: Caloric density of abdominal and subcutaneous belly fat Adipose tissue can't be just fat. If it was just fat it would be mostly liquid and slosh around. So I guess it must also have lower caloric density than pure fat, i.e.

Vote Up Vote Down   0 Reactions

Login to give Reaction!

Caloric density of abdominal and subcutaneous belly fat
Adipose tissue can't be just fat. If it was just fat it would be mostly liquid and slosh around. So I guess it must also have lower caloric density than pure fat, i.e. you lose more weight for a given calorie deficit than would be expected if you lost fat only.

Is this true and if yes, what are the values for both abdominal/visceral fat and for subcutaneous belly fat?

I'm asking because I've been losing weight faster than anticipated and wonder why. If the weight lost would translate to calories with the factor 7000kcal/kg, then I would have a daily deficit of 2000kcal which is not very believable considering I feel fine and am not trying very hard.

Possibly irrelevant stats just in case:
11 days, 3.3kg down from 75.1 originally, eating around 1000kcal/day (maybe more, not keeping track exactly), 1.72m tall, 7 proper work outs in that time of which 6 were one hour intense and one was 4 hours not that intense. The amount of sports is pretty normal for me, but I used to eat much more. The fat that I think I'm losing is subcutaneous belly fat and abdominal fat (see Wikipedia on adipose tissue types), I have a typical male body shape, i.e. fat is in belly and nowhere else.

(0)

Login to post a comment!