Is the "3500 calories to lose a pound" idea wrong?

Tom Venuto
Burn The Fat

Fat loss is all about energy balance. Almost everybody has heard that there's 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, so if you create a negative energy balance of 3500 calories in a week, you lose a pound of weight. Create a negative energy balance of 7000 calories (deficit) in a week and you tip the scale to a two pound weight loss and so on, right? Not so fast… Dr. Kevin Hall, an investigator at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda has done some interesting research about the mechanisms regulating human body weight. He recently published a new paper in the International Journal of Obesity that throws a wrench in works of the "3500 calories to lose a pound" idea…

Some of the equations in his paper gave me a headache… but despite the complex formulas he used to come to his conclusions, the article contained a lot of simple and very practical tips you can use to properly balance your caloric intake with output, fine tune your calorie deficit and help you retain more muscle when you diet.

Below, I’ve distilled some of the information into a simple bullet-point summary that any non-scientist can understand, and then I wrap up with my interpretation of how you can apply this:

Calories required to lose a pound and fine-tuning your caloric deficit

• 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb. However, this 3500 calories figure goes back to research which assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).
• But as we all know (unfortunately), lean body mass is lost along with body fat, which would indicate that the 3500 calorie figure could be an oversimplification.
• The amount of lean body mass lost is based on initial body fat level and size of the calrie deficit
• Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat.
• Fat people tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (revealing why obese people can tolerate extremely low calorie diets better than already lean people)
• Very aggressive low calorie diets tend to erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets.
• whether the weight loss is lean or fat gives you the real answer of what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss
• The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable eneregy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories.
• If you lose lean body mass then you lose more weight than if you lose fat.
• If you create a 3500 calorie deficit in one week and you lose 100% body fat, you will lose one pound.
• But if you create a 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose almost 6 pounds of body weight! (of course, if you mangage to lose 100% muscle, you will be forced to wear the Dieter’s Dunce cap)
• If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you will need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person!
• Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet and maintaining that same caloric intake for the duration of the diet and after major weight loss fails to account for how your body decreases energy expenditure with reduced body weight
• Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (the "plateau"). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most people just can’t hack aggressive calorie reductions for long)
• Progressive resistance training and or high protein diets can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat vs lean tissue (which is why weight training and sufficient protein while on calorie restricted diets are absolute musts!)

So, based on this info, should you throw out the old calorie formulas?

Well, not necessarily. You can still use the standard calorie formulas to figure out how much you should eat, and you can use a 500-1000 calorie per day deficit (below maintenance) as a generic guideline to figure where to set your calories to lose one or two pounds per week respectively (at least on paper anyway).

Even better however, you could use this info to fine tune your caloric deficit using a percentage method and also base your deficit on your starting body fat level, to get a much more personalized and effective approach:

15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit
20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit
25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit
31-40% below maintenance calories = very aggressive deficit (risky)
50%+ below maintenance calories = semi starvation/starvation (potentially dangerous and unhealthy)

(Note: According to exercise physiologists Katch & Mcardle, the average female between the ages of 23 and 50 has a maintenance level of about 2000-2100 calories per day and the average male about 2700-2900 calories per day)

Usually, we would suggest starting with a conservative deficit of around 15-20% below maintenance. What Dr. Hall’s research is saying, is that there can be big differences between lean and overweight people in how many calories they can or should cut.

If you have very high body fat to begin with, the typical rule of thumb on calorie deficits may underestimate the deficit required to lose a pound. It may also be too conservative and you can also probably use a moderate to aggressive deficit more safely without as much worry about muscle loss, metabolic slowdown, etc.

If you are extremely lean, like a bodybuilder trying to get even leaner for competition, you would want to be very cautious using aggressive calorie deficits. You’d be better off keeping the deficit conservative and starting your diet/cutting phase earlier to allow for a slow, but safe rate of fat loss, with maximum retention of muscle tissue.

The long and short of it is that its not quite so simple as 3,500 calories being the deficit to lose a pound. Like lots of other things in nutrition that vary from person to person, the ideal amount of calories to cut "depends"…

The Burn the Fat program not only has an entire chapter dedicated to helping you calculate your exact calorie needs, it was designed very specifically to keep a fairly conservative approach to caloric deficits and to maximize the amount of lean tissue you retain and minimize the amount of metabolic adaptation that occurs when you’re dieting. The approach may be more conservative, and the fat loss may be slower, but it has a better long term track record… You can either lose weight fast, sacrifice muscle and gain the fat back like 95% of people do, or lose fat slow and keep it off forever like the 5% of the people who know the secrets. The choice is yours:

Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Burn The Fat

Good news about saturated fat

Lies you've been told about saturated fat

Mike Geary
Certified Nutrition Specialist
Certified Personal Trainer
Founder - The Truth About Abs

I've written many times in the last couple years about the mistaken beliefs in society about saturated fat and the false perception in the media AND with MOST health professionals that saturated fat is bad for you.

If you've seen in some of my articles, I've even showed you why saturated fat can even be GOOD for you in some cases, despite every health/fitness professional in the world just accepting the false belief that it's bad for you.

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised to FINALLY see a big name publisher have some guts to publish an article about why everyone in the world may be wrong about their beliefs about saturated fat.

I received my new issue of Men's Health magazine over the weekend (Nov issue), and they have a huge 6-page article in there about the faulty research in the past about saturated fat, and some new emerging research that is showing why it may actually be more good for you than you would believe.

I've got to give them credit... the article was VERY well researched and put together beautifully to summarize where the studies in the past have gone wrong, and why recent studies are showing that everyone may have been wrong for the last 5 decades about saturated fat.

I'd highly suggest you read the entire article if you can. If not, I'm going to try to give you a quick summary of the findings here since it was a long article...

First of all, did you realize that although doctors, nutritionists, fitness professionals, and the media all have told you that it's a FACT that saturated fats are bad for you, this "FACT" has actually never been proven!

It's actually not a "fact" at all. It was a hypothesis! This goes all the way back to a flawed research study from the 1950's where a guy named Ancel Keys published a paper that laid the blame on dietary fat intake for the increasing heart disease phenomenon.

However, there were major flaws to his study. For one, in his conclusions he only used data from a small portion of the countries where data was available on fat consumption vs heart disease death rate. When researches have gone back in and looked at the data from all of the countries, there actually was no link between fat consumption and heart disease deaths. So his conclusions were actually false.

Second, his blaming of fat intake for heart disease was only one factor that was considered. There was no consideration of other factors such as smoking rates, stress factors, sugar intake, exercise frequency, or other lifestyle factors.

Basically, his conclusions which blamed heart disease deaths on fat intake were really just a shot in the dark about what a possible cause may have been, even though all of those other factors I just mentioned, plus many others, may be the bigger cause.

Unfortunately, Keys study has been cited for over 5 decades now as "fact" that saturated fat is bad for you. As you can see, there certainly is nothing factual about it.

Since that time, numerous other studies have been conducted trying to link saturated fat intake to heart disease. The majority of these studies have failed to correlate ANY risk at all from saturated fat. A couple of them made feeble attempts at linking saturated fat to heart disease, however, it was later shown that in those studies, the data was flawed as well.

Do we actually have evidence that saturated fat may actually be good for you instead?

Well, let's consider a few examples...

Did you know that there are several well known tribes in Africa... the Masai, Samburu, and Fulani tribes... where their diet consists mostly of raw whole milk, tons of red meat, and cows blood? Despite their very high saturated fat intake, they display extremely low body fat levels, and heart disease to natives of the tribe is virtually non-existant.

Now most critics of this example will say that it must be related to superior genetics... however this is false, as when they studied tribesman who had moved out of their native lands and started eating more modern day diets, their blood chemistry skyrocketed with heart disease risk factors.

This is true of certain pacific island countries inhabitants as well. Several studies have shown that certain pacific island nations had VERY high intakes of total fat as well as saturated fat from tropical fats such as palm, coconut, and cocoa. Despite super-high intakes of saturated fat, these island natives were typically very lean and heart disease was virtually non-existant.

However, when researchers followed up with islanders that had moved away from their native island and adopted a typical western diet, the heart disease factors were through the roof.

In fact, did you know that although saturated fat intake does increase your LDL bad cholesterol, it actually increases your HDL good cholesterol even further, hence improving your overall cholesterol ratio, which has been proven to be more important that just total cholesterol level (actually total cholesterol is an almost useless number... inflammation is the REAL problem, but that's a whole different topic).

Another fact worth noting in favor of saturated fat...

Saturated fat is comprised of various different types... the 3 most common types are stearic acid, palmitic acid, and lauric acid.

Stearic acid is found in animal fat and cocoa in higher levels. Research continues to show that stearic acid has no negative impacts on heart disease risks. If anything, it's either neutral or beneficial. In fact, your liver breaks down stearic acid into a monounsaturated fat called oleic acid, which is the same type of fat that makes up most of heart-healthy olive oil. Bet you didn't know that!

Lauric acid is beneficial as well. Not only has it been shown to increase your HDL good cholesterol levels significantly, but it is also lacking in most Americans diet and has even been shown to have some powerful immune-boosting effects potentially. It is even being studied currently in HIV/AIDS research to help improve immune function in patients.

Tropical oils such as coconut and palm are the best sources of lauric acid.

Palmitic acid is the other main component of saturated fat and has also been shown to increase HDL good cholesterol to the same, if not greater extent than LDL bad cholesterol, thereby making it either neutral or beneficial, but certainly not bad for you.

So, if all of these researchers have tried so hard over the years to point the finger at saturated fat, but have continued to fail to show a correlation between saturated fat and heart disease risk, what are the REAL culprits for heart disease?

Well, here are the REAL causes of heart disease risk:

• Trans fats (artificially hydrogenated oils)... see my previous article here for a full explanation - The Truth About Abs
• Heavily refined vegetable oils such as soy, cottonseed, corn oil, etc.(inflammatory inside the body, and typically throw the omega-6/omega-3 balance out of whack)
• Too much refined sugar in the diet (including high fructose corn syrup)
• Too much refined carbohydrates such as white bread, low fiber cereals, etc
• Smoking
• Stressful lifestyle
• Lack of exercise
• Other lifestyle factors

So why does it seem that so many attempts over the years have tried to lay the blame on saturated fat... do you think it might have anything to do with the muli-bil_lion dollar vegetable oil industry, which has taken over for cooking oils for what used to be mostly animal fats and tropical oils in decades past...

hmm... do multi-bill_ion dollar industries really have an influence on the way data is portrayed to the public? Of course they do! And don't even get me started on the cholesterol meds industry! Again, I digress.

I hope this article has opened your eyes about the truth about saturated fat and how you've been misled over the years.

The true FACT is that saturated fat is a neutral substance in your body, and even beneficial at times, not a deadly risk factor for disease. The REAL risk factors are what I listed above.

Here are 2 more articles that are must reads about this topic if you haven't read them before...

The Truth About Abs

Till next Ezine issue... Don't be lazy... be lean.

Mike Geary
Certified Nutrition Specialist
Certified Personal Trainer
Founder - The Truth About Abs

6 sure things for burning fat

PART 1
By Tom Venuto
"Burn the Fat"

There are not many "sure things" in life. Almost every
worthwhile endeavor comes with a certain degree of risk
and no assurance of the outcome.

In the case of building your dream body and chiseling it down
into a lean machine, there's always some trial, error and
experimentation necessary, especially because each person's
genetics, body type and physiology are so unique.

But what if you could skip most of the trial and error by placing
your bets on "sure things" instead of guessing or gambling?

That would be great wouldn't it? Unfortunately, in the health
and fitness field, there appear to be fewer "sure things" than
anywhere else!

Fitness experts are notorious for having opinions and theories
that range from one extreme to another. Many competing fat loss
programs represent polar opposites, with high carb vs low carb
being the most common example.

Scientists often end their papers with, "more research is
needed" and they almost never stick their necks out and take
a strong stand, unless the evidence is air-tight and rock-solid.

But amidst all the chaos, confusion and conflicting advice of
the nutrition and fitness world, there are a small handful of
"SURE THINGS" and you're about to learn them all.

These are things that almost all the researchers and most of the
fitness and dietetic professionals agree on.

Of course, We will never get 100 percent consensus on the subjects of
exercise and nutrition, because there's always a lone dissenter
out there somewhere.

Even in the face of science, people sometimes believe weird
things. People also often believe in their dietary approaches
NOT for scientific reasons, but for environmental, spiritual
or humanitarian reasons.

Nevertheless, if we use science as our guide, then the
weight of the evidence is heavy enough that I will stick MY
neck out and recommend to just about everyone that these are
SURE THINGS, and that you can't go wrong by applying these
principles in your own program immediately...


SURE THING #1: FOCUS ON THE CALORIC DEFICIT

One thing that virtually the entire scientific community agrees
on is that the law of energy balance is always with us. In order
to burn body fat, you must expend more calories than you consume.

This is known as having a "caloric deficit."

Although there are a few people who still claim that "calories
don't count," I will be as bold as to say that those people are
dead wrong.

PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY: There is a huge difference between saying
"you don't have to count calories" and "calories don't count."

Some diet programs are "ad libitum" in nature. This means they
do not advise calorie counting; they simply tell you what to eat
and what not to eat. You eat as you please, as long as you follow
the food restrictions provided.

What they usually don't tell you is that the eating restrictions
are the equivalent of having built-in automatic calorie control.
These programs do not refute the law of energy balance, they
confirm it.

When a diet program claims, "Eat as much as you want and still
lose weight", you are hearing a Big Fat Lie. Incidentally, the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says it is illegal to make this
claim in advertisements and they can sue you if you do.

Many people still deny the law of calorie balance in the face of
scientific evidence.

For example, some of the old school low-carbers are notorious for
disputing the calorie balance equation, in favor of believing in
some type of "metabolic advantage" that comes from low carbs.
I.e., "eat X grams of carbs or less, and you can eat as much as
you want."

To them, I will quote the Amazing Randy and say, "Put up or shut up."
Lets see that theory tested out under calorie-controlled conditions
in a lab. I assure you, if you have a caloric maintenance level of
2000 calories a day and you eat 3000 calories a day of protein and
fat (no carbs) you WILL gain fat!

Perhaps it will be harder to consume that many calories in the
form of protein and fat as compared to sugar and protein and
fat, but if you manage to pull off that gastronomic feat, you
WILL gain weight nonetheless (and low carb writers might be
surprised at how much food some people can shovel down their
throats, even sans carbs!)

Fortunately, the low carb community today has some intelligent
voices speaking out, saying that low carb does not mean "unlimited
calories" and that low carb diets also require a caloric deficit;
they may simply make it easier to achieve that deficit, automatically
without counting calories.

While I am very much in favor of doing things "by the numbers,"
programs that tend to make you "automatically" eat less without
counting calories are not a bad thing at all. A spontaneous
reduction in caloric intake often occurs due to an appetite-
suppressive effect of certain diets, and or due to the selection
of low calorie-density foods which are highly satiating.

That said, no combination of foods, elimination of foods, or
arrangement of macronutrients will override the law of calorie
balance. To lose fat, you have to eat less than you burn, period.

Furthermore, you must be diligent about maintaining your
deficit, because:

(1) Energy balance is dynamic, and what is a deficit for you today,
may no longer be a significant deficit six months from now

(2) If your maintenance calories are 2000, and your intake is
1500 one day (a deficit) and 2500 the next (a surplus), you have
NOT achieved a caloric defict over the two day period - you are in
energy balance. Conveniently, most people seem to have some kind
of "selective amnesia" and they only remember the days they were
in a deficit! A consistent deficit over time is the key!

The sooner you drill this truth into your head and accept that
the cornerstone of fat loss is a caloric deficit, the sooner
you'll be able to think clearly about your nutritional choices
and the better you'll be able to judge everything you ever
read, see and hear about nutrition, for the rest of your life.

By the way, did you know that there are two corollaries to
the law of calorie balance, which almost no one teaches?

In my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, I reveal these
little-known calorie corollaries (chapter 6) and I teach you
the exact, scientific formulas for calculating your ideal calorie
intake for burning the maximum amount of fat, without losing
muscle or slowing down your metabolism.

You can learn more by visiting:
Burn the Fat

Keep your eyes peeled for "SURE THING" #2, coming soon!
(subscribe to be notified: click here)

Sincerely,
Your friend and coach

Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Burn the Fat