3500 calories to lose a pound? - Interesting article
Options
pamp1emousse
Posts: 282 Member
A lot of this reiterates what many of us will already know, but I thought that where he discusses the difference between lean body mass and fat was pretty interesting.
from http://chetday.com/3500calorieformula.htm
By Tom Venuto, CSCS NSCA-CPT
Most fitness conscious people have heard that there are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, so if you create a deficit of 3500 calories in a week, you lose a pound of weight. If you create a deficit of 7000 calories in a week, you lose two pounds, and so on. Right? Well, not so fast…
Dr. Kevin Hall, an investigator at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda has done some interesting research about the mechanisms regulating human body weight. He recently published a new paper in the International Journal of Obesity that throws a wrench in works of the “3500 calories to lose a pound” idea.
Some of the equations in his paper made my head hurt, but despite the complex math he used to come to his conclusions, his article clearly prompts the question, "3500 calories to lose a pound of WHAT?" His paper also contained a lot of simple and practical tips you can use to properly balance your caloric intake with output, fine tune your calorie deficit and help you retain more muscle when you diet.
Below, I’ve distilled some of the information into a simple bullet-point summary that any non-scientist can understand. Then I wrap up with my interpretation of how you can apply this data in your own fat loss program:
Calculating the calories required to lose a pound and fine-tuning your caloric deficit
* 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb. However, this 3500 calories figure goes back to research which assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).
* But as we all know (unfortunately), lean body mass is lost along with body fat, which would indicate that the 3500 calorie figure could be an oversimplification.
* The amount of lean body mass lost is based on initial body fat level and size of the calorie deficit
* Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat.
* Fat people tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (revealing why obese people can tolerate aggressive low calorie diets better than already lean people)
* Very aggressive low calorie diets tend to erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets.
* whether the weight loss is lean or fat gives you the real answer of what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss
* The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable energy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories.
* If you lose lean body mass, then you lose more weight than if you lose fat.
* If you create a 3500 calorie deficit in one week and you lose 100% body fat, you will lose one pound.
* But if you createa 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose almost 6 pounds of body weight! (of course, if you manage to lose 100% muscle, you will be forced to wear the Dieter’s Dunce cap)
* If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you may need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person
* Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet and maintaining that same caloric intake for the duration of the diet and after major weight loss fails to account for how your body decreases energy expenditure with reduced body weight
* Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (the “plateau”). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most people just can’t hack aggressive calorie reductions for long)
* Progressive resistance training and or high protein diets can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat versus lean tissue (which is why weight training and sufficient protein while on calorie restricted diets are absolute musts!)
So, based on this info, should you throw out the old calorie formulas?
Well, not necessarily. You can still use the standard calorie formulas to figure out how much you should eat, and you can use a 500-1000 calorie per day deficit (below maintenance) as a generic guideline to figure where to set your calories to lose one or two pounds per week respectively (at least that works “on paper” anyway).
Even better however, you could use this info to fine tune your caloric deficit using a percentage method and also base your deficit on your starting body fat level, to get a much more personalized and effective approach:
15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit
20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit
25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit
31-40% below maintenance calories = very aggressive deficit (risky)
50%+ below maintenance calories = semi starvation/starvation (potentially dangerous and unhealthy)
(Note: According to exercise physiologists Katch & Mcardle, the average female between the ages of 23 and 50 has a maintenance level of about 2000-2100 calories per day and the average male about 2700-2900 calories per day)
Usually, we would suggest starting with a conservative deficit of around 15-20% below maintenance. Based on this research, however, we see that there can be a big difference between lean and overweight people in how many calories they can or should cut.
If you have very high body fat to begin with, the typical rule of thumb on calorie deficits may underestimate the deficit required to lose a pound. It may also be too conservative, and you can probably use a more aggressive deficit safely without as much worry about muscle loss or metabolic slowdown.
If you are extremely lean, like a bodybuilder trying to get ready for competition, you would want to be very cautious about using aggressive calorie deficits. You’d be better off keeping the deficit conservative and starting your diet/cutting phase earlier to allow for a slow, but safe rate of fat loss, with maximum retention of muscle tissue.
The bottom line is that it’s not quite so simple as 3,500 calories being the deficit to lose a pound. Like lots of other things in nutrition that vary from person to person, the ideal amount of calories to cut “depends”…
from http://chetday.com/3500calorieformula.htm
By Tom Venuto, CSCS NSCA-CPT
Most fitness conscious people have heard that there are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, so if you create a deficit of 3500 calories in a week, you lose a pound of weight. If you create a deficit of 7000 calories in a week, you lose two pounds, and so on. Right? Well, not so fast…
Dr. Kevin Hall, an investigator at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda has done some interesting research about the mechanisms regulating human body weight. He recently published a new paper in the International Journal of Obesity that throws a wrench in works of the “3500 calories to lose a pound” idea.
Some of the equations in his paper made my head hurt, but despite the complex math he used to come to his conclusions, his article clearly prompts the question, "3500 calories to lose a pound of WHAT?" His paper also contained a lot of simple and practical tips you can use to properly balance your caloric intake with output, fine tune your calorie deficit and help you retain more muscle when you diet.
Below, I’ve distilled some of the information into a simple bullet-point summary that any non-scientist can understand. Then I wrap up with my interpretation of how you can apply this data in your own fat loss program:
Calculating the calories required to lose a pound and fine-tuning your caloric deficit
* 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb. However, this 3500 calories figure goes back to research which assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).
* But as we all know (unfortunately), lean body mass is lost along with body fat, which would indicate that the 3500 calorie figure could be an oversimplification.
* The amount of lean body mass lost is based on initial body fat level and size of the calorie deficit
* Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat.
* Fat people tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (revealing why obese people can tolerate aggressive low calorie diets better than already lean people)
* Very aggressive low calorie diets tend to erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets.
* whether the weight loss is lean or fat gives you the real answer of what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss
* The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable energy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories.
* If you lose lean body mass, then you lose more weight than if you lose fat.
* If you create a 3500 calorie deficit in one week and you lose 100% body fat, you will lose one pound.
* But if you createa 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose almost 6 pounds of body weight! (of course, if you manage to lose 100% muscle, you will be forced to wear the Dieter’s Dunce cap)
* If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you may need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person
* Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet and maintaining that same caloric intake for the duration of the diet and after major weight loss fails to account for how your body decreases energy expenditure with reduced body weight
* Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (the “plateau”). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most people just can’t hack aggressive calorie reductions for long)
* Progressive resistance training and or high protein diets can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat versus lean tissue (which is why weight training and sufficient protein while on calorie restricted diets are absolute musts!)
So, based on this info, should you throw out the old calorie formulas?
Well, not necessarily. You can still use the standard calorie formulas to figure out how much you should eat, and you can use a 500-1000 calorie per day deficit (below maintenance) as a generic guideline to figure where to set your calories to lose one or two pounds per week respectively (at least that works “on paper” anyway).
Even better however, you could use this info to fine tune your caloric deficit using a percentage method and also base your deficit on your starting body fat level, to get a much more personalized and effective approach:
15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit
20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit
25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit
31-40% below maintenance calories = very aggressive deficit (risky)
50%+ below maintenance calories = semi starvation/starvation (potentially dangerous and unhealthy)
(Note: According to exercise physiologists Katch & Mcardle, the average female between the ages of 23 and 50 has a maintenance level of about 2000-2100 calories per day and the average male about 2700-2900 calories per day)
Usually, we would suggest starting with a conservative deficit of around 15-20% below maintenance. Based on this research, however, we see that there can be a big difference between lean and overweight people in how many calories they can or should cut.
If you have very high body fat to begin with, the typical rule of thumb on calorie deficits may underestimate the deficit required to lose a pound. It may also be too conservative, and you can probably use a more aggressive deficit safely without as much worry about muscle loss or metabolic slowdown.
If you are extremely lean, like a bodybuilder trying to get ready for competition, you would want to be very cautious about using aggressive calorie deficits. You’d be better off keeping the deficit conservative and starting your diet/cutting phase earlier to allow for a slow, but safe rate of fat loss, with maximum retention of muscle tissue.
The bottom line is that it’s not quite so simple as 3,500 calories being the deficit to lose a pound. Like lots of other things in nutrition that vary from person to person, the ideal amount of calories to cut “depends”…
0
Replies
-
Nice post!0
-
Interesting.0
-
Thanks for the info!0
-
bump:happy:0
-
Commenting so I can find it and read it when I wake up. Good "night" all!0
-
except for the 600 calories to lose a pound part. This is what I've been trying to tell people for ages. This information isn't new, but I'm glad you reposted it from another source. I don't agree with all of Tom's techniques. But at least with this concept I'm in lockstep with his findings. In fact this post, really takes these points and puts it into a real world guide to deciding what your calorie deficit is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits
In fact, this highlights one reason (of the many) why people who have similar body types can have different weight loss, because lean tissue and fat have different density, the percentage lost will mean large differences in the pounds lost for the day. So you see, even if you think you didn't lose that much, if you do it right, and the majority of the loss is fat, your weight loss results might not look as dramatic on the scale (because it takes so many more calories to lose a pound of fat over a pound of muscle).0 -
Fascinating. And might explain why I can lose inches but gain weight!0
-
Cool, thanks for posting this!0
-
except for the 600 calories to lose a pound part. This is what I've been trying to tell people for ages. This information isn't new, but I'm glad you reposted it from another source. I don't agree with all of Tom's techniques. But at least with this concept I'm in lockstep with his findings. In fact this post, really takes these points and puts it into a real world guide to deciding what your calorie deficit is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits
That thread's actually what I was referring to when I said many of us know this already. V. useful! But yeah, The 600cals part is what I found interesting too.0 -
OMG, my head hurts now...0
-
Very interesting!!! Thank you for posting this.0
-
Thanks for the post! Informative and useful.0
-
Thanks! Good to think about!0
-
except for the 600 calories to lose a pound part. This is what I've been trying to tell people for ages. This information isn't new, but I'm glad you reposted it from another source. I don't agree with all of Tom's techniques. But at least with this concept I'm in lockstep with his findings. In fact this post, really takes these points and puts it into a real world guide to deciding what your calorie deficit is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits
That thread's actually what I was referring to when I said many of us know this already. V. useful! But yeah, The 600cals part is what I found interesting too.
I'll agree with this! Quick math made me think 1lb of muscle would be ~1800cals (1lb = ~453g x 4cals/g protein)...
The other thing I learned.... I wish I was a man... 2700 cals for maintenance. No. Fair.0 -
This is why I do three things when I get down to my last 5 pounds:
1) I lower my deficit to 200 calories.
2) I keep my weight training and protein intake high and cardio a little lower (cardio makes me hungrier than weight lifting)
3) I stay off the scale! How do I know I've lost my last 5 pounds? By measurements!0 -
Thanks for sharing!!!0
-
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting.0
-
I have been wondering a lot about this topic as I have gotten down to where I am trying to reduce my body fat from 15% to less than 10%. Having read this article, I am taking the wrong approach of having a 500+ calorie deficit, and should be reducing to more like 250/day in order to maintain muscle. Am I reading this right? Can I get away with higher deficits without losing too much muscle?0
-
Good Stuff, and thanks for sharing !0
-
Great article! Thanks for posting!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions