Calorie deficit

I have cronometer set to lose 1lbs a week this gives me a 499 calorie deficit, I’m wonder why 499 rather then 500 which is usually what the calorie deficit should be to lose 1lbs weekly, I know 499 and 500 makes no real difference but was just curious.

Lizzy

Comments

  • Other places round the value! The exact math works out to 499. Cronometer values accuracy, so for now, we will leave it at 499 kcal ;)

    Hilary
    cronometer.com
    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
    https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer

  • edited April 24

    not sure what is meant by rounding off, to lose a pound of a week you need a calorie deficit of 3500 calories a week (7 days) 500 multipled by 7 equals 3500, by cronometers calculations 499 multiplied my 7 equals to 3494 which gives you an incorrect calorie deficit for the week to lose a pound a week. Can you let me know how Cronometer came up with those calculations? And how that reflects a pound lost a week when it does not add up to the known 3500 cals a week for a pound lost, I’ve been in the fitness industry for a while now and for clients who are on a weight loss program of 1 pound a week they are on a calorie deficit of 500 as adhering to the standard calculations. The same goes with gaining a pound a pound a week. It takes 3500 extra calories to gain a pound and it takes a decrease of 3500 to lose a pound within an entire week. This is what was thought to us a Canfitpro and has always been the standard so it would be nice to know how Cronometet calculations work to come up with 499 when as it does not add to a weekly loss of a pound, is it that in reality the standard 3500 deficit is not the current amount? Would like to know for work purposes and for perspective clients that we train. Sorry for the winded message.

    This screen shot is from google

    Tipping the scale

    Your weight is a balancing act, but the equation is simple: If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. And if you eat fewer calories and burn more calories through physical activity, you lose weight.

    Because 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of fat, it's estimated that you need to burn about 3,500 calories to lose 1 pound.

    So, in general, if you cut about 500 to 1,000 calories a day from your typical diet, you'd lose about 1 to 2 pounds a week.

    It sounds simple. However, it's more complex because when you lose weight, you usually lose a combination of fat, lean tissue and water. Also, because of changes that occur in the body as a result of weight loss, you may need to decrease calories further to continue weight loss.

    Lizzy

  • Just wanted to follow up

    Lizzy

  • edited April 26

    We use the calculation presented in Nutrition & Dietetics, 2E

    1 lb of body fat = 454 g
    1 g of pure fat = 9 calories
    1 g of body fat = 7.7 calories (due to some water in fat cells)
    454 * 7.7 cals/g fat = 3495.8 cals/lb of body fat (rounded off to 3500 cals)

    Hilary
    cronometer.com
    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
    https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer

  • This is great thank you for showing me this!! Being in the fitness industry I can’t believe I’ve never been shown this breakdown before. Again thank so much😁

    Lizzy

  • @fitgirl virtually all the formulas that are more commonly taught for mass consumption are rounded numbers. So much so that it is really difficult to actually find with a web search the "real" numbers unless you delve into actual academic journal articles. This "rounding" confounds estimates on kcals burned by metabolism, exercise, activity, for men, women, for heavy, lean, sedentary, athletes, and a great big long etcetera. Don't even get me started on the variations on percent body fat as estimated by formulas or bio-impedance (most home scales) or the horrendously inaccurate yet revered BMI.

    There is so much individual variation on both intake and output calories. In graduate school we were 9 students and each one differed from the other and from the formulas, sometimes greatly. Unfortunately there are no home-based measurement tools to actually measure kcals burned in any given exercise or at rest. So for now the only solution is to go by formulas based on averages of (as we used to say) the apparently healthy population.
    Hopefully some day the more accurate measuring tools will be more available for us fitness freaks (and I say "freaks" with love).

    Maria H
    My story: jumpovertherattlesnake.com/

  • edited May 28

    let's not forget people are different, and a pound of body fat might be anywhere between ~3400-3600 cals in reality....i just got a new job with more activity, i figure it burns about 400 cals an hour, because following my weight on the scale and what i eat tells me what i'm burning on the avg...(accurate, no....but it does make the scale predictable!)

    sorry if i got off-topic with that :(

    I am an amateur. I've been using CRON-O-Meter for 10 years and counting, still learning.....

Sign In or Register to comment.