when 3500 cal doesn't equal a pound

chrisdavey

http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.com/when-3500-calories-do-not-equal-a-pound-new-study/exercise/

interesting read.

hush7hush

You always find the most interesting articles.

Give me more!

servilia

Interesting.
By the way even the 3500 cal/pound idea is only meant to apply for fat. One pound of muscle yields only 600 cals.

hush7hush

Also, that simulator was pretty rad.

taso42_DELETED

Also, that simulator was pretty rad.

yes, very cool.

servilia

awww my browser won't open the simulator

hush7hush

awww my browser won't open the simulator

Really?! Mine wouldn't at first, then I closed out of all the pop-ups and it worked.

taso42_DELETED

Interesting.
By the way even the 3500 cal/pound idea is only meant to apply for fat. One pound of muscle yields only 600 cals.

Now, if only I could build a lb of muscle with 600 calories...

servilia

Interesting.
By the way even the 3500 cal/pound idea is only meant to apply for fat. One pound of muscle yields only 600 cals.

Now, if only I could build a lb of muscle with 600 calories...

Yeah I know!! It's definitely harder to turn that 600 into a lb of muscle than 3500 into fat! :sad:

servilia

awww my browser won't open the simulator

Really?! Mine wouldn't at first, then I closed out of all the pop-ups and it worked.

Yeah the first time it crashed my browser, the second and third time it just went to an error page.

hush7hush

awww my browser won't open the simulator

Really?! Mine wouldn't at first, then I closed out of all the pop-ups and it worked.

Yeah the first time it crashed my browser, the second and third time it just went to an error page.

Ugh. That sucks. ]: It's really pretty awesome.

servilia

awww my browser won't open the simulator

Really?! Mine wouldn't at first, then I closed out of all the pop-ups and it worked.

Yeah the first time it crashed my browser, the second and third time it just went to an error page.

Ugh. That sucks. ]: It's really pretty awesome.

I'll try the link at my work computer tomorrow Something to look forward to on Monday!

MarieNevada

hmm interesting but it shows me with a body fat percentage of 30% at 130 lbs if i achieve my goal. that's way too high. it doesn't seem to take into account the possibility of lean body mass gains through strength training. but it's still pretty cool. according to it i can achieve my goal. but the cals are a bit lower than i'm eating right now. so i think i'll exercise more. lol

hush7hush

awww my browser won't open the simulator

Really?! Mine wouldn't at first, then I closed out of all the pop-ups and it worked.

Yeah the first time it crashed my browser, the second and third time it just went to an error page.

Ugh. That sucks. ]: It's really pretty awesome.

I'll try the link at my work computer tomorrow Something to look forward to on Monday!

Yes! Three cheers for work computers.
I actually just emailed the link to myself so I can save it at home. [:

MadBabysMama

thanks, cool simulator!

ESVABelle

...it says I need to eat more to weigh less

*sigh*

ESVABelle

hmm interesting but it shows me with a body fat percentage of 30% at 130 lbs if i achieve my goal. that's way too high. it doesn't seem to take into account the possibility of lean body mass gains through strength training. but it's still pretty cool. according to it i can achieve my goal. but the cals are a bit lower than i'm eating right now. so i think i'll exercise more. lol

You can manually enter your BF% if you turn on Advanced Options

chrisdavey

Calculator only works in IE for me.

It seemed to overestimate my maintenance a bit (based on historical data and bodymedia fit numbers) but interesting anyway. I had to change activity multiplier to 1.55 instead of 1.70.

nursegessica

Wow!!! Thanks!!! I have a lot to think about and figure out now!

kandrews24

Hmmmm thanks for sharing.

taso42_DELETED

Calculator only works in IE for me.

It seemed to overestimate my maintenance a bit (based on historical data and bodymedia fit numbers) but interesting anyway. I had to change activity multiplier to 1.55 instead of 1.70.

It seemed to overestimate mine as well. Either that, or I have under-estimated it. What's this, another excuse to eat even more!? :laugh:

NotGoddess

Cool simulator. I don't like that it assumes muscle loss, but then there are only options for cardio. I'm guessing weight training exercise is harder to calculate. It it nice to see the difference in BF% if you set your goal and see the difference between 30, 60, 90, 365, etc days. Makes it clearer that slow and steady is the way to go.

Jennyisbusy

Thanks that was really cool - I tinkered with numbers until I found one that I could make into a mantra.
1295 + 3 exercise gets me to 150 (lbs) in 150 (days.)

ESVABelle

It seemed to overestimate mine as well. Either that, or I have under-estimated it. What's this, another excuse to eat even more!? :laugh:

...did somebody say more peanut butter?

DaddyMantz

interesting.

chrisdavey

BTW when I posted this, I didn't even see the calculator. The article actually has a lot of good info. in it

MarieNevada

i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.

servilia

i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.

Maybe it's because lean body mass isn't made up only of muscle. Don't forget that water and connective tissue is included in lean body mass too. When you lose a lot of fat you're also going to be losing some connective tissue, water and other fluids. I'm not sure of the following but you might be losing some blood supply also - after all you won't be needing as much circulating blood since your body will be more compact and you won't need as much blood to reach different areas, if that makes any sense (Im not sure of the last part, it's just my reasoning).

Jennyisbusy

i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.

Yeah but what was was your end goal weight and how long did you put in to get there. Also at 130 lbs with 115lbs of lean body mass would be a super low amount of body fat, especially for a woman.

MarieNevada

i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.

Yeah but what was was your end goal weight and how long did you put in to get there. Also at 130 lbs with 115lbs of lean body mass would be a super low amount of body fat, especially for a woman.

my end goal was 130lbs and i gave it one year. i am aiming for 15% body fat which would actually take me to about 132 lbs right now. almost 30 lbs loss of lean body mass according to their scale. there's no way that will happen with weight lifting as part of my routine. yes i have another 111 lbs to go but like i said i've lost 57 (as of this morning) lbs so far and have not lost any lean body mass, in fact i've gained. so their simulator is way off.

fiberartist219

I can't speak for the simulator since my computer is still installing the plug in for it, but I can tell you from experience that 3500 calories does not always correlate to one pound of fat. My metabolism is jacked due to hypothyroidism. I'm being treated for it, but my levels change every few months, and it's hard to manage right now.