Stupid question about 1,000 calorie deficit
Options
katro111
Posts: 632 Member
So... about that 1,000 calorie deficit... Does it matter how that is achieved? Meaning, if you burned 2,300 calories in a day and ate 1,300 calories there's your deficit and in theory you'd lose 2 lbs per week if you did that every day. However, if you burned 3,000 calories per day and ate 2,000 would you still, in theory, lose 2 lbs per week if you did that for 7 days? I only bring this up because I've heard conflicting info from someone who is a personal trainer (and not in any way a nutritionist), but since I have zero formal education in either field I figured I'd throw this out there.
0
Replies
-
Burning 2300...is that BMR or with exercise or a combination of both?
To lose 1lb a week you need to take in 3500 calories less than you burn.
But yes a 1k calorie a day deficet regardless of where the burn comes from should result in a 2lb a week loss.0 -
The daily burns in my example are BMR + exercise, but you confirmed my suspicion that it shouldn't necessarily matter if the deficit is from 2,300 burned and 1,300 consumed or 3,000 burned and 2,000 consumed. I'm engaging in a friendly "battle" about this subject with a friend who is a personal trainer so now I can say at least one person backs me up! :laugh:0
-
Science backs you up, too. But it's all about averages and estimates. How certain are you you're burning 3000 in a day? I have to BUST MY BUTT to burn 3000 in one day. Like hiking all day uphill with a backpack on, kind of busting my tail. Or doing 4 hours of training where I lose about 5# of weight from sweating, even if I'm drinking some water constantly. But I'm a short woman, so there's that...0
-
These are all just hypothetical situations. I'm pretty sure I've rarely (if ever) personally burned 3,000 calories in a day!0
-
These are all just hypothetical situations. I'm pretty sure I've rarely (if ever) personally burned 3,000 calories in a day!
So I'm assuming you mean burning 700 cals extra through exercise?0 -
Ah! Then hypothetical on!0
-
I would make a few points:
- First 3000 calories a day is quite practical, you can do it for example with 2 hours of walking (adds about 700) and 1 hour of a medium intense workout (500 calories). Easily tracked really. I do 3000 calories per day more often than not and I am well past middle age
.
- I think the bigger issue is how confident you can be about how much you eat. Counting calories can be quite challenging unless you prepare your own meals. As I travel a lot this is an issue for me.
- Another wrench in the works is the fact that not all calories are equal, fat takes little energy to digest, and protein takes quite a lot. Calorie counts do not adjust for that as far as I know.
- Then there is your own metabolism. Some people just move and burn more.
- And also there is good evidence that when you starve yourself you body moves into a lower energy mode - causing you to move less and burn less calories (also to metabolize muscle, which has a high caloric upkeep cost).
So I think a 1000 calorie a day deficit is challenging for all these reasons.0 -
These are all just hypothetical situations. I'm pretty sure I've rarely (if ever) personally burned 3,000 calories in a day!
So I'm assuming you mean burning 700 cals extra through exercise?
I suppose... I mean that at 11:59pm, the total number of calories burned for the entire day was 3,000 and the imaginary person only ate 2,000 (this assumes that this imaginary person weighed everything they ate to be accurate) they would, in theory, lose 2 lbs per week if this exact routine were repeated every day.0 -
Burning 2300...is that BMR or with exercise or a combination of both?
To lose 1lb a week you need to take in 3500 calories less than you burn.
But yes a 1k calorie a day deficet regardless of where the burn comes from should result in a 2lb a week loss.
This Brozone is strong in here.
I'd like to see a study that supports this nonsense.
They discovered that a pound of fat contains 3500 calories, yet you'll never find a study to support it.
If we were bomb calorimeters it would be a different story.
The human body has 10,000+ metabolic processes happening every second and in order to figure out exactly how many calories to cut so any given person can lose exactly 1lb of fat a week, would take 20 pages of complex equations with a high chance of error.
OP,
Unless you are Obese III, don't cut 1000cals per day.
Start higher with caloric intake to maintain, then slowly cut till you find what gets YOU 1-2lbs loss per week.
I can guarantee it isn't going to be 1000cal deficit.
Dieting is like landing a plane.
The more room you have to work with, the easier it is.
If you try to force fat loss, it simply gets harder.
PM if you need any help.
Here's my method http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet0 -
Again, I'm just trying to argue a point with someone. My hypothetical scenarios and imaginary people mentioned are just that - hypothetical and imaginary. This does not reflect me personally in any way, but thank you for the resource.0
-
Heres a study from as far back as 1956 talking about Macronutrients over actual calories.
Yes the calories were low in the study, but you'll find that the group that ate the high protein or high fat, lost significantly more fat than the group that ate the high carb diet.
Kind of throws the calories in/out theory out the door.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01406736569169190 -
You'll also find similar results in Suzanne Devkotas study on using the USDA food pyramid vs Zone dieting for fat loss.
Following USDA recommendations of the pyramid and MyPlate resulted in fat gain.
Using Zone style dieting resulted in fat loss.
Both groups ate the same calories per day.0 -
Burning 2300...is that BMR or with exercise or a combination of both?
To lose 1lb a week you need to take in 3500 calories less than you burn.
But yes a 1k calorie a day deficet regardless of where the burn comes from should result in a 2lb a week loss.
This Brozone is strong in here.
I'd like to see a study that supports this nonsense.
They discovered that a pound of fat contains 3500 calories, yet you'll never find a study to support it.
If we were bomb calorimeters it would be a different story.
The human body has 10,000+ metabolic processes happening every second and in order to figure out exactly how many calories to cut so any given person can lose exactly 1lb of fat a week, would take 20 pages of complex equations with a high chance of error.
OP,
Unless you are Obese III, don't cut 1000cals per day.
Start higher with caloric intake to maintain, then slowly cut till you find what gets YOU 1-2lbs loss per week.
I can guarantee it isn't going to be 1000cal deficit.
Dieting is like landing a plane.
The more room you have to work with, the easier it is.
If you try to force fat loss, it simply gets harder.
PM if you need any help.
Here's my method http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet
sure okay...it's all bro science that being in a 3500 calorie a week deficet is 1lb weight loss...
The numbers are not absolute but are pretty friggen close. Take me for example...my TDEE is 2000 calories...14k a week...I've been eating on average 12309 a week, so t hat is 1691 deficet each week...1691*3500=14.49 lbs...strangly enough I've lost 14lbs in those weeks...I know a study of one isn't enough but pretty good "guesstimate" on my part.
As well if you had read the OP you would know they didn't plan on cutting that much...it was a debate between them and a PT...so don't expect a PM...0 -
You'll also find similar results in Suzanne Devkotas study on using the USDA food pyramid vs Zone dieting for fat loss.
Following USDA recommendations of the pyramid and MyPlate resulted in fat gain.
Using Zone style dieting resulted in fat loss.
Both groups ate the same calories per day.
Oh you're one of those...
Never mind...
*walks away shaking head*0 -
Bump......interesting to read later on....0
-
You'll also find similar results in Suzanne Devkotas study on using the USDA food pyramid vs Zone dieting for fat loss.
Following USDA recommendations of the pyramid and MyPlate resulted in fat gain.
Using Zone style dieting resulted in fat loss.
Both groups ate the same calories per day.
Oh you're one of those...
Never mind...
*walks away shaking head*
Sensible?
I'm sensible to the data that suggests that macronutrients are far more important than overall caloric intake.
I have a client on here named Jfrankic: 40s 165# lifts 3x a week with zero cardio. Sleeps 8hours a night. Eats 3k a day to lose fat.
On a calculator she should be gaining fat.
Stef you can't just stick your head in the sand and expect nothing bad to happen.
You have to keep an open mind about the science of physiology.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/13
Suzanne Devkota on RDA nutrition vs classic BB nutrition on body composition.
Devkota takes RDA “Food pyramid or My Plate” in macronutrients RDA= C60/12P/28F vs BB stype nutrition= C35/P35/F30.
"Results after 10 days= The CHO group produced a consistently elevated response in plasma glucose, insulin and C-peptide following the meal through the 120 min time course. In addition, Akt and Erk 1/2 activation in adipose was much higher than in skeletal muscle. Conversely, the PRO group PP glucose response was minimal and insulin maintained a response similar to a biphasic pattern. Tissue responses for the PRO group were greater for Akt and p70S6K signaling in skeletal muscle compared with adipose."
Lay terms= Food pyramid = fatter with lower muscle body composition and BB= Leaner with higher muscular body composition.0 -
You'll also find similar results in Suzanne Devkotas study on using the USDA food pyramid vs Zone dieting for fat loss.
Following USDA recommendations of the pyramid and MyPlate resulted in fat gain.
Using Zone style dieting resulted in fat loss.
Both groups ate the same calories per day.
Oh you're one of those...
Never mind...
*walks away shaking head*
Sensible?
I'm sensible to the data that suggests that macronutrients are far more important than overall caloric intake.
I have a client on here named Jfrankic: 40s 165# lifts 3x a week with zero cardio. Sleeps 8hours a night. Eats 3k a day to lose fat.
On a calculator she should be gaining fat.
Stef you can't just stick your head in the sand and expect nothing bad to happen.
You have to keep an open mind about the science of physiology.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/13
Suzanne Devkota on RDA nutrition vs classic BB nutrition on body composition.
Devkota takes RDA “Food pyramid or My Plate” in macronutrients RDA= C60/12P/28F vs BB stype nutrition= C35/P35/F30.
"Results after 10 days= The CHO group produced a consistently elevated response in plasma glucose, insulin and C-peptide following the meal through the 120 min time course. In addition, Akt and Erk 1/2 activation in adipose was much higher than in skeletal muscle. Conversely, the PRO group PP glucose response was minimal and insulin maintained a response similar to a biphasic pattern. Tissue responses for the PRO group were greater for Akt and p70S6K signaling in skeletal muscle compared with adipose."
Lay terms= Food pyramid = fatter with lower muscle body composition and BB= Leaner with higher muscular body composition.
Sorry I just don't subscribe to calories don't matter...
I agree macros are important for body comp and health but to lose weight you need a deficet in calories going in.
If your client is losing weight (fat mainly) good for her...she has her protien macros set well, fat done right and is in a calorie deficet.
ETA: I should also add that in those weeks I lost 14lbs in that calorie deficet I also dropped 5% bf...why because I too subcribe to watching my macros...and calories.0 -
sure okay...it's all bro science that being in a 3500 calorie a week deficet is 1lb weight loss...
I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. And, if I'm reading it right, is borderline irresponsible to say. Eating 3500 calories LESS than your weekly GDA total (which is around14,000 for a woman, 17,500 calories for a man) per week is what would allow for weight loss around 1lb a week. What the OP has suggested isn't 3500 calories less than their GDA (10,500 a week), but an actual weekly deficit (-7000 a week).
Based on the OP's example of someone eating 1300 calories a day and "burning off" 2300, that would result in weight loss closer to 4lbs - which anyone should tell you is going to end up being incredibly dangerous if you keep it up. If you can keep it up, that is.
Hopefully something's been lost in translation here.0 -
sure okay...it's all bro science that being in a 3500 calorie a week deficet is 1lb weight loss...
I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. And borderline irresponsible to say. Eating 3500 calories LESS than your weekly GDA total (which is around14,000 for a woman, 17,500 calories for a man) per week is what would allow for weight loss around 1lb a week. What the OP, and you in turn, have suggested isn't a 3500 less than their GDA, but an actual weekly deficit.
Based on the OP's example of someone eating 1300 calories a day and "burning off" 2300, that would result in weight loss closer to 4lbs - which anyone should tell you is going to end up being incredibly dangerous if you keep it up. If you can keep it up, that is.
Hopefully something's been lost in translation here.
Yes I think it has...I subsribe to 1lb weight loss = 3500 deficet. I wasn't calling it bro science someone else did.
As to the OP questions I agreed that if someone was burning 2300 (BMR+exercise) and eating 1300 that yes that is a 1k a day difference which is 2lbs a week...
Now in your scenario if burning 2300 a day was just exercise than you are correct...it would be a lot more...0 -
Sadly, it appears nothing was lost in translation. I knew you were being sarcastic abou the bro science, but I was hoping that you weren't really supporting the -1000 calorie deficit = 1lb idea. You're confusing deficits with losses.
To lose 1lb a week, you need to burn off around 3,500 calories less than your GDA - which for a woman is 14,000 for the week. In other words, 1lb weight loss would occur if your net caloric total for the week was close to 10,500.
Having a net caloric total of -7000 for the week however, which is what you're suggesting, would result in something closer to 4lbs of weight loss. Which is, frankly, insane. And I'd be amazed to see someone keep that up extended periods of time.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions