Here is a good article about the 3500 calorie myth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/28/why-the-most-popular-rule-of-weight-loss-is-completely-wrong/?tid=sm_fb

@@Inner Surfer Girl

You always find the best articles!

Very good article, thanks for sharing

Kate

This "new 7,000 calories per pound" story is getting a lot of traction in the popular press. However, it's getting excoriated in academic circles.

A few days ago I ran both models (3,500 cals/pound and 7,000 cals/pound) using my own 91+ pound weight loss and my MFP calorie records over the past 13 months to see which one worked best.

And lo and behold -- the 3,500 calorie model is right on the button (predicts within 5 pounds how much I would have lost, given how much I actually ate). But the 7,000 calorie model was super-off.

So I'm not impressed by this new "finding." In any event, it doesn't predict my own body's weight-loss behavior.

Thank for sharing the info!

I didn't see anything about 7000 calories in the article. The article reinforces to me that calories alone are not the sole determinant of weight loss. The weight loss model is much more complex than calories in/calories out which is one of the primary things I have learned on this journey.

The more reliable research findings I've seen in this area support the consistent conclusion that individuals' differing genetic "instructions" convert calories to more or fewer pounds, depending on a wide-ranging calories = pounds equation.

For example, these summarized findings at http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/20/3/166.full ...

One study examined the effects of overfeeding on weight gain in pairs of monozygotic twins.24 Although all of the individuals in the study consumed the same amount of calories for the same amount of time (approximately 3 months), there was a large variation in the degree of weight gain, from 8.8 to 29.3 lb, among different individuals. However, the amount of weight gain was very similar within each twin pair. The reverse also holds true. When moderately obese monozygotic twins were kept on a low-calorie diet, the amount of weight loss varied greatly among different pairs of twins.25 However, within each pair of twins, the amount of weight loss was quite similar. These results indicate that the body's response to changes in caloric intake is dictated at least in part by genetics.

Another line of evidence supporting the role of genetics in body weight regulation came from comparison of metabolic differences in individuals belonging to different ethnicities. In one study, a group of overweight women (average BMI ∼ 29 kg/m2) were kept on a low-calorie diet for a period of time until their BMI decreased to < 25 kg/m2, the defined upper range of what is considered normal weight.26 When these age-, weight-, and BMI-matched women were separated based on ethnicity (in this case African-American or white), differences in resting energy expenditure were apparent before and after weight loss. Although this study involved only a limited number of subjects, the results nevertheless suggest that individuals belonging to different ethnic groups differ in metabolic efficiency; those with lower energy expenditure while maintaining the same body weight are more efficient and therefore more prone to weight gain. Interestingly, African-American women had larger decreases in resting energy expenditure after weight loss, suggesting that they may be at higher risk to regain the lost weight. In addition, children belonging to different ethnicities also have different resting energy expenditures.27

3500 calories per pound of weight loss might not be exact, but for me its very close. I have tracked all of my calories for the last 3 months, and estimated my daily burn rate based on my age, height, weight, and activity level. Adding my calorie deficits over 3 week intervals comes very close to 3500 multiplied by the amount of pounds I have lost over those intervals.