Grasping this calorie deficit equation...

It's JUST ME again, armed with more questions!

I think I am having another epiphany (I have been having them more often since signing up for an account here and thanks to so MANY knowledgable people on here) BUT I digress...

I was watching a YOUTUBE video by JMichaelPfau and he said that you need to first figure out how many calories you need in order to maintain your current weight. RIGHT? (Mine is 2434)

Then he said to lose 1LB PER WEEK, we need to have a calorie deficit of 500. Right? (2434-500=1934)

So with that equation...

500 cal def. =1lb loss

1000 cal. def.=2lb loss

1500 cal def. = 3lb loss and so on...

Is it possible to have a 3500 calories a day deficit and lose 7 lbs a week? So, if you eat 3500 calories and then exercise the equivalent of 3500cal, that would zero it out. If not why? Then if caloric intake is all about losing weight, why are people so caught up with CARBS? How does this figure in the equation?

Speaking on weight loss strictly (and I know this is not healthy but I am trying to make a point)...You could eat 1200calories a day of pre carbs or fast food and still lose weight if you are in the caloric deficit range...RIGHT? I'm sorry, Maybe I am just REALLY OVERTHINKING this.

I am thinking about the show, the Biggest Loser and it is quite amazing at an 8-12 lb week loss. I haven't seen the show recently because I am overseas and it comes on at crazy times and I really don't have time for the boob tube!

Thanks in advance for your help, thoughts and input.

If you need 2400 cals a day to maintain your weight with your current level of activity then you will lose about 1lb a week by eating 1900 cals a day.  If you exercise all that happens is that the 2400 increases.   The most efficient gap between 'calories in' and 'calories out' is about 700.  So if your 'calories out' go up to 2900, keep your 'calories in' around 2200.

NB.... If you ate 3500 cals and exercised 3500 cals you may actually lose weight because an active resting body uses up more energy than a sedentary resting body.... slightly faster metabolism generated by the exercise.

If you derived your reduced calorie intake from fast food etc. you'd lose weight just the same, most likely.  However, you'd feel pretty crap in the process.  Very hungry for one because fast food causes big spikes in insulin production and blood-sugar levels.  You'd also not feel satisfied with the food you ate because junk tends to be low in fibre and nourishment.   And your meal-sizes would be quite small. e.g For the 600-ish calories in one typical chocolate-chip muffin you could fill a large dinner plate with a much more satisfying/nutritious mix of vegetables, meat, potatoes etc.

Thanks GI...I didn't factor in the metabolism factor. Also, what do you think about whos like the Biggest Loser...friend or foe?

I suppose people can pick up some good tips and maybe get inspired if they see someone as big as they are pulling on the running shoes or trying to eat more healthily.... that's not a bad thing.    But I don't think weight-control should be treated as a competitive sport with big prizes attached.  

The danger is to set up expectations that it's normal to lose 5 or 6lbs a week.... with 'success' defined as hitting the right number on the scales.  Unsupervised people trying to emulate that can get into all kinds of trouble   I've seen a few posts on these boards where someone has joined an office 'biggest loser' wannabe... and is aiming to starve themselves in order to win a few hundred bucks.  That's when it unravels.

Of course, a TV programme that followed a genuine weight-loss journey... the ups and downs, the slow learning process, the development of a healthier lifestyle, the steady improvements, the slip-ups, the REALITY... would probably not meet the US networks' criteria of pandering to mindless masses with increasingly short attention spans!!!

Original Post by gi-jane:

Of course, a TV programme that followed a genuine weight-loss journey... the ups and downs, the slow learning process, the development of a healthier lifestyle, the steady improvements, the slip-ups, the REALITY... would probably not meet the US networks' criteria of pandering to mindless masses with increasingly short attention spans!!!

There are actually a couple of shows that do this very effectively (and still entertainingly) by compressing a person's whole weightloss journey into one episode.  On X-Weighted, for example, an hour-long show follows a person's six-month weightloss, and the people profiled are always told to reduce their goals if they're aiming for an average loss of more than 2 pounds/week.  Bulging Brides and Last Ten Pounds Bootcamp each follow four-to-six weeks of weightloss in a 30 minute episode.  Again, female subjects don't tend to lose more than 2 pounds per week - and many lose 'only' a pound a week and still look fabulous for having done so.  (I've learned not to watch the occasional episode about a guy because they inevitably stop drinking beer, drop the fast food and lose 20 pounds where a woman would lose 10 at most.  It's realistic, as any wife who's been on a diet with her husband will attest, but it's kind of annoying.)

Biggest Loser will always hold a special place in my heart for proving to me that people are not just "destined to be heavy" as I had always felt I was.  I now know that their methods are completely impractical in the longterm, but it proves the point that we are all capable of doing something to improve our health - even if the results we see on the show are completely unrealistic in the timeframe they pretend is happening.