The 3500 cal deficit: Myth or fact?

lissdawn

So here's a question. Over and over and over, everywhere I read, all I see is 3500 deficit = 1 lb. But is this really, truly the case? I ask because I'm eating at a proper calorie count with deficit for myself according to MFP and it's working great. But I've been losing more than what my deficit would mathematically equal (mind you I have lots to lose and I'm just starting out, so I know that will happen for a bit)...but what is your experience? And share examples! i.e. what you lost on average a week when you started, compared to now, and how that compared to a deficit ratio of 3500:1?

Have some of you experienced that exact ratio throughout your entire journey so far? Or like me, generally lose more eating at a 3500 cal deficit? Less? I'm just curious. I am LOVING the science/simplification of calorie counting. It works. It makes sense. But my experience is that the 3500 deficit number isn't accurate...so far.

WalkingAlong

It's all just estimates. 3500 is about the calories in a pound of fat but when you lose weight, especially early on, you're losing fat, muscle and water, which isn't going to be 3500/lb. on average.

BigT555

its pretty accurate actually if you are keeping proper track. the additional weight youre seeing lost is from water weight, i lost like 7 lbs my first week which would equate to a daily deficit of 3500, which i definitely did nat have

agrafina

The target that MFP gives you is an estimate. Your actual caloric needs may be higher or lower than amount that MFP bases your deficit on, therefore, YMMV. Also, the calories you input are also estimates, so you may be taking in more or less than you are recording. All of these things can affect the rate at which you lose, but don't change the underlying fact that 1 lb of fat equals approximately 3500 calories.

Branstin

3500 calories = 1 pound of fat. However, keep in mind that sodium, bowels, water retention, exercise, hormones, TOM, etc. will also affect the rate at which the body drops weight.

dandelyon

It's worked for me. Maybe you're more active than you think?

madhatter2013

You like things to be linear, don't you?

BarbieAS

The target that MFP gives you is an estimate. Your actual caloric needs may be higher or lower than amount that MFP bases your deficit on, therefore, YMMV. Also, the calories you input are also estimates, so you may be taking in more or less than you are recording. All of these things can affect the rate at which you lose, but don't change the underlying fact that 1 lb of fat equals approximately 3500 calories.

Yep, ^^ is what I was going to say, plus what everyone else has mentioned about other things that affect your weight, particularly water. When you first start out, you're going to lose water weight as your body starts to burn off some of your glycogen stores in your muscles to make up your calorie deficit, which is going to make it look like you're losing a little faster. That will typically even out.

lissdawn

LOL Madhatter, yes! And honestly I think it's exactly why 'programs' have never worked for me. I am a numbers girl. I like facts, figures, science, and proof. Every program I've ever tried seemed to focus more on fluffy feelings/motivation + a gimmicky food plan. I'd start them feeling all gung-ho, pumped up, motivated etc, and then the appeal would quickly disappear after a month or so because even when I saw some results, I never feel all that connected to it, or have a true explanation of what exactly I was doing to make it happen.

Calorie counting is so simple, basic, and logical. I could kick myself for not just trying it years ago. When I see my results I can directly relate it to 'well that's because you had grilled salmon + a baked potato for supper over a big mac and fries i.e. you ate 450 calories vs 2500+. But the 3500:1 is throwing me for a loop, so I think I just have to keep what I'm doing and get that one out of my head, at least for now.

PS...my close friends tell me I'm like a female version of Sheldon Cooper (Big Bang Theory)..if that helps explain why the 3500 deficit thing is making me antsy. ;P

WalkingAlong

lissdawn- The numbers game is fun when the weight is falling off then it can kick you in the face the weeks when the scale numbers don't go just how you think they should. I think if you're a good food logger and are patient, over say months, your losses should approximate 3500 calories per pound. But some weeks, not even close. Just a warning! It can be discouraging and knock you off course if you put too much faith in the numbers without trusting that it takes some time for it all to average out. Good luck!

StaciMarie1974

Fact, yes.

But it assumes every body has a perfectly functioning metabolism. And that everyone is perfect about counting calories in and knowing exact burns out. And of course no one is perfect.

Initial loss can easily include water weight as well as fat.

SnuggleSmacks

I would be willing to bet that your TDEE is actually higher than you think so you're actually creating a larger deficit than 3500 calories/week. An activity tracker of some sort might help solve the mystery. When I got one, it was life-changing. It took all the guesswork out of the out portion of calories in vs. calories out.

DanaDark

3,500 calories = 1 pound of fat is a scientific fat.

So why are you losing more?

1. The likelihood that you are tracking EVERY SINGLE calorie in and out is about as probable as winning the lottery 5,000 in a row.

2. Food requires water to process. Less food intake, less water required. So water gets lost. This works inversely too. Eat extra one day, even while still at a deficit, and you'll likely gain weight.

My calorie deficit is 500 calories a day. When I eat 200 extra, so still a 300 deficit, I gain around 1.5 pounds the following morning. If I have a 600 calorie deficit but eat high sodium (mmm sunflower seeds), I gain 2.5 pounds the following morning.

Last night, I went out drinking! 5 whiskey diets (alcohol dehydrates you), I weighed in 3.0 pounds lighter this morning than yesterday.

WalkingAlong

The 3500 is a rough estimate, not a "fact". Dietary fat has 9 calories per gram. 454g (in a lb.) times 9 = 4086 calories. They just shave some off and round down to 3500 for the fact that human fat isn't 100% fat like dietary fat. Plus like I said, you never lose only fat when you lose weight. You don't know what mix of what tissue and water you're losing and it changes over time and across people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/3500-calories-one-pound-fat-calorie-burn_n_2806578.html

lissdawn

Thanks all! Definitely helps, I really appreciate the feedback.