Stupid question about 1,000 calorie deficit
Options
Replies
-
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.
I'm having a hard time following... Based on the assumption that 1 lb lost for the week equals having a 3,500 weekly deficit and 2 lbs lost for the week equals having a 7,000 weekly deficit, here's my math:
Daily TDEE: 2,300 calories
Daily Cals Consumed: 1,300
Daily Deficit: (2,300 - 1,300) 1,000
Weekly TDEE: 16,100 calories
Weekly Cals Consumed: 9,100
Weekly Deficit: (16,100 - 9,100) 7,000
Would the above result in 2 lbs lost for the week?
********************
Daily TDEE: 3,000 calories
Daily Cals Consumed: 2,000
Daily Deficit: (3,000 - 2,000) 1,000
Weekly TDEE: 21,000
Weekly Cals Consumed: 14,000
Weekly Deficit: (21,000 - 14,000) 7,000
Would the above result in 2 lbs lost for the week?0 -
A very good question, I ask myself too!
I think when the deficit comes from eating, it will 100% lead to the desired weight loss. But when you exercise so much (probably cardio mainly) the body gets used to it and begins to burn less calories when training, so you dont actually know if it was 700 calories or less. Cardio melts cellulite and training makes you overall sexy, but you can not always make sure the burn was exact
Sorry, I am not an expert, just expressing my opinion. All the best! 0 -
Stef - I need to hold up both my hands and apologise. I don't know how I missed your point about BMR+exercise. For some reason I thought that your totals didn't include the BMR. We're actually saying the same thing. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
Katro - You're right with those numbers. My mistake, but to me a deficit is eating less than your BMR and exercise combined - that's why I got confused. In my head, I thought you were both saying that you burned off 2,300 calories from exercise, and a further 2,000 because of your BMR (2,000 is the average number of calories used for GDA totals in the UK). So, in my mind, you were saying that you actually had a TDEE of 4,300!
That's what I get for not using the TDEE system.......... I'll go and hide in the corner now.0 -
No worries! In the post that I started this thread with I failed to mention that the burned calories I was using for the examples were TDEE (I said it a few posts down, but I should've said it from the beginning).
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.
How many calories you burn in a workout depends on your size. Not everybody will burn 700 calories from two hours of walking. For smaller individuals, burning 3000 calories in a day might actually not be doable on a regular basis. And not everybody has three hours of free time to devote to working out.0 -
Still my fault! :sad:0
-
Still my fault! :sad:
don't worry about it...that is why I asked if the original question was BMR or TDEE...
*Hands cloney a cookie to get him out of the corner*0 -
I think you guys are all WAY over estimating the amount of calories you burn in a single day. 3,000 calories burned through exercise in a single day?? What?? I'm sorry, i've never ever heard of someone burning 700 calories in 2 hours worth of walking. If that was so, my Grandpa would be a walking stick.0
-
I think you guys are all WAY over estimating the amount of calories you burn in a single day. 3,000 calories burned through exercise in a single day?? What?? I'm sorry, i've never ever heard of someone burning 700 calories in 2 hours worth of walking. If that was so, my Grandpa would be a walking stick.
This isn't about exercising 3000 calories a day...it's about a TDEE of 2300...eating 1300 and that being a deficet of 1k calories a day which leads to a 2lb a week weight loss.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.
We call that cherry picking, the vast majority of studies on humans has concluded that caloric intake regardless of macro intake is the main determinant in fat loss, with a slight possible metabolic advantage to higher protein diets. The study you listed was on rats, since it was, do you think the much higher rates of DNL in rats makes this study applicable to humans>0 -
Take a look at mikewise1. Unless i'm just reading is wording wrong. "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. " 0
-
Alright guys, reading is fundamental!
Here's the Reader's Digest version of my ORIGINAL POST and the subject of this argument...
I am having a friendly debate with someone who is a personal trainer. They say that a TDEE of 3,000 per day and consuming 2,000 calories per day, despite resulting in a 1,000 calorie daily deficit and a weekly 7,000 calorie deficit, will not yield a 2 lb per week loss. Personal trainer contends that a TDEE of 2,300 and consuming 1,300 per day (which yields the exact same daily and weekly deficits) WILL result in a 2 lb per week loss. I say both scenarios will have the same result.
**Note: these caloric burns are HYPOTHETICAL and based on an IMAGINARY person. Plus, they are TDEE which is BMR + exercise.
Math:
Daily TDEE: 2,300 calories
Daily Cals Consumed: 1,300
Daily Deficit: (2,300 - 1,300) 1,000
Weekly TDEE: 16,100 calories
Weekly Cals Consumed: 9,100
Weekly Deficit: (16,100 - 9,100) 7,000
Would the above result in 2 lbs lost for the week?
********************
Daily TDEE: 3,000 calories
Daily Cals Consumed: 2,000
Daily Deficit: (3,000 - 2,000) 1,000
Weekly TDEE: 21,000
Weekly Cals Consumed: 14,000
Weekly Deficit: (21,000 - 14,000) 7,000
Would the above result in 2 lbs lost for the week?0 -
They may not necessarily yield the same results. It depends on the person and their activity level, their age, gender, etc.
Someone with more Muscle who has the same weight as someone with more fat, will lose quicker than the person with less muscle.
Since exercising builds and strengthens muscles, I would say the person exercising more would lose quicker than the one going through diet alone. It may not be a huge noticeable difference, but there is a difference.0 -
Our bodies are extremely complex. We use the oversimplification of 3500 calories deficit equals a pound lost, but it's an oversimplification.
Not all people will lose or gain at the exact same rates due to size, age, gender, body fat percentage.
A fat 200 pound man will not need quite as much as a fiit muscular 200 ib man to maintain weight.
It's averages. The numbers may not be exact for every single person.0 -
For the purposes of this argument, we are not examining the gray area (e.g. everyone's body is different, certain exercises produce different results, etc). We are simply looking at the black and white scenarios involving calories in vs. calories out. We are going off the "oversimplified" assumption that a 1,000 calorie daily deficit, or 7,000 calorie weekly deficit, will result in 2 lbs lost regardless of if that deficit was obtained eating 1,300 calories per day and burning 2,300 total calories per day or eating 2,000 calories per day and burning 3,000 total calories for the day.0
-
For the purposes of this argument, we are not examining the gray area (e.g. everyone's body is different, certain exercises produce different results, etc). We are simply looking at the black and white scenarios involving calories in vs. calories out. We are going off the "oversimplified" assumption that a 1,000 calorie daily deficit, or 7,000 calorie weekly deficit, will result in 2 lbs lost regardless of if that deficit was obtained eating 1,300 calories per day and burning 2,300 total calories per day or eating 2,000 calories per day and burning 3,000 total calories for the day.
Making the assumption of no change in water, glycogen, waste etc all which can effect "weight"0 -
But all those things affect it.
In theory, if you only look at calories in versus calories out, it wouldn't matter.
In real life, where there are other factors, the person exercising would lose more body fat because they are gaining muscle which will burn more calories at rest than will fat.0 -
If I were as simple as calories in calories out,
Those eating at a surplus to gain muscle would get fat, not gain muscle.
There are other factors.
Take two people who eat a surplus of 500 cals a day.
Different lifestyles though, The one who rarely works out would gain fat. The one doing heavy lifting would gain muscle.
There are more factors than what you put in your mouth,0 -
If I were as simple as calories in calories out,
Those eating at a surplus to gain muscle would get fat, not gain muscle.
There are other factors.
Take two people who eat a surplus of 500 cals a day.
Different lifestyles though, The one who rarely works out would gain fat. The one doing heavy lifting would gain muscle.
There are more factors than what you put in your mouth,
Yeah, I know, but we're not comparing two different people with different lifestyles, body compositions, workout routines, etc.
How about this:
There is only one imaginary person. We'll say they are a 35 y/o woman who weighs 180 lbs and has 30% body fat. She works out 4 days per week (two weight training days and two cardio days). If she works out at a moderate intensity she ends up with a TDEE of 2,300 cals and eats 1,300 cals (we'll assume her diet is 30% fat, 40% carbs and 30% protein). If she works out at a higher intensity (but same amount of time spent on working out as she does at a moderate intensity) she gets a TDEE of 3,000 calories and eats 2,000 each day. Will both caloric deficit scenarios result in the same or similar amount of fat loss?0 -
She would probably lose more with the added exercise.
Immediately, there would be little or no difference.
Over time, the extra exercise would be building more muscle which burns more at rest.
She would also be eating below her bmr at 1300 calories and while I don't buy starvation mode for a second, it would be difficult for her to get all the nutrition and energy her body truly needs eating at 1300 calories a day consistently, making it significantly harder not to overeat to begin with.
So short term, they would probably lose about the same. Long term though, the method with exercise would lose more fat, and also result in being healthier overall.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