A 500 calorie *DEFICIT* a day does work in losing a pound a day. The TDEE and BMR will change as you lose or gain weight, but deficit would stay at -500 calories a day for a 1 pound weight loss. The calories you consume need to be adjusted based on the changes in your TDEE
Berlin Wall Well it depends If you define the deficit by the caloric needs from the day the weightloss process starts than Gregor is right - if you define it as in the caloric balance every day than no Those calculations in those studies made the former mistake
Apollo 440 It’s not wrong- 3,500 calorie deficit is still equal to a pound of fat. What this is saying is that you won’t burn 3,500 calories as fast at a lower BMR. Big deal. This is a reach by greger for views.
Video title needs to be changed, disappointing. As illustrated here, the 3500kCal/lb rule is still correct, but a reduced basal metabolic rate (bmr) after weightloss makes it harder to create a 3500 calorie deficit, requiring either more activity or further calorie restriction compared to what was initially required to hit the 3500 calorie deficit when the bmr was elevated before weight loss.
Thermodynamics ftw :) Honestly, the title and the content of this video are extremely misleading. What should be said that a 500 calorie deficit per day does mean having to calculate your caloric intake from your current weight and not the weight you started the diet from. But even here I do not see many many people who think 2 seconds about it not being able to come to the same conclusion on their own.
Thats the thing. Yeah we can all be smart asses and talk about calories, but everyone knows the answer to being healthy, and they knew the answer since they were 3. Eat your veggies. No one wants to do that for some stupid reason. Veggies are literal superfoods. They fill you up. They are cheap and taste great. Never used to eat them when i was fat. I eat them so much more now.
@@crlotero Agree. People who say diets don't work are deluded. Every pro and Olympic athlete uses dieting to maintain bodyweight in a desired range. i.e. pro cyclists weigh themselves every morning during competition. When their weight hits an upper limit, they stop eating desserts, junky snacks, and restrict carbs. When their weight hits the lower limit, they can reintroduce these foods. others stick to a 500-1000 Calorie deficit when trying to lose weight, then adopt an isocaloric portion plan to maintain weight. Those who say diets don't work are referring to literature that shows most people regain weight after limiting Calories. The literature isn't the real world. I've seen hundreds of WFPB eaters who are frustrated and disillusioned because this diet doesn't lead to weight loss. They've been deluded by moronsinto thinking you can eat whatever you like from this diet and never need to limit portions. This is BS by naive ideologues who have little to no experience dealing with people with chronic weight management issues.
@@sandracarli1110 A reduction of total daily energy expenditure according to the new size/weight is exactly that and all he mentions in this video. It has nothing to do with the metabolism slowing down due to dieting, it's purely about the fact that lower weight bodies need less energy to function.
@@inru6253 I was thinking about the amount of food that we feel we must eat in order to feel full. The stomach has its size. It can't stretch indefinitely.
@@rsully21 If you are 180 lbs and want to lose 1lb in a week, you need to take in around 500 fewer calories than your daily maintenance calories (or burn 500 extra calories). If you are 120 lbs and want to lose 1lb in a week, you also need to take in around 500 fewer calories than your daily maintenance calories. The only difference is the initial maintenance number you subtract those 500 calories from. The maintenance calories will be higher for a heavier person and lower for a lighter person all other things equal.
I get the message this video wants to convey, however the amount of energy in a pound of fat does not change with anyones metabolic rate. Lower metabolic rate at lower weight just means that constant caloric deficit does not imply that ones diet will be constant in time energy-wise.
Marcin Michalski exactly It’s not wrong- 3,500 calorie deficit is still equal to a pound of fat. What this is saying is that you won’t burn 3,500 calories as fast at a lower BMR. Big deal. This is a reach by greger for views.
It sounds to me like the 3,500 cal rule is still true, but that you have to adjust your new metabolic rate every so often. Which is what I have always taught.
It's true, but it is a flawed way of doing things. It helps with controlling junk food intake i will tell you that. The real answer to never gain weight centres around whole foods, with the base of the diet being leafy vegetables. Regardless of whether someone is vegan or not, most would agree with that statement. It is very hard to exceed the caloric limit on leafy vegetables. So in essence, eat whole foods, mostly plants, not too much. If everyone followed that, not many people would be overweight.
I think the title could be better phrased, but the way of thinking about a caloric deficit is wrong. People are overweight due to poor food choices. If people actually ate healthily, i.e. minimised salt, sugar, and oil, whole foods, mostly leafy greens, then we wouldnt be in this mess. Obesity is the excessive consumption of calories, which is in turned caused by overconsumption of calorie dense hyper palatable foods
@@xxdrowssapxx1 It's not just choices. I have friends who eat much less than I, exercise about as much and can't lose weight. Sometimes it is just a lack of thyroxine.
I use that stat, which I came up with myself just looking at the calories in a lb of butter, for people that think they lose 10 lbs in 3 days. It's obviously just a change in their water weight, or mostly. Weight loss gets harder the closer a person approaches bmi normal. I know that first hand. Diets do work if we stick with them. Best I've found is to remove all sugar and eat mostly whole foods. Stop drinking calories, and eat 3 meals a day, no snacks. I lost 60 lbs and have kept it off so far at 68 years old. Moderate exercise of walking and once a week calisthenics and light weights. All of it is pretty fun, and I hardly ever feel hungry. I just got used to eating a little less. I also don't waste a lot of time eating senseless calories. I can still sip on a cup of coffee or tea and enjoy the day.
Huge fan but I got to say this video and title is a bit misleading. At 165lbs, I burned 2200 cals a day on average. I was eating 1700 calories a day, and lost about a pound per week. I lost about 25 pounds, and then my weight loss began to plateau. I decided to take a 2-week diet break by eating the same amount of calories I burned a day on average. However, it's not 2200 calories anymore because I now weighed 25 lbs lighter. I estimated my new average calorie burn to about 2000. After the diet break, I dropped my calories to 1500 a day (to recreate the 500 cal deficit), and again I was losing about a pound per week. I know this is anecdotal, but the point is that this video didn't PROVE that the 3500 calories per pound is wrong. It just simply said that a 500 calorie deficit will not guarantee a pound per week loss over time, because a lighter body burns less. So what initially was a 500 calorie deficit will over time become a smaller deficit and thus result in less weight loss.
This is the first of 14 videos that are part of my fasting video series, which I recently did two webinars on. All of the videos will be on Nutritonfacts.org for free over the next few months, or you can get them all now in a digital download here:(drgreger.org/collections/downloads/products/fasting-webinar-digital). I just did a webinar on Fasting and Disease Reversal, so check nutritionfacts.org/webinar/fasting-disease-reversal/ in a few days for a link to the digital download for that. And I have one more coming up on October 25 - Fasting and Cancer. Go here for more information and to register: nutritionfacts.org/webinar/fasting-cancer
It’s still 3500 calories in a pound of fat. Just because you’re burning less calories doesn’t change that. You can say it’s misleading, but you can’t say it isn’t true.
Exactly. This video got dumb real quick. It's 3500 calories of surplus not absolute calories. This isn't hard to understand. Moreover, 3500 isn't an accurate number either. Helms and Lyle McDonald both have gone over this. Number is closer to 4-4200 kcals.
The point is that removing 3500 calories from your diet will not result in losing 1 pound. This may be obvious to those of us who understand it's about a deficit, but I've met even doctors who can't get their head around this. This especially comes up when a person reduces their weekly intake by 7000 calories, doesn't lose 2 pounds, and gets accused of lying about how much they eat.
The “rule” isn’t “wrong”. People just assume they don’t need to change anything. As long as you maintain a 3500 cal per week deficit (adjusting every so often for weight loss along the way) you’ll lose approximately 1lb of fat per week.
This issue with this info is. You are using the 3500 rule from the starting maintenance calorie requirement. The rule still stands if you use it against the new and decreasing maintenance figure. Ie. 3000 cals maintenance. 2500 cals to drop fat. Then as weight loss slows. Maintenance is say 2700 as you are a smaller more efficient human. So the 500 deficit then comes from that number. So 2200. And fat loss will continue. Until FAT is lost. The person wouldn’t “vanish” as you wouldn’t use bone and organs as fuel and basically puff into a ball of smoke
actually the title of the video and its information is imo misleading since you just interpret it wrong and I am sure you know that. the "rule" of cutting 3500 KILOcalories to lose 1 pound of fat or as we say in europe 7000 KILOcalories for 1 kg of fat is true. if you lose bodyfat or weight in general you just have to adept how many calories you cut. but if you adept your calorie intake and you are in a deficit of 7000 kcal, you lose 1 kg of fat. besides that, for ppl that plan a healthy and satisfying diet with let's say 200-300 kcal deficit per day that maintain high protein intake, moderate healthy fats and keep doing like 2-4 days weight training the adaption of the metabolism is basically neglectable.
@SushiCore: If it's 3500 kcals/pound, would that not be 3500*2.2 (or 7700) kcals per kilo? Also, metabolic adaptation is due to the weight loss - regardless of how it is achieved. A muscular person losing 5kg of weight will still require a lower intake than before.
@@gimmeanicecream9228 the 7000 kcal is just an approximation because fat doesn't always contain the same amount of water. and yes 2.2 would be more accurate but that is not the important thing I wanted to point out. your example is true, a person with less weight will in general need less calories to maintain his weight. but that's not what I was refering to with metabolism or metabolic adaption. when ppl talk about metabolic adaption they usually refer to the meaning of needing less calories for x kg of bodyweight after a hard diet compared to a person with same amount (and composition) of bodyweight without a prior diet. the crucial point is that all the metabolic (chemical) processes don't slow down so much that you have to calculate for it. ppl just tend to decrease their unconscious movements the longer they diet. complex topic and we could discuss for hours but if you stay active and calculate for your last bodyweight, all other metabolic adaptions are neglectible in terms of burning less calories. that was my point.
Actually, not all weight loss tools are stuck at 3500 calories a pound. A weight management tool I use is an app called Lose It. (I am in no way associated with the company other than as a user of the app). If I lose weight, my daily calorie allotment decreases. If I gain weight, my calorie allotment increases. I always figured the reason was as you explained in this video. Now I have confirmation.
This video seems pretty stupid tbh. Who doesn’t know this? Literally everyone I’ve ever talked to knows that your calories burned changes based on your size. That’s why they have base metabolism calculators and then you base your calorie loss and gain on that.
xxdrowssapxx1 oh really? Can you link a video or a study? I think I’ve heard something like that before but I want to hear more about it if you have anything
Thank you so much for posting this video! I know that we use this rule a lot at my gym to easily explain to people how to lose weight so that they understand why you need to be in a caloric deficient. I think that is the only thing that "rule" is good for. Again, thank you for clearing up this misconception. Your videos are always on point Dr.Greager. Your videos always inspire me to keep posting my own!
But if they maintained a 500 calorie/day surplus/deficit based on their current bodyweight, they’d still gain or lose about 1 lb a week especially if NEAT was normalized
The rule is correct; 3500 calories is equal to 1 lb of body weight. You can't just assume that your basal metabolic rate is fixed. If you were able to always know how many calories you burned in a day, and you consumed 500 calories less than that each day, you would lose a lb of body weight (not just fat, but muscle too) at the end of the week. The rule is not incorrect, the way some may apply it may be incorrect.
In addition to that...: Don't we all eat 4 pounds of food a day in average? The kind of food we ingest is important because their calorie density can vary a lot.
wait, a deficit means less than your current metabolic rate, so if someone is keeping a consistent deficit then they would continue to lose weight at that predictable rate, they just wouldn't continue to eat the same amount of food.
It's 3500 calories relative to your current caloric maintenance. So once you lose weight, this number will need to be readjusted as your caloric maintenance changes. If 2000 calories is 500 calories under your maintenance, then one day your new maintenance will become 2000 calories, so your new -500 will be at 1500...and so on...until one day it's 0 calories and you in fact...vanish.
Well done. Metabolic adaptation is something I wish I’d understood at a younger age. Being able to cut and bulk at will is very empowering. It’s an area where medical experts and exercise science experts can really help each other and help people take control of their physiology.
This video doesnt debunk 1 pound bodyfat being around 3500 calories. 1kg oil doesnt stop being 9000 calories because our metabolic rate changes with weight loss. The title is completely false. 1 pound bodyfat is still around 3500 calories, regardless of how your metabolic rate changes.
If people would just focus in their overall health and wellness and how they feel rather than looking at themselves and life as a math or aesthetics problem, their lives would be a lot simpler (and probably happier).
that doesn't mean 3500 calorie per pound is wrong. it just means constant rate of calorie burning is wrong, assuming that the body loses or gains mass.
I thought that the 3500 calories ruled meant that for every 3500 calories subtracted from baseline (baseline being where your weight stays the same) then one pound of weight is lost. So a subtraction of 3500 calories from your base line weight is impossible to measure precisely by diet alone because we all differ in metabolism, activity, health, and food composition. So the 3500 calorie rule is correct, but you can't measure it by food alone.
There is nothing wrong with the 3500 calorie/lb estimate the problem is your math. The 150-pound woman if sedentary needs 150 x 13 cal/lb/day to maintain her weight. 1950 cal/day If she wants to weigh 120 lbs she only needs 120x13cal/day/ib, 1560 cal/day. If she starts eating 1560 cal/day she will create a 390cal/day deficit. 3500/390 equals 8.97 or 9 days to lose the first pound. The next pound will take slightly longer because she now needs only 1937 calories to maintain her weight. If she contiues to eat what a 120 lb. person needs she will lose all her excess weight in 18 months. To say cut 500 calories /day means nothing if you don't know how much you are eating. There is nothing wrong with the math people simply have no idea how much they are eating, and how much they should eat.
Isn't the error in this issue not with the 3500 calories, but with the amount we're told is naturally burned without exercise each day? I'm given the number of 2000 calories per day for my body size/shape and it seems that this number is too often seen as a constant for men. All of the issues cited in this video seem to point to the fact that this number needs to change, and not that the 3500 calories is inconstant. If I ate 1500 calories per day and my "natural" burn remained 2000, then the 1 lb. per week would make sense. But if I lost enough that my body only burns, without extra effort, 1500 calories, then there would be no weight loss at all. But that doesn't change the 3500 number.
I think this is the first video of Dr. Greger that is only partially correct. Reducing the calories by 500/day to lose a pound a week is not a stagnant thing as this video is trying to say it is. All of the calorie diets I know of include the fact that you have to figure you required calories needed and subtract the 500 calories from that total. They also tell you that you must adjust the original total to reflect weight loss. This video totally ignores this fact. First poor video of his I've seen so far.
What alternative does Dr. Greger offer to the 3500 cal/lb rule? e.g. My exercise machine calculates calories burned. I know it is only an approximation, but is there any way to relate energy used to how much exercise is required to burn off 1 lb of weight?
I would say, the question you are asking is the wrong one. Actually, as Greger outlines, the 3500 calories per pound rule is still true, it's just that our bodies metabolic rates and our energy expenditure can change a lot, making it appear otherwise. For the average person, in my opinion, the specifics of calories and weight are not important. If you want to gain muscle, and lose fat, you don't need to actually know how many macronutrients you are consuming every day, although calorie tracking for 30-60 days can be a useful educational tool. What you actually want to know, though, is "what habits will induce fat loss and/or muscle gain"? And the answer here becomes quite simple - eat a whole foods based diet, minimize alcohol consumption, and engage in some kind of strenuous exercise on a regular basis (2 to 3 times a week for 45 minutes to an hour, I would say for the average person). If you do these things, you will automatically consume an appropriate number of calories based on your appetite and settle at a healthy body weight and body fat percentage. Beyond that, if you have physique or performance goals, then you might need to get into specifics. edit: To expand, I "burn" an insane number of calories as an endurance athlete (yesterday it was about 6000), but my appetite simply increases when I exercise because my body is programmed to maintain homeostasis. If I eat processed foods, I will actually get fatter over time. If I eat unprocessed foods, I will rebuild my muscles and energy reserves to my body's pre-determined optimal state, without excessive fat gain.
@@djmoulton1558 You can't lose one pound of fat per day (roughly 3500 calories) sustainably at that body weight. All of the scientific data we have points to the healthiest and most method of weight loss being a slow deficit using moderate amounts of exercise and a whole-food plant-based or ketogenic diet that will naturally suppress appetite leading to a calorie deficit. I am an endurance athlete and strictly speaking I can "burn" 3500 calories a day every day if I want to, however, this is entirely dependent on me also consuming 3500 additional calories. If I try to put myself in a massive calorie deficit, I will not recover sufficiently from the exercise to continue doing it day after day. The body just doesn't work like that.
any good dietitian knows about shifting baselines and any one who has ever cut weight would know. only a nob would think that it was static. I multiply my weight by 11 then go 500 cal under and reweigh and recalculate every two weeks. that's what works for me but everyone is different so your numbers will be slightly different. an old body building friend and myself figured this out years ago when we would cut weight for shows and summer.
I think that to mitigate this, one should simply eat the calories required to maintain their target weight. This should theoretically work with both losing weight, as well as bulking.
I think I get it. Would this be on par with why the average 2000 cal a day "guideline" isn't for everyone? I always thought it dumb that this figure was the "standard", when depending on age, size and activity level, it could be a lot more or *less* .
Have to agree that the title is not accurate, because the 3500 calorie per pound rule refers to 3500 calories above or below your maintenance calories. The rule does not say that maintenance calories are constant - if it did, then it could just be called the 2500 calories per day rule or whatever. Why make people do a calculation if it involves two constants?
Yeah I already know that the bigger you are the more calories you burn, it's about the deficit per your body mass index, so you have to keep tweeking your diet as you lose weight.
can't you just eat what you require at a healthy bodyweight and automatically stop losing weight when you reach that? (let your body adjust to what it gets)
@@supersilverhazeroker Yes. That could be one way to do it, but at the same time because a bigger body requires more food it's safer to bounce your calories around instead of just cutting down to what you need when you achieve the weight you would like. If you lose weight too quickly you will be losing muscle not just fat. As he mentions in the video it's the deep fat that is dangerous for people and if you cut your calories too low you won't be losing that you would be losing muscle instead. Just something to think about.
@@gimmeanicecream9228 I think she means BMI. She is talking about how when you are larger your caloric needs are more verses when you are smaller. Though it also depends on your BMR.
@@RabbitFoodFitness Correct me if I'm wrong, but (excluding the issue of muscle burning more calories than fat, for simplicity), a 4ft person carrying 180 pounds and a 6ft person carrying 180 pounds would both require the same calorie intake (give or take) to maintain their body weight. BMI is irrelevant.
I think you could say It is somewhat accurate, Its just losing the accuracy relative to length of time you calculate for. I lost weight about once a year, i'm very active with weights and cardiovascular training so i'm in a good shape generally but tend to accumulate about 20 pounds extra over the year over what I feel is optimal. I don't base my weight loss on the 3500 calorie rule but I do sort of casually do some maths and see if for ever 7000 calories I miss do I lose a killogram of fat and It's somewhat accurate for me, obviously I can't take a lot of factors in account tho but It's a valuable reference point if your into fitness and are trying to lose weight for a specific day/time of the year.
Judging by one of your previous video it's more likely people loose more grams of muscle than fat, since the low-carb diets have been so popular the last decades.
The rule is NOT wrong. Eating 500 kcal below maintenance calories will result in 1 pound of weight loss per week over time. The fact that maintenance caloric need drops as body weight drops does NOT falsify the rule. If you go from 2500 to 2000 kcal and you lose at the expected rate, you need to keep nudging down the intake over time because metabolic rate drops over time as well, thermic effect of food drops and usually, activity also drops over time. However, a daily deficit of 500 kcal below maintenance will result in 1 lbs of fat loss in physiologal relevant settings of body fat between 10 and higher percentage for males and 18 or more for females. The video title is misleading and the author's interpretation of what the 3500 rule means is wrong.
I fail to understand the goal of this video. Even if the weight loss is lower because of less body /energy expenditure, is it still 3500 cal to lose a lbs so it will just take more time?
Just because your body is burning fewer calories doesn’t change the scientific fact that you still need a calorie deficit of 3500 calories to lose a pound of body fat. It’s like saying I needed to save $100 a month to be able to purchase an item that cost $1200 after 12 months, if I got a new job that paid more or less would be irrelevant if I adjusted my budget and continued to save $100 a month.
This is for people that aren't good at math. Smaller people require fewer calories than larger people for the same activity level. As you become smaller you need to reduce your calories to maintain a deficit. Once you are at the weight you want to be at you need to maintain a lower calorie intake than you did at your old weight or you will just wind up back where you started.
It’s not wrong- 3,500 calorie deficit is still equal to a pound of fat. What this is saying is that you won’t burn 3,500 calories as fast at a lower BMR. Big deal. This is a reach.
That's true that one will lose less weight over time if they maintain the same low calorie consumption. They will come to plateaus where they won't lose weight. If they want to keep losing weight, they must reduce their calorie consumption more.
if you do a lot of cardio, this can actually work the other way around: the less you weigh, the easier it is to keep moving, the higher your metabolic throughput. imo this is the main trick to overcoming adaptation to lower weight: turn the principle on its head with exercise.
To loose weight, don't eat when you are not hungry. Wait until your stomach growls and your mouth waters. Don't eat when you are angry, sad, or bored. Don't eat while watching television. Don't eat just before bed. Eat with other people. Make food from scratch. Learn to cook. Take a walk after dinner. Don't drink soda. Eat food that is local to your area. Eat foods that are in season. Try foraging food that are considered weeds. Many plants that are considered "weeds" were actually medicinal plants our great, great grandparents planted when they got here, for medicine and food. Get 20 minutes of direct sunlight on your skin every day. No sunscreen. Don't wash your skin for 6 to 8 hours to let the vitamin D absorb into your body. Vitamin D helps your immune system, your bones, your sleep, and your moods. Try eating your lunch outside. Avoid high fructose corn syrup, which can have traces of mercury in it. Avoid processed vegetable oils which can have traces of hexane in it. Avoid trans fats, like hydrogenated fats. Avoid artificial sweeteners like Aspartame, and artificial flavorings like MSG, which are appetite stimulants. Avoid artificial food dyes like yellow dye #5, artificial preservatives, emulsifiers like guar gum, xanthan gum, carrageenan, and propolyne glycol, which is antifreeze. These are inflammatory and irritating and can trigger allergies. There are many food colorings you can make yourself with foods that already have lots of color in them, like beets, blueberries and turmeric, or saffron, for red, blue and yellow. Brown can be cinnamon in small amounts, chocolate, or coffee. For black, use activated charcoal. Just cook and dry them, and grind it up into a powder. This also works for makeup. Avoid pesticide residues in food by choosing organic, going to your local farmers market and asking for food not sprayed, and growing your own kitchen garden. Pesticides hurt the good bacteria in your gut, as well as the mitochondria in your cells. And glyphosate exposure, like in Roundup, is carcinogenic, can cause birth defects, and weaken your bones, like DDT. Don't use Roundup in your home or yard. It's easy and cheaper to kill weeds, by buying a gallon of cheap cleaning vinegar. Dilute it with water by half into a garden spray bottle. Spray where you want to kill growth of any plant. Avoid cooking, storing and serving food and drinks in plastic. Plastic has plasticizers in it, which are hormone disrupters. This can lead to estrogen dominance, and can trigger reproductive tissue cancers like breast and prostate. Too much estrogen or estrogen mimickers, can cause weight gain, and feminizing of males. Carry a non-plastic water bottle, slip some bamboo utensils and straw into your bag, and buy in bulk, or from farmers markets where you can bring your own packaging in the form of a cloth bag. When I am not having to go through security checkpoints, I carry actual fancy silverware I found at an antique store. Silver is antimicrobial and safe to use. I wrap it in a fancy embroidered cloth napkin, also from the antique store. This is great for when I go to certain restaurants that don't clean their silverware well enough. Avoid getting mercury (silver) fillings. The dentist calls them "silver" fillings, but there is no silver in them. If you have them, consider getting them removed by a holistic dentist who knows how to do it safely. Mercury, even in very small amounts, causes all kinds of metabolic and nervous system problems. Avoid cooking, storing, and serving food in aluminum. Aluminum is very toxic to the nervous system, and is implicated in dementia. Use glass, parchment paper, corningware, cast iron, canning jars to store and freeze food. Avoid drinking Fluoride. It's meant to be applied topically to the teeth with medical grade Fluoride. Drinking any Fluoride at all is toxic to bones, can cause bone cancer in teenage boys, and hurts your gut microbiome because it works like an antibiotic. The fluoride added to city water is never medical grade and is always contaminated with many other toxins like arsenic, cyanide and lead. Call or write to your favorite food manufacturers and ask for these changes. Usually you get a coupon for giving any feedback to them because they like knowing what people want. I've seen changes I've asked for in many products and stores. It might take a year, but it has happened.
Makes sense! I’ve lost about 100 pounds so far on my diet/exercise journey and honestly was super easy in the beginning and gradually I required less calories and more exercise to get the same results.
Chronic calorie restriction lowers you resting metabolic rate more than what is expected with the weight loss. The only way to circumvent this is by taking diet breaks or do alternate day fasting.
We're on metabolism this week in my nutrition education master's program. So I definitely concur. I would add though that switching the fries out for the apples will lower the intake of 'bad' cholesterol LDL. So aside from weight, your risk of plaque build up in the arteries decreases over time of choosing apples over fries. Of course you were only looking at weight. I believe both are equal importance. Peace.
Are you sure? French fries contain no cholesterol unless you're frying them in butter or something. Oil, however unhealthy it may be, does not contain any cholesterol.
@@coconutflour9868 the use of vegetable oil (EVOO) with higher proportion of unsaturated fat is not that unhealthy. It is the re-using of oil for frying over and over that will hydrogenate the oil and produce trans-fat, together with some saturated fat that is in oil, both contribute to the increase of LDL in the blood. So yes, having too much french fries consistently will increase your LDL, aka 'bad' cholesterol.
@@regenyumi I agree about the trans fat, but fresh oil with lots of unsaturated fats is still very unhealthy, it contributes to weight gain, it lowers flow-mediated dilation (meaning it paralyzes your arteries) and induces post-prandial lipemia (after-meal high presence of fat in blood) which contributes to build-up of atherosclerotic plaques. Dr. Greger has some videos on this topic as well, I believe. Just to be clear though, these effects do not happen with whole plant foods that contain a lot of fat like avocados, nuts, seeds etc., it's only when the fat is isolated and therefore quickly absorbed that it leads to these ill effects.
@@coconutflour9868 thanks for this information I'll check it out but do know that nuts are harmful (not as harmful as meat obviously)and not the superfood that the Dr. Claims. He has been debunked by plant based drs just search it up on RUclips RUclips
FINALLY! Dr. Greger is critiquing weight loss by calorie restriction. I’m just one person, but I never counted calories to lose more than forty pounds. :D
I like Potatoes If by restricting, you mean cutting out meat, dairy, eggs, and refined oils, then yeah, I was restricting. But I was eating mounds of rice, bread, potatoes, beans... I started out as a starchivore and ate lots of carbs at first, then I gradually added in more leafy greens, fruit, nuts and seeds. I still drink smoothies and eat the occasional vegan dessert, but I still don’t count calories and the weight is still gone.
If the metabolic rate decreases that will also decrease the net calory deficit, unless it is counteracted by more energy expenditure or less intake. So the rule is still correct (within reasonable degrees of accuracy). The people in your examples do not have a constant 500 calory / day deficit otherwise yes they would die eventually. But to keep having a 500 calory deficit while losing a ton of weight they would have to work out more and eat less to compensate and stay at -500cal/day. This whole video is devoid of logic!
3500 kcal per fat is = to 3500 kcal per fat... the metabolic adaptation is something else and I agree that this is a fact... but the other fact is those 3500 cal in 1 lbs per body fat... Losing fat is still = to losing 3500 kcal per 1 lbs body fat
calories in vs calories out is ridiculous because no one can actually track their caloric intake or output without an error of almost 50% due to the fact that nutrition information is just estimates and calories burned depends on SO MANY FACTORS none of which can be accurately tracked unless you are in a laboratory 24/7
This doesn't apply to this video subject but the website suggested that I post my question here. This is probably a subject nobody wants to talk about or admit to but here is my question. Are we directly or indirectly responsible for our children's health issues including cancers because of the food we feed them? If so, why don't we use this as a means to get more people on a plant based diet? I know it's cruel to suggest that we are killing our children but I hate to see so many children suffer when it could have been prevented in the first place. Like I said this is a touchy subject but I think it needs to be addressed.
And this doesn’t even address the fact that weight loss via simply increasing exercise and reducing calories never works in the long-term. Why do they never have Biggest Loser reunion shows?
Hi Liz, thanks for pointing that out! The English subtitles are on the video, but there was an additional file accidentally uploaded as English. It's fixed now! -Kate, Senior Director of Programs
This is so misleading. The amount of calories you need to eat does drop as you lose weight, but the amount is almost unnoticeable. At 30lb heavier, I was eating roughly 2050 a day, and now at 30lb lighter, I eat roughly 1950 a day. That's a 100 calorie drop, it's not a lot, and if I wanted to lose weight again, I would set my calories to a certain amount below 1950, not 2050. Heres the thing though, as you lose weight your appetite changes. If you're genetically doing well (no diabetes, thyroid issues, etx), you don't want to eat more than maintenance. I don't miss eating 2050, I feel just as full at 1950. Some days I eat way over, yes, but then my body say woah your full, and I eat less the next day. At the end of the week, I'm back around 1950 calories on average and I'm not hungry when I go to bed. He makes it sound so much worse than it is.
What I got from this video is: we all need a certain number of calories per day to maintain our weight (that's basal metabolic rate + a bit to compensate for how active you are). Let's call that a "maintenance intake". My maintenance intake is about 2500 calories a day: if I eat 2500 calories a day, then I will stay the same weight, unless my basal metabolic rate changes or my activity level changes. Now, if I eat 3500 calories on top of that (e.g. over the course of a week), I'll gain about a pound. But if I gain a pound, then my basal metabolic rate will go up, so my new maintenance intake will be higher. So to gain another pound, I have to eat 3500 calories on top of my *new* maintenance intake. And so on.
@Nat Sil: Yes, as you lose weight your Basal Metabolic Rate will get lower. If you continue to eat 500 calories less than your body needs (constantly adjusted for your new weight), you will lose one pound per week.
Nat - No. It's due to the change in you BMR - basic metabolic rate - the amount of calories one needs just to exist based on their age, sex, height, and weight (and probably specific other individual factors but those are the general factors). Changing one of those factors (weight [not via lipo] or age) changes your BMR. Notice your workout is not a factor in calculating your BMR.
That doesn’t make the rule wrong, lmao. You still need to burn 3,500 more calories than your maintenance calories in order to lose 1 pound of fat. It’s just that your maintenance calories goes down as you lose fat, but that’s common sense which I had thought everyone knew lmao
@@dj-fe4ck 80/10/10 is the cuck diet no muscle no hormones always cold 5 points below optimal bmi (if done in a whole food way, if done in savage way then excessive overweight) nice try memeboiii
@@sooooooooDark in some other dimension, all the people pushing high fat low carb Atkins, Paleo, Primal, Keto, Carnivore and GAPS diets would be jailed.
Lol so you mean that everybody at the start to maintain their weight eat equal amount of food? Of course not, the rule which shows that your calorie intake is proportional to your weight is known everywhere, isn't it?
"Liposuction sucks"
I have noticed that most things that people do for their egos are the wrong things to do.
Indeed
@@kingmike40 absolutely
A 500 calorie *DEFICIT* a day does work in losing a pound a day. The TDEE and BMR will change as you lose or gain weight, but deficit would stay at -500 calories a day for a 1 pound weight loss. The calories you consume need to be adjusted based on the changes in your TDEE
Berlin Wall
Well it depends
If you define the deficit by the caloric needs from the day the weightloss process starts than Gregor is right - if you define it as in the caloric balance every day than no
Those calculations in those studies made the former mistake
You sould say a week not a day I was shocked for a sec then realized I am stupid✌️😓
The fact that people tend to think of everything as a static picture instead of a moving process allows to breed and nurture misconceptions like this.
Apollo 440 It’s not wrong- 3,500 calorie deficit is still equal to a pound of fat. What this is saying is that you won’t burn 3,500 calories as fast at a lower BMR. Big deal. This is a reach by greger for views.
@kbkesq Its a completely false title. Changes in RMR doesnt affect how much calories 1 pound of bodyfat is.
Video title needs to be changed, disappointing. As illustrated here, the 3500kCal/lb rule is still correct, but a reduced basal metabolic rate (bmr) after weightloss makes it harder to create a 3500 calorie deficit, requiring either more activity or further calorie restriction compared to what was initially required to hit the 3500 calorie deficit when the bmr was elevated before weight loss.
Thermodynamics ftw :)
Honestly, the title and the content of this video are extremely misleading. What should be said that a 500 calorie deficit per day does mean having to calculate your caloric intake from your current weight and not the weight you started the diet from. But even here I do not see many many people who think 2 seconds about it not being able to come to the same conclusion on their own.
It's reduced BMR and TDEE. TDEE is reduced because you don't have to keep the extra weight on your body sustained
Diets don't work, good eating habits have always worked. More reason to eat more whole plant foods!
Thats the thing. Yeah we can all be smart asses and talk about calories, but everyone knows the answer to being healthy, and they knew the answer since they were 3. Eat your veggies. No one wants to do that for some stupid reason. Veggies are literal superfoods. They fill you up. They are cheap and taste great.
Never used to eat them when i was fat. I eat them so much more now.
I read your comment as I'm eating ratatouille.
@@xxdrowssapxx1 veggies as a side order to steaks are delicious.
Diets have been proven to work milion times over. Its humans that lack will that dont work.
@@crlotero
Agree. People who say diets don't work are deluded.
Every pro and Olympic athlete uses dieting to maintain bodyweight in a desired range.
i.e.
pro cyclists weigh themselves every morning during competition. When their weight hits an upper limit, they stop eating desserts, junky snacks, and restrict carbs. When their weight hits the lower limit, they can reintroduce these foods.
others stick to a 500-1000 Calorie deficit when trying to lose weight, then adopt an isocaloric portion plan to maintain weight.
Those who say diets don't work are referring to literature that shows most people regain weight after limiting Calories. The literature isn't the real world.
I've seen hundreds of WFPB eaters who are frustrated and disillusioned because this diet doesn't lead to weight loss. They've been deluded by moronsinto thinking you can eat whatever you like from this diet and never need to limit portions. This is BS by naive ideologues who have little to no experience dealing with people with chronic weight management issues.
So the rule is technically correct, but people forget to take into account their total daily energy expenditure.
exactly.
... and the adjustments of the metabolism.
@@sandracarli1110 A reduction of total daily energy expenditure according to the new size/weight is exactly that and all he mentions in this video.
It has nothing to do with the metabolism slowing down due to dieting, it's purely about the fact that lower weight bodies need less energy to function.
@@inru6253 I was thinking about the amount of food that we feel we must eat in order to feel full. The stomach has its size. It can't stretch indefinitely.
@@rsully21 If you are 180 lbs and want to lose 1lb in a week, you need to take in around 500 fewer calories than your daily maintenance calories (or burn 500 extra calories). If you are 120 lbs and want to lose 1lb in a week, you also need to take in around 500 fewer calories than your daily maintenance calories. The only difference is the initial maintenance number you subtract those 500 calories from. The maintenance calories will be higher for a heavier person and lower for a lighter person all other things equal.
I get the message this video wants to convey, however the amount of energy in a pound of fat does not change with anyones metabolic rate. Lower metabolic rate at lower weight just means that constant caloric deficit does not imply that ones diet will be constant in time energy-wise.
Yeah i didnt really get this video, it seems to intentionally avoid the actual point
Marcin Michalski exactly It’s not wrong- 3,500 calorie deficit is still equal to a pound of fat. What this is saying is that you won’t burn 3,500 calories as fast at a lower BMR. Big deal. This is a reach by greger for views.
It sounds to me like the 3,500 cal rule is still true, but that you have to adjust your new metabolic rate every so often. Which is what I have always taught.
Bo Gaines exactly!! 👍🏼
It's true, but it is a flawed way of doing things. It helps with controlling junk food intake i will tell you that.
The real answer to never gain weight centres around whole foods, with the base of the diet being leafy vegetables. Regardless of whether someone is vegan or not, most would agree with that statement. It is very hard to exceed the caloric limit on leafy vegetables.
So in essence, eat whole foods, mostly plants, not too much. If everyone followed that, not many people would be overweight.
This does not make the rule wrong. A 3500 deficit from the calories you burn equals one pound. That is the rule.
Exactly. It just requires adjusting your intake and exercise to maintain that deficit as you lose weight.
I think the title could be better phrased, but the way of thinking about a caloric deficit is wrong. People are overweight due to poor food choices. If people actually ate healthily, i.e. minimised salt, sugar, and oil, whole foods, mostly leafy greens, then we wouldnt be in this mess. Obesity is the excessive consumption of calories, which is in turned caused by overconsumption of calorie dense hyper palatable foods
@@xxdrowssapxx1 It's not just choices. I have friends who eat much less than I, exercise about as much and can't lose weight. Sometimes it is just a lack of thyroxine.
3,500 calories still correct. What changes is the amount you burn per day.
I use that stat, which I came up with myself just looking at the calories in a lb of butter, for people that think they lose 10 lbs in 3 days. It's obviously just a change in their water weight, or mostly. Weight loss gets harder the closer a person approaches bmi normal. I know that first hand.
Diets do work if we stick with them. Best I've found is to remove all sugar and eat mostly whole foods. Stop drinking calories, and eat 3 meals a day, no snacks. I lost 60 lbs and have kept it off so far at 68 years old. Moderate exercise of walking and once a week calisthenics and light weights. All of it is pretty fun, and I hardly ever feel hungry. I just got used to eating a little less. I also don't waste a lot of time eating senseless calories. I can still sip on a cup of coffee or tea and enjoy the day.
Huge fan but I got to say this video and title is a bit misleading.
At 165lbs, I burned 2200 cals a day on average. I was eating 1700 calories a day, and lost about a pound per week. I lost about 25 pounds, and then my weight loss began to plateau. I decided to take a 2-week diet break by eating the same amount of calories I burned a day on average. However, it's not 2200 calories anymore because I now weighed 25 lbs lighter. I estimated my new average calorie burn to about 2000. After the diet break, I dropped my calories to 1500 a day (to recreate the 500 cal deficit), and again I was losing about a pound per week.
I know this is anecdotal, but the point is that this video didn't PROVE that the 3500 calories per pound is wrong. It just simply said that a 500 calorie deficit will not guarantee a pound per week loss over time, because a lighter body burns less. So what initially was a 500 calorie deficit will over time become a smaller deficit and thus result in less weight loss.
This is the first of 14 videos that are part of my fasting video series, which I recently did two webinars on. All of the videos will be on Nutritonfacts.org for free over the next few months, or you can get them all now in a digital download here:(drgreger.org/collections/downloads/products/fasting-webinar-digital). I just did a webinar on Fasting and Disease Reversal, so check nutritionfacts.org/webinar/fasting-disease-reversal/ in a few days for a link to the digital download for that. And I have one more coming up on October 25 - Fasting and Cancer. Go here for more information and to register: nutritionfacts.org/webinar/fasting-cancer
You could simply recalculate BEE with activity level after weight loss and adjust calorie intake accordingly
It’s still 3500 calories in a pound of fat. Just because you’re burning less calories doesn’t change that. You can say it’s misleading, but you can’t say it isn’t true.
Exactly. This video got dumb real quick. It's 3500 calories of surplus not absolute calories. This isn't hard to understand. Moreover, 3500 isn't an accurate number either. Helms and Lyle McDonald both have gone over this. Number is closer to 4-4200 kcals.
The point is that removing 3500 calories from your diet will not result in losing 1 pound. This may be obvious to those of us who understand it's about a deficit, but I've met even doctors who can't get their head around this. This especially comes up when a person reduces their weekly intake by 7000 calories, doesn't lose 2 pounds, and gets accused of lying about how much they eat.
I LOL'd so hard at the -6 vanished woman. Oh my Dr. Greger, you are amazing. I love you!
The “rule” isn’t “wrong”. People just assume they don’t need to change anything. As long as you maintain a 3500 cal per week deficit (adjusting every so often for weight loss along the way) you’ll lose approximately 1lb of fat per week.
This issue with this info is. You are using the 3500 rule from the starting maintenance calorie requirement. The rule still stands if you use it against the new and decreasing maintenance figure. Ie. 3000 cals maintenance. 2500 cals to drop fat. Then as weight loss slows. Maintenance is say 2700 as you are a smaller more efficient human. So the 500 deficit then comes from that number. So 2200. And fat loss will continue. Until FAT is lost. The person wouldn’t “vanish” as you wouldn’t use bone and organs as fuel and basically puff into a ball of smoke
actually the title of the video and its information is imo misleading since you just interpret it wrong and I am sure you know that.
the "rule" of cutting 3500 KILOcalories to lose 1 pound of fat or as we say in europe 7000 KILOcalories for 1 kg of fat is true. if you lose bodyfat or weight in general you just have to adept how many calories you cut.
but if you adept your calorie intake and you are in a deficit of 7000 kcal, you lose 1 kg of fat.
besides that, for ppl that plan a healthy and satisfying diet with let's say 200-300 kcal deficit per day that maintain high protein intake, moderate healthy fats and keep doing like 2-4 days weight training the adaption of the metabolism is basically neglectable.
@SushiCore:
If it's 3500 kcals/pound, would that not be 3500*2.2 (or 7700) kcals per kilo?
Also, metabolic adaptation is due to the weight loss - regardless of how it is achieved. A muscular person losing 5kg of weight will still require a lower intake than before.
@@gimmeanicecream9228 the 7000 kcal is just an approximation because fat doesn't always contain the same amount of water.
and yes 2.2 would be more accurate but that is not the important thing I wanted to point out.
your example is true, a person with less weight will in general need less calories to maintain his weight. but that's not what I was refering to with metabolism or metabolic adaption.
when ppl talk about metabolic adaption they usually refer to the meaning of needing less calories for x kg of bodyweight after a hard diet compared to a person with same amount (and composition) of bodyweight without a prior diet.
the crucial point is that all the metabolic (chemical) processes don't slow down so much that you have to calculate for it.
ppl just tend to decrease their unconscious movements the longer they diet.
complex topic and we could discuss for hours but if you stay active and calculate for your last bodyweight, all other metabolic adaptions are neglectible in terms of burning less calories. that was my point.
@@xperfix
"ppl just tend to decrease their unconscious movements the longer they diet."
Interesting. Thanks!
Actually, not all weight loss tools are stuck at 3500 calories a pound. A weight management tool I use is an app called Lose It. (I am in no way associated with the company other than as a user of the app). If I lose weight, my daily calorie allotment decreases. If I gain weight, my calorie allotment increases. I always figured the reason was as you explained in this video. Now I have confirmation.
This video seems pretty stupid tbh. Who doesn’t know this? Literally everyone I’ve ever talked to knows that your calories burned changes based on your size. That’s why they have base metabolism calculators and then you base your calorie loss and gain on that.
This is like a universally unanimous practice....
It is also affected by whether you have dieted multiple times in the past
xxdrowssapxx1 oh really? Can you link a video or a study? I think I’ve heard something like that before but I want to hear more about it if you have anything
@@xxdrowssapxx1 not true. broscience.
This channel has astounding information on diet and health.
Thank you so much for posting this video! I know that we use this rule a lot at my gym to easily explain to people how to lose weight so that they understand why you need to be in a caloric deficient. I think that is the only thing that "rule" is good for. Again, thank you for clearing up this misconception. Your videos are always on point Dr.Greager. Your videos always inspire me to keep posting my own!
👎 The 3500 kcal rule was not disproved. The video is wrong. The metabolic rate does not change the rule. Disappointed.
Very smart, I love Dr.Gerger's videos. They are the best on RUclips!
But if they maintained a 500 calorie/day surplus/deficit based on their current bodyweight, they’d still gain or lose about 1 lb a week especially if NEAT was normalized
The rule is correct; 3500 calories is equal to 1 lb of body weight. You can't just assume that your basal metabolic rate is fixed. If you were able to always know how many calories you burned in a day, and you consumed 500 calories less than that each day, you would lose a lb of body weight (not just fat, but muscle too) at the end of the week. The rule is not incorrect, the way some may apply it may be incorrect.
In addition to that...: Don't we all eat 4 pounds of food a day in average? The kind of food we ingest is important because their calorie density can vary a lot.
Does the 3500 calorie rule hold if you adjust your total intake as your weight goes down to sustain the actual deficit?
Correct me if I'm wrong, 3500 calorie will still be about a pound. How much effort you need to burn 3500 calories varies.
wait, a deficit means less than your current metabolic rate, so if someone is keeping a consistent deficit then they would continue to lose weight at that predictable rate, they just wouldn't continue to eat the same amount of food.
It's 3500 calories relative to your current caloric maintenance. So once you lose weight, this number will need to be readjusted as your caloric maintenance changes. If 2000 calories is 500 calories under your maintenance, then one day your new maintenance will become 2000 calories, so your new -500 will be at 1500...and so on...until one day it's 0 calories and you in fact...vanish.
Ich nehme nicht ab mit einer fettarmen pflanzenbasierten Ernährung. Ich habe zugenommen. Lag es am Kalorienzählen?
Well done. Metabolic adaptation is something I wish I’d understood at a younger age. Being able to cut and bulk at will is very empowering. It’s an area where medical experts and exercise science experts can really help each other and help people take control of their physiology.
i keep thinking old info needs to be restudied and possibly updated
Yes! It would be wonderful if they did intensive research on this again!
@UCIMZFfA75adNt--r8nQW0BQ Yea. That would be a really good thing, but like you said, highly unlikely.
This video doesnt debunk 1 pound bodyfat being around 3500 calories. 1kg oil doesnt stop being 9000 calories because our metabolic rate changes with weight loss. The title is completely false. 1 pound bodyfat is still around 3500 calories, regardless of how your metabolic rate changes.
Clickbait. 395*9=3,555. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be ignored.
Do fat cells duplicate or do the expand?
I wonder how to take this into account when trying to lose weight.
If people would just focus in their overall health and wellness and how they feel rather than looking at themselves and life as a math or aesthetics problem, their lives would be a lot simpler (and probably happier).
that doesn't mean 3500 calorie per pound is wrong. it just means constant rate of calorie burning is wrong, assuming that the body loses or gains mass.
I thought that the 3500 calories ruled meant that for every 3500 calories subtracted from baseline (baseline being where your weight stays the same) then one pound of weight is lost. So a subtraction of 3500 calories from your base line weight is impossible to measure precisely by diet alone because we all differ in metabolism, activity, health, and food composition. So the 3500 calorie rule is correct, but you can't measure it by food alone.
Or, you could just eat a WFPB diet and the fat loss/health takes care of itself.
There is nothing wrong with the 3500 calorie/lb estimate the problem is your math. The 150-pound woman if sedentary needs 150 x 13 cal/lb/day to maintain her weight. 1950 cal/day If she wants to weigh 120 lbs she only needs 120x13cal/day/ib, 1560 cal/day. If she starts eating 1560 cal/day she will create a 390cal/day deficit. 3500/390 equals 8.97 or 9 days to lose the first pound. The next pound will take slightly longer because she now needs only 1937 calories to maintain her weight. If she contiues to eat what a 120 lb. person needs she will lose all her excess weight in 18 months.
To say cut 500 calories /day means nothing if you don't know how much you are eating.
There is nothing wrong with the math people simply have no idea how much they are eating, and how much they should eat.
Isn't the error in this issue not with the 3500 calories, but with the amount we're told is naturally burned without exercise each day? I'm given the number of 2000 calories per day for my body size/shape and it seems that this number is too often seen as a constant for men. All of the issues cited in this video seem to point to the fact that this number needs to change, and not that the 3500 calories is inconstant. If I ate 1500 calories per day and my "natural" burn remained 2000, then the 1 lb. per week would make sense. But if I lost enough that my body only burns, without extra effort, 1500 calories, then there would be no weight loss at all. But that doesn't change the 3500 number.
I think this is the first video of Dr. Greger that is only partially correct. Reducing the calories by 500/day to lose a pound a week is not a stagnant thing as this video is trying to say it is. All of the calorie diets I know of include the fact that you have to figure you required calories needed and subtract the 500 calories from that total. They also tell you that you must adjust the original total to reflect weight loss. This video totally ignores this fact. First poor video of his I've seen so far.
If it is wrong, what is the correct number?
What alternative does Dr. Greger offer to the 3500 cal/lb rule? e.g. My exercise machine calculates calories burned. I know it is only an approximation, but is there any way to relate energy used to how much exercise is required to burn off 1 lb of weight?
I would say, the question you are asking is the wrong one. Actually, as Greger outlines, the 3500 calories per pound rule is still true, it's just that our bodies metabolic rates and our energy expenditure can change a lot, making it appear otherwise. For the average person, in my opinion, the specifics of calories and weight are not important. If you want to gain muscle, and lose fat, you don't need to actually know how many macronutrients you are consuming every day, although calorie tracking for 30-60 days can be a useful educational tool. What you actually want to know, though, is "what habits will induce fat loss and/or muscle gain"? And the answer here becomes quite simple - eat a whole foods based diet, minimize alcohol consumption, and engage in some kind of strenuous exercise on a regular basis (2 to 3 times a week for 45 minutes to an hour, I would say for the average person). If you do these things, you will automatically consume an appropriate number of calories based on your appetite and settle at a healthy body weight and body fat percentage. Beyond that, if you have physique or performance goals, then you might need to get into specifics.
edit: To expand, I "burn" an insane number of calories as an endurance athlete (yesterday it was about 6000), but my appetite simply increases when I exercise because my body is programmed to maintain homeostasis. If I eat processed foods, I will actually get fatter over time. If I eat unprocessed foods, I will rebuild my muscles and energy reserves to my body's pre-determined optimal state, without excessive fat gain.
@@androz38 I can't calculate daily cal input as it is. Re-cal is out of the question.
@@JohnL9013 I am looking more in terms of "how long" do I need to exercise to lose one pound per day (I have 215 pounds to lose). Thx, though.
@@djmoulton1558 You can't lose one pound of fat per day (roughly 3500 calories) sustainably at that body weight. All of the scientific data we have points to the healthiest and most method of weight loss being a slow deficit using moderate amounts of exercise and a whole-food plant-based or ketogenic diet that will naturally suppress appetite leading to a calorie deficit.
I am an endurance athlete and strictly speaking I can "burn" 3500 calories a day every day if I want to, however, this is entirely dependent on me also consuming 3500 additional calories. If I try to put myself in a massive calorie deficit, I will not recover sufficiently from the exercise to continue doing it day after day. The body just doesn't work like that.
any good dietitian knows about shifting baselines and any one who has ever cut weight would know. only a nob would think that it was static. I multiply my weight by 11 then go 500 cal under and reweigh and recalculate every two weeks. that's what works for me but everyone is different so your numbers will be slightly different. an old body building friend and myself figured this out years ago when we would cut weight for shows and summer.
I think that to mitigate this, one should simply eat the calories required to maintain their target weight. This should theoretically work with both losing weight, as well as bulking.
I think I get it. Would this be on par with why the average 2000 cal a day "guideline" isn't for everyone? I always thought it dumb that this figure was the "standard", when depending on age, size and activity level, it could be a lot more or *less* .
Have to agree that the title is not accurate, because the 3500 calorie per pound rule refers to 3500 calories above or below your maintenance calories. The rule does not say that maintenance calories are constant - if it did, then it could just be called the 2500 calories per day rule or whatever. Why make people do a calculation if it involves two constants?
So basically, the 3500 calorie rule is right but expecting the same calorie requirement at 100 pounds as at 200 pounds is not. Duh.
But the quantity to create a deficit changes so you would still apply this rule. Just using a deficit generated from your current weight.
Yeah I already know that the bigger you are the more calories you burn, it's about the deficit per your body mass index, so you have to keep tweeking your diet as you lose weight.
can't you just eat what you require at a healthy bodyweight and automatically stop losing weight when you reach that? (let your body adjust to what it gets)
@@supersilverhazeroker Yes. That could be one way to do it, but at the same time because a bigger body requires more food it's safer to bounce your calories around instead of just cutting down to what you need when you achieve the weight you would like. If you lose weight too quickly you will be losing muscle not just fat. As he mentions in the video it's the deep fat that is dangerous for people and if you cut your calories too low you won't be losing that you would be losing muscle instead. Just something to think about.
@The Vegan Villainess: I think you're confusing BMI with BMR?
@@gimmeanicecream9228 I think she means BMI. She is talking about how when you are larger your caloric needs are more verses when you are smaller. Though it also depends on your BMR.
@@RabbitFoodFitness Correct me if I'm wrong, but (excluding the issue of muscle burning more calories than fat, for simplicity), a 4ft person carrying 180 pounds and a 6ft person carrying 180 pounds would both require the same calorie intake (give or take) to maintain their body weight. BMI is irrelevant.
This is great! We did the same video a few years ago and shrank ourselves out of existence 😂
I think you could say It is somewhat accurate, Its just losing the accuracy relative to length of time you calculate for. I lost weight about once a year, i'm very active with weights and cardiovascular training so i'm in a good shape generally but tend to accumulate about 20 pounds extra over the year over what I feel is optimal. I don't base my weight loss on the 3500 calorie rule but I do sort of casually do some maths and see if for ever 7000 calories I miss do I lose a killogram of fat and It's somewhat accurate for me, obviously I can't take a lot of factors in account tho but It's a valuable reference point if your into fitness and are trying to lose weight for a specific day/time of the year.
I love you Dr Gregor
@Plant based life I KNOW THAT DUDE! FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM THATS HIS REAL NAME
Judging by one of your previous video it's more likely people loose more grams of muscle than fat, since the low-carb diets have been so popular the last decades.
Great video! I learned a lot.
The rule is NOT wrong. Eating 500 kcal below maintenance calories will result in 1 pound of weight loss per week over time. The fact that maintenance caloric need drops as body weight drops does NOT falsify the rule. If you go from 2500 to 2000 kcal and you lose at the expected rate, you need to keep nudging down the intake over time because metabolic rate drops over time as well, thermic effect of food drops and usually, activity also drops over time. However, a daily deficit of 500 kcal below maintenance will result in 1 lbs of fat loss in physiologal relevant settings of body fat between 10 and higher percentage for males and 18 or more for females. The video title is misleading and the author's interpretation of what the 3500 rule means is wrong.
I fail to understand the goal of this video. Even if the weight loss is lower because of less body /energy expenditure, is it still 3500 cal to lose a lbs so it will just take more time?
A good video and educative for me, thank you...
Just because your body is burning fewer calories doesn’t change the scientific fact that you still need a calorie deficit of 3500 calories to lose a pound of body fat. It’s like saying I needed to save $100 a month to be able to purchase an item that cost $1200 after 12 months, if I got a new job that paid more or less would be irrelevant if I adjusted my budget and continued to save $100 a month.
This is for people that aren't good at math. Smaller people require fewer calories than larger people for the same activity level. As you become smaller you need to reduce your calories to maintain a deficit. Once you are at the weight you want to be at you need to maintain a lower calorie intake than you did at your old weight or you will just wind up back where you started.
It’s not wrong- 3,500 calorie deficit is still equal to a pound of fat. What this is saying is that you won’t burn 3,500 calories as fast at a lower BMR. Big deal. This is a reach.
Excellent video for nutritionists
That's true that one will lose less weight over time if they maintain the same low calorie consumption. They will come to plateaus where they won't lose weight. If they want to keep losing weight, they must reduce their calorie consumption more.
Dr. Greger delivering super interesting health information once again! 👍🏼😄
if you do a lot of cardio, this can actually work the other way around: the less you weigh, the easier it is to keep moving, the higher your metabolic throughput. imo this is the main trick to overcoming adaptation to lower weight: turn the principle on its head with exercise.
just eat wfpb and you wont be overweight
I can tell I use up a lot more energy running at my slow pace and a stone overweight than the skinny people overtaking me at seeing ease. So no
To loose weight, don't eat when you are not hungry. Wait until your stomach growls and your mouth waters.
Don't eat when you are angry, sad, or bored.
Don't eat while watching television.
Don't eat just before bed.
Eat with other people.
Make food from scratch. Learn to cook.
Take a walk after dinner.
Don't drink soda.
Eat food that is local to your area.
Eat foods that are in season.
Try foraging food that are considered weeds. Many plants that are considered "weeds" were actually medicinal plants our great, great grandparents planted when they got here, for medicine and food.
Get 20 minutes of direct sunlight on your skin every day. No sunscreen. Don't wash your skin for 6 to 8 hours to let the vitamin D absorb into your body. Vitamin D helps your immune system, your bones, your sleep, and your moods. Try eating your lunch outside.
Avoid high fructose corn syrup, which can have traces of mercury in it.
Avoid processed vegetable oils which can have traces of hexane in it.
Avoid trans fats, like hydrogenated fats.
Avoid artificial sweeteners like Aspartame, and artificial flavorings like MSG, which are appetite stimulants.
Avoid artificial food dyes like yellow dye #5, artificial preservatives, emulsifiers like guar gum, xanthan gum, carrageenan, and propolyne glycol, which is antifreeze. These are inflammatory and irritating and can trigger allergies.
There are many food colorings you can make yourself with foods that already have lots of color in them, like beets, blueberries and turmeric, or saffron, for red, blue and yellow. Brown can be cinnamon in small amounts, chocolate, or coffee. For black, use activated charcoal. Just cook and dry them, and grind it up into a powder. This also works for makeup.
Avoid pesticide residues in food by choosing organic, going to your local farmers market and asking for food not sprayed, and growing your own kitchen garden. Pesticides hurt the good bacteria in your gut, as well as the mitochondria in your cells. And glyphosate exposure, like in Roundup, is carcinogenic, can cause birth defects, and weaken your bones, like DDT. Don't use Roundup in your home or yard.
It's easy and cheaper to kill weeds, by buying a gallon of cheap cleaning vinegar. Dilute it with water by half into a garden spray bottle. Spray where you want to kill growth of any plant.
Avoid cooking, storing and serving food and drinks in plastic. Plastic has plasticizers in it, which are hormone disrupters. This can lead to estrogen dominance, and can trigger reproductive tissue cancers like breast and prostate. Too much estrogen or estrogen mimickers, can cause weight gain, and feminizing of males.
Carry a non-plastic water bottle, slip some bamboo utensils and straw into your bag, and buy in bulk, or from farmers markets where you can bring your own packaging in the form of a cloth bag. When I am not having to go through security checkpoints, I carry actual fancy silverware I found at an antique store. Silver is antimicrobial and safe to use. I wrap it in a fancy embroidered cloth napkin, also from the antique store. This is great for when I go to certain restaurants that don't clean their silverware well enough.
Avoid getting mercury (silver) fillings. The dentist calls them "silver" fillings, but there is no silver in them. If you have them, consider getting them removed by a holistic dentist who knows how to do it safely. Mercury, even in very small amounts, causes all kinds of metabolic and nervous system problems.
Avoid cooking, storing, and serving food in aluminum. Aluminum is very toxic to the nervous system, and is implicated in dementia.
Use glass, parchment paper, corningware, cast iron, canning jars to store and freeze food.
Avoid drinking Fluoride. It's meant to be applied topically to the teeth with medical grade Fluoride. Drinking any Fluoride at all is toxic to bones, can cause bone cancer in teenage boys, and hurts your gut microbiome because it works like an antibiotic. The fluoride added to city water is never medical grade and is always contaminated with many other toxins like arsenic, cyanide and lead.
Call or write to your favorite food manufacturers and ask for these changes. Usually you get a coupon for giving any feedback to them because they like knowing what people want. I've seen changes I've asked for in many products and stores. It might take a year, but it has happened.
nice post.
Makes sense! I’ve lost about 100 pounds so far on my diet/exercise journey and honestly was super easy in the beginning and gradually I required less calories and more exercise to get the same results.
Chronic calorie restriction lowers you resting metabolic rate more than what is expected with the weight loss. The only way to circumvent this is by taking diet breaks or do alternate day fasting.
We're on metabolism this week in my nutrition education master's program. So I definitely concur. I would add though that switching the fries out for the apples will lower the intake of 'bad' cholesterol LDL. So aside from weight, your risk of plaque build up in the arteries decreases over time of choosing apples over fries. Of course you were only looking at weight. I believe both are equal importance. Peace.
Are you sure? French fries contain no cholesterol unless you're frying them in butter or something. Oil, however unhealthy it may be, does not contain any cholesterol.
@@coconutflour9868 the use of vegetable oil (EVOO) with higher proportion of unsaturated fat is not that unhealthy. It is the re-using of oil for frying over and over that will hydrogenate the oil and produce trans-fat, together with some saturated fat that is in oil, both contribute to the increase of LDL in the blood. So yes, having too much french fries consistently will increase your LDL, aka 'bad' cholesterol.
@@Yayyyyyyyyyy true... But we were looking specifically at MickyDs fries and they have yet to adapt to your smart idea. Peace.
@@regenyumi I agree about the trans fat, but fresh oil with lots of unsaturated fats is still very unhealthy, it contributes to weight gain, it lowers flow-mediated dilation (meaning it paralyzes your arteries) and induces post-prandial lipemia (after-meal high presence of fat in blood) which contributes to build-up of atherosclerotic plaques. Dr. Greger has some videos on this topic as well, I believe.
Just to be clear though, these effects do not happen with whole plant foods that contain a lot of fat like avocados, nuts, seeds etc., it's only when the fat is isolated and therefore quickly absorbed that it leads to these ill effects.
@@coconutflour9868 thanks for this information I'll check it out but do know that nuts are harmful (not as harmful as meat obviously)and not the superfood that the Dr. Claims. He has been debunked by plant based drs just search it up on RUclips RUclips
So what you're saying is that there is nothing in innately wrong with this rule--just how ppl apply it
FINALLY! Dr. Greger is critiquing weight loss by calorie restriction. I’m just one person, but I never counted calories to lose more than forty pounds. :D
I like Potatoes If by restricting, you mean cutting out meat, dairy, eggs, and refined oils, then yeah, I was restricting. But I was eating mounds of rice, bread, potatoes, beans... I started out as a starchivore and ate lots of carbs at first, then I gradually added in more leafy greens, fruit, nuts and seeds. I still drink smoothies and eat the occasional vegan dessert, but I still don’t count calories and the weight is still gone.
The voice acting here is top notch!!
If the metabolic rate decreases that will also decrease the net calory deficit, unless it is counteracted by more energy expenditure or less intake. So the rule is still correct (within reasonable degrees of accuracy). The people in your examples do not have a constant 500 calory / day deficit otherwise yes they would die eventually. But to keep having a 500 calory deficit while losing a ton of weight they would have to work out more and eat less to compensate and stay at -500cal/day. This whole video is devoid of logic!
There's also water weight and muscle loss to consider. And I'm sure it's even more complex than presented in this video.
3500 kcal per fat is = to 3500 kcal per fat... the metabolic adaptation is something else and I agree that this is a fact... but the other fact is those 3500 cal in 1 lbs per body fat...
Losing fat is still = to losing 3500 kcal per 1 lbs body fat
calories in vs calories out is ridiculous because no one can actually track their caloric intake or output without an error of almost 50% due to the fact that nutrition information is just estimates and calories burned depends on SO MANY FACTORS none of which can be accurately tracked unless you are in a laboratory 24/7
This doesn't apply to this video subject but the website suggested that I post my question here. This is probably a subject nobody wants to talk about or admit to but here is my question. Are we directly or indirectly responsible for our children's health issues including cancers because of the food we feed them? If so, why don't we use this as a means to get more people on a plant based diet? I know it's cruel to suggest that we are killing our children but I hate to see so many children suffer when it could have been prevented in the first place. Like I said this is a touchy subject but I think it needs to be addressed.
That’s what I’m saying
So weighted vest could help
And this doesn’t even address the fact that weight loss via simply increasing exercise and reducing calories never works in the long-term. Why do they never have Biggest Loser reunion shows?
You _gotta_ do a video on that new _Annals of Internal Medicine_ research claiming that red meat isn't bad for you now!!
My English closed captions are in Spanish???
Hi Liz, thanks for pointing that out! The English subtitles are on the video, but there was an additional file accidentally uploaded as English. It's fixed now! -Kate, Senior Director of Programs
This is so misleading. The amount of calories you need to eat does drop as you lose weight, but the amount is almost unnoticeable.
At 30lb heavier, I was eating roughly 2050 a day, and now at 30lb lighter, I eat roughly 1950 a day. That's a 100 calorie drop, it's not a lot, and if I wanted to lose weight again, I would set my calories to a certain amount below 1950, not 2050. Heres the thing though, as you lose weight your appetite changes. If you're genetically doing well (no diabetes, thyroid issues, etx), you don't want to eat more than maintenance. I don't miss eating 2050, I feel just as full at 1950. Some days I eat way over, yes, but then my body say woah your full, and I eat less the next day. At the end of the week, I'm back around 1950 calories on average and I'm not hungry when I go to bed.
He makes it sound so much worse than it is.
I think there is also a difference between catbohydrates, protein and fat.
Correct. I wonder why Dr Greger doesnt mention the 'thermic effect' of different macros...🤔
So technically it's correct, its just the way people work it out?
What I got from this video is: we all need a certain number of calories per day to maintain our weight (that's basal metabolic rate + a bit to compensate for how active you are). Let's call that a "maintenance intake". My maintenance intake is about 2500 calories a day: if I eat 2500 calories a day, then I will stay the same weight, unless my basal metabolic rate changes or my activity level changes. Now, if I eat 3500 calories on top of that (e.g. over the course of a week), I'll gain about a pound. But if I gain a pound, then my basal metabolic rate will go up, so my new maintenance intake will be higher. So to gain another pound, I have to eat 3500 calories on top of my *new* maintenance intake. And so on.
@Nat Sil: Yes, as you lose weight your Basal Metabolic Rate will get lower. If you continue to eat 500 calories less than your body needs (constantly adjusted for your new weight), you will lose one pound per week.
Nat - No. It's due to the change in you BMR - basic metabolic rate - the amount of calories one needs just to exist based on their age, sex, height, and weight (and probably specific other individual factors but those are the general factors). Changing one of those factors (weight [not via lipo] or age) changes your BMR. Notice your workout is not a factor in calculating your BMR.
That doesn’t make the rule wrong, lmao. You still need to burn 3,500 more calories than your maintenance calories in order to lose 1 pound of fat. It’s just that your maintenance calories goes down as you lose fat, but that’s common sense which I had thought everyone knew lmao
All this info is from "The Obesity Code". But then these two completely disagree about animal fats.
This makes Sense!! 🤔🤔 Like it just makes sense
"Liposuction sucks" 😅
Finally Arabic translates, Thx :)
Interesting
Ya, science!
>liposuction
>still eats bread which feeds candida so it will come back
😂😂😂😂😂 am i right 😆😆😆
Bread does not feed candida. Bread and other starches mixed with oil and saturated fat do. No extracted oil and no animal fat
The only healthy diet without statches is a low fat fruit based diet or 80 10 10.
@@dj-fe4ck in some other dimension that sentence would get u jailed
@@dj-fe4ck 80/10/10 is the cuck diet
no muscle no hormones always cold 5 points below optimal bmi (if done in a whole food way, if done in savage way then excessive overweight)
nice try memeboiii
@@sooooooooDark in some other dimension, all the people pushing high fat low carb Atkins, Paleo, Primal, Keto, Carnivore and GAPS diets would be jailed.
You tend to end your videos abruptly without any solution.
but 1lb of fat is still composed of 3500 calories. You can't try to be a respected nutirition source and post dishonest clickbait at the same time...
Lol so you mean that everybody at the start to maintain their weight eat equal amount of food? Of course not, the rule which shows that your calorie intake is proportional to your weight is known everywhere, isn't it?