When they started out the men were eating around 3000 calories. Then they cut to 1800 gross or 1500 net calories (because they were required to walk a lot as part of the experiment). So you're absolutely right, she's using a study about a 50% deficit to support her assertion that something more like a 20-25% deficit (depending on the person) is unhealthy. :noway:

Lives2Travel

So, OP, I could have used some other (read magic) method to lose 87 lbs instead of forgoing 304,500 calories?!? If I believed that to be even remotely true, I'd be really pissed.

scottyrunner

I don't listen to all this crap anymore... the moral of the story is NOONE KNOWS A THING when it comes to diet. Unfortunately it's just trying things over time to see what does work and sticking to it.

I have never been 'overweight' but I wanted to lose a little stubborn fat. This is working beautifully for me. I aim for 1500 calories a day and ALWAYS over 1200 and make up those calories lost from exercise. Simple and effective. I have lost 7 lbs so far in the last 7 weeks.

dmenchac

The theory suggests that, if I were to cut my calories by 500kcals per day, say from 2000 to 1500kcal (more than what most modern day diets recommend), I would lose 1lb (of pure fat) per week


Stopped reading there. No one in their right mind thinks you've lost 1 lb of pure fat. Its a combination of lean mass AND fat, which is the whole point of strength training while you are trying to lose weight. That blog is full of inaccuracies.

WendyTerry420

we are all here to help each other understand right?

Lol. That is not why I'm here. I'm here for cat gifs and snark. This thread mostly delivers.

+1