3500 calories to lose a pound? - Interesting article

pamp1emousse
pamp1emousse Posts: 282 Member
edited September 22 in Health and Weight Loss
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”…
«1

Replies

  • randyv99
    randyv99 Posts: 257 Member
    Nice post!
  • Debtappe
    Debtappe Posts: 164 Member
    Interesting.
  • Healthyby30
    Healthyby30 Posts: 1,349 Member
    Thanks for the info!
  • KellyBurton1
    KellyBurton1 Posts: 529 Member
    bump:happy:
  • Commenting so I can find it and read it when I wake up. Good "night" all!
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    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).
  • jodie_t
    jodie_t Posts: 287 Member
    Fascinating. And might explain why I can lose inches but gain weight!
  • Cool, thanks for posting this!
  • pamp1emousse
    pamp1emousse Posts: 282 Member
    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.
  • nisijam5
    nisijam5 Posts: 9,964 Member
    OMG, my head hurts now...
  • Audi68
    Audi68 Posts: 113 Member
    Very interesting!!! Thank you for posting this.
  • Thanks for the post! Informative and useful.
  • Thanks! Good to think about!
  • TropicalKitty
    TropicalKitty Posts: 2,298 Member
    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.
  • guardup
    guardup Posts: 230
    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!
  • miqisha
    miqisha Posts: 1,534 Member
    Thanks for sharing!!!
  • BK120
    BK120 Posts: 107
    Thanks for sharing. Very interesting.
  • 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?
  • Good Stuff, and thanks for sharing !
  • DeeDeeLHF
    DeeDeeLHF Posts: 2,301 Member
    Great article! Thanks for posting!
  • IsMollyReallyHungry
    IsMollyReallyHungry Posts: 15,385 Member
    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 agree on all points and I will have to re-read this post again.
  • catcrazy
    catcrazy Posts: 1,740 Member
    Bumpity bump to read when I can absorb it better
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    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?

    If you're at 15% body fat now, you could MAYBE get away with a 350 calorie deficit, maybe, it's very much a game of tweaking at this point, and it'll go very slow. It took me about 9 months to get from 14% BF to 10% BF, which is still considered very aggressive by most standards. I had about a 250 calorie deficit for most of that time. 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.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member

    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.

    FYI guys, I know 2700 sounds all fun and exciting for you. But seriously, it's not easy. It's quite expensive, you always feel like you need to have something in your mouth, it's distracting (because once your body is used to that calorie level, and it's healthy, it'll SCREAM for food every 2 hours or so, a rumbling stomach is embarrassing when you're in a meeting with the Company CEO and CFO), and it's far easier to eat stuff that's bad for you because you have a big enough cushion to afford it calorie wise.

    The grass is always greener folks, being bigger doesn't make your food choices any easier, trust me on that one. Having to use fractions extra of each serving means I'm constantly doing math in my head to figure out how many grams something is for 1.5 servings as opposed to 1 serving.
  • Laura80111
    Laura80111 Posts: 958 Member
    bump for later!


  • FYI guys, I know 2700 sounds all fun and exciting for you. But seriously, it's not easy.

    I actually disagree--with nuts you can easily jack up your calories in a healthy way. BTW, thanks for your advice re getting down my body fat more. I am going to switch to a 250/day calorie deficit. I'm glad I learned this when I did rather than pursuing a more aggressive deficit (as I have been to get from 20 to 15). I still want more info on this topic--how much muscle did I lose with a 500 cal deficit in going from 20 to 15% body fat (180 to 160 lbs)? What can I do besides maintaining resistance training and a ton of protein to help me with muscle maintenance?

    Edit--I'm dumb and can do simple arithmetic==12 lbs fat lost and 8 lbs muscle==60% fat loss. That is definitely not what I want my pattern to be for the rest of my cutting. I can't believe I didn't look at this earlier.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member


    FYI guys, I know 2700 sounds all fun and exciting for you. But seriously, it's not easy.

    I actually disagree--with nuts you can easily jack up your calories in a healthy way. BTW, thanks for your advice re getting down my body fat more. I am going to switch to a 250/day calorie deficit. I'm glad I learned this when I did rather than pursuing a more aggressive deficit (as I have been to get from 20 to 15). I still want more info on this topic--how much muscle did I lose with a 500 cal deficit in going from 20 to 15% body fat (180 to 160 lbs)? What can I do besides maintaining resistance training and a ton of protein to help me with muscle maintenance?

    nuts help, but you do need to be careful with them, they are an incomplete protein source and have a lot of fat. Even good fat, if you eat to much of it, can have negative consequences.
  • mhotch
    mhotch Posts: 901 Member
    save, I need to come back when I have time to really read this article. off to the gym.......
  • akaDumbo
    akaDumbo Posts: 187
    bump
  • nehtaeh
    nehtaeh Posts: 2,849 Member
    bump - good info. It'll be helpful to read it again to pick up more.
This discussion has been closed.