3500 calories does NOT equal 1lb

mkakids
mkakids Posts: 1,913 Member
edited November 27 in Health and Weight Loss
I know this is an ARTICLE in runners world. Its interesting anyways, and i was hoping for some discussion.

The gist is that the longer you eat at a deficit, the less that deficit effects your weight loss. So a 500 cal daily deficit in the beginning produces a 1lb a week loss, but after continued for 12 months or more, that same 500cal daily deficit only produces a 1/2lb loss. Meaning after reducing calories for an extended period of time uts actually 7000 cals /lb NOT 3500.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/biggest-weight-loss-myth-revealed?cid=soc_Runner's World - RunnersWorld_FBPAGE_Runner’s%20World__

Replies

  • Kitty_Nikki
    Kitty_Nikki Posts: 44 Member
    It's an interesting theory, but since there are no actual studies linked or associated with it I don't know that I would put too much stock in it. I know way too many people who have lost 90-100 pounds in a year using a 7000 calorie deficit in a week. (2 lbs per week) We do know that weight loss will slow as you get closer to your goal weight, but a lot of this is related to the fact that you do not need as many calories to maintain as you did a year prior at a higher weight. This is when you have to adjust your calorie intake or burn more to continue to lose at a rate you expect.
  • DKLI
    DKLI Posts: 63 Member
    edited January 2016
    If you start out with a 500 calorie deficit, that number is based on the deficit calculated to lose a pound a week at your starting weight. It's true that you will lose less weight as you go if you continue to maintain that 500 calorie deficit because your current weight is no longer your starting weight. It's not that it now takes a 7000 calorie deficit to lose a pound but that your deficit is really less than 500 calories. Your weekly deficit is no longer 3500 calories so you just lose weight slower. You must adjust your deficit to compensate for your lower weight to maintain your weight loss goal.
  • Kitty_Nikki
    Kitty_Nikki Posts: 44 Member
    DKLI wrote: »
    If you start out with a 500 calorie deficit, that number is based on the deficit calculated to lose a pound a week at your starting weight. It's true that you will lose less weight as you go if you continue to maintain that 500 calorie deficit because your current weight is no longer your starting weight. It's not that it now takes a 7000 calorie deficit to lose a pound but that your deficit is really less than 500 calories so your weekly deficit is really no longer 3500 calories. You must adjust your deficit to compensate for your lower weight to maintain your weight loss goal.

    ^ This. What I was trying to say, but you said it better. LOL
  • daniwilford
    daniwilford Posts: 1,030 Member
    This article is an example of the reason why I don't get weight loss advice from magazines. The facts are misrepresented in my opinion.
  • lyttlewon
    lyttlewon Posts: 1,118 Member
    DKLI wrote: »
    If you start out with a 500 calorie deficit, that number is based on the deficit calculated to lose a pound a week at your starting weight. It's true that you will lose less weight as you go if you continue to maintain that 500 calorie deficit because your current weight is no longer your starting weight. It's not that it now takes a 7000 calorie deficit to lose a pound but that your deficit is really less than 500 calories. Your weekly deficit is no longer 3500 calories so you just lose weight slower. You must adjust your deficit to compensate for your lower weight to maintain your weight loss goal.

    This seems to be the critical component.

    The article says you start the program this way "The BWP allows you to pick your current weight, a target weight, and your time frame for losing weight."

    It seems a lot more confusing the way this article is explaining it vs. how you have explained it.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Lyle McDonald wrote a good article about the 3500 calorie rule. You may want to read it.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    A diet and exercise regimen resulting in a 500 calorie deficit, left unchanged, will no longer create a 500 calorie deficit after 12 months.

    A pound of fat still stores 3,500 calories. You're just not burning as many of them as before.

    Full disclosure: I didn't read the article as I found it unnecessary. I came to this conclusion because it is illogical to claim that eating at a deficit for a prolonged period can alter the amount of energy which can be stored in a pound of fat. The amount of energy in fat is set. How efficiently your body uses that energy is the variable.

    You'd think that in order to be respected enough to get health articles published you'd have to understand these kinds of things.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    DKLI wrote: »
    If you start out with a 500 calorie deficit, that number is based on the deficit calculated to lose a pound a week at your starting weight. It's true that you will lose less weight as you go if you continue to maintain that 500 calorie deficit because your current weight is no longer your starting weight. It's not that it now takes a 7000 calorie deficit to lose a pound but that your deficit is really less than 500 calories. Your weekly deficit is no longer 3500 calories so you just lose weight slower. You must adjust your deficit to compensate for your lower weight to maintain your weight loss goal.

    That.
  • noon1200
    noon1200 Posts: 35 Member
    3500 calories per pound has been quite accurate for me, maybe I'm just special.
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    daniwilford wrote: »
    This article is an example of the reason why I don't get weight loss advice from magazines. The facts are misrepresented in my opinion.

    ^^ This

    Holding gross caloric intake constant =/= holding a 500 calorie deficit constant.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    I wish there was more, er, some, substance to back up the claims made in that article.

    And FWIW... estimates being what they are, the numbers the new tool gave me are WAY off from what I've actually experienced.
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    Lyle McDonald wrote a good article about the 3500 calorie rule. You may want to read it.

    This is a great read.
  • mkakids
    mkakids Posts: 1,913 Member
    I guess, i ASSUMED they were adjusting the calorie intake to maintain a 500calorie deficit regardless of their weight....so lowering tje calorie targwt as they lose weight but maintaining a 500calorie deficit daily.
  • fat2fitaddict
    fat2fitaddict Posts: 90 Member
    DKLI wrote: »
    If you start out with a 500 calorie deficit, that number is based on the deficit calculated to lose a pound a week at your starting weight. It's true that you will lose less weight as you go if you continue to maintain that 500 calorie deficit because your current weight is no longer your starting weight. It's not that it now takes a 7000 calorie deficit to lose a pound but that your deficit is really less than 500 calories. Your weekly deficit is no longer 3500 calories so you just lose weight slower. You must adjust your deficit to compensate for your lower weight to maintain your weight loss goal.

    What she said!
  • fat2fitaddict
    fat2fitaddict Posts: 90 Member
    You have to continue to adjust your deficit! My daily cal goal 1650. If I lose 2 pounds next week, I need to drop that number alittle...otherwise im not at a 500 cal deficit!
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    mkakids wrote: »
    I guess, i ASSUMED they were adjusting the calorie intake to maintain a 500calorie deficit regardless of their weight....so lowering tje calorie targwt as they lose weight but maintaining a 500calorie deficit daily.

    The tool to which the article links (which the quoted 'mathematician' bases his theory on) only gives one flat calorie amount - it doesn't adjust as weight decreases.
  • dphill2006
    dphill2006 Posts: 2 Member
    It comes down to your Basal Metabolic Rate, or how many calories you burn in a day, which is ultimately affected by how much you weight (specifically how much lean mass you carry). If you don't adjust your caloric intake for a lower basal metabolic rate for a lower body weight, your caloric deficit will shrink.

    Example- at the start of your program, your BMR is 3000 calories/day, and you eat 2500 calories/day. 30 Days in you have lost 10 lbs, and your BMR is now 2800 calories/day. If you continue with the same nutrition plan you started with, you now have a 300/cal/day deficit instead of a 500/cal/day deficit. You would need to adjust your nutrition plan down to 2300 calories to maintain the same sized deficit.
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    dphill2006 wrote: »
    It comes down to your Basal Metabolic Rate, or how many calories you burn in a day, which is ultimately affected by how much you weight (specifically how much lean mass you carry). If you don't adjust your caloric intake for a lower basal metabolic rate for a lower body weight, your caloric deficit will shrink.

    Example- at the start of your program, your BMR is 3000 calories/day, and you eat 2500 calories/day. 30 Days in you have lost 10 lbs, and your BMR is now 2800 calories/day. If you continue with the same nutrition plan you started with, you now have a 300/cal/day deficit instead of a 500/cal/day deficit. You would need to adjust your nutrition plan down to 2300 calories to maintain the same sized deficit.

    Right concept....wrong terminology.

    You're talking about TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure). Not BMR.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    as you shrink, so do your calorie requirements...so maybe when you (the royal you) were bigger, maybe 3,000 calories per day was your maintenance so you ate 2500 calories to lose 1 Lb per week. so lets say after a year, you've shrunk...so have your maintenance calories...lets say they are now 2500 calories...so to keep losing at the same 1 Lb per week you would have to eat 2000 calories which is 1000 calories from your initial weight...but that's irrelevant because your new weight requires only 2500 calories to maintain, so it's still the same 500 calorie deficit, just a different starting point.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    A diet and exercise regimen resulting in a 500 calorie deficit, left unchanged, will no longer create a 500 calorie deficit after 12 months.

    or 12 days for that matter (as per Hall's model)
  • mylittlerainbow
    mylittlerainbow Posts: 822 Member
    I figured out what my maintenance calories would be at my GOAL weight and am eating less than that amount every day. Still lose faster in the beginning than at the end because the deficit is less as you go along, but I don't have to adjust or risk overeating as I get closer to the goal because I'm still eating less than I would need to maintain at that weight.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    juggernaut1974 wrote: »
    mkakids wrote: »
    I guess, i ASSUMED they were adjusting the calorie intake to maintain a 500calorie deficit regardless of their weight....so lowering tje calorie targwt as they lose weight but maintaining a 500calorie deficit daily.

    The tool to which the article links (which the quoted 'mathematician' bases his theory on) only gives one flat calorie amount - it doesn't adjust as weight decreases.

    It also seems to include water weight losses into it.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Kitty_Nikki wrote: »
    It's an interesting theory, but since there are no actual studies linked or associated with it I don't know that I would put too much stock in it. I know way too many people who have lost 90-100 pounds in a year using a 7000 calorie deficit in a week. (2 lbs per week) We do know that weight loss will slow as you get closer to your goal weight, but a lot of this is related to the fact that you do not need as many calories to maintain as you did a year prior at a higher weight. This is when you have to adjust your calorie intake or burn more to continue to lose at a rate you expect.

    This, and plus if you log for a while you can figure out what calories work for you better than some calculator.

    I used MFP for a while and consistently lost more than it estimated, and then changed to TDEE based on results. I compared with the calculators (and picked a number similar to what scooby gave me), but it was based on actual results. I never noticed a major decline due to the time on a deficit beyond what you'd expect from just the weight loss itself.
  • dphill2006
    dphill2006 Posts: 2 Member
    juggernaut1974 wrote: »
    dphill2006 wrote: »
    It comes down to your Basal Metabolic Rate, or how many calories you burn in a day, which is ultimately affected by how much you weight (specifically how much lean mass you carry). If you don't adjust your caloric intake for a lower basal metabolic rate for a lower body weight, your caloric deficit will shrink.

    Example- at the start of your program, your BMR is 3000 calories/day, and you eat 2500 calories/day. 30 Days in you have lost 10 lbs, and your BMR is now 2800 calories/day. If you continue with the same nutrition plan you started with, you now have a 300/cal/day deficit instead of a 500/cal/day deficit. You would need to adjust your nutrition plan down to 2300 calories to maintain the same sized deficit.

    Right concept....wrong terminology.

    You're talking about TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure). Not BMR.

    Thanks for the correction TDEE is what I meant. Looks like I can't edit it though.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories