Actual Calorie Content Of Human Fat

[LENDADDY]

Maybe I'm not thinking correctly, but follow me here.
One pound of fat has roughly 4000 calories of energy. In order to lose one pound of fat you need to use 4000 more calories than you consume. So you would think you need to burn 4000 calories to lose a quality pound, right? OK, here is the rub. Lets say I'm going to perform an activity that will burn 2000 calories every day. on the first day I consume .5 lbs. of flax oil(pure fat) before hand to fuel my activity. On the second day I go on an empty stomach and expect my body to burn .5lbs. of its own fat (still 2000 calories) to fuel my activity. what I'm saying is on the second day your body would lose much more mass than .5 lbs assuming hydration levels are constant. Why do I say this? I forget what the number is, but soft body tissue is like 80% water right? so when you lose .5 lbs. of fat your body nolonger has the need for the 2.5lbs. of water it carried. I guess my point is for every 4000 calorie deficite you create(1 pound of fat) you can expect a body mass loss of 6 lbs. What am I missing here? Also, I am well aware that your body will not live solely off fat but will steal from your lean tissue as well, but the body mass principle is still the same. Any thoughts?

 

[MS]

Well as long as we're talking in very rough percentages then it would be more accurate to say that well hydrated muscle is 75-80% water, but adipose tissue is only ~10-15% water. Bone has very little water. So you are correct to think that how much fat you lose is not necessarily how much weight you lose. This is what cracks me up about folks who lose 4-8lbs of weight the first week on a keto diet, then go raving to the world like it's the best diet out there (I'm not saying it's a bad diet). It's like, get a brain. There's no way you just burned 14000-28000 excess fat calories in one week of dieting. Most of the weight loss will come from dehydration (de-carbing) of the muscle tissues.

 

[LENDADDY]

AHH YES

Thank you, I was off on the hydration level of fat tissue. I greatly appreciate your response. Easy on the keto group(I was one) they'll start coming at you with the "metabolic advantage" line.

 

[MR. BMJ]

I definately agree with MS. The fat and water misconception is hilarious. There are countless people I have had to set straight on this. Although the loss of some excess water may make some individuals look better, it does not necessarily correlate to fat loss by any means (hopefully there is a little fat loss, but this is usually only a minimal amiount compared to the weight of the water lost). The dynamics of water and glycogen loss MUST be understood so that the individuals know what to expect. You will feel puny when you lose your water and glycogen from within your muscles, this has to be expected to counterbalance the "small" feeling.

MR. BMJ

 

[MS]

"Metabolic advantage line"???? Please hit me with it lendaddy. I will reiterate I am not against keto diets as long as people realize that they can't lose 4-8lbs of fat in a week.

 

[Mr.X]

MS, I'll agree that you can't lose 4-8lbs in a week. But, on the other hand let's examine a Mr.X "Ketonic" diet:
without counting cardio nor workouts....
A person with roughly a 25% deficit in their calories daily in 6 days can have the following fat-loss effects: (200lb person x 12= 2400 cal, 25% deficit is 600 calories....600 calories x 6 days is = 3600 calories which is 1lb of body-fat) Now, let's add cardio and working-out to this and whammmm, we can get a 2-3 lb of fat-loss in a week. I have proven this theory over and over to myself over the years I have worked with bodybuilders, obese people and just normal "average joe's"...

Mr.X

 

[MS]

Of course Mr X. I aim for 2lbs fatloss per week when I diet for a show. It does not require ketosis and water weight loss to achieve this. Conversely on a keto diet I'm one of those folks that can lose 6-8lbs in my first week. But then the fatloss slows to the ~2lbs per week just like on a non-keto diet.

 

[Mr.X]

MS, Over the years I have discovered the fact that on a non-keto diets, muscle loss was at a higher rate. This was a true fact for a lot of my trainees and even myself. Now, again, I can't speak for everyone, but I can quiet adequately say that it was true for me personally.

I am not saying any diets besides Keto, are wrong; the diet you choose is basically dependent on the person.

P.S. I've really never had a 2lb FAT loss on non-keto diets, without the use of extra "supplements." I think my max was about 1.5lb. (and this is before my metabolic rate started to slow)

Mr.X

 

[MS]

Mr X. you've alluded to this problem (of weight loss/muscle retention) before. I wish you could tell us specifically what kind of non-keto diets these people were on, because in my experience a well designed non-keto diet is every bit as good as a keto diet for fat loss while retaining muscle. So what's going on with your clients??

 

[Mr.X]

MS,

I've tried every diet over the years. Isocaloric (33/33/33) , 40/30/30 (almost the same), low-fat ,metabolic, carb addict, anabolic, bodyopus, fat-fast etc. you get my point... 50/30/20<- this has been the ratio that has concieved the results closest (and at time better) to Keto. But, again, MS, it all depends on the person, in my view.

I'll tell you this for a fact: I've trained people that got twice the results from 50/30/20 then from Keto, but again these were a minority compared to the majority getting results on Keto.
(PROTEIN/CARB/FAT)

I am not in any way, shape or form saying that a Ketonic diet is best diet...period....every diet has it's magic ways...all I do is state the facts

Mr.X