 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / June 20043500 calories = 1 pound?
I first read "if you eat 3500 extra calories you'll gain a pound" at least 35 years ago, so this notion has been around quite a long time. I'm wondering what the research was that proved this. According to Fitday, a pound of lard has 4,091 calories. So if you eat the exact number of calories needed to maintain your weight then eat a pound of lard, you'll put on 1.17 pounds. How can this be? How can your addition in body weight be greater than the weight of what you ate? Not to mention of course that your body needs to digest that lard, which causes you to burn some calories. I tried googling on this, but all I got was a lot of web sites that mention the 3500 calorie rule. One site did have a reference to an article in Science magazine that said this: "The body does not store excess energy with 100 per cent efficiency, however. Hill's team estimated that for every 100 extra calories consumed, at least 50 would be stored as fat." So where did that 3500 calorie number come from? Anny > I first read "if you eat 3500 extra calories you'll gain a pound" at least > 35 years ago, so this notion has been around quite a long time. I'm [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Anny http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/fatcalories.HTM  Signaturejmk in NC > http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/fatcalories.HTM Now I'm really confused. Here's the whole article for those who don't want to click through: Q. In books on nutrition, I'm told that to lose one pound of fat it's necessary either to reduce my food intake by 3500 calories or to exercise so that 3500 calories are burned. How is the value of 3500 determined? If fat contains 9 calories per gram, and there are 454 grams in a pound, then there should be 4086 calories in a pound of fat-- not 3500. A. The nutrition books are correct-- 3500 calories per pound of fat is not an absolute amount, but it's very close. However, your math is correct, too. Here is the story. When we burn fat, or other nutrients, heat is produced, which is measured in calories. As you note, each gram of fat generates 9 calories, and 454 grams equals one pound. But a pound of fat is not all fat. It's about 10% water. All of our body tissues--fat, muscle, bone, skin--contain some water. And water has zero calories. In addition, not all the nutrients we eat are completely absorbed from the digestive tract to meet metabolic needs. In the case of fat, roughly 5% is eliminated in the feces. This 10% water content and 5% non-absorbed fat accounts for the 15% difference between your calculated 4086 calories and the actual 3500 calories in a pound of fat. Two other minor points: The calories can be reduced when the meal is high in fiber. Fiber speeds the movement of food through the digestive system, there is less time for the nutrients to be absorbed before they are eliminated. So the non-absorbed fat could be a bit higher. Also, the amount of heat generated from fat differs a little for various foods (depending on fatty acid content). For example, there are 9.50 calories in one gram of meat compared with 9.30 calories for vegetables and fruits and 9.25 calories for dairy products. -----end quoted material-------- Suppose you eat the exact number of calories required to maintain your weight. Then you drink 1 pound of vegetable oil, which contains no water. The vegetable oil has 4010 calories. Ignoring the laxative effect such a snack would have, the article says that 5% is eliminated in the feces. That means the oil has about 3810 calories and weighs 15.2 ounces. All of this is going to body fat, which also has 10% water. 15.2 ounces plus 10% water equals 16.72 ounces of body fat, or about 1.05 pounds. So 3810 extra calories eaten results in 1.05 pounds of fat, and 1 pound of fat = 3629 calories, not 3500. And again we're ignoring whatever calories were expended in digesting that vegetable oil and whatever ancillary metabolic effect digestion has. Anny >Suppose you eat the exact number of calories required to maintain your >weight. Then you drink 1 pound of vegetable oil, which contains no water. Your confusion is in your last sentence there. Just because you have 1 pound of vegetable oil, doesn't mean it contains no water. The vegetable oil itself does contain about 10% water. Our bodies are about 30% water. But if you cut open a body its not like you are going to see water spill out. But the water molecules are trapped within other features of our body. Likewise, a tablespoon (or a pound) of oil will contain about 10% water, but you won't see the water in the substances, as the small molecules are trapped in within the oil itself. > >Suppose you eat the exact number of calories required to maintain your > >weight. Then you drink 1 pound of vegetable oil, which contains no water. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > like you are going to see water spill out. But the water molecules > are trapped within other features of our body. I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like 82% water? > Likewise, a tablespoon (or a pound) of oil will contain about 10% > water, but you won't see the water in the substances, as the small > molecules are trapped in within the oil itself. > > >Suppose you eat the exact number of calories required to maintain your > > >weight. Then you drink 1 pound of vegetable oil, which contains no [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like 82% > water? http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/958588306.An.r.html > > Likewise, a tablespoon (or a pound) of oil will contain about 10% > > water, but you won't see the water in the substances, as the small > > molecules are trapped in within the oil itself. > I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like 82% > water? my bad, maybe... for some reason I was thinking we were 1/3rd water. But either way - the point is still the same - even more so if we are 75% or more water... when we are cut open, its not like we see water gushing out. No, we see other things. The water molecules are stored in the tissues of the body, not as a substances that is noticeable. > > I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like 82% > > water? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, we see other things. The water molecules are stored in the tissues of > the body, not as a substances that is noticeable. Any hey, it may mean nothing to you and your family, but it freaks me out thinking that ignorant is behind every post in asd. Total freak. Martha > > > I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like 82% > > > water? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Any hey, it may mean nothing to you and your family, but it freaks me out > thinking that ignorant is behind every post in asd. Total freak. I'm sorry, I do not understand that post. So, I didn't look up the true balance of water in the human body before posting, that does not make me ignorant. The point of my post wasn't to discuss the balance of water in the human body, it was to illustrate that water molecules do not have to be seen to be in foods. > > > > I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like > 82% [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the human body, it was to illustrate that water molecules do not have to be > seen to be in foods. I think she meant ignoramus is behind every post. Otherwise that sentence doesn't really make sense to me either. >> > > > I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like >> 82% [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >I think she meant ignoramus is behind every post. Otherwise that sentence >doesn't really make sense to me either. but I don't understand, ig hadn't posted anything in this area of this thread. >> > > I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like > 82% [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the human body, it was to illustrate that water molecules do not have to be > seen to be in foods. I think that when they say that we are 90% water, they mean something like this. Take a human body, heat it to, say, 2000 degrees, it obviously would decompose into solid matter (carbon and ash), and the rest would evaporate as water. There would not be much carbon and ash left, so, they say, we are 90% water. One may disagree with this definition and point out that fat and muscle is not water in its pure, unbound form. i > > I may be missing something here.. but isn't our body more more like 82% > > water? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, we see other things. The water molecules are stored in the tissues of > the body, not as a substances that is noticeable. now that I agree with :-) > >Suppose you eat the exact number of calories required to maintain your > >weight. Then you drink 1 pound of vegetable oil, which contains no water. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The vegetable oil itself does contain about 10% water. Confused even more now. Fitday gives the amount of water in the foods it has in its listing. For example, a cup of milk has seven fluid ounces of water. But according to Fitday, vegetable oil has no water. In addition, if you take 9 calories per gram and 453.6 grams per pound and do the math you come mighty close to what Fitday says a pound of vegetable oil has. Just to check I went to the USDA site -- according to them, vegetable oil has no water. Do you have a cite that indicates it does indeed have oil? Anny > According to Fitday, a pound of lard has 4,091 calories. So if you eat the > exact number of calories needed to maintain your weight then eat a pound of > lard, you'll put on 1.17 pounds. How can this be? A human being needs 3500 extra calories to create a pound of human fat. That does not mean that the fat butchered from another animal has 3500 calories. Steve http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen on television or bought in a shopping mall" > > According to Fitday, a pound of lard has 4,091 calories. So if you eat the > > exact number of calories needed to maintain your weight then eat a pound of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That does not mean that the fat butchered from another animal has 3500 > calories. You missed my point, Steve. How was it proven that a human being needs 3500 extra calories to create a pound of human fat? Suppose I eat the exact number of calories I need to maintain my weight, then drink a pound of vegetable oil. What happens to my weight? Why? Anny >You missed my point, Steve. How was it proven that a human being needs 3500 >extra calories to create a pound of human fat? > >Suppose I eat the exact number of calories I need to maintain my weight, >then drink a pound of vegetable oil. What happens to my weight? Why? You are missing a big point. Calorie counting is not an EXACT Science. Every person is different so calories are used differently, thus metebolically, the 3500 is a +/- average, not an exactism. Also, readings on nutritional labels and even in the USDA database are also a +/- average. So - Stop nitpicking over this and just follow the general rule to weight loss Eat less, exercise more, repeat forever > >You missed my point, Steve. How was it proven that a human being needs 3500 > >extra calories to create a pound of human fat? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Eat less, exercise more, repeat forever Oh, puh-leeze. I have not missed any point. I'm not trying to nitpick my way out of eating less and exercising more. But I asked a legitimate question -- where did this number that everyone states is a true approximation of the number of excess calories eaten that puts on an additional pound of body fat come from? Who derived it? How? I can't get the math to work. I like to know the science behind the facts, and I like my math to work. Anny > So where did that 3500 calorie number come from? The standard numbers per gram are fat/9, protein/4, carb/4. Of course those are approximations because everything is a little different. 9 calories/gram times 454 grams/pound = 4086 calories/pound. If you look at that it's clear it has to be an approximation but note that fitday's listing for lard matches it well. Maybe most fat isn't quite as dense. Anyways the 3500-4000 range works well. >> So where did that 3500 calorie number come from? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Maybe most fat isn't quite as dense. Anyways the 3500-4000 > range works well. What this great discussion shows is that counting calories can never be precise enough. i >>>So where did that 3500 calorie number come from? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > i Precise enough for what? It certainly can work. It did for me and several others in this ng. Signaturejmk in NC Ignoramus wrote: >> What this great discussion shows is that counting calories can never >> be precise enough. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Precise enough for what? It certainly can work. It did for me and > several others in this ng. I would be one of those folks <s> SignatureWalking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > Ignoramus wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I would be one of those folks <s> Moi aussi :-) Chris 262/151/ (145-150) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.