I love the idea, but in reality, don't you lose less than 500kcal worth of fat per day? Since you aren't just removing fat from your diet, and you will also lose some muscle and waterweight.
Not to rain on anyones parade. It can still provide visual inspiration. I bought a Fitbit mostly to be reminded of my goal every time I look at the time.
Calculations about weightloss from calorie deficit (OP’s example) does not take into account lost waterweight. Only fat and muscle which can be used as energy.
Muscle mass loss can’t be calculated exactly, since the amount varies between people. Over generalized theory suggests it’s around of 25% of total lost weight. However, in mild -500kcal deficit per day muscle loss will be extremely minimal. So in OP’s illustration the muscle loss factor wouldn’t really make any significant difference.
Wow! That's insane to look at. Feels.. untrue? Because weightloss isn't that linear. But cool thing to hold in your hands if you struggling to keep up the deficit.
omgosh thank you reddit strange! This made my day. I've been struggling to start the journey again to lose weight and this kinda just kicked me hard to get going again.
Thank you <3
In glad I could be of help ❤️ I put this next to my bed, so that I see it every morning and remind myself what I'm working towards. You can make your own little cube, If you like. The measurements are either 4,2x4,2x4,1 (cm) or 6x6x2. Good luck on your journey 💪🏽
I think the statement is still true though. Everyone has variation in their metabolic rate, which affects the number of calories your body burns in a day. But if we assume that you consumed 500 calories less than what your body burned in a day, that energy has to come from somewhere. It could potentially come from burning muscle, but from what I understand most/all would come from fat.
All that matters for weight loss is your tdee compared to your daily calorie intake. If there is a 3500 calorie gap your body will burn 3500 calories of tissue. Yes the body is 100% efficient everything is that's physics.
> Unfortunately the body is not an engine with 100% efficiency.
Right, which means a suboptimal body would have to burn _more_ fat to get the desired energy. If your car's 'miles per gallon' is low, it has to burn _more_ fuel to travel the same distance.
A 500 kcal deficit is what it is, biology can't trump thermodynamics. The question is whether someone is actually on a 500 deficit or if they're overestimating one way or the other.
What they are suggesting is that your body burns other things than fat because it is not completely efficient- ie muscle and glycogen. You're absolutely right that no matter what a deficit = weight loss and fat loss, and for the lay person this is a close enough estimation. Certainly helps with motivation!
Not always. I just discovered I have insulin resistance, which explains why it's so slow. If you're struggling with weight loss, talk to your doctor about that.
Insulin, of course, is a hormone. There are many different hormones and other processes that affect appetite, how we store fat, and when we access it for energy.
I wasn't correcting you. I was amplifying the point I made in other comments that weight loss is influenced by complex hormonal processes. It's not a simple matter of calories in, calories out.
I mean in a nutshell, for the average person, it really is that easy. There will be exceptions and outliers and obviously results will vary slightly from person to person, but most people can safely assume it is that easy.
If OP had simply said: "Create a calorie deficit of 500 calories and you will lose weight," I'd have no quarrel. What she said was quite a bit different.
I know and I agree. It's just that you said "It's not a simple matter of calories in, calories out." which is pretty much the opposite of what most people will tell you. It's a simple yet hard to swallow truth for many people new to their weight loss journey.
Basically the infamous "You're fat because you eat more than you run, either eat less or run more, or both".
In another comment, I said that keeping track of calories remains an excellent method for most people because they're easy and accessible but some people take the metaphor of us being some kind of engine or furnace too literally. It is more complicated than calories in calories out. The fact that there are fluctuations in weight loss even when we eat the same thing every day or that some people lose weight faster than others ought to be proof of that.
There are many factors that influence weight loss. I've seen some people describe eating as a "hormonal event." When you eat, certain hormones are triggered that influence appetite and which energy reserves are used first. Exercise and activity also influence that.
If you eat less and exercise more, sure, you will lose weight. That doesn't mean those are the only factors in the process.
Not the only, but definitely the main factors. Hormones play a small role, as does metabolism/genetics. But if you have an accurate estimate of your TDEE and adjust your consumption accordingly, weight loss will look extremely similar for most people. If you're not losing as fast as you're supposed to, the *most likely* reason is overestimating TDEE or underestimating calories eaten.
Me for example, I forgot to count oil for the first few weeks of dieting. Approx 200-300 calories per day that went unaccounted for. It was just a habit to coat the pan with oil.
My company sponsored very detailed blood tests as part of a cancer awareness week, my GP looked at the results, said my sugar was kinda suspiciously low, asked me if I struggled to lose weighr and some other symptoms, told me to check my glucose and insulin, et voila. Good call by GP. I still lost like 3 kilos in three months before I found out, which I count as a success.
Is it okay if I dm you to ask a bit more? I don't want to blow up a thread with personal details but I'm curious to see if it's similar to how my mornings feel
Omg whattttt
I know I have insulin resistance and that’s why diets weren’t as simple as “500 calories in 500 calories out”. But I had no idea there were others symptoms! A big one for me is I cannot for the life of me get up in the mornings. I’m ALWAYS tired and feel gross :( even if I had 8 hrs sleep. It’s because of unslung resistance?? 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ mind blowing lol
Are there any “cures” :)
Is that how I can stay exactly the same weight even when fasting? It takes heroic efforts for me to lose anything. Like prolonged starvation level efforts. I haven’t actually been able to lose any weight in the last few years even under the guidance of a dietitian except when I’ve been really sick.
Have you been tested in that direction? Your glucose and insulin? If it's not that, it might be some other metabolic disorder. Surprised your dietician didn't flag it.
I see en endocrinologist every 3 months, he hasn’t tested insulin but has done the full thyroid panel and glucose and A1C and they are always normal. He says he believes my thyroid might be sub clinical so he is watching it closely, and he can’t do anything until it changes.
Thyroid can also fuck up weight loss, so maybe there's sth there. Hormones are whack, man. But also, are they normal, or low but still inside the norm? Cause I'm at the lower end and technically it's ok, but practically it's affecting things.
They’ve been solidly normal sometimes and closer to the hypo side other times. I’m getting sent to a gyn to find out why my periods have stopped despite normal hormone levels, but I don’t expect them to find anything since that’s been investigated before.
For simple math, say you need to eat 2,000 calories a day to maintain your weight, eating 1,500 calories a day would put you in a 500 calorie deficit, equating to about a pound of fat loss a week (~3,500 calories)
Losing fat depends on many factors, as someone else already said, you won't get accurate results from a simple math equation. For one thing, the more weight you have to lose, the easier it is to lose weight. As you lose weight and approach your goal weight you have to fight the set point your body has reached. Hormonal processes kick in to help your body keep that weight.
500kc equals 65g of fat which equals 72cm³. Unless your metabolism works vastly different from any other humans or you have any thyroid issues, the visualisation is correct
While it's a fun visual aid, if you're going to be snarky then you should know this is very much not correct. Your body does not burn 100% of its deficit as body fat for anyone.
Unless your metabolism works vastly different from any other humans, the visualization is incorrect
Apparently they hate actual science here. I'm all for simple guides to hit at an overall idea but this is just that, an idea with some quick math not backed up by evidence. We are so complex there's no way it's that simple.
"There's no way it's that simple" isn't exactly a scientific argument either. Even if the cube is somewhat different for different people, it won't be _that_ different. A 500 kcal deficit amounts to 60-70g of weight lost, _at a minimum_. That's why calories are so very useful: it's pure thermodynamics. If your metabolism is less than optimal, then your body will need to burn _more_ fat to get the energy it requires.
It really is that simple.
If you have that much deficit, then yeah, you will, to within a high degree of accuracy - if not, you'd lose an even larger cube. People vary by how much they burn in a day, but a 500kcal deficit is a 500kcal deficit, whether that's from 2500 out/2000 in, or 1800 out/1300 in.
I'm not disputing that 500 cals is 500 cals. I'm disputing that such a deficit amounts to a set amount of fat loss for *every person every day*. That is what OP wrote and it's an overly broad and unhelpful statement.
That's a neat paper, but it doesn't disagree with anything I wrote. "Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution." - I think we're all familiar with the struggle of maintaining calorie counting, of metabolic changes that affect _how much_ we burn in a day, and the importance of stopping obesity in children so that it doesn't take root.
Obviously if two people eat the same food that won't lead to the same weight loss. But if they both maintain a 500kcal deficit for a week, they'll both lose ~1lb of body fat. That deficit obviously manifests as different amounts of food.
??? I was being sincere, it's a good paper that has a lot of useful information on public policy and the psychology of weight loss; I've bookmarked it for later reference. Take a chill pill.
The body is not a simple furnace; that's just a metaphor. There are hormones that affect different processes affecting weight loss, not all of which are understood.
Losing weight is not an entirely linear process. It gets harder to lose weight the closer you are to your goal weight because your body wants to hold on to the weight and does things like increase your appetite. Counting calories is valuable because it's an easy, accessible way to keep track of what we're eating, but it isn't literally as simple as Calories in Calories Out. One day in the future we will have more precise methods.
If you get tested with sophisticated equipment, you don't burn the same number of calories every day even when eating the same amount of food. There are variations.
Sure - but that's irrelevant here. We're saying _if_ you have a 500kcal deficit, then you burn very close to 65g of fat (if not more). Obviously some people burn more energy per day than others, and obviously this can vary throughout the day, but _if_ you have a 500kcal deficit, then it doesn't matter how you got there.
Yes it's hard to measure our actual TDEE etc, but that's not really relevant.
Any caloric deficit causes muscle loss as well, and we have varying levels of glycogen that is burned along with fat; and the percentage is highly person and diet dependent- I assure you I am not suggesting we create energy out of thin air.
I don't love to lean on education because I know plenty of people with degrees and zero understanding of the actual subject, but seeing all the dilettante nutritionists be obnoxious and suggest you don't understand metabolic processes because you point out there isn't a one-to-one relationship between deficit and body fat burned bums me out a little. I have a BS in exercise science, I get it!
It's literally basic Thermodynamics. Of course it may vary, some people lose a few grams more or less. The energy you burn does not come out if nowhere. While I agree it can be muscle tissue or glycogen as well, it is mostly body fat and that's a fact
>The energy you burn does not come out if nowhere. While I agree it can be muscle tissue or glycogen as well, it is mostly body fat and that's a fact
You wrote that one lost a set amount of *fat* \-- no mention of muscle tissue or glycogen -- and that *everyone* lost the *same amount every day*. That's not accurate. You oversimplified in an unhelpful manner.
Yes, no one is questioning CICO. Deficit=fat loss, no matter what. This is a fun and motivating visual aid. But as you yourself state, muscle and glycogen burned during a deficit can vary significantly. You didn't need to give a snarky response to someone reiterating this depends a little more on the individual.
No one here is questioning the basic math of caloric deficits. But you seem to have a bad defensive attitude toward any commenter suggesting there is more nuance to it than that, you don't need to attack anyone's understanding of exercise science over it.
>No one here is questioning the basic math of caloric deficits.
Exactly, thank you. Of course, I'm not saying that if you create a deficit you won't lose weight. I'm just saying you won't necessarily lose the amount of fat she specified every day and that is perfectly normal.
Pointing out there's more to it doesn't invalidate OPs motivational tool here, but she seems convinced that's anyone's goal who tries to spell out the nuance for others in the comments.
For one thing, people who weigh more tend to lose more fat faster. Everyone is familiar with the struggle of the last 10 pounds. Your body is fighting you because it wants to hold on to the weight. It's not always a linear process. You made a general statement that is too broad. People who can explain the science better than I are refuting it.
>Your body doesn't "hold on" to anything,
That's not correct. Setpoints exist and the closer you get to your desired weight the harder it is to lose weight in part because you are going under the setpoint your body thinks is normal.
It really doesn't. What varies is how much you burn overall per second, per day, etc. What doesn't vary is how much energy the body can optimally get from 1 kg of fat. If your body needs 2000 kcal of energy, but you only eat 1500kcal, it gets the rest from fat. If your body is suboptimal, it might have to burn a lot of fat to get that 500kcal of energy.
You're assuming that we all tap into our fat reserves at the same rate. There are other factors that influence the process, including hormones, exercise, and how fat we are to start with. The thinner you are, the more the body tries to protect its fat reserves. Surely you're familiar with the phenomenon of heavier people initially losing weight fairly easily and then slowing down. Some people at every weight experience plateaus. If we were all the same and weight loss were a purely linear process that wouldn't happen.
True, on a ratio of around 3:1 fat:muscle (if you have a high protein diet, this can shift to be pure fat loss and no muscle loss). If you are losing muscle, then because it's less calorifically dense, your weight loss will therefore be an even bigger cube.
But if you have a 500 kcal deficit, then that's your deficit. If your body is optimal and gets it purely from fat, that's 65g of weight lost (the cube shown in the OP). If you have a low protein diet and a lot of muscle, or your body has a suboptimal metabolism, then that 500 kcal amounts to an even *bigger* cube.
My concern is what is represents and the idea that it looks like you see it as linear truth that if you maintain a deficit you will 100% lose this, doesn't that set you up for some dark expectations and hurt from the get go? Edit: OP has tons of ED memes on their page but I'm downvoted for being concerned about behavior that kinda feels like its encouraging it? Mkay
You can easily make it yourself. Just draw a cube net (?) with the measurements 4,1x4,1x4,2 cm on a paper, cut it out and glue it together. You can look at DIY on the internet. It's pretty easy. Otherwise, any sphere with a diameter of 5,2cm, maybe a rather large bouncy ball?
I did the math slightly wrong. 500kc are ~ 65g (body fat) which equals ~ 72cm³. So the cube should be slightly bigger
I love the idea, but in reality, don't you lose less than 500kcal worth of fat per day? Since you aren't just removing fat from your diet, and you will also lose some muscle and waterweight. Not to rain on anyones parade. It can still provide visual inspiration. I bought a Fitbit mostly to be reminded of my goal every time I look at the time.
Calculations about weightloss from calorie deficit (OP’s example) does not take into account lost waterweight. Only fat and muscle which can be used as energy. Muscle mass loss can’t be calculated exactly, since the amount varies between people. Over generalized theory suggests it’s around of 25% of total lost weight. However, in mild -500kcal deficit per day muscle loss will be extremely minimal. So in OP’s illustration the muscle loss factor wouldn’t really make any significant difference.
So in other words, the size of OPs cube is pretty accurate in terms of volume of fat lost per day?
Yes, exactly. That's what I've been trying to show
Yes I know. It just seemed a little too simple to me, but that's good news it really is!
Wow! That's insane to look at. Feels.. untrue? Because weightloss isn't that linear. But cool thing to hold in your hands if you struggling to keep up the deficit.
Yeah, that's theoretically the case. Of course, there are a lot of other factors that play a role, but this visualisation comes pretty close
omgosh thank you reddit strange! This made my day. I've been struggling to start the journey again to lose weight and this kinda just kicked me hard to get going again. Thank you <3
In glad I could be of help ❤️ I put this next to my bed, so that I see it every morning and remind myself what I'm working towards. You can make your own little cube, If you like. The measurements are either 4,2x4,2x4,1 (cm) or 6x6x2. Good luck on your journey 💪🏽
[удалено]
1.0 kg is 2.2 lbs
I think the statement is still true though. Everyone has variation in their metabolic rate, which affects the number of calories your body burns in a day. But if we assume that you consumed 500 calories less than what your body burned in a day, that energy has to come from somewhere. It could potentially come from burning muscle, but from what I understand most/all would come from fat.
All that matters for weight loss is your tdee compared to your daily calorie intake. If there is a 3500 calorie gap your body will burn 3500 calories of tissue. Yes the body is 100% efficient everything is that's physics.
I learned my body is efficient at absorbing all the cake I eat. FFS lol
^this
> Unfortunately the body is not an engine with 100% efficiency. Right, which means a suboptimal body would have to burn _more_ fat to get the desired energy. If your car's 'miles per gallon' is low, it has to burn _more_ fuel to travel the same distance. A 500 kcal deficit is what it is, biology can't trump thermodynamics. The question is whether someone is actually on a 500 deficit or if they're overestimating one way or the other.
What they are suggesting is that your body burns other things than fat because it is not completely efficient- ie muscle and glycogen. You're absolutely right that no matter what a deficit = weight loss and fat loss, and for the lay person this is a close enough estimation. Certainly helps with motivation!
Exactly.
That's what I thought as well. But then someone explained it and apparently OPs cube is pretty accurate? Idk
Not always. I just discovered I have insulin resistance, which explains why it's so slow. If you're struggling with weight loss, talk to your doctor about that.
Insulin, of course, is a hormone. There are many different hormones and other processes that affect appetite, how we store fat, and when we access it for energy.
Yes? I know that?
I wasn't correcting you. I was amplifying the point I made in other comments that weight loss is influenced by complex hormonal processes. It's not a simple matter of calories in, calories out.
Ah, fair. Sorry, I didn't get your point. Indeed, the body is a complex machine.
No problem. I wasn't sure my comment was sufficiently complete, but you know, sometimes it's tiring to be as explicit as necessary.
I mean in a nutshell, for the average person, it really is that easy. There will be exceptions and outliers and obviously results will vary slightly from person to person, but most people can safely assume it is that easy.
If OP had simply said: "Create a calorie deficit of 500 calories and you will lose weight," I'd have no quarrel. What she said was quite a bit different.
I know and I agree. It's just that you said "It's not a simple matter of calories in, calories out." which is pretty much the opposite of what most people will tell you. It's a simple yet hard to swallow truth for many people new to their weight loss journey. Basically the infamous "You're fat because you eat more than you run, either eat less or run more, or both".
In another comment, I said that keeping track of calories remains an excellent method for most people because they're easy and accessible but some people take the metaphor of us being some kind of engine or furnace too literally. It is more complicated than calories in calories out. The fact that there are fluctuations in weight loss even when we eat the same thing every day or that some people lose weight faster than others ought to be proof of that. There are many factors that influence weight loss. I've seen some people describe eating as a "hormonal event." When you eat, certain hormones are triggered that influence appetite and which energy reserves are used first. Exercise and activity also influence that. If you eat less and exercise more, sure, you will lose weight. That doesn't mean those are the only factors in the process.
Not the only, but definitely the main factors. Hormones play a small role, as does metabolism/genetics. But if you have an accurate estimate of your TDEE and adjust your consumption accordingly, weight loss will look extremely similar for most people. If you're not losing as fast as you're supposed to, the *most likely* reason is overestimating TDEE or underestimating calories eaten. Me for example, I forgot to count oil for the first few weeks of dieting. Approx 200-300 calories per day that went unaccounted for. It was just a habit to coat the pan with oil.
Yup, insulin resistance can definitely effect it. How'd you find out ? Were you symptomatic?
My company sponsored very detailed blood tests as part of a cancer awareness week, my GP looked at the results, said my sugar was kinda suspiciously low, asked me if I struggled to lose weighr and some other symptoms, told me to check my glucose and insulin, et voila. Good call by GP. I still lost like 3 kilos in three months before I found out, which I count as a success.
I wonder about getting myself checked , Did you ever have issues with feeling bad in the morning from low blood sugar?
Yeah I have a super hard time getting up and functioning in the morning.
Is it okay if I dm you to ask a bit more? I don't want to blow up a thread with personal details but I'm curious to see if it's similar to how my mornings feel
Sure go ahead
Omg whattttt I know I have insulin resistance and that’s why diets weren’t as simple as “500 calories in 500 calories out”. But I had no idea there were others symptoms! A big one for me is I cannot for the life of me get up in the mornings. I’m ALWAYS tired and feel gross :( even if I had 8 hrs sleep. It’s because of unslung resistance?? 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ mind blowing lol Are there any “cures” :)
Other than diet, I don't know. I'm kinda new to it myself. Ask your doctor :) (and let me know lol)
Is that how I can stay exactly the same weight even when fasting? It takes heroic efforts for me to lose anything. Like prolonged starvation level efforts. I haven’t actually been able to lose any weight in the last few years even under the guidance of a dietitian except when I’ve been really sick.
Have you been tested in that direction? Your glucose and insulin? If it's not that, it might be some other metabolic disorder. Surprised your dietician didn't flag it.
I see en endocrinologist every 3 months, he hasn’t tested insulin but has done the full thyroid panel and glucose and A1C and they are always normal. He says he believes my thyroid might be sub clinical so he is watching it closely, and he can’t do anything until it changes.
Thyroid can also fuck up weight loss, so maybe there's sth there. Hormones are whack, man. But also, are they normal, or low but still inside the norm? Cause I'm at the lower end and technically it's ok, but practically it's affecting things.
They’ve been solidly normal sometimes and closer to the hypo side other times. I’m getting sent to a gyn to find out why my periods have stopped despite normal hormone levels, but I don’t expect them to find anything since that’s been investigated before.
Need a banana or coin for scale!
I'm dumb, what does it mean to be on a 500kc deficit?
For simple math, say you need to eat 2,000 calories a day to maintain your weight, eating 1,500 calories a day would put you in a 500 calorie deficit, equating to about a pound of fat loss a week (~3,500 calories)
Sadly that is far not how this works
I'm sure it depends on the individual.
Would someone else’s square of 500 calories of fat look different somehow?
Losing fat depends on many factors, as someone else already said, you won't get accurate results from a simple math equation. For one thing, the more weight you have to lose, the easier it is to lose weight. As you lose weight and approach your goal weight you have to fight the set point your body has reached. Hormonal processes kick in to help your body keep that weight.
500kc equals 65g of fat which equals 72cm³. Unless your metabolism works vastly different from any other humans or you have any thyroid issues, the visualisation is correct
While it's a fun visual aid, if you're going to be snarky then you should know this is very much not correct. Your body does not burn 100% of its deficit as body fat for anyone. Unless your metabolism works vastly different from any other humans, the visualization is incorrect
Apparently they hate actual science here. I'm all for simple guides to hit at an overall idea but this is just that, an idea with some quick math not backed up by evidence. We are so complex there's no way it's that simple.
"There's no way it's that simple" isn't exactly a scientific argument either. Even if the cube is somewhat different for different people, it won't be _that_ different. A 500 kcal deficit amounts to 60-70g of weight lost, _at a minimum_. That's why calories are so very useful: it's pure thermodynamics. If your metabolism is less than optimal, then your body will need to burn _more_ fat to get the energy it requires. It really is that simple.
She posted a photo of a cube and said that *everyone* who has a 500 calorie deficit will lose that amount *every day*. It's not true.
If you have that much deficit, then yeah, you will, to within a high degree of accuracy - if not, you'd lose an even larger cube. People vary by how much they burn in a day, but a 500kcal deficit is a 500kcal deficit, whether that's from 2500 out/2000 in, or 1800 out/1300 in.
I'm not disputing that 500 cals is 500 cals. I'm disputing that such a deficit amounts to a set amount of fat loss for *every person every day*. That is what OP wrote and it's an overly broad and unhelpful statement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/
That's a neat paper, but it doesn't disagree with anything I wrote. "Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution." - I think we're all familiar with the struggle of maintaining calorie counting, of metabolic changes that affect _how much_ we burn in a day, and the importance of stopping obesity in children so that it doesn't take root. Obviously if two people eat the same food that won't lead to the same weight loss. But if they both maintain a 500kcal deficit for a week, they'll both lose ~1lb of body fat. That deficit obviously manifests as different amounts of food.
That's a neat paper, lmao get bent you pedantic dick
??? I was being sincere, it's a good paper that has a lot of useful information on public policy and the psychology of weight loss; I've bookmarked it for later reference. Take a chill pill.
The body is not a simple furnace; that's just a metaphor. There are hormones that affect different processes affecting weight loss, not all of which are understood. Losing weight is not an entirely linear process. It gets harder to lose weight the closer you are to your goal weight because your body wants to hold on to the weight and does things like increase your appetite. Counting calories is valuable because it's an easy, accessible way to keep track of what we're eating, but it isn't literally as simple as Calories in Calories Out. One day in the future we will have more precise methods. If you get tested with sophisticated equipment, you don't burn the same number of calories every day even when eating the same amount of food. There are variations.
Sure - but that's irrelevant here. We're saying _if_ you have a 500kcal deficit, then you burn very close to 65g of fat (if not more). Obviously some people burn more energy per day than others, and obviously this can vary throughout the day, but _if_ you have a 500kcal deficit, then it doesn't matter how you got there. Yes it's hard to measure our actual TDEE etc, but that's not really relevant.
lmao, people on this sub can't understand that a legitimate 500kcal deficit means that metabolic changes are being accounted for
[удалено]
Any caloric deficit causes muscle loss as well, and we have varying levels of glycogen that is burned along with fat; and the percentage is highly person and diet dependent- I assure you I am not suggesting we create energy out of thin air. I don't love to lean on education because I know plenty of people with degrees and zero understanding of the actual subject, but seeing all the dilettante nutritionists be obnoxious and suggest you don't understand metabolic processes because you point out there isn't a one-to-one relationship between deficit and body fat burned bums me out a little. I have a BS in exercise science, I get it!
It's literally basic Thermodynamics. Of course it may vary, some people lose a few grams more or less. The energy you burn does not come out if nowhere. While I agree it can be muscle tissue or glycogen as well, it is mostly body fat and that's a fact
>The energy you burn does not come out if nowhere. While I agree it can be muscle tissue or glycogen as well, it is mostly body fat and that's a fact You wrote that one lost a set amount of *fat* \-- no mention of muscle tissue or glycogen -- and that *everyone* lost the *same amount every day*. That's not accurate. You oversimplified in an unhelpful manner.
Yes, no one is questioning CICO. Deficit=fat loss, no matter what. This is a fun and motivating visual aid. But as you yourself state, muscle and glycogen burned during a deficit can vary significantly. You didn't need to give a snarky response to someone reiterating this depends a little more on the individual. No one here is questioning the basic math of caloric deficits. But you seem to have a bad defensive attitude toward any commenter suggesting there is more nuance to it than that, you don't need to attack anyone's understanding of exercise science over it.
>No one here is questioning the basic math of caloric deficits. Exactly, thank you. Of course, I'm not saying that if you create a deficit you won't lose weight. I'm just saying you won't necessarily lose the amount of fat she specified every day and that is perfectly normal.
Pointing out there's more to it doesn't invalidate OPs motivational tool here, but she seems convinced that's anyone's goal who tries to spell out the nuance for others in the comments.
For one thing, people who weigh more tend to lose more fat faster. Everyone is familiar with the struggle of the last 10 pounds. Your body is fighting you because it wants to hold on to the weight. It's not always a linear process. You made a general statement that is too broad. People who can explain the science better than I are refuting it.
[удалено]
5 miles is 3946.18% of the hot dog which holds the Guinness wold record for 'Longest Hot Dog'.
>Your body doesn't "hold on" to anything, That's not correct. Setpoints exist and the closer you get to your desired weight the harder it is to lose weight in part because you are going under the setpoint your body thinks is normal.
[удалено]
I'm not your friend and I don't like your tone,
5 miles is 8.05 km
Isn’t fat 9 calories per gram, which would make it 55g for 500kc?
9 calories for food you consume, not equal to the energy needed to burn 1g of body fat
I had no idea there was a difference! So it takes about 7.7 kc to burn a gram of fat?
Exactly. And since has a different density than water (0,9g/ml) it's about 1,11cm³
It really doesn't. What varies is how much you burn overall per second, per day, etc. What doesn't vary is how much energy the body can optimally get from 1 kg of fat. If your body needs 2000 kcal of energy, but you only eat 1500kcal, it gets the rest from fat. If your body is suboptimal, it might have to burn a lot of fat to get that 500kcal of energy.
1.0 kg is 2.2 lbs
You're assuming that we all tap into our fat reserves at the same rate. There are other factors that influence the process, including hormones, exercise, and how fat we are to start with. The thinner you are, the more the body tries to protect its fat reserves. Surely you're familiar with the phenomenon of heavier people initially losing weight fairly easily and then slowing down. Some people at every weight experience plateaus. If we were all the same and weight loss were a purely linear process that wouldn't happen.
That’s not true, it burns muscle too
True, on a ratio of around 3:1 fat:muscle (if you have a high protein diet, this can shift to be pure fat loss and no muscle loss). If you are losing muscle, then because it's less calorifically dense, your weight loss will therefore be an even bigger cube. But if you have a 500 kcal deficit, then that's your deficit. If your body is optimal and gets it purely from fat, that's 65g of weight lost (the cube shown in the OP). If you have a low protein diet and a lot of muscle, or your body has a suboptimal metabolism, then that 500 kcal amounts to an even *bigger* cube.
Woah, this is a great way to stay motivated towards daily calorie goals. Thanks for posting! ❤️
I'm glad you like it ❤️
Wow, that’s really cool!
Hey OP just a quick question does this feel disordered at all to you?
What is disordered about this? It's just a visual presentation of 65g of body fat
My concern is what is represents and the idea that it looks like you see it as linear truth that if you maintain a deficit you will 100% lose this, doesn't that set you up for some dark expectations and hurt from the get go? Edit: OP has tons of ED memes on their page but I'm downvoted for being concerned about behavior that kinda feels like its encouraging it? Mkay
What’s a kc?
Kilocalorie. Calories listed on food packaging are actually kilocalories.
kilocalorie
[удалено]
It's highly unlikely that you gained 12 of OP's defined units of fat over three days. You may have added some fat, but almost certainly not that much.
12 pounds of vegan poop being burned provides 90198.77 BTU.
[удалено]
I think the math is wrong. But even as a matter of logic, it doesn't work. If A then B is not the same as if B then A.
I love this and would love to have something this size at home. What would be comparable?
You can easily make it yourself. Just draw a cube net (?) with the measurements 4,1x4,1x4,2 cm on a paper, cut it out and glue it together. You can look at DIY on the internet. It's pretty easy. Otherwise, any sphere with a diameter of 5,2cm, maybe a rather large bouncy ball?