Myth or Fact? Simple Math: 3500 calories = one pound? Eat

Goal_Seeker_1988

bump

adross3

Well Done.......We need more "Good Reads" to digest.

Rachaelluvszipped

Love it!:flowerforyou:

LJA1968

Love the info.

hibiscus89

Bump

Ifly4free

Bump.

Sublog

Read this for more info as well. A few things to add - I admit I didnt read everyone's responses so it may have been mentioned.

It's typical to lose 20-30% (or more) of LBM on an extended diet (even if you are lifting weights and eating high protein).

Here's a more scientific article.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

funkycamper

bump

sehatmand

Thank you.

CallmeSbo

Bump, i need to do my math and see how this applies to me.

needlework

bump

ladyraven68

Worth bumping.

GuarionexSandoval

"The short of this new (2010) research teaches us that while 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb, this figure stems from research which (incorrectly) assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course)."

The title has it exactly backwards. 3500 kcals doesn't equal one pound of fat. One pound of fats stored in adipose tissue contains 3500 kcals of energy. It's just a matter of fact that if 3500 kcals of fat stored in adipose tissue is metabolized (the fat cells themselves are never lost, unless surgically removed) the result will be one pound of weight loss.

None of the previous research has assumed that all the weight lost during caloric restriction would be from adipose tissue. It's well known in the field of human nutrition and nutritional biology that caloric restriction that doesn't have a sufficiently large component of physical activity will lead to increased loss of lean body mass (especially from skeletal muscle) to get amino acids required for daily protein synthesis to maintain homeostasis. If you have a sufficiently high protein intake and maintain a high enough level of physical activity, the lean body mass is much less affected than during caloric restriction with a sedentary lifestyle.

IntentionaLiving

THIS POST IS AWESOME!!! Thanks a bunch!

bigmikebyrnes

Great post succinctly written. In weight loss I think it's also useful to be aware of high vs low GI foods and the resulting insulin response, as well as hormonal factors like the HPA HPT axis. Google them!

rhondatime2chg

Great info.

ThePlight

Thank you very much for this post! Definitely bookmarked, very useful information. So elegantly written

Ninjaliz

My Trainer Sophie is trying to get me to lose a pound a week of fat to get to my goal. What she said is totally in line with your post! She is always right! Your post really explained it to me so thanks cos I didn't get what she was getting at! This makes sense now why she said I need to do more strength training and less cardio and eat certain percentages of Macronutrients! Hope I lose my last 10 pounds! Lost 71.5 so far!

RonKay

bump

tiggerlgh

Thanks! This is great information.

ninerbuff

A smart and sustainable deficit for weight and fat loss would be 20% of one's TDEE. It seems more and more the 1200 calorie diet is getting eliminated by the fitness world as the "go to" diet. And that's a good thing.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

PompaD175

thank you for the information. I really appreciate the down to earth common sense approach.I've been using your app for the last week or so and find it very user friendly. Thank you.

daisy_grrl85

So how do you know if you are a "relatively lean" person? By body fat percentage? pounds overweight?

weightlose9934

Really great...There is no real reason to change from cow's milk to soy milk unless you are lactose intolerant. Cow's milk provides more protein, more calcium and Vitamin B than soy milk, and actually contains a lower percentage of fat. Overall, cow's milk is actually healthier, and most soy milk is 'fortified', meaning it has stuff added to provide at least a bit of calcium and various vitamins.


In other words - cow's milk or soy milk is entirely a matter of personal preference. Consumed in a healthy amount, neither of the two is 'better' as such, or better for weight loss. It's just what the individual likes better.

Weezabella

Bookmarking!

garyw21

So many folks have posted information on MFP about whether to eat their exercise calories or not, and I provided my answer but never previously provided the WHY behind my approach. I hope this information helps answer that question in part, but the other question it addresses is whether the simple "calories in versus calories out" and "3500 calories = one pound" tenets are universally accurate.

Many others, myself included, have touted the 3500 calories = one pound calculation, which is the accepted general rule, but out of good faith, I am adding one big caveat. My guidance is based on recent findings published in the International Journal of Obesity (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html).

The short of this new (2010) research teaches us that while 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb, this figure stems from research which (incorrectly) assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).

So, first of all, yes one pound of FAT = 3500 calories.

Here's where the caveat comes in. Because lean body mass is lost along with body fat, researchers now know the 3500 calorie figure is, for many, an oversimplification. The amount of lean body mass you will lose is based on your initial body fat level and size of your daily calorie deficit. Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat. Obese/overweight individuals tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (this explains why obese people can tolerate extremely low calorie diets better than already lean people, and why lean folks (close to their goal weights) have a devil of a time losing the last few pounds and need to be extra aware that they need to avoid an ultra low calorie approach to losing those pounds). Very aggressive low calorie diets erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets. Whether you are losing lean or fat, tells you what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss is for you.

The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable eneregy 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 create a 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose approximately 6 pounds of body weight (a very bad thing).

If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you will need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person. That means that eating at a lower calorie level will work better for you than for a relatively lean individual.

Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet (e.g., a 750 calorie deficit per day) 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. Your dietary needs will change as you lose weight. As you get lighter, your daily caloric need will diminish as will your body's ability to tolerate a too low calorie intake (consequence? you'll begin to lose more lean and hang onto the fat, thereby getting lighter but "fatter").

Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (we call this a "plateau"). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most of us can't stick to excessive calorie reductions for long). Progressive resistance training and adequate caloric intake can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat vs lean tissue.

So ... should you throw out the old calorie formulas? 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 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)

A conservative deficit of around 15-20% below maintenance is often appropriate, especially for non-obese individuals.

In a nutshell, Dr. Hall’s research tells us that there are big differences between lean and overweight people in how many calories they can or should cut. If you are obese/significantly overweight, dramatic deficits will still result in a high (and desirable) ratio of fat loss to lean loss. If you are lighter, then you must pay more attention to being sure your calorie consumption doesn't drop too low. Be aware of where you are on this curve, and adjust as you make progress toward your healthy weight and body composition goal.

Fab30s

Makes sense. Thank you.

stevencloser

An actually good post, hey. I was expecting some more fad stuff after the last few days of big threads, but this is pretty accurate.

Another way people do diets would be finding out what the maintenance calories for your goal weight are and eating those. Results are obviously going to slow down over time resulting in less deficit and less lean body mass loss as you get closer to your goal.
I kept at the same caloric deficit for a while and only lost lbm because I didn't go to gym over the holidays and didn't go back in until last week.

joradora

Maybe my math is wrong, but I calculated my maintenance (as did MFP) at 2248. My goal caloric intake to lose 2 lbs/week is 1250. Is that not more than 40% below, thus very risky? And yet, I'm not consistently losing 2/week, and it seems odd that MFP would allow a risky rate of loss. Did I miscalculate somehow?

chemjab

Very helpful information. I have been experiencing this. One of my main goals is to decrease my % body fat as measured on a Tanita BC-418. I am watching my weight come down but my fat% increase just as described in this article. :noway:
Now, I will try to "fine tune" my approach to reverse this trend.

Thanks for sharing.