The 3500 calorie rule can't be true?

My workout yesterday burned about 2,200 calories. I weighed about 5 lbs. less after the workout. How was that possible? I didn't burn 3500 calories.

Somebody posted you didn't lose the 5 pounds. . . .obviously you did. How much would you weigh if you burned 17,500 calories? Hmmm. . . .I wonder.

As for the OP maybe weighing yourself every 6 hours will help. At least you'd have to wake up to do something. Seriously, go to weekly weighing and best of luck.

He'd be boneless if he burnt 17,500 calories, weren't you paying attention?

i really really wish i could get the universe to take scale weight less seriously.

you do not have a weight. you have a weight range. on average it goes 3.5 pounds above or below a median at any given time.

when you weigh yourself daily, which i do so i can understand what my average is, you can look at it one of two ways

"ohmygosh i gained a pound since yesterday! this diet thing SUCKS no matter what i do i magically gain fat overnight, even when i eat at a defecit!"

or you can say

"oh, look, i am within my weight range... well, its all good, i know i have been doing what i was supposed to do so as long as my average doesnt go up consistenly, ad goes down consistently OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, i am golden"

the average will go down over a period of time if you are eating a defecit, and will increas over time if you are overeating, but neither thing happens in one day.

when i stopped treating the scale like a constant, i started enjoying my weight loss journey more and trusting my process more, not a number on a scale, my process. i actually think that chage in thinking is the second cause of my ability to stick with it this time compared to other times. (first being a discovery that i actually like fitness)

My workout yesterday burned about 2,200 calories. I weighed about 5 lbs. less after the workout. How was that possible? I didn't burn 3500 calories.

Well since fat is 3,500 calories per pound when your body burns it, and muscle is 900 calories per pound when your body burns it, you obviously burnt up your bones! Since bone is about 556 calories per pound if you exclude the fatty marrow, and we can't actually digest and use all the proteins that make up collagen in bone for our nutrition, so 2,200 calories would be about the calories available in breaking down 5 lbs of bone!

See how silly it is to choose what material your body burnt for fuel and convert it to a weight? You can't choose, or easily know. On a serious note, you probably lost mostly water weight, and your scale can have a daily error of at least several pounds. You probably also didn't burn as much as you think you did.

"You probably didn't burn as much as you think you did" really?

Agreed that the 3500 calorie rule is not true. Our bodies are all different, our metabolisms are different, and some of us burn more calories doing the same exercise because we do it with more intensity. Like everything else the 3500 calories is a guide - not a fact.

The fact however is that you must be in a deficit to lose weight - meaning you must burn in energy (daily life + exercise), more than you eat. It really is that simple.

There are different things at play here - maybe you have miscalculated your TDEE, miscalculated your burn (if you used MFP numbers that could be an issue - IMO they are way too generous), or have miscalculated your intake. All that plus weight loss/gain isn't linear.

Strive to consistently live in a deficit and you will lose.

My workout yesterday burned about 2,200 calories. I weighed about 5 lbs. less after the workout. How was that possible? I didn't burn 3500 calories.

Magic, duh!

Where does the cat come from?!

Oh. And as everyone else said - your weight fluctuates for all sorts of reasons so focusing on a weekly goal is a good idea.


But seriously....where does he hide the cat?

did you say... magic?

Oh, yes, I certainly did! And, I'll see your:



And raise you a:

Agreed that the 3500 calorie rule is not true. Our bodies are all different, our metabolisms are different, and some of us burn more calories doing the same exercise because we do it with more intensity. Like everything else the 3500 calories is a guide - not a fact.

um. no? 3500 is a scientific fact. like gravity.

like how much a pound weighs.

you are confusing two different types of information.

This content has been removed.

This has nothing to do with weighing daily or weekly. Even if you look at it from a weekly perspective, I gained 3 1/2 pounds without eating 24,500 extra calories. I always weigh myself at the same time when I wake up every day in the same clothes after going to the bathroom before breakfast. I never eat high sodium foods, never eat fast food. I mostly eat pasta and the kind I eat has 0 sodium. The highest sodium food I eat is canned veggies. I realize this is science and although 3500 calories does equal a pound that doesn't mean you need to eat that amount extra to gain a pound. Are you saying that the guy who lost 38 pounds in one week didn't really lose that much? It was just water weight? Even though week 2 he lost even more and more in week 3? I realize what science says but it does not make sense here.

3/23 - 104.5
3/24 - 106.5
3/25 - 107
3/26 - 108
3/27 - 108
3/28 - 108.5
3/29 - 108

How tall are you? If you want answers start with this question.

3500 calories is the energy measurement of 1 lb of fat. It is not a myth or theory - it is a measurement.

Obviously when we gain or lose it's not always fat - it can be fat, water, muscle whatever so the number will not always be 3500 but it'll be close.

What you're experiencing is probably not fat gain or loss but fluctuations in bodyweight caused by all manner of sh!te - high sodium days leading to water retention, water held for repair after exercise etc. or even a sudden loss of water and/or fat.

^ This

Well I did eat extra calories. I just didn't eat 3500 extra calories. I understand what you mean about averaging the weight but is that how you find out if you're actually gaining or not? I've just never heard of that so I'm wondering if I should've been averaging the weight this whole time?

I do understand that was a normal fluctuation since it was only 3.5 pounds but what about the man on the biggest loser? He lost 38 pounds in one week and that clearly wasn't normal fluctuation.

I'm 5'3 to the person who asked.

OP - Just look at trends. Weighing yourself every week is better than every day. If you're trying to maintain, figure out a weight that would still be healthy for you a couple of pounds either way. If for two weeks in a row you find yourself outside of that range (above or below), assume you're slightly off track and you need to make some changes. I saw a post you made previously where you mentioned weighing yourself before and after each time you ate - that's not healthy behavior. I'm not sure if you're under a doctor's care specifically regarding your weight or where you specifically are in your relationship with food and the scale, but maybe mention that sort of thing to him, as he might be able to refer you to someone who can help re-train your focus.

Also, please PLEASE don't look to The Biggest Loser and try to apply it to real life. First of all, the individuals on the show are morbidly obese. Body composition is drastically different than an average individual. It absolutely IS possible for someone at 300+ pounds to be holding mass amounts of water weight, and when you make a sudden change in eating and activity, a ton of that will flush out. Additionally, when you weigh that much, your TDEE is sky high. When you cut down to 1200-1500 calories, you're creating a huge deficit each day. Secondly, despite it looking that way, The Biggest Loser does NOT depict someone just showing up off the street on a normal day and losing 38 pounds in 7 days. A "week" on the Biggest Loser is actually whatever arbitrary time frame works best for the producers, and could be a few weeks or longer. Also, if you're a smart contestant, you load up on as much crap and sodium and whatnot as you possibly can before that first weigh-in in order to have the most artificially inflated starting point (and therefore greater potential for loss) as possible. Many, if not all, of those people are probably as packed to the gills with water weight and food waste (ahem) as humanly possible when they first start out, which makes the first "week" losses look HUGE.

This couldn't have been water weight in March.



I don't understand this part of the op....?

She doesn't drink water in March.

This content has been removed.

i just now realized this is in the gaining weight catagory (not the first time i missed this, wont be the last), so i apologize for speaking toward the other direction. just reverse directions and i suppose it can still apply.

It is true, but there are other factors that affect your weight besides just the amount of fat you have. Body composition (ratio of fat to muscle), water retention, hormones, etc...many things can affect the number on the scale. A person can lose a pound of fat, but if you retain extra water, that one pound will likely not show on the scale as a full pound loss. That's why weighing every day is not really going to tell you anything; it's your weight over time. I weigh almost daily, just to see where I am, and it fluctuates wildly. That's why I only log my weigh-in that I do each month at my fitness center. It gives me a much better picture of where I am overall.