That 3,500 calories = 1lb of fat thing

2»

Replies

  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    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: 1,585 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Read this


    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
  • InTenn
    InTenn Posts: 99
    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
    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
    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.
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    Read this


    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

    Good resource. The more people that read this the better.
  • UponThisRock
    UponThisRock Posts: 4,519 Member
    In a world where people track the calories in their vitamin supplements, a little added accuracy can't hurt.

    At some point "a little added accuracy" = unnecessary nitpicking, assuming you have something else to do all day besides count calories.
  • dobenjam
    dobenjam Posts: 232 Member
    Read this


    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

    Wow.... Learned a ton!
  • afull416
    afull416 Posts: 24 Member
    I am not smart enough to comprehend anything you just said.... HA

    Agreed.
  • 0RESET0
    0RESET0 Posts: 128
    Read this


    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

    WOW. All questions answered. this article should be required reading when registering to this site. Thank you!
  • stormieweather
    stormieweather Posts: 2,549 Member
    Of course they are coated. I would understand if they were 15 total and 9 from fat but it says 15 for both.

    15 calories / 9 grams of fat = 1.67. The labeling probably just rounded to 1 gram of fat?
  • 0RESET0
    0RESET0 Posts: 128
    I have a high acuracy scale at home that I use for reloading shells. I will have to weigh one of the pills some day and see. You don't round 1.67 to 1.0

    For the record, I don't track the calories in my supplements, I was just using it as an example.
  • ajfrench
    ajfrench Posts: 323 Member
    Read this


    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

    Wow.... Learned a ton!

    I second this. Thanks so much for providing the link!
  • kyle4jem
    kyle4jem Posts: 1,400 Member
    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?
    This is the conclusion I came to after about a month or two on MFP and having read so much BS and bro-science than any sane person should.

    If you truly want to attain a sustainable weight and adopt to a new "lifestyle" of food choices, what better way to do that than to eat to the weight you ideally want to be rather than trying unrealistically to stick to a low-calorie diet that will send your cravings into overdrive (unless you've got an iron will.. and surely the fact that the majority of us on MFP are overweight in the first place suggest that will-power is something we're most definitely lacking in spades!)

    I think it's a very valid point Berry has raised and it also goes some way to answering that age-old question:

    why am I not losing weight when I eat to my calories and exercise every day?

    The ultimate truth is... short of undergoing extensive, intensive and invasive laboratory testing, there's no absolute answer - only well-meant suggestions!

    :happy:
  • 0RESET0
    0RESET0 Posts: 128
    This is the conclusion I came to after about a month or two on MFP and having read so much BS and bro-science than any sane person should.

    If you truly want to attain a sustainable weight and adopt to a new "lifestyle" of food choices, what better way to do that than to eat to the weight you ideally want to be rather than trying unrealistically to stick to a low-calorie diet that will send your cravings into overdrive (unless you've got an iron will.. and surely the fact that the majority of us on MFP are overweight in the first place suggest that will-power is something we're most definitely lacking in spades!)

    I think I may try this for a month and see where it gets me. I will start on Monday and report back on 2/24/12 to let everyone know how I faired. I may even make that my first blog.

    EDIT: I just checked and that would put me at 2100 calories per day instead of the 1730 that MFP has me on right now. I think it will be hard to eat that much "clean".
This discussion has been closed.

Categories