Weekly calories vs daily question

Kinome100

Hey!
So technically if you eat 7 days worth of calories in a day, then fast for 6 days
You would still lose 1lbs?


(And that was just an example, im not gonna do it myself )

JVClubs

man this has bad idea written all over it

Liftng4Lis

I'm sure when they drag you to the hospital you would have lost more than a pound.

logg1e

No, you have still eaten a week's worth of calories in a week.

DaniellaB1995

OP CLEARLY said it's just an example guys...
But I think that's meant to be how it works, so yeah technically that'd amount to a 1lb loss, as well as tons of other combinations, like you could eat 2 days worth of calories every other day, and fast on the days in between, as long as the numbers all add up

This is why things like the 5:2 diet work, as long as you can keep doing it

Kinome100

No, you have still eaten a week's worth of calories in a week.

Yeah but You are still in a deficit at the end of the week

logg1e

You're not in deficit though. You've eaten a week's worth of calories in 7 days.

7 days worth of calories in a day, then fast for 6 days

Kinome100

You're not in deficit though. You've eaten a week's worth of calories in 7 days.

7 days worth of calories in a day, then fast for 6 days

Lets say you maintain with 1500 calories. You need to eat 1000 calories to lose a pound in a week.
but you eat 7000 in a day you still lose 1500 a day, so 7000-10500= -3500

bwogilvie

An analysis of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment suggested that there was an upper limit to the amount of energy that can be provided by the body's fat stores, and in the absence of food, energy requirements beyond that limit will be drawn from muscle tissue (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615). Others have taken issue with that analysis, but I think the general principle is sound.

So taking your hypothetical, most of those 7,000 calories in one day will be stored as fat, but some of the energy needed on the other six days will come not from fat but from muscle. At the end of the week, you will weigh a pound less (presuming the figures are correct), but your body fat percentage would probably be no lower, and might even be higher.

Seems like a recipe for getting lighter but staying flabby.

logg1e

You're not in deficit though. You've eaten a week's worth of calories in 7 days.

7 days worth of calories in a day, then fast for 6 days

Lets say you maintain with 1500 calories. You need to eat 1000 calories to lose a pound in a week.
but you eat 7000 in a day you still lose 1500 a day, so 7000-10500= -3500

I'm with you now. A week's worth of calories... less 3500. So you're eating less than a week's worth of calories.

I share your curiosity about how this 3500 calorie equals a pound of body fat works.

cwolfman13

You're not in deficit though. You've eaten a week's worth of calories in 7 days.

7 days worth of calories in a day, then fast for 6 days

Lets say you maintain with 1500 calories. You need to eat 1000 calories to lose a pound in a week.
but you eat 7000 in a day you still lose 1500 a day, so 7000-10500= -3500

I'm with you now. A week's worth of calories... less 3500. So you're eating less than a week's worth of calories.

I share your curiosity about how this 3500 calorie equals a pound of body fat works.

It's called a general guideline...it's not a hard and fast law of physics or anything like that. If you consume 3500 fewer calories than you need to maintain over the course of a week, you're likely to lose about 1 Lb...some of that will be fat, some of it will be muscle...some of it will just be fluids...and some of it will simply be less waste in your system.

DamePiglet

So, i take it that OP is just asking theoretically, because a person's weight generally fluctuates by more than a pound throughout the course of a single day.
I have generally treated calories as a "bank account" anyway. Over by x amount one day? Make up the difference over the course of the rest of the week. It's never been a PRECISE way, but it's been effective over the long term.