Burn 3500 calories a day to lose 1lb..........Fact or fiction???
jodiecooks281
Posts: 22 Member
I recently came across a number of Professionals stating the above is a bit of myth???
What's everyone else's views???? (you can't always believe the internet!)
I did find this article quite interesting!
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/you-will-not-lose-1lb-every-time/
What's everyone else's views???? (you can't always believe the internet!)
I did find this article quite interesting!
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/you-will-not-lose-1lb-every-time/
0
Replies
-
I don't think the author of that article knows much about nutrition, human behavior, or how the human body works. Actually, I'm sure of it.0
-
Wouldn't it be nice if it were true...
0 -
it takes 3500 calories burnt to remove a lb of fat, that's the standard..
doing that in a day? highly unlikely nor safe lol. any "weight" lost would be water, not caloric related0 -
It bothered me I had to get to the end see it was basically promoting a 10 carbs, 30 fat, 60 protein diet. I don't think there is a one size fits all diet. Some people do better on high protein, some do better as vegetarians, etc. I think everybody should do what works for them, also I don't agree with eating very low calorie other than to get out of obese range, it is not good for you and it can damage your body. I don't think comparisons made with doing this diet instead of eating 900-1000 calories a day are valid, I reject all of that.
Eating consistently and reasonably healthy at a reasonable deficit (500 or less) and getting enough exercise to me is valid.
I thought the whole article was just flawed, it was like, oh don't do this one extreme, do this other extreme instead because it is better. I did not find that helpful.0 -
Zoe Hardcombe is, in fact, a blithering idiot.0
-
I've always heard 3500 a WEEK not in a day. I think it would be pretty impossible to do in a day.0
-
I think it's a bit of a myth. I am no scientist, but common sense tells me that all calories are not created equal. 1000 calories made up entirely of candy is going to have a very different effect on my body than 1000 calories made up of skinless chicken, beans and vegetables. Also, everyone's body reacts differently to different types of food. I will gain wight if I eat a moderate number of calories that include processed carbs like wheat bread than when I eat a higher number of calories in protein and fat. For example if I eat an egg white omelette for breakfast and veggie smoothie for lunch on both days I will see at least a 1 pound increase on the scale if I eat a turkey burger on a whole wheat bun for dinner vs no gain or potentially a loss if I eat a burrito bowl (no tortilla) with steak, cheese and guacamole for dinner. My boyfriend reacts to high processed sugar levels. He puts on weight eating ice cream frequently, but eating pizza (and lots of it) twice a week doesn't seem to affect him at all. He cuts out sugar and loses weight quickly. He cuts the pizza for a week and no weight loss.0
-
I do like to read a "blithering" it's been a while. Thank you xAllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »Zoe Hardcombe is, in fact, a blithering idiot.
0 -
1 pound of fat produces about 3500 calories of energy, in a closed system, where only store fat is used as fuel.
If you are eating less than you are burning, you will used stored fat and/or muscle to fuel your body. Hypothetically, if you burn off everything you ate and an extra 3500 calories in a day, and you burn only fat, you'd lose a pound, but that'd be very difficult, and definitely not healthy.
For example: You eat 1200 calories (the minimum). You burn 2000 calories a day through normal activity. Right there you have a deficit of 800. You'd need to burn an extra 2700 calories through exercise. If I am exercising at pretty high intensity I can burn 600 calories an hour. So that's 4.5 hours of high intensity exercise on only 1200 calories of food. Pretty sure I couldn't do it, and even if I could, I'd burn off some muscle too (and who wants that?).0 -
I have to laugh sorry...I checked some of the links and here are some quotes
Eating less makes us want to eat more and/or do less. Doing more makes us want to eat more and/or do less. Neither eat less nor do more has worked, can work, or ever will work as a solution for the obesity epidemic.
Don’t take my word for it. As Dr Robert Lustig says – you wouldn’t dream of giving your child beer or cola, but fruit juice is metabolised by the body in the same way. Or, as Gary Taubes says, “If you are overweight, fruit is not your friend.”
Man is as evolutionary disposed to being sedentary as he is to gathering food. What man would have done, and what we should do today, is natural activity. Walk, talk, sing, dance, cook, clean and tend the land – that’s what we should do. Not pumping iron!
And to top it off
Here are her Qualifications
Zoë is a qualified nutritionist with a Diploma in Diet & Nutrition and a Diploma in Clinical Weight Management, but she is first and foremost an obesity researcher. She works exclusively in the area of weight and obesity and reads, writes and talks about obesity as many hours as possible, seven days a week
So basically she is trying to sell books and be a lecturer on tour getting money to talk to overweight people and give them more excuses.0 -
I looked at some of her other blogs. Her lack of understanding is frightening, and passing herself off as some knowledgeable expert is downright fraud.I don't think the author of that article knows much about nutrition, human behavior, or how the human body works. Actually, I'm sure of it.0 -
But how does she exercise so much when she talks about obesity as much as she can? Huh?!0
-
I am amused that the "proof" used was a group of people given "advice", and a group of people "who attend weight watchers". As if that makes any bit of difference to what people actually ate.
This is amazingly mindless drivel. I am sad that people read stuff like this and think it is even remotely true.0 -
I think she is standing in the background of every shot in FED UP. Seriously, The first sentence was BS, same for #2, and #3. Yes, this article had little to no value except it was somewhat amusing.0
-
-
DiabolicalColossus wrote: »
I do...
visit this thread
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10005140/true-or-false-a-calorie-is-a-calorie-is-a-calorie#latest
0 -
Calorie measurements are just our best way to calculate energy as it relates to our physiology and metabolism. If this genius has a better method, I'm Jim Dandy.
I suspect she's selling something, so her job is to make what is simple very complicated. She's probably a fraud!
That's my guess.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
jodiecooks281 wrote: »I recently came across a number of Professionals stating the above is a bit of myth???
What's everyone else's views???? (you can't always believe the internet!)
I did find this article quite interesting!
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/you-will-not-lose-1lb-every-time/
I stopped reading when I got to Minnesota Starvation Experiment. That study has been used to promote more poorly supported ideas to more people...It's basically a red flag for Woo at this point.0 -
Total BS and lied on Weight Watchers. WW never claimed or proved that sh$t.0
-
I think it's true, and that's based on my own personal experience.
I tracked my food daily and realised I maintained at 2200kcal a day.
I then reduced to 1200kcal a day and lost 2lb a week consistently - this equivalent to 7000kcal.
When I upped my calories to 1700 a day, I lost on average 1lb per week.
The maths is bang on with me.
0 -
You need to spend 3500 kcal more than you consume to lose one pound of fat. Whether you do that in a day or a month is your choice. And calorie is a unit that measures energy. So one calorie is one calorie, same as one pound is one pound and one °C is one °C.0
-
Read an article from that woman before, maybe even the same one. The nicest thing I could say about it is that she at least referenced studies. The worth of those studies is a different question and the fact she handwaves away all problems people in the comments had about her sources is a red flag as they say.0
-
There is a connection between the thyroid and the speed of ones metabolism, and thyroid isn't the only factor. For these people, 3500 calories is not a pound.
But for most of us, 3500 calories is a pound is probably a decent generality. It's useful even if it isn't perfectly factual.0 -
There is a connection between the thyroid and the speed of ones metabolism, and thyroid isn't the only factor. For these people, 3500 calories is not a pound.
But for most of us, 3500 calories is a pound is probably a decent generality. It's useful even if it isn't perfectly factual.
How does the speed of ones metabolism negate math?
3500 is commonly referred to as a lb of fat not weight.
0 -
Special people and their mighty metabolisms can overcome pesky math on a whim.0
-
Yeah. Just selling a low carb diet. There's nothing interesting to see here.AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »Zoe Hardcombe is, in fact, a blithering idiot.0 -
A 3500 calorie deficit does not guarantee a one pound of fat loss due to the number of variables in play as the human body. Of course, the 3500 calories for one pound concept is a guideline not an absolute law of nature.-1
-
One of the "Biggest Loser" winners averaged 1lb per day for over 100 days. She got a lot of heat for it... but she did not die. I don't know if you blew back up.. I lost 60 faster than people say is "acceptable".. don't really care. Dr said: Nice Job0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions