the 3,500 cal = 1 lb rule

Options
hookilau
hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
in Food and Nutrition
SO...I changed my weight training program & over the course of the 2ish weeks that followed, gained 4#'s of scale weight.

Not a big deal, it's just 4#'s, however, I'm a small woman and every couple of pounds shows. 5' tall, currently (hopefully) fluctuating btw 123 & 127, though I haven't seen 123 since I started the new program.

In an effort to convince myself that I should just wait it out, it's just water, etc... I went searching & found this article. Now it's an article not a study. I just want some common sense opinions here, particularly on the paragraph below...

"• Carbohydrates, protein, and fat: It’s the first lesson in Nutrition 101—carbohydrates and proteins provide 4 kcal/g, and fats provide 9 kcal/g. What’s seldom mentioned, however, is that these numbers represent population averages of energy that food provides the body. These numbers don’t accurately reflect the calories produced by individuals from these macronutrients. The actual calories available for energy are influenced by several factors, including an individual’s gut flora, the way the food is prepared, how well the food is chewed, and the overall diet composition.

Currently, there’s no way to determine how much energy an individual actually obtains from 1 g of carbohydrate, protein, or fat. The 4/4/9 calorie rule is all we have to go by, but as dietitians, it’s important to keep in mind that the numbers don’t always reflect reality from individual to individual."

http://www.todaysdietitian.com/news/exclusive0612.shtml
«13

Replies

  • Meerataila
    Meerataila Posts: 1,885 Member
    Options
    I suspect I'm a very efficient fuel conserving machine. But roughly it does seem to work out, the differences must be pretty small, otherwise calorie counting would be pointless.
  • hookilau
    hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
    Options
    I'm getting to the point where I think I just need to move awaaaay from the keyboard :laugh:

    Have to keep reminding myself to trust in the process.
  • Birder155
    Birder155 Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    I'm getting to the point where I think I just need to move awaaaay from the keyboard :laugh:

    Have to keep reminding myself to trust in the process.

    Or the scale for now, perhaps? Maybe a tape measure would be a better way to track your progress with your new routine.

    I started walking, WALKING, on my treadmill and the scale wouldn't budge for 2 weeks! :grumble:
  • ncrugbyprop
    ncrugbyprop Posts: 96 Member
    Options
    You've stumbled on one of the basic streamlines of nutrition. The efficiency of food digestion and absorption, the caloric density of fat cells, thermogenesis, metobalic expenidture. etc. all make calorie counting a inexact activity. But while the numbers do vary, the philosophy is sound and you can attain your goals. Just remember, your body is not an exact machine. Its like a pendulum in its responses, swinging outside of the norm occasionally but usually ending up in the right place for the stimuli in the long run.

    I've always gone with 3600 cal/lb in my calcultions, but that is what I was taught many years ago.
  • Kotuliak
    Kotuliak Posts: 259 Member
    Options
    Based on what we know, the highlighted parts are 100% correct. Those values are approximations based on averages.

    Olive oil, for you, on this particular day, may supply 8.95 actual calories, whereas butter, for me, today, may supply 9.02 actual calories.

    The bottom line is, those approximations are very good, they are reflected in the CICA concept, and eminently useful for the purpose of weight control.
  • hookilau
    hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
    Options
    I'm getting to the point where I think I just need to move awaaaay from the keyboard :laugh:

    Have to keep reminding myself to trust in the process.

    Or the scale for now, perhaps? Maybe a tape measure would be a better way to track your progress with your new routine.

    I started walking, WALKING, on my treadmill and the scale wouldn't budge for 2 weeks! :grumble:

    Indeed :laugh: I can feel the obsession building:blushing: add to that a tendency to put too fine a point on things and, well, yeah. It's a train wreck waiting to happen :laugh:

    I'm T2D so all I DO is live by numbers. I'm anxious to see what my BG's would be like if I get down to ~110#'s. The lower I go, it the easier it has been to control it.
  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    Options
    Margin of error on the 3500 cal = 1 lb rule is probably w-a-a-a-a-y less than the margin of error on the nutrient percentages of your food. There's no way it can be an exact process in real world conditions.
  • Fit_Housewife
    Fit_Housewife Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    Interesting.
  • hookilau
    hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
    Options
    FMx2NZu.gif
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    It's all approximate. But it's still a reasonable approach of weight loss. If you don't lose fast enough, you can always adjust your goal to make it work for you, but at least you have a base to lean yourself on... Otherwise it would be 100% guesswork.
  • RangerRN507
    RangerRN507 Posts: 124 Member
    Options
    Yea IDK about this, I used to think that was completely true but these days I maintain my performance weight at around 195-205 and I eat 3500 cals a day but that's on top of hours and hours of cardio and 6x90 minute gym sessions a week and like I said I maintain around 200 which is the weight I perform best at in my career.
  • errorist
    errorist Posts: 142 Member
    Options
    ... It's estimated the average American eats about 300 excess calories a day but the average American only gains .75 lbs per year. The 3,500 rule says that 300 calories a day should result in 31 lbs per year so that's a 4,100% margin of error!

    The reality is we don't have a mathematical model that explains obesity because the issue is far more complex than most people take it for. ...

    Very interesting indeed. There's a lot more to this dieting than meets the eye. It just goes to prove that you have a fairly big window to aim at, if you have a lot to lose. Once you get down to the final pounds, recompositioning, gaining, etc, there's a good chance that you know a lot more about how your body deals with its nutrients, albeit probably instinctively rather than rationally. I've been logging accurately for basically a year, from fat to fit, and I don't really know what goes on. I seem to maintain my weight at anywhere between 1900 and 2400 calories.

    (Edit - 'it's')
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    The article is correct, and this is why many in the field of nutrition advise against calorie counting for weight loss. Besides the variation of calories in foods, there can be great variation in what is actually absorbed and used by the body.
  • SteveJWatson
    SteveJWatson Posts: 1,225 Member
    Options
    There will always be a margin for error in any sweeping statement like that.

    I dealt extensively with animal feed nutrition at college and all individuals have a varying FCR (feed conversion ratio) - the point is, it gives you an approximation to start off with. You may find that through experimentation you convert feed more or less efficiently than that. Of course, the nutritional components of your food will have a bearing.

    Also - calorific values for foodstuffs are obtained by bomb calorimitry, and bodies are not bomb calorimiters and do not utilise 100% of the available energy in a food source. Again, calorific yields should be used as a guide, as you are putting them all through the same machine (your body), and you can, by experimentation, tweak accordingly.
  • simplydelish2
    simplydelish2 Posts: 726 Member
    Options
    I absolutely agree that it is an average. Those of us who have killed our metabolisms with a lifetime of crazy fad dieting often have to have d deficit far greater than 3500 to see a pound disappear. On the other hand - a couple of hundred calories for two or three days can cause a gain.

    I think your comment of trust in the process is good - just adjust that process to meet your individual body composition and caloric efficiencies.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    basically this is saying that it isn't a hard and fast rule and more of a generality...which is true. nobody has a TDEE of exactly XXXX calories...I've been maintaining for over a year now and I have a variable range of calories for which I maintain my weight. That said, the 3500 calorie generality works...there of course is a margin of error, but it works, particularly as a good starting point. as with anything, adjustments must be made per real world results. there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to this stuff.

    as you stated, you have to trust the overall process.

Categories