The 3500 rule

[kmal2t]

So there's 3500 calories in a pound of fat (well adipose tissue) so its said to lose a lb a week you should have a deficit of 3500...but when you lose weight its not all fat, so how does this rule even make sense?

Wouldn't there need to be a more accurate formula that says if you're this bf% then you're probably losing y ratio of fat/muscle and you need to have an x calorie deficit to lose a pound or x calories to lose a pound of fat.

[m310]

I count my calories and weigh my bowel movements, it's the only tried and true way to get accurate numbers.

[Mightymuff]

If you eat your protein, lift your weights and don't cut too hard then you will lose practically no muscle mass. The LBM you lose has already been accounted for in the fact that a pound of fat isn't just fat (as you previously stated).

How could you have a formula that takes into consideration muscle loss when it varies from person to person depending on their diet/lifting.

[PlasticJanus]

So there's 3500 calories in a pound of fat (well adipose tissue) so its said to lose a lb a week you should have a deficit of 3500...but when you lose weight its not all fat, so how does this rule even make sense?

Wouldn't there need to be a more accurate formula that says if you're this bf% then you're probably losing y ratio of fat/muscle and you need to have an x calorie deficit to lose a pound or x calories to lose a pound of fat.

That would be ideal, but the amount of calories you cut changes the composition of the weight you lose, so have fun with that calculus.

Realistically, with a reasonable deficit, you can hope to lose in the range of 5-10% or less of your weight lost from muscle-related lean mass, so 3500 kcals is not a horrible estimate to apply.

[Electricheadd]

So there's 3500 calories in a pound of fat (well adipose tissue) so its said to lose a lb a week you should have a deficit of 3500...but when you lose weight its not all fat, so how does this rule even make sense?

Wouldn't there need to be a more accurate formula that says if you're this bf% then you're probably losing y ratio of fat/muscle and you need to have an x calorie deficit to lose a pound or x calories to lose a pound of fat.

That would be nice but its not possible. The amount of LBM you lose on a cut is determined by a myriad of things like genetics, diet, exercise, drugs etc... etc...etc... 3500 is simply the amount of energy output to burn a lb of adipose tissue don't read anything more into it than that.

[illiniStrive]

Wouldn't there need to be a more accurate formula that says if you're this bf% then you're probably losing y ratio of fat/muscle and you need to have an x calorie deficit to lose a pound or x calories to lose a pound of fat.

This is why we don't and shouldn't rely purely on formulas. Especially since a lot of user-inputted information (activity level, bf%) will be flawed anyway.

[kmal2t]

Considering how technical nutrition can get and the forumals they've figured out for bf% and BMR and all the other stuff you'd think you can get a rough estimate by giving certain information like Height, protein intake, weight, age, bf% and activity level.

[jnwaco]

I count my calories and weigh my bowel movements, it's the only tried and true way to get accurate numbers.

Can you recommend a good chit scale? I've been using my food scales, but it's giving my food a weird taste.

[Mightymuff]

Considering how technical nutrition can get and the forumals they've figured out for bf% and BMR and all the other stuff you'd think you can get a rough estimate by giving certain information like Height, protein intake, weight, age, bf% and activity level.

As I said above, the number is based on the fact that if you cut properly then you lose practically no muscle mass, if you are losing significant muscle mass that would effect your weight to calorie balance then you are doing it wrong.

Also you need to consider that 1lb of fat isn't exactly 3500 calroies anyway, (I believe its closer to 3400) it is approximated to 3500 in order to create the "500 calorie a day" rule which is easier than 485.7 calroies a day for example. Also consider that there is a tolereance on nutrition labels of up to 20% in the US aswell as the inaccuracy on calcualting daily energy expenditure.

Diets, calorie intake levels, macros, energy expenditures are all estimates, 3500 is an estiamte at how much deficit you need for 1lb of fat loss, it is not an exact science. Adding more variables to the equation just makes it much more complicated (and even more inaccurate) than it needs to be.

[jsmoor10]

As long as you do the 3 big things, it is a sound #. *Get adequate protein, lift heavy at least 3 x a week,, set your deficit properly. *Where this gets tricky is @ lower body fat%, you have to bump that deficit lower and lower. *But, so long as the deficit isn't too large, you'll keep burning fat while maintaining muscle. *