That 3,500 calories = 1lb of fat thing

Options
2

Replies

  • Captain_Tightpants
    Captain_Tightpants Posts: 2,215 Member
    Options
    Because the "accuracy" could only be individualised. It would be impossible to apply generically across a group of different people. If you don't workout, or if you only do cardio, you're going to lose lean mass at a different rate to someone who intentionally adds lean mass via weight or strength training. If you eat excess protein, it will be consumed for energy before the protien tied up in structures.
  • rainunrefined
    rainunrefined Posts: 850 Member
    Options
    I wonder if you lose weight if your brain explodes? :bigsmile:

    The human head is 8ish pounds... so, probably.
    Brain tissue's mostly lean, right? As I'm blonde, is a greater proportion water?

    It might just be air... so..... all your thinking and brain exploding may not create a loss. Gah, that sucks because your logic is spot on.
  • PinkEarthMama
    PinkEarthMama Posts: 987 Member
    Options
    I have officially fallen off the couch laughing.

    ............. thankfully? Not the wagon.
  • hope516
    hope516 Posts: 1,133 Member
    Options
    my head hurts :grumble: lol...but I agree good point!! I think 95% of what we """KNOW"""" is all a big crock of thoeries anyway :bigsmile:
  • kiesh82
    kiesh82 Posts: 131 Member
    Options
    Don't over think it.
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Options
    my head hurts :grumble: lol...but I agree good point!! I think 95% of what we """KNOW"""" is all a big crock of thoeries anyway :bigsmile:
    I think maybe, basically, this was my point. MFP just gives numbers and accountability to the "eat less, move more" principle.
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Options
    Don't over think it.
    This too.
  • nygiantschick
    nygiantschick Posts: 289 Member
    Options
    huh?
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Options
    Because the "accuracy" could only be individualised. It would be impossible to apply generically across a group of different people. If you don't workout, or if you only do cardio, you're going to lose lean mass at a different rate to someone who intentionally adds lean mass via weight or strength training. If you eat excess protein, it will be consumed for energy before the protien tied up in structures.
    Nicely explained, thanks. I still think the 3,500 calorie deficit - 1lb of fat loss idea is a meme that's had it's day, though. The notion that people are only losing fat leads to "skinny fat" and OD'ing on cardio.
  • 0RESET0
    0RESET0 Posts: 128
    Options
    1 lb is 453.5924 grams. Each gram of fat is 9 calories. That makes 1 lb of fat equal 4082.3316 calories. Where does the 3500 come from? My Fish oil pills contain 1 gram of fat but are 15 calories each.
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    Options
    That's why its not a simple matter of calories. Macro-nutrient balance matters. If you want to avoid burning muscle you must eat adequate fat and protein, and do resistance training. Of course getting the balance exactly right is an art, but this is kinda the basic rule of thumb.
  • MrsSWW
    MrsSWW Posts: 1,590 Member
    Options
    1 lb is 453.5924 grams. Each gram of fat is 9 calories. That makes 1 lb of fat equal 4082.3316 calories. Where does the 3500 come from? My Fish oil pills contain 1 gram of fat but are 15 calories each.

    Are they coated in something, cos your basic oil would be quite messy if not bound with something or contained within something...?
  • 0RESET0
    0RESET0 Posts: 128
    Options
    Of course they are coated. I would understand if they were 15 total and 9 from fat but it says 15 for both.
  • dobenjam
    dobenjam Posts: 232 Member
    Options
    1 lb is 453.5924 grams. Each gram of fat is 9 calories. That makes 1 lb of fat equal 4082.3316 calories. Where does the 3500 come from? My Fish oil pills contain 1 gram of fat but are 15 calories each.

    I asked this question once and the response I was given is that the fat you eat is different than body fat (which is true). But I would think that would also mean that different kinds if fats in foods have different calorie contents and the 9 cal/ gram is an estimation (as is everything in weightloss).
  • lizziebeth1028
    lizziebeth1028 Posts: 3,602 Member
    Options
    MFP works on the well-established principle that if you eat 500 calories less a day you should lose 1lb a week, because 1lb of fat has 3,500 calories. Plateaus and wobbles aside, it works for me and many other people on here.

    But what about that other well-established fact, that we don't only lose fat but also a proportion of lean muscle and water (there being less body to store it in)? At least 25% of the weight you drop can come from these non-fat sources, according to one source.

    A gram of protein has 4 calories and a gram of fat has 9, so at that ratio a pound of protein only has 1,555 calories.

    Does that mean we should actually be losing weight faster because a proportion of the lean tissue is also lost which takes a smaller calorie deficit per pound?

    *brain explodes*

    I'm pretty sure I burned a few calories just trying to read this email :laugh:
  • 0RESET0
    0RESET0 Posts: 128
    Options
    Meh, I never understood why we don't just eat the maintenance calories for our "goal weight". Your body can only maintain a certain weight on a given amount of calories. Why is my calories to get to 180 about 1000 less than what I will eat to maintain 180?
  • Sublog
    Sublog Posts: 1,296 Member
    Options
    Read this


    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
  • InTenn
    InTenn Posts: 99
    Options
    All weight-control theories are wrong. Some are useful.

    That said, how many calories are burned in an hour of s*** stirring?
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Options
    Read this

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
    Great!This article has the sums I was looking for:
    Let me put this in mathematical terms, to show you how the identical 3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.

    Condition Energy Yield Total Weight Lost
    100% Fat 3500 cal/lb 1 pound
    50%Fat/50% Muscle 2050 cal/lb 1.7 pounds
    100% Muscle 600 cal/lb 5.8 pounds

    See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week.

    I’d note that I suspect this is why many rapid weight loss centers advise against exercise: exercise limits muscle loss on a diet and the simple fact is that you will lose MORE TOTAL WEIGHT faster if you lose muscle.

    Finally, I’d note that most obesity researchers assume a loss for obese individuals of roughly 25% lean body mass and 75% fat which would put the true expected weight loss somewhere between the 1 lb/week and 1.7 pounds per week. But I don’t feel like doing the math.

    It goes on to explain why we don't lose more, and often less, if anyone's interested.
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Options
    All weight-control theories are wrong. Some are useful.

    That said, how many calories are burned in an hour of s*** stirring?
    Hey, it was a genuine question. Every other principle of weight loss is brought up umpteen times a day on the boards (should I eat my exercise calories, anyone?) and I've never seen this number challenged despite the fact that you don't lose only fat is.

Categories