New research: 3,500 calories no longer equals a pound?

Ty_Floyd
Ty_Floyd Posts: 102 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
... according to the National Institute of Health. They've apparently developed a new online calorie calculator in line with this. Anyone tried it?

The article below states: "It has helped dispel a previously held notion that eating 3,500 calories less – at 500 fewer calories per day - will help burn a pound of fat."

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/post/124919896799/new-body-weight-planner-helps-slimmers-know-how

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2015/niddk-20.htm

Replies

  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Well, the fat experiment was burning a lb of fat under laboratory conditions to get the 3500 number. And while you can't cheat math biology is complicated and our bodies are not laboratory conditions. I'm evening out pretty well in my weightloss, I'll give the calculator a try.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    That was a bit convoluted ...Im back to 2011 and about to read this http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2011/niddk-25.htm.

    In the 2nd link in OP it says " Planner’s calculations reflect the discovery that the widely accepted paradigm that reducing 3,500 calories will shed one pound of weight does not account for slowing of metabolism as people change their diet and physical activities. More recently, the math model was further validated using data from a two-year calorie restriction study of 140 people. With those data, Hall and colleagues showed the model can also provide accurate measurements of calorie intake changes by tracking people’s weight. Researchers are examining how to apply this method for public use."

    Doesn't seem a huge study

    More later

    Ps I'm not disputing that the 3500 is a huge guestimate but for most it kinda works as a jumping off point
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    @rabbitjb it sounds like they are calling out variables, not the inaccuracy of the number, at least that's how I read it. It's more the change on the burning side than the consumption side
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    I played with the calculator

    You have to put a numerical value for your activity level ..hmm?

    You have to change your activity level in some way

    It gave me 3717 calories to drop a pound across a week

    So an adjustment of 6%.. As I had to amend my current exercise by +2% to get it to calculate I'd assume that's a calorific adjustment of 4% on the 3500 guesstimate which is well within the margin of error for me

    I'm unconvinced ...but need to read the base research first ..n=140 seems a decentish trial number over 2 years
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Where's the actual study link?
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    I also played, it gave me a kcal count under 1200. That plus the numerical value speaks to its origin, but I'm liking it.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
    @rabbitjb it sounds like they are calling out variables, not the inaccuracy of the number, at least that's how I read it. It's more the change on the burning side than the consumption side

    Yep...the calculator insists on an activity level between 1.1 and 3 ...I'm surprised it goes so high ...I put moderately active in leisure and lightly active at work and got 1.8
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
    @rabbitjb it sounds like they are calling out variables, not the inaccuracy of the number, at least that's how I read it. It's more the change on the burning side than the consumption side

    Yep...the calculator insists on an activity level between 1.1 and 3 ...I'm surprised it goes so high ...I put moderately active in leisure and lightly active at work and got 1.8

    Goes from couch potato to Olympic athlete. Gotta cover everyone! I also saw this:
    The math model behind the Body Weight Planner, an online tool published by NIH in 2011, was created to accurately forecast how body weight changes when people alter their diet and exercise habits. This capability was validated using data from multiple controlled studies in people.

    Which makes me think many studies used the calculator, not just the 2011 study.

    Maybe when I'm in work tomorrow ill search PubMed to see how many.
  • klmnumbers
    klmnumbers Posts: 213 Member
    I find this interesting, but it's also telling me I need to be eating like 2,600 to maintain my current weight based on activity, etc which seems.... high.
  • Ty_Floyd
    Ty_Floyd Posts: 102 Member
    The calculator seems to be assuming that if you increase exercise to lose weight you will keep up the same level of exercise once you've lost it. It doesn't ask that quesiton but that's the only way I can explain the results I got.
    Just for fun I told it I wanted to lose 16lbs in one month (the maximum it would allow me) and increase my activity 100%. My results were:
    To maintain current weight 2389 calories
    To reach goal 1414 calories
    To maintain goal weight 2765 calories
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    edited July 2015
    Quite sure there was a thread about this a couple days ago... might want to look it up.

    I'm super confused though. I did the math. It seems to say 3400 calories to lose a pound if I want to lose 3 pounds in 60 days, 3900 calories to lose a pound if I want to lose my 3 pounds in 3 months, but 4900 if I want to lose a pound in 6 months. Makes no sense whatsoever.

    The TDEE it gave me is exactly what I've been eating to maintain though.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Sedentary, lose 1 pound in 1 week, no change in activity:
    To maintain current weight: 2374
    To reach goal: 2189
    To maintain goal weight: 2367

    Yeah, no. 185 Calories deficit isn't going to make me lose a pound and my maintenance calories aren't 2400 either.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Also apparently I'd need a different daily deficit if I was a different weight, everything else the same.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    I know there is something off with the math, at least for some people. I should've gained more than I did. I have a friend who should gain about a pound a day. She's over 350, but according to the math, should be higher.

    A lot of people (I'd guess most) do not gain what the math would indicate they should gain.
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    edited July 2015
    The estimate I got was very close to what I actually consumed at the given activity level when I lost & maintained (or a little under, but I was also younger then). I put "very light" activity for work & "active" for workouts, for 5'7 with target weight of 124 - gave me 1,977 for loss and 2,111 for maintenance of target weight. Very, very close.

    With "lightly active" and "moderate", it's giving me 1,853 for loss and 1,991 for maintenance. That is about what I'm eating (& doing) now, and I'm losing again (after tightening up the diet).
  • isabela826
    isabela826 Posts: 1 Member
    crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
    Well, the fat experiment was burning a lb of fat under laboratory conditions to get the 3500 number. And while you can't cheat math biology is complicated and our bodies are not laboratory conditions. I'm evening out pretty well in my weightloss, I'll give the calculator a try.

  • galgenstrick
    galgenstrick Posts: 2,086 Member
    No one said exactly 3500 calories was the number. You have to consider if you're losing or gaining any muscle, as well as the thermic effect of food.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    So goodbye 500 cals/day = 1lb/week and hello 500 cals/day = 50 lb loss over several years with about 25 lbs in the first year. Or 500 cals/day = 0.5 lbs/week average over the first year. Hmm.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    My scale and spreadsheet beg to differ.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    My scale and spreadsheet beg to differ.

    As do mine.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Ahh sure.
  • barbecuesauce
    barbecuesauce Posts: 1,771 Member
    Yeah, I'm pretty sure I would gain weight on 2216 calories (to maintain)/day. I have found MFP's daily calories + roughly 75% of exercise calories to be spot on. Between MFP's maintenance estimate and my exercise calories, I think I would maintain on 1900 calories/day.

    We'll see when I hit maintenance next month. Maybe my estimate of 1900 is too low, but I've been using MFP since November so I doubt it.
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Quite sure there was a thread about this a couple days ago... might want to look it up.

    I'm super confused though. I did the math. It seems to say 3400 calories to lose a pound if I want to lose 3 pounds in 60 days, 3900 calories to lose a pound if I want to lose my 3 pounds in 3 months, but 4900 if I want to lose a pound in 6 months. Makes no sense whatsoever.

    The TDEE it gave me is exactly what I've been eating to maintain though.

    That makes perfect sense and is the entire point of the program. Chronic calorie reduction leads to metabolic compensation and slowing. Lose fast, negate the metabolic effects; lose slow and deal with them. Thus if you want to lose weight slowly, you will need to achieve a higher total calorie "deficit" (which ISN'T a change in deficit, but is actually a change in the calories out equation which makes your estimated deficit inaccurate).
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    I'm unconvinced ...but need to read the base research first ..n=140 seems a decentish trial number over 2 years

    I agree that 140 seems good, but that is not an appropriate way to determine what IS or not not sufficient. The authors surely have a power calculation in their protocol. So often I see amateur experts here on MFP complain about "underpowered" studies, but none o those experts can explain what sufficient power is and how it's demonstrated.
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Sedentary, lose 1 pound in 1 week, no change in activity:
    To maintain current weight: 2374
    To reach goal: 2189
    To maintain goal weight: 2367

    Yeah, no. 185 Calories deficit isn't going to make me lose a pound and my maintenance calories aren't 2400 either.

    Yours are the only results like this in the entire thread; seems like user error.
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
    @rabbitjb it sounds like they are calling out variables, not the inaccuracy of the number, at least that's how I read it. It's more the change on the burning side than the consumption side

    Exactly! About 3500 is still the number. What changes is your estimated deficit. You may need a higher ESTIMATED deficit to reach your goal, but that doesn't mean a higher ACTUAL deficit.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    edited July 2015
    The initial 500 calorie deficit you plug into their model rapidly becomes less than 500 and continues to decline. Most people in real life use feedback from scales to maintain a rate of loss aka deficit by continuing to reduce intake - the model makes one change to intake and sticks with it.

    After all, who knows what their deficit is ?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories