March 29, 2020
  • 3:53 pm Fun Meal Prep Idea: Yellow-Colored Lunch Box
  • 3:53 pm Gilbert’s on Main serves New York Style Deli in Bellevue – KING 5 Evening
  • 3:53 pm Keto diet Meatballs with tomato sauce ASMR cooking No talking
  • 3:53 pm John’s Texas Tenderloin Roulade
  • 2:53 pm Why You Should Try “Cook Once Eat Twice” Meal Prep | What We Ate Over a Weekend (Healthy Recipes)
The 3,500 Calorie per Pound Rule Is Wrong

“The 3,500 Calorie per
Pound Rule Is Wrong” The first surgical attempt at
body sculpting was in 1921, with a dancer wanting to improve
the shape of her ankles. The surgeon apparently
scraped away too much tissue and tied the stitches too tight,
resulting in necrosis, amputation, and the first recorded malpractice
suit in the history of plastic surgery. Today’s liposuction is much safer—
only killing about 1 in 5,000 patients, mostly from unknown causes—
throwing a clot off into your lung, or perforations of
your internal organs. Liposuction currently reigns as
the most popular cosmetic surgery in the world, and its effects
are indeed, only cosmetic. A study published in the New
England Journal of Medicine assessed obese women before and
after having about 20 pounds of fat sucked out of their bodies, resulting in nearly a 20%
drop in their total body fat. Normally, lose even just 5-10%
of your body weight in fat, and you get significant improvements
in blood pressure, blood sugars, inflammation, cholesterol,
and triglycerides, but liposuction sucks: none
of those benefits materialized even after the massive liposuction. This suggests subcutaneous fat, the
fat under our skin, is not the problem. The metabolic insults of obesity
arise from the visceral fat, the fat surrounding or even
infiltrating our internal organs like the fat marbling
our muscles and liver. The way you lose that fat,
the dangerous fat, is to take in fewer
calories than you burn. Anyone who’s seen The Biggest
Loser shows knows with enough calorie restriction and exercise
hundreds of pounds can be lost. Similarly, there are cases in the medical
literature of what some refer to as “super obesity” in which individuals
lost up to 374 pounds, largely on their own without professional
help and kept it off for years. The guy lost about 20 pounds
a month cycling two hours a day and reducing intake to 800 calories
a day, which is down around what some prisoners were getting at
concentration camps in World War II. Perhaps America’s most
celebrated TV weight loss was when Oprah pulled
out a wagon full of fat, representing the 67 pounds she
lost on a very-low-calorie diet. How many calories did she have to
cut to achieve that within four months? Consult leading nutrition textbooks, or refer to trusted authorities
like the Mayo Clinic, and you’ll learn the simple weight loss rule: one
pound of fat is equal to 3,500 calories. Quoting from the Journal of the
American Medical Association: A total of 3500 calories
equals 1 pound of body weight. This means if you decrease your
intake by 500 calories daily, you will lose 1 pound per
week. 500 calories per day x 7 days=3500 calories,
so 1 pound of body fat. The simple weight loss
rule that’s simply not true. The 3,500-calorie rule can be
traced back to a paper in 1958 that just noted that since fatty tissue
on the human body is 87% fat, a pound of body fat would have
about 395 grams of pure fat. Multiply that by nine calories
per gram of fat gives you that 3,500 calories per
pound approximation. The fatal flaw that leads to
dramatically exaggerated weight loss predictions
is that the 3,500 rule fails to take into account the fact
that changes in the Calories-In side of the energy-balance
equation automatically lead to changes in Calories Out,
for example the slowing of metabolic rate that
accompanies weight loss known as metabolic adaptation. That’s one of the reasons
weight loss plateaus. For example, imagine a 30-year-old
sedentary woman of average height who weighs 150 pounds.
According to the 3,500-calorie rule, if she cuts 500 calories out of her
daily diet, she’d lose a pound a week, or 52 pounds a year. In three
years then, she would vanish. She’d go from 150 pounds to negative 6.
Obviously, that doesn’t happen. What would happen is that in the first
year instead of losing 52 pounds, she’d likely only lose 32 pounds and then, after a total of three years,
stabilize at about 100 pounds. This is because it takes fewer
calories to exist as a thin person. Part of it is simple mechanics, in the same way a Hummer requires
more fuel than a compact car— think how much more effort it
would take to just get out of a chair, walk across the room, or climb a few
stairs carrying a 50-pound backpack. That’s no lighter than carrying
50 pounds in the front. Even when you’re lying
at rest, sound asleep, there’s simply less of your body
to maintain as we lose weight. Every pound of fat tissue lost may
mean one less mile of blood vessels your body has to pump
blood through every minute. So the basic upkeep and movement
of thinner bodies takes fewer calories. So as you lose weight by eating
less, you end up needing less. That’s what the 3,500-calorie
rule doesn’t take into account. Or imagine it the other way. A 200-pound man starts eating
500 more calories a day. That’s like a large soda
or two doughnuts. According to the 3,500-calories
rule, in 10 years he’d weigh more than 700 pounds! That doesn’t happen
because the heavier he is, the more calories he
burns just existing. If you’re a hundred pounds overweight,
that’s like the skinny person inside you trying to walk around balancing
13 gallons of oil at all times, or lugging around a sack containing
400 sticks of butter wherever you go. It takes about two doughnuts worth of
extra energy just to live at 250 pounds, and so that’s where he’d
plateau out if he kept it up. So weight gain or weight loss, given
a certain calorie excess or deficit, is a curve that flattens out over time
rather than a straight line up or down. Nevertheless, the 3500-calorie
rule continues to crop up, even in obesity journals. Public health researchers used it
to calculate how many pounds children might lose every year if,
for example, fast food kid’s meals swapped in apple slices
instead of French fries. They figured two meals a week could
add up to about four pounds a year. The actual difference—National
Restaurant Association-funded researchers were no doubt
delighted to point out— would probably add less
than half a pound,10 times less than the 3500-calorie
rule would predict. The original article was
subsequently retracted.

Randall Smitham



  1. DANG JOS Posted on September 30, 2019 at 9:14 pm

    There's also water weight and muscle loss to consider. And I'm sure it's even more complex than presented in this video.

  2. Egidijus M. Posted on September 30, 2019 at 9:15 pm

    OMG, from 0:15 to 0:19 are the colors of the Lithuanian flag. 🇱🇹

  3. Hawt Pire Posted on September 30, 2019 at 9:26 pm

    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.

  4. Vitamin B Posted on September 30, 2019 at 9:28 pm

    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.

  5. Mustachio Burt Posted on September 30, 2019 at 9:38 pm

    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.

  6. TheSpaceBetween Posted on September 30, 2019 at 10:57 pm

    This channel has astounding information on diet and health.

  7. Jiang Dashan Posted on September 30, 2019 at 11:12 pm

    Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this one: the good doctor is using click bait tactics here: he never disproved that 3500 kcal equals 1 lb of fat. He simply stated the obvious that the thinner you become the less kcals you burn the entire day. But until he proves otherwise, 3500 kcals is equal to a pound of body fat.

  8. Karl Gruen Posted on September 30, 2019 at 11:48 pm

    Title is misleading.3500 kcal is still a pound of fat. You are spreding misinforrmstion! You just dont understand the energy equation. Metabolic adaptation has nothing to do with caloric content of adipose tissue. As a fellow healthcare provider and physicit I am disappointed that you failed to umderstand the energy equation.

  9. Cummings Family Posted on October 1, 2019 at 12:10 am

    The next several in this series are:

    • The New Calories per Pound of Weight Loss Rule? (…)

    • The Benefits of Calorie Restriction for Longevity (…)

    • Potential Pitfalls of Calorie Restriction (…)

    • Benefits of Fasting for Weight Loss Put to the Test (…)

    • Is Fasting Beneficial for Weight Loss? (…)

    • Is Fasting for Weight Loss Safe? (…)

    These are going to be epic!

  10. s. Posted on October 1, 2019 at 12:11 am

    But say if you calculate your tdee every time you weigh in and change your calorie limit to match your deficit goal. Would that still cause you to plateau eventually or lose less than what you've calculated?

  11. Doug bananaboy Posted on October 1, 2019 at 1:43 am

    Vegans have the lowest BMI of all diet groups

  12. o_o' Posted on October 1, 2019 at 1:45 am

    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. 😀

  13. topcat1tanks Posted on October 1, 2019 at 1:46 am

    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.

  14. محمد احمد Posted on October 1, 2019 at 2:08 am

    Finally Arabic translates, Thx 🙂

  15. Saintor1 Posted on October 1, 2019 at 2:08 am

    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?

  16. GreenGretel Posted on October 1, 2019 at 2:16 am

    You gotta do a video on that new Annals of Internal Medicine research claiming that red meat isn't bad for you now!!

  17. fire7side Posted on October 1, 2019 at 4:08 am

    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.

  18. Simran Wasu Posted on October 1, 2019 at 4:28 am

    C’mon Dr. Gregor, I love all your videos as they are extremely informative but this one isn’t up to the mark and is click baity. The 3500 calorie rule is almost always included with a description of TDEE and how that depends primarily on your body weight. Obviously your TDEE changes as you lose or gain weight and so the calorie deficit is calculated against your current TDEE. However, it should go without saying that maintaining a true 500 calorie deficit isn’t recommended once you are near a healthy weight as you would eventually starve and die. This is not to say that just eating less is better than eating a healthy diet.

  19. Gymson Posted on October 1, 2019 at 6:22 am

    Correct me if I'm wrong, 3500 calorie will still be about a pound. How much effort you need to burn 3500 calories varies.

  20. RobertTheBruce Posted on October 1, 2019 at 7:43 am

    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!

  21. Sarah Christine Posted on October 1, 2019 at 8:21 am

    always knew this, i eat on average 2,500 – 3,000 calories a day and weigh 110lbs at 5'1 and when id reduce my calories by 300-500 per day my weight would drop dramatically, id lose 1 or 2 lbs per day.

  22. Alex Van Bennen Posted on October 1, 2019 at 9:44 am

    This doesn't make the rule wrong. This title is misleading.

  23. egal Posted on October 1, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    You willfully misinterpreted the rule, thinking you were proving a point, when all you proved is you don't understand basic concepts.

  24. stgermaing Posted on October 1, 2019 at 1:41 pm

    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.

  25. Elizabeth Kirkeide Posted on October 1, 2019 at 1:47 pm

    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.

  26. Ideoform Sun Posted on October 1, 2019 at 1:51 pm

    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.

  27. Emily BH Posted on October 1, 2019 at 3:18 pm

    Is there a formula based on your BMI, height and weight to determine the calories needed for a person to maintain or gain weight then? If so, what is it?

  28. Worm739 Posted on October 1, 2019 at 4:09 pm Can you comment on this study, I read and seems to have some issues but wanted your take since a friend is convinced it means fiber is bad

  29. truefuschniken Posted on October 1, 2019 at 4:40 pm


  30. arnemyggen Posted on October 1, 2019 at 5:18 pm

    The voice acting here is top notch!!

  31. ruud76 Posted on October 1, 2019 at 5:51 pm

    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?

  32. kbkesq Posted on October 1, 2019 at 6:34 pm

    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.

  33. dionysusnow Posted on October 1, 2019 at 7:34 pm

    lets simplify this, just stop eating until you reach your desired weight. there , problem solved.

  34. dejan valjak Posted on October 1, 2019 at 8:30 pm

    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

  35. Allostasis Posted on October 1, 2019 at 10:32 pm

    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.

  36. Daniel Fleming Posted on October 2, 2019 at 12:10 am

    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.

  37. John Benedict Posted on October 2, 2019 at 3:34 am

    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.

  38. Mike Skylark Posted on October 2, 2019 at 4:50 am

    …like so many other ''rules'' in scientific literature.

  39. Angela Posted on October 2, 2019 at 6:50 am

    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.

  40. James Bond Posted on October 2, 2019 at 11:55 am

    Disingenuous and click-baity. You're better than that Greger.

  41. Chris Fehr Posted on October 2, 2019 at 11:57 am

    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.

  42. Brian Tomek Posted on October 2, 2019 at 12:10 pm

    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.

  43. scotty77 Posted on October 2, 2019 at 6:22 pm

    So basically, the 3500 calorie rule is right but expecting the same calorie requirement at 100 pounds as at 200 pounds is not. Duh.

  44. Nick Thiers Posted on October 3, 2019 at 7:53 am

    You haven't provided a single.piece of evidence here. When someone tells you to impliment a 500cal/day deficit to lose a lb a week they are correct, just as you are correct that the new baseline number from which to subtract from will change as body weight decreases. This isn't new. Followed by the fact one study was retracted and presto chango, everything we know is wrong. You offer no alternative. This is an underpants gnome argument. Step 1. Steal underpants. Step 2. ????? Step 3. Profit! Clickbait!!!!!

  45. TSB Posted on October 3, 2019 at 11:21 am

    I can't stand this narrator with his hemming and hawing.

  46. Jonathan Sonnier Posted on October 3, 2019 at 12:36 pm

    If it is wrong, what is the correct number?

  47. Virginia Catherine Hart Posted on October 3, 2019 at 5:29 pm

    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

  48. David K Posted on October 3, 2019 at 10:55 pm

    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?

  49. Victoria Smith Posted on October 4, 2019 at 9:28 am

    Many people know that if you limit yourself to sweets or complex carbohydrates (rice, buckwheat, pasta, bread, potatoes), then body weight, as a rule, decreases by a couple of kilograms. In fact, similar restrictions on carbohydrate intake are DIET (low-carb). It works very well because it creates a DEFICIENCY of energy in the body, which is covered by the body's RESERVES (subcutaneous fat). That is why often people lose weight with a decrease in carbohydrates in the diet. Well, what will happen if you FULLY remove carbohydrates from the diet? Will it be even more effective in terms of fat burning? Answer: YES. And such a diet was very popular in the golden era of bodybuilding (it was promoted by Vince Gironde). It is called KETO DIET. WHY DIET IS CALLED “KETO”?

    Because in the absence of carbohydrates, KETONS (ketone bodies) are produced from FAT as a source of energy for the brain and nervous system.

  50. Kristin Posted on October 4, 2019 at 8:48 pm

    You tend to end your videos abruptly without any solution.

  51. Iulia Ionela Lucifer Posted on October 5, 2019 at 2:21 am

    Please never use feet as a thumbnail again 😭

  52. B B Posted on October 6, 2019 at 12:40 pm

    Very smart, I love Dr.Gerger's videos. They are the best on YouTube!

  53. 정체이없다 Posted on October 6, 2019 at 10:54 pm

    metabolic adaptation= metabolic damage

  54. OneWeekTime Posted on October 7, 2019 at 3:15 pm

    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.

  55. Peter Rabitt Posted on October 7, 2019 at 7:20 pm

    It's not the 3500 calories per pound that wrong. It's the "your body will always burn 3500 calories if you do X" that's wrong.

  56. Erik Lewis Posted on October 8, 2019 at 3:44 am

    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.

  57. John Rose Posted on October 8, 2019 at 12:24 pm

    Hey Gregger, you're missing too many Pieces of the Puzzle – Is the 3,500 Calories per Pound Rule a Myth? –

  58. HEALTH Posted on October 9, 2019 at 9:08 am

    This makes Sense!! 🤔🤔 Like it just makes sense

  59. HEALTH AND FITNESS PERSON Posted on October 9, 2019 at 2:32 pm

    A good video and educative for me, thank you…