Are 3,500 calories really equal to 1lb?

Amtmann

Not according to this person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djGCQ9b7mHo

Discuss!

boomtown84

I often thought about this and have done the calculation numerous times and never came up with 3500 exactly.close enough though.
but lets say 1 lb does equal 3500cals....for someone to lose 1lb fat they're gonna have to be taking in enough protein or else they'll lose muscle too(although it's still probably close to impossible to lose just fat)
and if they continue to lose muscle their metabolism slows down and they stop losing weight altogether ie the average man/woman who drastically cuts cals and doesn't pay attention to macro's and doesn't exercise.

I still believe it's an accurate enough number for weightlifters/bodybuilders who cut cals but still keep protein high and keep lifting weights.
Anyone else reckon the 'rule' may have originated from the bodybuilding world where it tends to be accurate?
I also don't believe that dieticians would keep their advice as simple as -cut cals by 500 a day to lose 1lb fat- without making sure the patient was exercising and getting enough protein to keep muscle.

Edwardius

Is this actually a "rule" though? I thought it was a very vague guideline. A human ain't a bomb calorimeter.

Amtmann

One question that needs to be answered I think is this: When we talk of 1lb of fat, what exactly are we talking about? How much of that 1lb is actually lipid (if that's the correct term) vs water?

Parsley

BMR surely changes as they lose weight. a 600 cal deficit at 200lbs isn't gonna be a 600 cal deficit for the same person when they hit 150...

if you burned all of 1lb of fat with 100% efficiency it would produce ~3500 calories. What happens to your body when it takes in food and uses it and/or fat to fuel your lifestyle is another matter.

rocky

The way I think about is:

Calories in - Calories out = Calories stored.

Lets take a period of a week, if the difference is an excess of 3500 Calories, you'll put on aprox 1 lb of fat. Whether the exact figure is 3400 Calories or 3700 Calories it doesn't really matter. And while the intake can be measured with a reasonable degree of precision to be 3500 Calories in addition to previous week's intake, most of the other factors that are contained in (Calories in) and (Calories out) are approximations, such as variations in BMR due to weight gained/lost, increase/ decrease in NEAT (non exercise activity thermogenesis) as a result of varying calorie intake, variations in TEF due to variations in macro percentages etc etc.

I see Zoe has other articles such as 'The Calorie Myth', as a true Taubes acolyte. Quite a mix with another about the myth of red meat causing cancer. So it's not all bad, but Zoe's universe where humans can function outside of the laws of thermodynamics and where foods low in carbs are somehow magical doesn't seem very appealing to me.

Then, she has books to sell so the 3500 Calories is not a pound of fat is just her 'shtick' to help her achieve that.

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/01/countering-anti-energy-balance-calories.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html