Thought this (http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/09/3500_calories_to_lose_a_pound.php) was another great blog post by Tom Venuto.

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

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

Much more info in the actual link.

Thought this (http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/09/3500_calories_to_lose_a_pound.php) was another great blog post by Tom Venuto.
I've always been confused about that too. There have been a few posts here about the calories in fat vs calories in muscle, but they've never really gone anywhere. It becomes even more meaningful when you look at it from a bulking perspective.A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories.

To gain 10 pounds of muscle, you really require a caloric excess of only 6000 calories. Divided over twelve weeks (if that's the goal), that works out to an exta 71 calories per day. :)

Does this really work in practice?

Other variables are the difference between "muscle" and lean body mass, and the "necessary" fat gains that come along with gains in lean body mass.

I've always been confused about that too. There have been a few posts here about the calories in fat vs calories in muscle, but they've never really gone anywhere. It becomes even more meaningful when you look at it from a bulking perspective.
To gain 10 pounds of muscle, you really require a caloric excess of only 6000 calories. Divided over twelve weeks (if that's the goal), that works out to an exta 71 calories per day. :)

Does this really work in practice?

Other variables are the difference between "muscle" and lean body mass, and the "necessary" fat gains that come along with gains in lean body mass.

That kind of goes along with this (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1268956&cr=) article about bulking by Christian Thibaudeau.

That kind of goes along with this (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1268956&cr=) article about bulking by Christian Thibaudeau.

He recommends about 3750 calories for a person who's 210 lbs at 12% body fat to gain 2 to 3 pounds (of hopefully mostly muscle) per month.

I can't be bothered to find out how many calories over a typical "maintenance" level this might be.

So I can raise my metabolism more by eating more protein for the same calories?

Example; can a diet of 50P 30C 20F raise my metabolism more than 50C 30P 20F for the same calories??

So I can raise my metabolism more by eating more protein for the same calories?

Example; can a diet of 50P 30C 20F raise my metabolism more than 50C 30P 20F for the same calories??
Welle et al. (1981) and Robinson et al (1990) demonstrated that during a normal six hour period of rest and fasting (basal metabolism), subjects burn about 270kcal. When eating a single 400kcal meal of carbs alone (100g) or fat alone (44g), the energy burned during this six hour period reached 290kcal (an additional 20kcal). Interestingly, when eating 400kcal of protein alone (100g) the subjects burned 310kcal during this six hour period (an additional 40kcal). Therefore, protein alone had double the thermogenic power vs. fat or carbs alone!

A calorie is not a calorie because the macronutrient content of each meal affects the body's response to the feeding. That basically means you could change your body composition by eating the same amount of calories each day, but making different food choices. Meal timing also plays an important role. (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/leaneating_1.htm)

Really thx guava ,nice post ,but still carbs give u more energy and raises ur leptin levels ,well , I am on 40/40/20 anyways :D

To gain 10 pounds of muscle, you really require a caloric excess of only 6000 calories. Divided over twelve weeks (if that's the goal), that works out to an exta 71 calories per day. :)

Does this really work in practice?

Other variables are the difference between "muscle" and lean body mass, and the "necessary" fat gains that come along with gains in lean body mass.

I've been thinking about this and have been very curious . If you eat 500 calories less than your maintenance level. Then in the perfect world you would lose 1 pound of fat each week. I don't think it works the other way around though.

It takes too much to build muscle a combination of the three to create a pound. Fat preserves nitrogen and also increases testosterone levels (don't know how important this is for women) and carbs produce the energy for the muscle, but too much produces fat. We all now what protein does, but to my understanding too much also produces fat since the body can't really use all the proteing you put into it. I don't think a combination of these three things at 71 calories a day, in excess, will do much.

Really thx guava ,nice post ,but still carbs give u more energy and raises ur leptin levels ,well , I am on 40/40/20 anyways :D

BS. Carbs don't necessarily give more energy. In fact, overdoing carbs can and will do the opposite. :D

Not that carbs are bad, but you can have plenty of energy on other macros if you eat intelligently.

BS. Carbs don't necessarily give more energy. In fact, overdoing carbs can and will do the opposite. :D

Not that carbs are bad, but you can have plenty of energy on other macros if you eat intelligently.

U r on Keto , arent u :D

U r on Keto , arent u :D

Nope. I eat more carbs than ever (since I started working out). I just time them.

And I've done it both ways.