View Full Version : Does anyone think 3500 cals =/= a lb of bodyweight?

04-15-2006, 07:27 AM
now, a lb of fat is 4083 calories and a lb of protein or carbs is approx 1815 cals,

BUT is there anyone who thinks that calculation for losing or gaining a poound of bodyweight is not 3500 calories???

From reading a lot, there are people eating 3500 cals under maintenance not losing a pound and there are people bulking on several thousands over maintenance and not gaining as the formula says.

It is true in my case too.

So, obviously there can only be one of two reasons.

1. people dont know what real maintenance cals are
2. 3500cals does not equal one pound of weight


04-15-2006, 08:06 AM
i canot imagine their are many people here eating 3500 cals under maintanance. when i was 225 pound plus why maintanance was 3500 maybe a tad higher i think and i started cutting on 3000 cals. i think yu mean 3500 cals under maintanance in a week. What you are saying is technically correct people must either be calculating their maintanance wrong(people have a tendancy to use formulas however as built has always said its better to find out the realy way by counting cals and seeing if you loose or gain) and also people may not be counting their cals exactly everyday its amazing how things can add up

04-15-2006, 09:14 AM
now, a lb of fat is 4083 calories

That would be a lb of pure fat. Body fat is not pure fat, it contains 15% water. Therefore the number of calories in 1 lb of body fat is 9 * 454 * 0.85 = 3473.

04-15-2006, 10:38 AM
We have a winner!

04-15-2006, 03:57 PM
TheGimp I was trying to find that out for the longest time. Doing the calculations for pure fat it'd be over 4,000 (as has been said) so I figured bodyfat must be mixed with something. Water makes sense.

Anyway aren't there other factors that go into it? Like I would think there would be individual differences when it comes to digestion and whatnot.

04-15-2006, 04:55 PM
This is straigt from an entry in my journal a couple weeks ago, amid my current cut..

The way I see it, I'm right on schedule. I've completed 18 days of this diet, even counting the three days that I took off last weekend. I didn't overeat on those days, and probably was still well under my maintenance level. So, if I've dropped 1,000 below maintenance using diet, and generally drop close to another 500 from exercise each day, I've cut 27,000 calories over the first 18 days.

27,000/3,500 (3,500 cals being a pound of fat) = 7.71

That would mean I should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 pounds lost.

My dry weight, pre-diet was 220. I was maintaining, but never saw lower than 220 or higher than 225, which is what I weighed on day 1 of the diet. I figure that 220 was the point at which my scale weight changes were a result of fat loss and not water loss. I was 213.5 this morning, putting me 6.5lbs down over the first 18 days. As you can see, the mathematics of it really does work almost as perfectly as they say.

04-17-2006, 10:49 AM
From what I've read when your body chooses to burn muscle on a cut, 1lb of muscle only provides about 800 calories of energy. One reason why I think muscle burning during a cut is a little overrated untill you get to sub 10% bf because it's not efficient for the body to burn the muscle for energy.

04-17-2006, 01:09 PM
1. people dont know what real maintenance cals are


People DO NOT eat thousands of cals over their maintenance cals and not gain lbs. Or else it wouldnt be THEIR MAINTENANCE cals.