Intersting read about 3500 calories and one pound

  1. New Member
    Dogsoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    152
    Rep Power
    175
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    0.61%

    Smile Intersting read about 3500 calories and one pound


    3500 Calories To Lose A Pound… Is This Formula All Wrong?
    Tom Venuto

    Fat loss is all about energy balance. Almost everybody has heard that there’s 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, so if you create a negative energy balance of 3500 calories in a week, you lose a pound of weight. Create a negative energy balance of 7000 calories (deficit) in a week and you tip the scale to a two pound weight loss and so on, right? Not so fast… Dr. Kevin Hall, an investigator at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda has done some interesting research about the mechanisms regulating human body weight. He recently published a new paper in the International Journal of Obesity that throws a wrench in works of the “3500 calories to lose a pound” idea…


    Some of the equations in his paper gave me a headache… but despite the complex formulas he used to come to his conclusions, the article contained a lot of simple and very practical tips you can use to properly balance your caloric intake with output, fine tune your calorie deficit and help you retain more muscle when you diet.

    Below, I’ve distilled some of the information into a simple bullet-point summary that any non-scientist can understand, and then I wrap up with my interpretation of how you can apply this:

    Calories required to lose a pound and fine-tuning your caloric deficit

    3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb. However, this 3500 calories figure goes back to research which assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).
    But as we all know (unfortunately), lean body mass is lost along with body fat, which would indicate that the 3500 calorie figure could be an oversimplification.
    The amount of lean body mass lost is based on initial body fat level and size of the calrie deficit
    Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat.
    Fat people tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (revealing why obese people can tolerate extremely low calorie diets better than already lean people)
    Very aggressive low calorie diets tend to erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets.
    whether the weight loss is lean or fat gives you the real answer of what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss
    The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable eneregy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories.
    If you lose lean body mass then you lose more weight than if you lose fat.
    If you create a 3500 calorie deficit in one week and you lose 100% body fat, you will lose one pound.
    But if you create a 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose almost 6 pounds of body weight! (of course, if you mangage to lose 100% muscle, you will be forced to wear the Dieter’s Dunce cap)
    If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you will need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person!
    Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet and maintaining that same caloric intake for the duration of the diet and after major weight loss fails to account for how your body decreases energy expenditure with reduced body weight
    Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (the “plateau”). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most people just can’t hack aggressive calorie reductions for long)
    Progressive resistance training and or high protein diets can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat vs lean tissue (which is why weight training and sufficient protein while on calorie restricted diets are absolute musts!)
    So, based on this info, should you throw out the old calorie formulas?

    Well, not necessarily. You can still use the standard calorie formulas to figure out how much you should eat, and you can use a 500-1000 calorie per day deficit (below maintenance) as a generic guideline to figure where to set your calories to lose one or two pounds per week respectively (at least on paper anyway).

    Even better however, you could use this info to fine tune your caloric deficit using a percentage method and also base your deficit on your starting body fat level, to get a much more personalized and effective approach:

    15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit
    20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit
    25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit
    31-40% below maintenance calories = very aggressive deficit (risky)
    50%+ below maintenance calories = semi starvation/starvation (potentially dangerous and unhealthy)

    (Note: According to exercise physiologists Katch & Mcardle, the average female between the ages of 23 and 50 has a maintenance level of about 2000-2100 calories per day and the average male about 2700-2900 calories per day)

    Usually, we would suggest starting with a conservative deficit of around 15-20% below maintenance. What Dr. Hall’s research is saying, is that there can be big differences between lean and overweight people in how many calories they can or should cut.

    If you have very high body fat to begin with, the typical rule of thumb on calorie deficits may underestimate the deficit required to lose a pound. It may also be too conservative and you can also probably use a moderate to aggressive deficit more safely without as much worry about muscle loss, metabolic slowdown, etc.

    If you are extremely lean, like a bodybuilder trying to get even leaner for competition, you would want to be very cautious using aggressive calorie deficits. You’d be better off keeping the deficit conservative and starting your diet/cutting phase earlier to allow for a slow, but safe rate of fat loss, with maximum retention of muscle tissue.

    The long and short of it is that its not quite so simple as 3,500 calories being the deficit to lose a pound. Like lots of other things in nutrition that vary from person to person, the ideal amount of calories to cut “depends”…

    Sincerely,
    Your friend and coach

    Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT

  2. Board Supporter
    metroba's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  202 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,064
    Rep Power
    371116
    Level
    71
    Lv. Percent
    94.33%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Killer Post!!
  3. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the post.
    •   
       

  4. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,842
    Rep Power
    768803
    Level
    95
    Lv. Percent
    23.13%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity RoyaltyActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    i've always questioned calories in general, as its a measurement of direct thermal energy vs chemical... this is pretty interesting tho I wonder about this

    "The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable eneregy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories. "

    I wonder where he gets the 600 cal from. At 4 cal / g I get 1600.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  5. Professional Member
    jminis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,023
    Rep Power
    2188
    Level
    43
    Lv. Percent
    46.63%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Nice post very interesting info. I was also wondering where he gets the 600.
  6. New Member
    Solitude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    277
    Rep Power
    228
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    84.98%

    Interesting read indeed
  7. Professional Member
    CryingEmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,080
    Rep Power
    1636
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    38.87%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    i've always questioned calories in general, as its a measurement of direct thermal energy vs chemical... this is pretty interesting tho I wonder about this

    "The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable eneregy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories. "

    I wonder where he gets the 600 cal from. At 4 cal / g I get 1600.
    Maybe from the water.
  8. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    i've always questioned calories in general, as its a measurement of direct thermal energy vs chemical... this is pretty interesting tho I wonder about this

    "The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable eneregy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories. "

    I wonder where he gets the 600 cal from. At 4 cal / g I get 1600.
    Maybe they missed a '1' in the write-up.
  9. Advanced Member
    Dancebot 2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    934
    Rep Power
    30562
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    53.17%

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00 View Post
    Maybe they missed a '1' in the write-up.
    I don't think so since he talks about 3500 calories of lean muscle lost equals 6 pounds. I don't really have an answer to your initial question, although water is the most logical answer, or possibly it might require a certain amount of evergy to break down muscle. I'm just speculating, i really don't know.

    Either way, awesome thread. Very interesting
  10. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,842
    Rep Power
    768803
    Level
    95
    Lv. Percent
    23.13%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity RoyaltyActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    probably water, a 4 oz piece of chicken breast only has around 28g of protein.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  11. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Dancebot 2000 View Post
    I don't think so since he talks about 3500 calories of lean muscle lost equals 6 pounds.
    Ah, didn't read that part.

    It looks like water probably is the most logical answer then.
  12. Board Supporter
    Nitrox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    802
    Level
    27
    Lv. Percent
    11.18%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Yeah it's water. Same thing goes for a pound of bodyfat: 1lb = 454 grams --> Energy in 1 lb fat = 454g x 9 cal/g = 4086 cal.
  13. Board Supporter
    Nitrox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    802
    Level
    27
    Lv. Percent
    11.18%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    i've always questioned calories in general, as its a measurement of direct thermal energy vs chemical...
    Yes we often get too focussed on the details and lose sight of the big picture. The body is NOT a simple machine and measuring the relevant values accurately (ie energy expenditure) can be difficult. IMO it is best to stay focussed on the fundamental concepts and use the numbers as guidelines.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-11-2006, 07:41 PM
  2. One Year and Fifty Pounds Later
    By Nabeshin in forum Pics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-02-2005, 02:13 PM
  3. Post cycle Calories and workout, good plan?
    By Grant in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-02-2004, 02:14 PM
  4. Question about PCT's and getting Libido back
    By meila22 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2004, 10:52 PM
  5. A question about 1-test and slin
    By elijah_123 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-19-2003, 03:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in