Okay, it's lunchtime and I'm up for some mental gymnastics...

I read somewhere that it takes a 3,400 calorie deficit to lose a pound of body fat.

One gram of fat, when consumed, is 9 calories (according to the equation for figuring out hidden carb grams in a given food; carbs and Protein are both 4 each.)

There are 459.59 grams in a pound.

So logically, it would mean that you'd have to burn through 4,082 calories to burn off a pound of fat from your body.

There's a 682 calorie deficit unaccounted for somewhere. Now, I recognize that there's probably weight of blood, muscle tissue, etc. etc. factored in along the way, but nearly 700 calories seems like a big oversight. That's about the number of calories I eat in a WHOLE DAY.

Interestingly enough, I'm averaging about 4.4 lbs a week weight loss in the 9 wks since surgery. That's a deficit of 14,960 calories a week, or 2,137 calories a day (assuming the 3,400 calories/lb value). I'm averaging about 600-700 calories at day in food intake.

That means it takes 2,700 to 2,800 calories a day just to MAINTAIN my weight at my current activity level (which is pretty minimal).

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I'm fairly certain that if I ate that much pre-op, I'd gain 10 lbs in a month, easily. Judging by how cold I am, I'm fairly certain my metabolism has gone DOWN, not UP.

Thoughts, anyone?

Okay. This is very important. A calorie consumed does not necessarily equal the same as a calorie burned. In an optimal running machine, yes, that would be true, however, NONE of us are optimal running machines. You're also not taking into account your resting metabolic rate changing as well. Your body right now is consuming the extra fat stores, which don't necessarily equal a calorie consumed either. Your body has already stored that and will feed from that in the absence of consumed calories.

Basically, you cannot solve for x when y and z aren't constants. Bigger equation is needed for that

Pure fat vs real fat. Body fat is not just fat. Your numbers are a bit off as well. There are 453.5924 grams in a pound, which when multiplied by 9 does give you your 4,082 figure. It is also accepted that 3,500 calories = 1 pound.

I found this out there in the Googleverse which does a better job of explaining it than I could ever do.

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_pound.php

great website! thanks for posting, PdxMan!

Okay. This is very important. A calorie consumed does not necessarily equal the same as a calorie burned. In an optimal running machine, yes, that would be true, however, NONE of us are optimal running machines. You're also not taking into account your resting metabolic rate changing as well. Your body right now is consuming the extra fat stores, which don't necessarily equal a calorie consumed either. Your body has already stored that and will feed from that in the absence of consumed calories.

Basically, you cannot solve for x when y and z aren't constants. Bigger equation is needed for that :wink1:

For the purposes of using the 3,500 calories = 1 pound and calculating calorie deficiets and overages, 1 calorie in pretty much does equal 1 calorie out. Is it perfect, no, of course not. The body has ways of protecting itself and retaining waters and salts in tissue as it sees fit, but it is accepted as a general guidline.

What you have to remember, is that the 1 calorie burned may not necessarily come from reserved fat. Especially when you have a lower BMI. It can come from any store in your body. Visceral fat is even more difficult for the body to give up, as I understand it.

exactly - just because you ate 3500 calories that day, when you burn your your day's calories, its not necessarily going to be that particular 3500. Everyone's body works differently. When you have an "average" body that is at its average accepted weight, etc and you're at an acceptable BMI, this more closely calculates because BMR is easier to calculate, assuming you have a fully functioning thyroid, etc.

When you're obese, the numbers get skewed, therefore the calculations seem "off"

one question - has your average body temperature changed? If it was lower before, you would feel warmer. Lower body temperature, lower metabolism.

Being cold isn't necessarily a sign of metabolism, but circulation as well as body density changes. Your body is certainly less dense than what you're used to.

Edited January 24, 201214 yr by circa

True, I'm always cold now and my metabolism is MUCH higher than what it was. There are many threads on this topic with lots of explanations.

Your thyroid controls your body temperature. Low thyroid function, lower body temperature, lower metabolism is the science (insert crazy pituitary crap here)

Anyway - when your body temperature is lower, you don't feel as cold because your body temperature is closer to room temperature. My normal body temp is 96.4. "standard" body temp is 98.6. Quite a difference. I'm never cold. Ever.

When you get a fever, your temperature rises, you feel cold because of the greater difference between the temperature of the room you're in and your body temperature. My guess is that a lot of people's thyroid function has increased, which has increased their body temp, which has increased their metabolism. Think of a woodstove, when its heating at 300 degrees, its not burning wood as fast as if it were heating at 500 degrees.

Search the site on this topic. There are very good theories and articles unrelated to thyroid. I have had mine tested recently and I'm right in the middle of the scale.

You math people are entertaining! heehee

If there's one thing I'm well versed on, its thyroids. Mine has little to no function right now. The hope is that with the removal of the adrenal tumors, I'll have restored thyroid function. Would certainly be nice!

If there's one thing I'm well versed on, its thyroids. Mine has little to no function right now. The hope is that with the removal of the adrenal tumors, I'll have restored thyroid function. Would certainly be nice!

I'm just saying there are other reasons to be cold than a funky thyroid. :chillpill:

Thanks for all the info. I've been wondering if the calories that we do consume, if under 900 is harming us in some unknown way. I know that I have been stuck since Xmas and want to figure out this calorie intake stuff. Are we in starvation mode under 1200 calories? I read on the internet that we only inter starvation mode when our body is 6% for a women or 5% for a man. Yet my weight has ceased. Ummmmm. Does anyone have any answers for me? Please, I really want to know. Thanks everyone.

I'm with dorrie on this... been eating between 800-1000 cals a day since the New Year and I haven't lost a pound... I've increased to 1200 this week to see if it makes a difference? I really don't understand it at all... any clarity would be much appreciated here too =]

I'm with dorrie on this... been eating between 800-1000 cals a day since the New Year and I haven't lost a pound... I've increased to 1200 this week to see if it makes a difference? I really don't understand it at all... any clarity would be much appreciated here too =]

Coops, according to your ticker, you've only 13 lbs to go! I've heard that it's slower and more difficult the closer you get to goal. Just a thought.