Stupid question about 1,000 calorie deficit

_Nicklebee

Take a look at mikewise1. Unless i'm just reading is wording wrong. "First 3000 calories a day is quite practical, you can do it for example with 2 hours of walking (adds about 700) and 1 hour of a medium intense workout (500 calories). Easily tracked really. I do 3000 calories per day more often than not and I am well past middle age . "

katro111

Alright guys, reading is fundamental!

Here's the Reader's Digest version of my ORIGINAL POST and the subject of this argument...

I am having a friendly debate with someone who is a personal trainer. They say that a TDEE of 3,000 per day and consuming 2,000 calories per day, despite resulting in a 1,000 calorie daily deficit and a weekly 7,000 calorie deficit, will not yield a 2 lb per week loss. Personal trainer contends that a TDEE of 2,300 and consuming 1,300 per day (which yields the exact same daily and weekly deficits) WILL result in a 2 lb per week loss. I say both scenarios will have the same result.

**Note: these caloric burns are HYPOTHETICAL and based on an IMAGINARY person. Plus, they are TDEE which is BMR + exercise.

Math:
Daily TDEE: 2,300 calories
Daily Cals Consumed: 1,300
Daily Deficit: (2,300 - 1,300) 1,000
Weekly TDEE: 16,100 calories
Weekly Cals Consumed: 9,100
Weekly Deficit: (16,100 - 9,100) 7,000

Would the above result in 2 lbs lost for the week?

********************

Daily TDEE: 3,000 calories
Daily Cals Consumed: 2,000
Daily Deficit: (3,000 - 2,000) 1,000
Weekly TDEE: 21,000
Weekly Cals Consumed: 14,000
Weekly Deficit: (21,000 - 14,000) 7,000

Would the above result in 2 lbs lost for the week?

lesteidel

They may not necessarily yield the same results. It depends on the person and their activity level, their age, gender, etc.

Someone with more Muscle who has the same weight as someone with more fat, will lose quicker than the person with less muscle.

Since exercising builds and strengthens muscles, I would say the person exercising more would lose quicker than the one going through diet alone. It may not be a huge noticeable difference, but there is a difference.

lesteidel

Our bodies are extremely complex. We use the oversimplification of 3500 calories deficit equals a pound lost, but it's an oversimplification.


Not all people will lose or gain at the exact same rates due to size, age, gender, body fat percentage.

A fat 200 pound man will not need quite as much as a fiit muscular 200 ib man to maintain weight.

It's averages. The numbers may not be exact for every single person.

katro111

For the purposes of this argument, we are not examining the gray area (e.g. everyone's body is different, certain exercises produce different results, etc). We are simply looking at the black and white scenarios involving calories in vs. calories out. We are going off the "oversimplified" assumption that a 1,000 calorie daily deficit, or 7,000 calorie weekly deficit, will result in 2 lbs lost regardless of if that deficit was obtained eating 1,300 calories per day and burning 2,300 total calories per day or eating 2,000 calories per day and burning 3,000 total calories for the day.

Acg67

For the purposes of this argument, we are not examining the gray area (e.g. everyone's body is different, certain exercises produce different results, etc). We are simply looking at the black and white scenarios involving calories in vs. calories out. We are going off the "oversimplified" assumption that a 1,000 calorie daily deficit, or 7,000 calorie weekly deficit, will result in 2 lbs lost regardless of if that deficit was obtained eating 1,300 calories per day and burning 2,300 total calories per day or eating 2,000 calories per day and burning 3,000 total calories for the day.

Making the assumption of no change in water, glycogen, waste etc all which can effect "weight"

lesteidel

But all those things affect it.

In theory, if you only look at calories in versus calories out, it wouldn't matter.

In real life, where there are other factors, the person exercising would lose more body fat because they are gaining muscle which will burn more calories at rest than will fat.

lesteidel

If I were as simple as calories in calories out,

Those eating at a surplus to gain muscle would get fat, not gain muscle.

There are other factors.

Take two people who eat a surplus of 500 cals a day.

Different lifestyles though, The one who rarely works out would gain fat. The one doing heavy lifting would gain muscle.

There are more factors than what you put in your mouth,

katro111

If I were as simple as calories in calories out,

Those eating at a surplus to gain muscle would get fat, not gain muscle.

There are other factors.

Take two people who eat a surplus of 500 cals a day.

Different lifestyles though, The one who rarely works out would gain fat. The one doing heavy lifting would gain muscle.

There are more factors than what you put in your mouth,

Yeah, I know, but we're not comparing two different people with different lifestyles, body compositions, workout routines, etc.

How about this:
There is only one imaginary person. We'll say they are a 35 y/o woman who weighs 180 lbs and has 30% body fat. She works out 4 days per week (two weight training days and two cardio days). If she works out at a moderate intensity she ends up with a TDEE of 2,300 cals and eats 1,300 cals (we'll assume her diet is 30% fat, 40% carbs and 30% protein). If she works out at a higher intensity (but same amount of time spent on working out as she does at a moderate intensity) she gets a TDEE of 3,000 calories and eats 2,000 each day. Will both caloric deficit scenarios result in the same or similar amount of fat loss?

lesteidel

She would probably lose more with the added exercise.

Immediately, there would be little or no difference.

Over time, the extra exercise would be building more muscle which burns more at rest.

She would also be eating below her bmr at 1300 calories and while I don't buy starvation mode for a second, it would be difficult for her to get all the nutrition and energy her body truly needs eating at 1300 calories a day consistently, making it significantly harder not to overeat to begin with.

So short term, they would probably lose about the same. Long term though, the method with exercise would lose more fat, and also result in being healthier overall.

katro111

She would probably lose more with the added exercise.

Immediately, there would be little or no difference.

Over time, the extra exercise would be building more muscle which burns more at rest.

She would also be eating below her bmr at 1300 calories and while I don't buy starvation mode for a second, it would be difficult for her to get all the nutrition and energy her body truly needs eating at 1300 calories a day consistently, making it significantly harder not to overeat to begin with.

So short term, they would probably lose about the same. Long term though, the method with exercise would lose more fat, and also result in being healthier overall.

"So short term, they would probably lose about the same."

That is what I am trying to prove. :happy:

And side note: I totally agree with the 1,300 cals probably not being enough to meet nutritional needs with that amount of exercise.

CampbellTony

The simple and most accepted answer is yes, but theory does not always follow practice. Everyone is different so will get differing results. The average person will loss roughly 1 lb of weight if using a 500 cal per day deficit. Some people will disagree and enjoy over complicating the issue, but I think you will find enough people on here, who are able to weigh their food and closely estimate calorific burn accurately enough to prove that 500 cals per day will result in 1LB loss per week (allowing for normal stuff such as water retention effects. I think, if measured over an extended period, the averge trend would support the 1lb/500 rule.

happycauseIride

These are all just hypothetical situations. I'm pretty sure I've rarely (if ever) personally burned 3,000 calories in a day!

I wear a BodyMedia band and I burned over 3000 calories both days this weekend. Saturday I spent the day shopping, walking around in malls and such and then went on a 4 mile run when I got home. Sunday I went to the gym, 45 min on elliptical and then about an hour of weight lifting. Later in the day I cleaned house a little bit and then grocery shopped for 2 hours. I was on my feet, doing things all day, both days, until after dinner. It's very possible to burn over 3000 cals a day if you don't sit around all day.

I also have a desk job M-F but have also gotten those burns before by running 3-4 miles in the morning and then going to Bootcamp in the evening.