3500 calories to lose a pound? - Interesting article

Firesign

Looks like an interesting read . I want to save this to read after work

rori_74

bump - good information

guardup

500 is too big IMHO for a guy with 15% BF The same as it would be to much for a woman with 22 or 23% BF IMHO.

Not sure I agree with that. I have a 19% BF and I am holding between 300-500 calorie deficit. However, I focus on high protein (usually in excess of 100 grams/day) and I lift weights regularly. I usually hit 500 deficit when I have a big exercise day (in excess of 800 calories) and I'm simply NOT hungry.

As long as my body is getting the nutrients and I am not going to bed hungry, I think I can handle a good size deficit.

Having said that, I allow myself to ignore my deficit almost completely on the holidays or for the occasional trip to the pub. :drinker:

utamore

Not sure I agree with that. I have a 19% BF and I am holding between 300-500 calorie deficit. However, I focus on high protein (usually in excess of 100 grams/day) and I lift weights regularly.

That is reassuring. I also eat 100+ grams/day protein and lift weights regularly. I think I'll set my MFP to a 250 cal deficit and if I happen to end the day with an extra 250 cals uneaten, so be it.

lilmissy2

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.

I think 600 sounds a bit low but it wouldn't be 1800cals either... 1800 would be if muscle was 100% protein but it's (very simply speaking) protein and water. So when you lose 1lb you might lose say 1/3 pound protein, 2/3 pound body water....hmm so I guess that would be about 600 but I'm basing this on a vague recollection of proportions.

lilmissy2

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.

I think 600 sounds a bit low but it wouldn't be 1800cals either... 1800 would be if muscle was 100% protein but it's (very simply speaking) protein and water. So when you lose 1lb you might lose say 1/3 pound protein, 2/3 pound body water....hmm so I guess that would be about 600 but I'm basing this on a vague recollection of proportions.

SHBoss1673

500 is too big IMHO for a guy with 15% BF The same as it would be to much for a woman with 22 or 23% BF IMHO.

Not sure I agree with that. I have a 19% BF and I am holding between 300-500 calorie deficit. However, I focus on high protein (usually in excess of 100 grams/day) and I lift weights regularly. I usually hit 500 deficit when I have a big exercise day (in excess of 800 calories) and I'm simply NOT hungry.

As long as my body is getting the nutrients and I am not going to bed hungry, I think I can handle a good size deficit.

Having said that, I allow myself to ignore my deficit almost completely on the holidays or for the occasional trip to the pub. :drinker:

I never said you couldn't create a bigger deficit, I just said it's too big in regards to how effective it will be at fat loss. Why would you think you can handle a good sized deficit if you're at a relatively low BF%? I'm curious as to the science behind that theory. The concept goes against most main stream accepted science with regards to human metabolism and diet induced thermogenesis.

consider that BMR is about 65 to 70% of TDEE, diet induced thermogenesis is about 10% of TDEE and calories from activity is about 25 to 30% TDEE (or more depending on activity level). A 500 calorie deficit for a woman who is already at a good BF%, would be talking about eating just above BMR, or not supplying sufficient calories for any activity during the day. While this can be made up for in people with large fat stores, a female with 19% body fat doesn't have a high amount of available fat to draw from, the only other place for calories is amino acid stores (muscle mass), thus a significant portion of calories used to make up the difference would be drawn from muscle mass in this instance. Exercise will combat this to some degree. But the body will adapt feelings of hunger to the average amount of food intake, that means hormones such as ghrelin and leptin are released in quantities to make you feel less hungry whether or not you need more energy. Thus trusting your body to make the decision for you on when to eat, when you have been at a significant deficit for an extended period is a risky proposition.

Stewie316

BUMP

utamore

consider that BMR is about 65 to 70% of TDEE, diet induced thermogenesis is about 10% of TDEE and calories from activity is about 25 to 30% TDEE (or more depending on activity level). A 500 calorie deficit for a woman who is already at a good BF%, would be talking about eating just above BMR, or not supplying sufficient calories for any activity during the day.

There's a lot that I don't understand about your post but I am particularly curious about what you said here. According to MFP (I am a 5'10" 161 lb man with a desk job) my daily caloric needs are around 2150. You say here that someone with a 500 cal deficit (woman with low BF) would be consuming just above BMR--I understand that there's a difference between BMR and daily caloric expenditure but something just isn't adding up for me...

SHBoss1673

consider that BMR is about 65 to 70% of TDEE, diet induced thermogenesis is about 10% of TDEE and calories from activity is about 25 to 30% TDEE (or more depending on activity level). A 500 calorie deficit for a woman who is already at a good BF%, would be talking about eating just above BMR, or not supplying sufficient calories for any activity during the day.

There's a lot that I don't understand about your post but I am particularly curious about what you said here. According to MFP (I am a 5'10" 161 lb man with a desk job) my daily caloric needs are around 2150. You say here that someone with a 500 cal deficit (woman with low BF) would be consuming just above BMR--I understand that there's a difference between BMR and daily caloric expenditure but something just isn't adding up for me...

what do you think isn't adding up? Curious as to where you came up with that TDEE though, that sounds awfully low. Using the Generic calculation, your maintenance calories (assuming lightly active) are around 2350 to 2450.

utamore

what do you think isn't adding up? Curious as to where you came up with that TDEE though, that sounds awfully low. Using the Generic calculation, your maintenance calories (assuming lightly active) are around 2350 to 2450.

I agree it sounds low but I am not lightly active. I work a desk job all day. I exercise an hour every morning to compensate (3 days lifting, 3 days cardio, 1 day martial arts).

SHBoss1673

what do you think isn't adding up? Curious as to where you came up with that TDEE though, that sounds awfully low. Using the Generic calculation, your maintenance calories (assuming lightly active) are around 2350 to 2450.

I agree it sounds low but I am not lightly active. I work a desk job all day. I exercise an hour every morning to compensate (3 days lifting, 3 days cardio, 1 day martial arts).

if you exercise an hour every morning you aren't sedentary. you are lightly active. People sometimes don't understand that aspect, sedentary is really sedentary, very few under 30 people are actually sedentary.

guardup

what do you think isn't adding up? Curious as to where you came up with that TDEE though, that sounds awfully low. Using the Generic calculation, your maintenance calories (assuming lightly active) are around 2350 to 2450.

I agree it sounds low but I am not lightly active. I work a desk job all day. I exercise an hour every morning to compensate (3 days lifting, 3 days cardio, 1 day martial arts).

if you exercise an hour every morning you aren't sedentary. you are lightly active. People sometimes don't understand that aspect, sedentary is really sedentary, very few under 30 people are actually sedentary.

Unless this system is set up to differentiate between sitting on your butt all day (which IS sedentary) and adding an hour of exercise (manually added in on your otherwise sedentary burn rate), I would go with the sedentary rate and not the lightly active rate - which assumes you are moving around more throughout the day.

I too have a very sedentary job... wearing a calorie burn monitor, I burn less than 1.5 calories a minute while on the computer. My base rate for work is Sedentary (1800 calories a day). I add in my exercise calories and walking at 2.0 miles per hour for my other activities like food shopping, etc.

I understand your quoted science. However, I have had issues with various scientific studies that work for the general populace and don't work for me. General Studies do not take into account individual differentials - they normalize them. My diet, exercise and choices about my calorie intake or nutrition are based in many years of research and personal testing of what *feels* right combined with *results*. One must accompany the other.

However, I have a higher level of body awareness than most people. I knew I was pregnant the day after I conceived for both of my pregnancies (with no "false positives" even though the home test and the doctor's test both said I was not pregnant - and it turns out I was). I also have had excellent results with Biofeedback instead of medication to control a condition I was born with. Biofeedback requires a high degree of body awareness.

As such, I use general guidelines to a point and then I modify and test the methods to see what results change and how the process feels.

I put a lot of time and attention towards my body. I appreciate the general science as a starting point. And sometimes it even pairs well with my own testing an experience. However, it is surprising how often my own results deviate from what is "supposed" to happen.

utamore

Boss + guardup

Yeah I do have it set at sedentary but I try to diligently manually enter all physical activity but really like guardup I do very little activity at work. Reading other threads on the topic it sounds like lightly active is for people who are on their feet most of the day, and that is clearly not me. I do want to get a standing desk however! BTW, despite y'all's differences, I am very thankful for being able to read this dialogue as it has given me a lot to think about and a desire to learn more. So seriously, thank you both for your insight.