when 3500 cal doesn't equal a pound

2»

Replies

  • NotGoddess
    NotGoddess Posts: 1,198 Member
    Cool simulator. I don't like that it assumes muscle loss, but then there are only options for cardio. I'm guessing weight training exercise is harder to calculate. It it nice to see the difference in BF% if you set your goal and see the difference between 30, 60, 90, 365, etc days. Makes it clearer that slow and steady is the way to go.
  • Jennyisbusy
    Jennyisbusy Posts: 1,294 Member
    Thanks that was really cool - I tinkered with numbers until I found one that I could make into a mantra. :smile:
    1295 + 3 exercise gets me to 150 (lbs) in 150 (days.)
  • ESVABelle
    ESVABelle Posts: 1,264 Member
    It seemed to overestimate mine as well. Either that, or I have under-estimated it. What's this, another excuse to eat even more!? :laugh:

    ...did somebody say more peanut butter?
  • DaddyMantz
    DaddyMantz Posts: 145 Member
    interesting.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    BTW when I posted this, I didn't even see the calculator. The article actually has a lot of good info. in it :smile:
  • MarieNevada
    MarieNevada Posts: 395 Member
    i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.
  • servilia
    servilia Posts: 3,452 Member
    i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.

    Maybe it's because lean body mass isn't made up only of muscle. Don't forget that water and connective tissue is included in lean body mass too. When you lose a lot of fat you're also going to be losing some connective tissue, water and other fluids. I'm not sure of the following but you might be losing some blood supply also - after all you won't be needing as much circulating blood since your body will be more compact and you won't need as much blood to reach different areas, if that makes any sense (Im not sure of the last part, it's just my reasoning).
  • Jennyisbusy
    Jennyisbusy Posts: 1,294 Member
    i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.

    Yeah but what was was your end goal weight and how long did you put in to get there. Also at 130 lbs with 115lbs of lean body mass would be a super low amount of body fat, especially for a woman.
  • MarieNevada
    MarieNevada Posts: 395 Member
    i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.

    Yeah but what was was your end goal weight and how long did you put in to get there. Also at 130 lbs with 115lbs of lean body mass would be a super low amount of body fat, especially for a woman.

    my end goal was 130lbs and i gave it one year. i am aiming for 15% body fat which would actually take me to about 132 lbs right now. almost 30 lbs loss of lean body mass according to their scale. there's no way that will happen with weight lifting as part of my routine. yes i have another 111 lbs to go but like i said i've lost 57 (as of this morning) lbs so far and have not lost any lean body mass, in fact i've gained. so their simulator is way off.
  • fiberartist219
    fiberartist219 Posts: 1,865 Member
    I can't speak for the simulator since my computer is still installing the plug in for it, but I can tell you from experience that 3500 calories does not always correlate to one pound of fat. My metabolism is jacked due to hypothyroidism. I'm being treated for it, but my levels change every few months, and it's hard to manage right now.
  • servilia
    servilia Posts: 3,452 Member
    i just looked at the simulator again and i think the assumption that we lose lean body mass is a major flaw. i have lost 55 lbs in just under 5 mos and have not lost any lean body mass because i am weight training. I track not just my weight but my body fat percentage as well which in my mind is much more important. but according to this simulator i will go from 115 lbs of lean body mass to 88 lbs of lean body mass. I would say that that is a catastrophic loss of muscle tissue. the whole point of successful fat loss (not weight loss) is to reduce the fat and maintain muscle tissue, if not add to it. the projected loss of lean body mass is simply not acceptable. So while it was fun to play with, I can't overlook such a large flaw in its reasoning.

    Yeah but what was was your end goal weight and how long did you put in to get there. Also at 130 lbs with 115lbs of lean body mass would be a super low amount of body fat, especially for a woman.

    my end goal was 130lbs and i gave it one year. i am aiming for 15% body fat which would actually take me to about 132 lbs right now. almost 30 lbs loss of lean body mass according to their scale. there's no way that will happen with weight lifting as part of my routine. yes i have another 111 lbs to go but like i said i've lost 57 (as of this morning) lbs so far and have not lost any lean body mass, in fact i've gained. so their simulator is way off.

    How do you know you've gained lean body mass?
  • MarieNevada
    MarieNevada Posts: 395 Member
    i know i've gained lean body mass because i measure my bodyfat percentage every week. it allows me to work out what amount of fat i have and what amount of lean body mass.
  • poseidon9447
    poseidon9447 Posts: 104
    Running the simulation it looks like I am getting the right calories to reach my goal in 120 days. I ran it with all the same information except for sex. If I were a woman I should eat 351 calories less a day to reach my goal then what my male score was. I never realised it was that much different between men and women for calorie intake to lose weight.
  • seasonalvoodoo
    seasonalvoodoo Posts: 380 Member
    Hmm, looks like I need to eat more according to this thing...but that doesn't seem correct.

    Edit: But it was really cool anyway!

Categories