Problems with the '3500 Calories Per Pound' rule

[Robby Coker]

3500 Calories: A Pound of fat or Six Pounds of Muscle?

It's always been known that a pound of fat consists of 3500 Calories. However, many often apply the the 3500 Calories rule to a pound of body [scale] weight in general.

When others are seeking to put on muscle, they assume that a pound of muscle also consists of 3500 Calories just like a pound of fat does. So, the common suggestions for people wanting to bulk are to create a 250-500 Calorie surplus (just like a person cutting would create a deficit of that range to lose 1/2 to 1 pound per week).

The 3500 Calorie Per Pound formula came about because people assumed that while cutting, ALL of the weight you lose is from body fat (adipose tissue). It was believed by many that loss of scale weight always equated to fat loss. However, from essentially everyone's experience with cutting (from what I read on here and from what I've read from other places in general), this isn't the case the majority of the time. Generally, some percentage of the weight lost during cutting is from muscle. People who diet too drastically and cut Calories way too much often lose as much muscle as fat.

Truth is:
1 pound of muscle is 600 Calories - muscle is 72% water. Protein is 4 Calories per gram.
1 pound of body fat is 3500 Calories - body fat is only 20-25% water. Fat is 9 Calories per gram.
NOTE: The total number of Calories that make up a pound of a given type of body tissue includes the number of Calories that it costs to synthesize it.

If you have a weekly deficit of 3500 Calories, and 100% of it was fat loss, then you will lose 1 pound of scale weight for the week.
On the other hand, if you have a weekly deficit of 3500 Calories, and 100% of the weight loss were to be muscle, then you would lose about 6 pounds of scale weight for the week.

Example scenarios:
1) If you lost 50% fat & 50% muscle during your cut:
3500*5 = 17500
600*5 = 3000
(17500 + 3000)/10 = 2050
So, in the 50/50 scenario, it would only take a weekly deficit of 2050 Calories and a daily deficit of 293 Calories to lose a pound of scale weight per week.

2) If you lost 60% fat & 40% muscle during your cut:
3500*6 = 21000
600*4 = 2400
(21000 + 2400)/10 = 2340
So, in the 60/40 scenario, it would only take a weekly deficit of 2340 Calories and a daily deficit of 334 Calories to lose a pound of scale weight per week.

3) If you lost 80% fat & 20% muscle during your cut:
3500*8 = 28000
600*2 = 1200
(28000 + 1200)/10 = 2920
So, in the 80/20 scenario, it would only take a weekly deficit of 2920 Calories and a daily deficit of 417 Calories to lose a pound of scale weight per week.


According to The Body Fat Guide by Ron Brown, 4 pounds of body fat equals an inch on the waist.

So, if you have the 50/50 scenario during a cutting phase, then it would take 8 lbs of weight loss to lose just 1 inch on your waist.
If you have the 60/40 scenario, then it would take 7 lbs to lose 1 inch.
If you have the 80/20 scenario, then it would take 5 lbs to lose 1 inch.
If you have the 100/0 (100% fat loss scenario), then it would take only 4 lbs to lose 1 inch.
If you were to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, then it would take less than 4 lbs of weight loss to lose 1 inch on your waist. In this scenario, you may even gain weight and still lose size on your waist.

In the worst case ever, if you had the 0/100 (where you lost nothing but muscle) scenario, then you would lose no inches on your waist given the dramatic weight loss.

That's a reason why we're told not to go solely by those scales when it comes to achieving our desired body compositions.


Burn The Fat by Tom Venuto, CSCS NSCA-CPT
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...9#post12843079
http://www.bodyfatguide.com/GlobeAndMailArticle.htm

[jackedrabbit]

Dude, you are 5'11 and weigh 128 according to your profile. Please, stop thinking about losing fat and start planning on building muscle.

[Robby Coker]

Dude, you are 5'11 and weigh 128 according to your profile. Please, stop thinking about losing fat and start planning on building muscle.

I did not say anything about going on a cut.

One of the things I was pointing is that a pound of muscle is not 3500 Calories as many believe.


A common false doctrine in body building that I've noticed is the teaching that you burn an extra 50 Calories per pound of muscle.
That's not true. Each pound of muscle/LBM only adds 13.83 Calories to your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate). One of the main things that your BMR is determined by is your LBM. Therefore, the BMR calculation in this case is 13.83 times "total pounds of LBM".

Let's take two people. The first one who's pretty out of shape and just started working out is 175 lbs with 20% BF and the second one who is very fit, muscular, and has been working out for a long time is 175 lbs with 7% BF.
The first one has 140 lbs of LBM, so his BMR is 1936.
The second one has 163 lbs of LBM, so his BMR is 2251.

Now, let's say that both of these people are moderately active (activity factor of 1.55). Therefore:
The first person has a TDEE of 3001 Calories.
The second person has a TDEE of 3489 Calories.

There is a substantial difference in the TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) between both of these people. Even with a pound of muscle/LBM yielding only an extra 13.83 Calories to the BMR, extra muscle still aids quite a bit in your metabolism. The 175 lb/7% BF person can eat more than the 175 lb/20% BF person and not gain.


List showing extra total daily Calories burned per pound of muscle on the basis of activity levels (13.83 times "activity factor"):
Activity Level | Extra total daily Calories burned per pound of muscle
Sedentary [1.2] = 16.60
Lightly Active [1.375] = 19.02
Moderately Active [1.55] = 21.44
Very Active [1.725] = 23.86
Extremely Active [1.9] = 26.28

[samatash]

NICE thread

Repped

[SomeoneStopMe]

thats actually really great post man, awesome. i never though of it like that, but makes sense.

[Atheimetal]

Dude, you are 5'11 and weigh 128 according to your profile. Please, stop thinking about losing fat and start planning on building muscle.

Please start reading the thread before replying.

Anyway good thread, interesting.

[echelon101]

Good thread. I have heard about this before.

However the 500kcals deficit rule is supported by your article as you state that;

3) If you lost 80% fat & 20% muscle during your cut:
3500*8 = 28000
600*2 = 1200
(28000 + 1200)/10 = 2920
So, in the 80/20 scenario, it would only take a weekly deficit of 2920 Calories and a daily deficit of 417 Calories to lose a pound of scale weight per week.

For all intensive purposes 417 calories is approximately 500kcals. Since losing 80/20 is the preferable option, as who wants to lose mucle right, that's what people aim for. The problem with the 80/20 ratio is that your body must digest a sufficient amount of protein, ie 100% of it's requirement, to remain in an anabolic state with reduced calorie intake. This is one of the reasons why keto works pretty well as a cutting diet because healthy foods that are high in fat, apart from oils, are also pretty high in protein. So those on Keto diets are getting 100% of their protein.

Scale weight, for losing weight, should used as a last resort. It's better to get callipers or just to look in the mirror.

Or in fact a really cool method that's pretty old school on T-Nation is that your measure the circumference of your arm above your elbow at the thickest point. You then, in a cold state, bend your arm till your bicep is as big as possible, measure the circumference at the largerst point.

If you are losing body fat the difference should increase
If you are gaining body fat the difference decreases

This is because body fat doesn't expand or contract like muscle.

[bobbybuilder1]

Good post, very intreuging. *REPS*

[LeftyBaseballr]

Dude, you are 5'11 and weigh 128 according to your profile. Please, stop thinking about losing fat and start planning on building muscle.

Don't listen to haters I have actually been curious about that for a couple weeks now but just haven't had a chance to ask

[Robby Coker]

Good thread. I have heard about this before.

However the 500kcals deficit rule is supported by your article as you state that;



For all intensive purposes 417 calories is approximately 500kcals. Since losing 80/20 is the preferable option, as who wants to lose mucle right, that's what people aim for.

True.

The problem with the 80/20 ratio is that your body must digest a sufficient amount of protein, ie 100% of it's requirement, to remain in an anabolic state with reduced calorie intake. This is one of the reasons why keto works pretty well as a cutting diet because healthy foods that are high in fat, apart from oils, are also pretty high in protein. So those on Keto diets are getting 100% of their protein.

Yes.
Keeping protein intake at an adequate level is very important for muscle retention while cutting. Most recommend at least 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight. Another recommendation is keeping simple carbs low. Taking in enough dietary fat is important for testosterone production as well. These things are what keto helps to accomplish.

Weight lifting is essential as well during a cutting phase. If you don't do this, then you are more likely to have muscle loss mainly due to lack of use. Because you won't be providing any stimulus to your individual muscle groups, they won't be able to be in an anabolic state.

Lastly, doing high-intensity cardio for long periods of time is detrimental. It can burn muscle. For fat loss, it's best to do moderate aerobic exercise. This could be something like brisk walking at 3.5-4.0 MPH.
HIIT (High-Intensity Interval Training) is okay, though, and has been shown to actually aid fat loss. HIIT generally isn't done for long periods of time.

Scale weight, for losing weight, should used as a last resort. It's better to get callipers or just to look in the mirror.

I agree.


There are electrical body fat scales (BIA - Bioelectrical Impedance) which measure body fat % based on level of resistance. The most popular brand is Tanita. The accuracy of these have been debated. It's commonly said that the error range is +/- 3%. However, some say that it's more like +/- 5%.
The common argument against the accuracy of these scales is that the reading is affected by your hydration levels, and the readings can also fluctuate based on food in your system, the amount of time since you last ate, and whether or not you just got through exercising. Also, your evening reading is different from your morning reading.
I have experience with these scales as I have one myself, which is a Tanita. I found that the best way to get a consistent measure of body fat % with one of these is to take the reading every morning unclothed. Before taking the reading, I urinate. Using this method, the reading from day to day is fairly consistent. When I've lost body fat in the past, I've been able to clearly see downward trends. I used to do 7-day moving averages of body fat % readings, and it was suitable for showing downward changes.
I had a higher body fat % a few years ago due to weight I gained from several mood medications.

I've been calipered periodically in the past as well, and depending on what type of caliper test is done (1-site "under the tricep", 3-site, etc.), it deviates somewhat from the Tanita reading.
The 1-site "under the tricep" method gave a reading 1.5% above the Tanita reading.
The 3-site method gave a reading 1.5% below the Tanita reading.
I posted pictures in the "Post Your Pictures" section back in the summer of 2006 so people could guesstimate my BF%. At the time, I weighed 29 lbs more than I do now. My Tanita scale at the time showed 14.5%. A couple of people guessed 20-22%. The lowest guess was 15-17%. Few guessed at 17-18%. A waist/weight calculator had estimated me at 24.5%. So, the average of these was almost 19.5%, which is about 5% above the Tanita reading of the 14.5% that I had. As I posted above, some state that the error range of the actual Tanita reading is as much as +/- 5%.

Or in fact a really cool method that's pretty old school on T-Nation is that your measure the circumference of your arm above your elbow at the thickest point. You then, in a cold state, bend your arm till your bicep is as big as possible, measure the circumference at the largerst point.

If you are losing body fat the difference should increase
If you are gaining body fat the difference decreases

This is because body fat doesn't expand or contract like muscle.

That sounds like a good method.

[echelon101]

Apparantly there was a body builder who used that method of BF measurement when he was at 3% the difference was 2 1/4 inches :O


I am really pissed off I can't find the article again ggrr.

[jackedrabbit]

Don't listen to haters I have actually been curious about that for a couple weeks now but just haven't had a chance to ask

I'm not hating.

It was actually very useful information. It just concerned me a bit when I saw his stats and then read the post and how the information he posted was regarding weightloss. It just made me wonder where his thoughts/concerns were.

[BlueFenix13S]

Nice thread. Great info once you put it all together. Reps.

[SomeoneStopMe]

ok just a question, does the fact that fat = 9 calories per gram and muscle (protien) = 4 cals per gram? does that factor in it, or was it already stated and i just missed it?

[Robby Coker]

ok just a question, does the fact that fat = 9 calories per gram and muscle (protien) = 4 cals per gram? does that factor in it, or was it already stated and i just missed it?

It factors in. I mentioned it when I listed the Caloric values for muscle and fat.

1 kg = 1000 grams

2.2 kg = 1 pound

1000/2.2 = 454.55

1 pound = 454.55 grams


A Pound of Fat

1 gram of fat = 9 Calories

9*454.55 = 4091

Fat is 20-25% water.

4091*(1.00-0.25) = 3068 Calories
4091*(1.00-0.20) = 3273 Calories
3068 to 3273 Calories

The rest includes the energy cost of storage & deposition which adds up to around 3500 Calories per pound.


Out of 100 Calories (11 grams) of dietary fat that you store as body fat, you use only 2.5 Calories in the fat storage process. This is one reason why it's advised to keep dietary fat low during refeed days.
Out of 100 Calories (25 grams) of dietary carbohydrates that you store as body fat, you use 23 Calories in the fat storage process. One reason you use more Calories when storing carbs as fat is that you have to first convert the extra Calories from glucose to fat before it can be stored.
The number is even higher for excess protein. It's commonly said to be around a 30 Calorie cost out of every 100 Calories (25 grams) of dietary protein stored as body fat. The thermogenic effect of protein is 30%.

Example Scenario:

Take a typical American Diet of 5%/55%/40% (P/C/F):
5*30 = 150
55*23 = 1265
40*2.5 = 100
(150 + 1265 + 100)/100 = 15.15 Calories of energy usage per 100 Calories stored

3068/100 = 30.68
3273/100 = 32.73

30.68*15.15 + 3068 = 3533 Calories
32.73*15.15 + 3273 = 3769 Calories
Averages to 3651 Calories. Some actually use a 3600 Calorie figure as being a pound.

From doing this calculation, the people who came up with the 3500 Calories Per Pound rule apparently calculated it based off of the typical American Diet, which is quite fattening on average. It also appears that they believed that body fat (adipose tissue) contains 25% water, which is at the top of the 20-25% range that The Body Fat Guide gives.


A Pound of Muscle

1 gram of protein = 4 Calories

4*454.55 = 1818

Muscle is 72% water.

1818*(1.00-0.72) = 509

The rest includes the energy cost of synthesis which adds up to the 600 Calorie range per pound.

If the 30% thermogenic effect of protein applies here in this case, then:

509/100 = 5.09

5.09*30 + 509 = 662 Calories



http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sclark69.htm

[willldabeast]

Thanks for bringing this up...I definitely saved it for future use.

[-Aaron-]

Strong misc posting...

[141455675]

Using these calculations you get a much higher calorie number than the online calculators

[pologod05]

yay for intelligent posts.