why do I Need to Eat Less Than 1500 Cals a Day Before I See Weight Loss?

I want actual thoughts. I 100% agree a hypocaloric diet is necessary to lose weight. You have to burn more than you consume.

That said — I went to a metabolic testing facility and did the breathing tube test where they *measure your respiration oxygen* and according to this scientific device that is meant to tell everyone how many calories they burn a day/at rest, I burn anywhere from 2400-2700 calories a day, on a normal day. 2700 “if I exercise.” The calories I burn, according to this machine, if I do NOTHING BUT LAY IN BED PER DAY, are 1850-1950.

My question is why do I need to eat less than 1500 cals a day before I see any amount of weight loss? That’s a HUGE deficit. More than 500 cals a day, if I am burning 2400 cals a day. I feel like, mathematically, I should be able to eat 1800/day and still lose weight?

in progress
Weight Loss 5 Answers 1494 views 0

Answers ( 5 )

    1

    How do you know how much you are actually absorbing those calories?

    I mean how many of the calories that you track, you actually absorb… there is up to 25% difference in real calories and the number on the package, your digestion plays a role as well as many other factors.
    Don't get hung up with numbers.

      0

      If I absorb less than I eat, wouldn't that mean my weight loss would happen faster?

      I believe my digestion plays a huge role — as did some crock nutritionist I saw once told me — but I don't know how to "factor this in."

        1

        Yes, but you might be actually eating more than you track… 😉
        Regardless, if you are consistent with your nutrition and it works for you, then it does not matter if the calculator tells you it is 900 or 9000.

    0

    It depends on your goal thought, for example, if you will cut 250 kcal you will lose 0,5 kg of fat per week if you cut 500 kcal you will lose 1kg of fat per week.

    It needs to burn 7500 calories per week to lose 1 kg of your body weight.

    1

    No matter how accurately you believe you are tracking, the numbers are never accurate. All food labels and nutritional information can be off by 20%, according to the FDA. So many times, our numbers are just off. Also, with repeated “dieting,” your body does not metabolize the same way it should. It’s starts to get slower and slower. I’m assuming the scientific gadget you used is supposed to be extremely accurate, but nothing is 💯.

      0

      You won’t hurt your metabolism by continually eating in a deficit.

        1

        Yes you will. The body consistently adapts to the new caloric intake, and you must continue to drop calories to overcome plateaus.

          0

          That’s not your metabolism “slowing.” As your mass drops, your calories have to drop. Or you can increase your NEAT.

            0

            It is proven that drastic continual calorie restriction lowers the metabolic rate. When strength training and high protein are incorporated with calorie restriction, the metabolic rate is not reduced as drastically. So as I said before, metabolism is negatively affected by a continual calorie restriction.

              0

              We know that as you lose weight, you have to drop calories if you don’t increase your activity. The less mass you have, the less you can afford to eat if you’re not compensating with your activity. This isn’t that you’re ruining your metabolism; this is just thermodynamics. We always advocate for strength training and keeping your protein in check while eating in a deficit to preserve muscle mass.

    1

    I think you may be assuming:
    1. That your tracking method and food labels are entirely accurate (which they aren’t). Most people are also inherently bad at it.
    2. That is a proper deficit, weight loss on the scale happens in perfect synchronization with actual fat loss.
    It never does. So many other factors at play like water weight fluctuations, differences in your gut food content on any given day, stress levels, muscle glycogen levels, etc.

    0

    7500 kcal is 1kg of pure fat
    So, not eating for three days (let's assume you use 2500 kcal a day)
    is gonna make you lose 3×2500 = 7500 kcal = 1 kg of fat
    Not eating for three days and only 1 kg of fat… It's so little…unnoticeable.

      0

      This makes sense, and I understand now. I'm perhaps looking for too much of it to be noticeable too soon. I've lost 7lbs in 10 months and feel this is not enough.

        0

        My biggest mistake was to compensate for the food I was not eating during the other meals… I was not in a caloric deficit. When I realized that, things really changed. About 1kg per week!

          0

          What do you mean? Like not counting food you ate that wasn't in your preplanned/counted meals?

            0

            Not counting food at all, I was thinking that eating once a day (OMAD) was enough to lose weight, but it is not.

Leave an answer

Click the camera icon to upload an image to your answer/comment. One Image - Supported Extensions are JPG, GIF & PNG - Size Maximum - 2 MB. To embed multiple images, add image URLs to the answer/comment.