How much of a caloric deficit is needed to lose one pound? Thanks!
None, just take a good dump!!
What do you mean by technically 4032? I’d always heard 3500 as the number. What does the 4032 represent?
16oz per pound, 28 grams per oz. 9 calories per gram of fat. Therefore:
16X28X9 = 4,032 cals
More practically 3,500 seems to be accurate in my experience.
Pound of what? Tricalc is right and wrong. There are 3500 cals per pound of fat. If this is what you are looking to lose then 3500 is the magic number. However is pure weight loss is your goal you can do it without any caloric deficit. Look at fighters trying to make weight. They sit in the sauna and lose up to 15-20 pounds.
FWIW I tell my clients that are looking for the quick fix that we can cut a leg off and lose 20-30 pounds immediately!!
but, 4 cal per g of protein or carb so
16 x 28 x 4 = 1792
I’ve always read 3500 cal deficit = 1 lb body weight loss
.
Let’s go with 3,500 cal for a pound of weight loss for the sake of argument.
I’d like to see somebody do an experiment in which they remove a 300 cal item from their daily diet (that’s roughly two cans of soda), keeping everything else the same, and see if they can lose a pound in 12 days. That would be a fun experiment.
My assumption is based on the individual wanting to loose fat which is usually the case when on a diet.
-Jesse
sometimes it is more about how you put your calories and meals togehter than just the numebr of calories. if you were to eat 200 calories per day - would you think that eating 5 x 400 calorie meals per day would be better or worse than 2 x 1000 calorie meals? same amount of calories taken in, but one is definitively a better option. (hint, not 2 meals per day)
then the other thing to look at is what are those meal calories made up of? you want to have the right balance of proteins, carbs and fats in each meal as well. the more vegetables you choose, the more food you eat, but the less calories you consume. the more grains you eat, the smaller the portions have to be for the same amount of calories. so if you take an apple, half a bagel and almost 2 cups of green beans, those all have the same amoutn of calories. but you will feel a bit cheated if you only had the 1/2 bagel for the full meal.
so there is more to it than just calories in and calories out.
joanna
www.nutrition-in-motion.net
Agreed.
Here is the long version of why the numbers don’ t add up…
When we burn fat, or other nutrients, heat is produced, which is measured in calories. As noted earlier, each gram of fat generates 9 calories, and 454 grams equals one pound. But a pound of fat is not all fat. It’s about 10% water. All of our body tissues–fat, muscle, bone, skin–contain some water. And water has zero calories.
In addition, not all the nutrients we eat are completely absorbed from the digestive tract to meet metabolic needs. In the case of fat, roughly 5% is eliminated in the feces. This 10% water content and 5% non-absorbed fat accounts for the 15% difference between the calculated 4086 calories and the actual 3500 calories in a pound of fat.
Two other minor points: The calories can be reduced when the meal is high in fiber. Fiber speeds the movement of food through the digestive system, there is less time for the nutrients to be absorbed before they are eliminated. So the non-absorbed fat could be a bit higher. Also, the amount of heat generated from fat differs a little for various foods (depending on fatty acid content). For example, there are 9.50 calories in one gram of meat compared with 9.30 calories for vegetables and fruits and 9.25 calories for dairy products.
Although I have a better than average understanding of nutrition (not unlike most endurance atlhletes), I am in no way, shape, or form a nutritionist. I just looked up this info and thought it was interesting.
Agreed again. I didn’t feel like taking the time to give the long answer earlier. Thanks Gary.
-Jesse
Cool,
Although there is some great information out there, sometimes the people on this forum can be challenging to say the least. I just wanted to make sure I covered my ass=O.
sometimes it is more about how you put your calories and meals togehter than just the numebr of calories. if you were to eat 200 calories per day - would you think that eating 5 x 400 calorie meals per day would be better or worse than 2 x 1000 calorie meals? same amount of calories taken in, but one is definitively a better option. (hint, not 2 meals per day)
then the other thing to look at is what are those meal calories made up of? you want to have the right balance of proteins, carbs and fats in each meal as well. the more vegetables you choose, the more food you eat, but the less calories you consume. the more grains you eat, the smaller the portions have to be for the same amount of calories. so if you take an apple, half a bagel and almost 2 cups of green beans, those all have the same amoutn of calories. but you will feel a bit cheated if you only had the 1/2 bagel for the full meal.
so there is more to it than just calories in and calories out.
joanna
www.nutrition-in-motion.net
I disagree. It is true that meal composition and timing play a big role when trying to balance weight loss, having energy, satiation, and getting all necessary nutrients. But when it comes to pure weight loss, calories are calories. An overweight person could eat 2000 calories of butter each day and lose weight. It would be disgusting and there would be all sorts of other health problems cropping up, but they would still lose weight.
-Colin