Is it possible to lose a pound a day?

Options
24

Replies

  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    It's not possible. Realistically, 3500 calories is going to take more like 6-7 hours a day, and that's at a pretty high intensity.

    Furthermore, your muscles and liver only store enough glycogen for 2-3 hours at that intensity. Fat metabolism can't supply energy quickly enough to make up for glycogen depletion, and while muscles can start to consume protein, your brain can't (not for very long). For that reason, endurance athletes in events longer than a couple hours need to eat 200-300 calories per hour in easily digested carbohydrates in order to keep their brains working. Say you're burning 600 calories/hour (which is a lot—bicycling at nearly 19 mph will do that): in that case, you'll need to eat 250 calories an hour to sustain the effort for more than 2 hours. So your net deficit is only 350 calories/hour.

    I suppose you could exercise 6 hours and then skip meals, to maintain a 3500-calorie daily deficit. But then you'd be depriving your body of the protein, fat, and carbs that it needs to recover from your intense effort. One sports scientist with a Tour de France team said that riders in that event—one of the most grueling events in sports—burn 3500-4500 calories in each stage. To keep their bodies functioning, they need to eat all those back, some during the event but a lot afterwards. It's a challenge.
    http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-insider/featured-stories/eating-tour-de-france

    And even Tour de France riders have days off and shorter stages, and the whole event is only a few weeks long. Not to mention that they are using various drugs, legal or not, to maintain that effort, in addition to being incredibly fit guys in their 20s and 30s.
  • afortunatedragon
    afortunatedragon Posts: 329 Member
    Options
    I totally believe you can even do better then that.... but it all depends on what body parts you don't mind cutting off...... the average arm is 5% of your body weight... and the average leg is 40% of our body weight...

    :laugh: :bigsmile:
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    I'm thinking about an experiment and trying to understand how the body works.

    To maintain my current weight requires, say, 1,900 calories, so to lose weight at a steady, sustainable rate, consume, say, 1,400 calories each day. But the loss is not simply from fat tissue, is it? It's from muscle and fat alike?

    So the idea of exercise - aerobic and strength building - is to build muscle a) to replace what's lost through eating less and b) to change the ratio of muscle to fat which implies increasing the muscle mass and c) to increase muscle mass to increase metabolic rate.

    Does muscle mass increase simply by using it more, as in being more active? Or does increasing muscle mass imply strength or resistance training/activity?

    Would you need more energy (more calories) for more exercise, say four times as much exercise than the starting place of 1,400 calories? Does the metabolism go into starvation mode in response to greater activity, as well as in response to less (too little) food?

    I believe metabolism uses immediate energy from consumed calories, as well as stored energy from body tissue, is there a threshold or ratio, is it possible to calculate, assuming an increased rate of activity.

    And last question, would you lose a pound a day, or, as fat is replaced with muscle, would weight loss be less, although body shape would change.

    Or thinking about it another way: How long does it take to build muscle?
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    Thank you everyone for your responses.
  • rosnz
    rosnz Posts: 91 Member
    Options
    Easy my friend lost 7lbs in a day only last week. She has kept that 7lbs in a nice little wicker basket on rockers beside her bed.
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    It's not possible. Realistically, 3500 calories is going to take more like 6-7 hours a day, and that's at a pretty high intensity.

    Furthermore, your muscles and liver only store enough glycogen for 2-3 hours at that intensity. Fat metabolism can't supply energy quickly enough to make up for glycogen depletion, and while muscles can start to consume protein, your brain can't (not for very long). For that reason, endurance athletes in events longer than a couple hours need to eat 200-300 calories per hour in easily digested carbohydrates in order to keep their brains working. Say you're burning 600 calories/hour (which is a lot—bicycling at nearly 19 mph will do that): in that case, you'll need to eat 250 calories an hour to sustain the effort for more than 2 hours. So your net deficit is only 350 calories/hour.

    I suppose you could exercise 6 hours and then skip meals, to maintain a 3500-calorie daily deficit. But then you'd be depriving your body of the protein, fat, and carbs that it needs to recover from your intense effort. One sports scientist with a Tour de France team said that riders in that event—one of the most grueling events in sports—burn 3500-4500 calories in each stage. To keep their bodies functioning, they need to eat all those back, some during the event but a lot afterwards. It's a challenge.
    http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-insider/featured-stories/eating-tour-de-france

    And even Tour de France riders have days off and shorter stages, and the whole event is only a few weeks long. Not to mention that they are using various drugs, legal or not, to maintain that effort, in addition to being incredibly fit guys in their 20s and 30s.

    Hi, thanks,

    This is the kind of information I was looking for - whether increased exercise had other implications, considerations.

    Interesting debate.
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    I'm thinking about an experiment and trying to understand how the body works.

    To maintain my current weight requires, say, 1,900 calories, so to lose weight at a steady, sustainable rate, consume, say, 1,400 calories each day. But the loss is not simply from fat tissue, is it? It's from muscle and fat alike?

    So the idea of exercise - aerobic and strength building - is to build muscle a) to replace what's lost through eating less and b) to change the ratio of muscle to fat which implies increasing the muscle mass and c) to increase muscle mass to increase metabolic rate.

    Does muscle mass increase simply by using it more, as in being more active? Or does increasing muscle mass imply strength or resistance training/activity?

    Would you need more energy (more calories) for more exercise, say four times as much exercise than the starting place of 1,400 calories? Does the metabolism go into starvation mode in response to greater activity, as well as in response to less (too little) food?

    I believe metabolism uses immediate energy from consumed calories, as well as stored energy from body tissue, is there a threshold or ratio, is it possible to calculate, assuming an increased rate of activity.

    And last question, would you lose a pound a day, or, as fat is replaced with muscle, would weight loss be less, although body shape would change.

    Or thinking about it another way: How long does it take to build muscle?

    Bwogilvie answered most of these questions, I think, but if anyone else has any comments please do contribute.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    For a limited time, obviously :)

    I was just wondering, if I ate my daily calorie allowance, and built in four hours exercise/activity each day, on top of the usual shopping, cooking, cleaning, running around activity, would you lose more?

    Or would you just be ravenous? ;)

    Yes its possible, but it would also be incredibly unhealthy, unless it was for the first few days of a diet and you were losing water weight.

    To loss that amount, as one poster about said, you would have to be exercising to put yourself in a calorie deficit of 3500 cals a day (that in itself would be unhealthy).

    Alternatively if you do not eat enough cals and or protein your body will strip your lean mass for fuel which weights a lot more than fat and as such you will loss weight faster - your lean mass is muscle, sinew, connective tissue, organs etc... this would be extremely unhealthy and never advisable.

    There is no healthy quick fix. Eat in a deficit (get enough protein in your diet), do sufficient exercise and be happy with 1 - 2lb's per week (that's a healthy way of doing it)
  • ukaryote
    ukaryote Posts: 874 Member
    Options
    Recently, an extremely obese member of MFP reported a loss of 37 pounds for the first month. The person was around 500 pounds. It might be possible for a very obese person st the start. There is an awful lot of water weight that could be lost, and the calories needed to just maintain that weight are enormous.
  • justina88
    justina88 Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    If you try this be careful that you don't injure yourself... I would worry that suddenly working out 4 hours a day would be too much. So experiment if you must, but please listen to your body. To lose a lb a day just doesn't seem worth the risk of injury. Your body needs to work up to that kind of workout - these shows on TV that show this kind of extreme workouts are loaded with physical therapist and recuperation equipment. They are not the everyday people at home doing this on their own. BE CAREFUL!
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    If you try this be careful that you don't injure yourself... I would worry that suddenly working out 4 hours a day would be too much. So experiment if you must, but please listen to your body. To lose a lb a day just doesn't seem worth the risk of injury. Your body needs to work up to that kind of workout - these shows on TV that show this kind of extreme workouts are loaded with physical therapist and recuperation equipment. They are not the everyday people at home doing this on their own. BE CAREFUL!

    Good point, thank you.
  • tinatwin1971
    tinatwin1971 Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    If you manage to fit in 4 hours of exercise a day, could you please send me your time machine when you've finished with it.

    Get up at 6am, leave for work at 7am - get home at 6:30pm or 7pm. Do household chores, cook a healthy from scratch not out of a packet meal, clear that up sit down watch the news, go to bed at 10pm, so that I can do it all over again the next day. :laugh:
  • Samstan101
    Samstan101 Posts: 699 Member
    Options
    To burn 3500 cals through exercise alone I would need to run at least 1 marathon a day (I burned 1250 doing a little over 13miles yesterday - 5'6" 179lb 41 y-o female). Unless you are extremely fit then burning 3500cals a day through exercise for even 2 days in a row would be very difficult.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,395 MFP Moderator
    Options
    I'm thinking about an experiment and trying to understand how the body works.

    To maintain my current weight requires, say, 1,900 calories, so to lose weight at a steady, sustainable rate, consume, say, 1,400 calories each day. But the loss is not simply from fat tissue, is it? It's from muscle and fat alike?

    So the idea of exercise - aerobic and strength building - is to build muscle a) to replace what's lost through eating less and b) to change the ratio of muscle to fat which implies increasing the muscle mass and c) to increase muscle mass to increase metabolic rate.

    Does muscle mass increase simply by using it more, as in being more active? Or does increasing muscle mass imply strength or resistance training/activity?

    Would you need more energy (more calories) for more exercise, say four times as much exercise than the starting place of 1,400 calories? Does the metabolism go into starvation mode in response to greater activity, as well as in response to less (too little) food?

    I believe metabolism uses immediate energy from consumed calories, as well as stored energy from body tissue, is there a threshold or ratio, is it possible to calculate, assuming an increased rate of activity.

    And last question, would you lose a pound a day, or, as fat is replaced with muscle, would weight loss be less, although body shape would change.

    Or thinking about it another way: How long does it take to build muscle?



    Regarding the bold, you cannot replace muscle with fat. You can't even lose fat and gain muscle that the same time. Generally, these are two different metabolic states (catabolic vs anabolic). For the most part, you weight training to continue to maintain your lean body mass, but even in the best of conditions, the average person loses lean body mass, no matter how much protein they eat and weight training they do, especially the more lean they are.

    Also, typically when one states that you weight train to build muscle, it actually means you weight train to get stronger. If you really want to build new muscle, you would have to eat in a surplus and do a progressive weight training program.


    Also, at some point, you will have to consider body efficiencies in burning calories and metabolic adaptation/thermogenesis because you would be essentially starving your body of nutrients trying to burn 3500 calories a day.
  • Dofflin
    Dofflin Posts: 127 Member
    Options
    Good advice here
    I just checked your profile and you are only a couple of years older than me. From your question, it would seem that you are stuck in the dieting mindset of the 60s and 70s. I know this all too well.

    Here is my suggestion to you. Start listening to the young, smart people on here and educate yourself on the science behind weight loss and health. I, like you, was always looking for quick fixes. 2.5 years ago, I finally got serious and started doing this the right way for the last time.

    Like me, you are getting to the place where you need to take this dead seriously and get busy doing things right. Read the following links. Educate yourself before your health becomes the impetus - forcing you to do what you can't seem to do now.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1175494-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819925-the-basics-don-t-complicate-it

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/ihad/view/the-path-of-success-631437

    Best of luck. :flowerforyou:
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    Good advice here
    I just checked your profile and you are only a couple of years older than me. From your question, it would seem that you are stuck in the dieting mindset of the 60s and 70s. I know this all too well.

    Here is my suggestion to you. Start listening to the young, smart people on here and educate yourself on the science behind weight loss and health. I, like you, was always looking for quick fixes. 2.5 years ago, I finally got serious and started doing this the right way for the last time.

    Like me, you are getting to the place where you need to take this dead seriously and get busy doing things right. Read the following links. Educate yourself before your health becomes the impetus - forcing you to do what you can't seem to do now.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1175494-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819925-the-basics-don-t-complicate-it

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/ihad/view/the-path-of-success-631437

    Best of luck. :flowerforyou:

    Thank you, but you're missing the point of the conversation.
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    I'm thinking about an experiment and trying to understand how the body works.

    To maintain my current weight requires, say, 1,900 calories, so to lose weight at a steady, sustainable rate, consume, say, 1,400 calories each day. But the loss is not simply from fat tissue, is it? It's from muscle and fat alike?

    So the idea of exercise - aerobic and strength building - is to build muscle a) to replace what's lost through eating less and b) to change the ratio of muscle to fat which implies increasing the muscle mass and c) to increase muscle mass to increase metabolic rate.

    Does muscle mass increase simply by using it more, as in being more active? Or does increasing muscle mass imply strength or resistance training/activity?

    Would you need more energy (more calories) for more exercise, say four times as much exercise than the starting place of 1,400 calories? Does the metabolism go into starvation mode in response to greater activity, as well as in response to less (too little) food?

    I believe metabolism uses immediate energy from consumed calories, as well as stored energy from body tissue, is there a threshold or ratio, is it possible to calculate, assuming an increased rate of activity.

    And last question, would you lose a pound a day, or, as fat is replaced with muscle, would weight loss be less, although body shape would change.

    Or thinking about it another way: How long does it take to build muscle?



    Regarding the bold, you cannot replace muscle with fat. You can't even lose fat and gain muscle that the same time. Generally, these are two different metabolic states (catabolic vs anabolic). For the most part, you weight training to continue to maintain your lean body mass, but even in the best of conditions, the average person loses lean body mass, no matter how much protein they eat and weight training they do, especially the more lean they are.

    Also, typically when one states that you weight train to build muscle, it actually means you weight train to get stronger. If you really want to build new muscle, you would have to eat in a surplus and do a progressive weight training program.


    Also, at some point, you will have to consider body efficiencies in burning calories and metabolic adaptation/thermogenesis because you would be essentially starving your body of nutrients trying to burn 3500 calories a day.

    Great information, thanks.
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    If you manage to fit in 4 hours of exercise a day, could you please send me your time machine when you've finished with it.

    Get up at 6am, leave for work at 7am - get home at 6:30pm or 7pm. Do household chores, cook a healthy from scratch not out of a packet meal, clear that up sit down watch the news, go to bed at 10pm, so that I can do it all over again the next day. :laugh:

    Hehe, I know what you mean. It's only because I'm on holiday that I even have time to think of such an idea, never mind doing it. I was curious to find out whether it was possible, in the sense of, not can I do it, but would it have the desired effect. It seems, metabolically, that even we had the time etc and attempted it, it isn't possible.
  • MelvinOAnderson
    MelvinOAnderson Posts: 5
    Options
    For long term weight reduction, it is not proposed to lose more than 1-2 pounds for every week, except in case you're looking to your weight reduction or shed some additional pounds before an enormous occasion, it is conceivable to lose a pound a day.Despite the fact that its actually conceivable to practice enough to burn 3,500 calories - basically, a whole pound of fat.
  • shanitomorrow
    shanitomorrow Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    For long term weight reduction, it is not proposed to lose more than 1-2 pounds for every week, except in case you're looking to your weight reduction or shed some additional pounds before an enormous occasion, it is conceivable to lose a pound a day.Despite the fact that its actually conceivable to practice enough to burn 3,500 calories - basically, a whole pound of fat.

    Thanks, Melvin.

Categories