Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
ScienceWiz
New member
We are told you have to burn more calories than you're taking in to lose weight
But if you lift weights (thus increasing calories burned) and eat a lower calorie diet, you could lose 5kg of fat while simultaneously gaining 5 kg of lean, wouldn't you be burning off calories even though the total weight did not change.
Or if you ate fatty foods and did no exercise then you could gain 2 kg of fat while losing 3 kg of lean, total weight is down by 1 kg. But the Fat gain required gaining 18000 calories while the Lean Mass loss provided only 0-12000 calories (assuming body water has no calories and muscle protein has 4000 calories/kg), so your calorie intake is at least 6000 more than metabolized. In other words you can also lose weight by eating more than you burn.
Am I missing something in the above examples?
But if you lift weights (thus increasing calories burned) and eat a lower calorie diet, you could lose 5kg of fat while simultaneously gaining 5 kg of lean, wouldn't you be burning off calories even though the total weight did not change.
Or if you ate fatty foods and did no exercise then you could gain 2 kg of fat while losing 3 kg of lean, total weight is down by 1 kg. But the Fat gain required gaining 18000 calories while the Lean Mass loss provided only 0-12000 calories (assuming body water has no calories and muscle protein has 4000 calories/kg), so your calorie intake is at least 6000 more than metabolized. In other words you can also lose weight by eating more than you burn.
Am I missing something in the above examples?
