Fat loss vs weight loss

[youngWerther]

When looking at the weekly progress report I see kilocalories in vs out  values.  Most usefull altough confusing as the plan deficit is not included in that number. Now this week it totalled close to 3500 kcal losses that's close to 1lbs of fat but the weight loss stood on 3lbs.  So I guess that, even if it is hard to measure a calorific balance correctly,  I lost mainly (70%) lean weight and less than a pound of fat.  I intend to drop to 2100 kcal/week of losses and hope the numbers will allign better.

Has anyone observed a similar situation?

[Heybales]

---

@youngWerther wrote:

When looking at the weekly progress report I see kilocalories in vs out  values.  Most usefull altough confusing as the plan deficit is not included in that number. Now this week it totalled close to 3500 kcal losses that's close to 1lbs of fat but the weight loss stood on 3lbs.  So I guess that, even if it is hard to measure a calorific balance correctly,  I lost mainly (70%) lean weight and less than a pound of fat.  I intend to drop to 2100 kcal/week of losses and hope the numbers will allign better.

Has anyone observed a similar situation?

---

Yes, the deficit is in the big font figure, negative means you went under goal by that much.

A goal that already included a deficit for weight loss. So negative means you created more deficit. Positive means you didn't get your planned deficit.

You are also assuming you can do that math correctly and it holds up, and that you have totally accurate calories in and out.

You have none of that.

But it is true that the math for 3500 calories per lb is for fat only.

If you burn off muscle mass (or rather the body doesn't build it back up is more correct), it's only 600 calories per lb.

Yes, it's easier to lose a lb of muscle than fat, as far as calories is concerned.

So you should be concerned if the deficit appeared to be 3500 but you lost 3 lbs. Nothing to cheer about there.

Unless ....... this is your first week, in which case you had water weight loss too.

Or...... you weigh on invalid days and got mere water weight fluctuations.

[youngWerther]

On measuring water, I measure daily in kg,  I get at worst 0.6lbs variations on my weight curve,  this could be the case here,  the problem stays nevertheless. 

It was my third week,  I already went from -800kcal/day to -500kcal/day to reduce the problem and will go for a calculated -300kcal/day this week to see how it changes.  For me it is a major concern,  as my aim is to include 70% fat in my weight loss

The fitbit model when setting weight loss goal relies on naive pure fat loss -500kcal/day = 1lbs/week lost and  -1000kcal/day yields 2lbs/week.

I found only one partial reference of "a study performed at Rockefeller University" on athletes sketching the problem and a solution

one group of subjects cut their energy intake by 700 calories a day ->  48 percent fat

the second group cut their energy intake by 300 calories a day -> 91 percent fat

Having on this site plenty of (die hard) dieters with 'good' log data I am curious to know if other people see the same problem and how they work with it.  Apart from the classic less carb and more exercice,  it may work but the Rockefeller University data is on athletes who are mostly high on proteines and exercice.

[Heybales]

Sadly I think you find the vast majority have no idea what you are talking about.

They are totally tied to the scale, and what the weight is exactly doesn't matter a whit.

Until they end up skinny fat at goal weight and arms flapping around and muffin top and just smaller versions of prior fatter body - they could care less if extreme deficit and total cardio might be causing muscle mass loss.

Even those in 50's and 60's that have yo-yo'd their lives away with diets and unhealthy relationship with food and their body don't always get it.

You'll still catch them from time to time claiming they know exactly what they are doing, because they've done this successfully 4-5 times in the past through the years.

Very true about those athletes.

I would love to have seen the follow up article about talking to them, after they found out they lost some muscle mass. I'm betting not very happy.

Here's a synopsis of a bunch of research studies, with only 1 finding they didn't lose LBM or metabolism - probably because the deficit wasn't as big as it was supposed to be - saved by bad food logging in other words.

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

[StrongerEachDay]

Hi

Wouldn't it be great if they would allow us to track our inches again? Please Vote!

https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Feature-Requests/Body-Measurements/idi-p/603250