I think I broke physics
Replies
-
The answer is Orange because my cat likes to dance.
No, the answer is blankets because pigeons don't like spaghetti.
Purple, because dinosaurs don't wear hats.0 -
this makes sense. so its more of a wording issue that fails to mention the oils and whatnot in a pound of fatSo bear with me here, I was just doing some brain thinking and realized something
if you eat 1 gram of pure fat, thats 9 calories. And to lose 1 lb you need to burn 3500 calories, or conversely to gain a lb you need to eat 3500 calories (above/below TDEE).
so 1 g of fat= 9 cals
9 cals divided by 3500 cals/lbs = 0.0025714285714286 lbs
0.0025714285714286 lbs times 453.592 g's per pound = 1.16637942857 g's
so 1 g of fat eaten = 1.166 g's gained? what happened to conservation of mass and energy?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1376778-recomp-math
??
ETA: OPs Quote from link above.
So one lb of fat is as much as one lb of muscle its all mass right but that is where the mistake comes in. So let me go over the numbers
1 lb = 453.6g
1g of fat=9 cal
1g of protein= 4 cal
1g of water = 0 cal
This is stuff we all know, we also know that one lb of fat =3500 cal but 453.6g x 9cal= 4082cal. So how can this be right the numbers just don't add up right. The problem is fat is not all "fat", fat is made up of cells, that are mostly made up of water, but they hold a large amount of oil in them. So a lb of fat is made up of about 86% oil so that would about 390g of fat and 63g of water. Ok so more math now.
1lb=453g
390g oil x 9= 3510
63g water x0=0
390g+63g= 453g=1 lb0 -
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
453.592 is the conversion from pounds to grams. what you calculated is the inverse of what i calculated in my first equation;3500cal / 9 = 388.88 grams of fat / lb
where's the 453.592 g's / lb coming from?
3500cals/ lb divided by 9 cals = 388.88 lbs^-1. gotta watch those units
These are still estimations which lead to truncation errors. Calories and Kilocalories are units of heat. Lbs and grams are units of mass. Apples and oranges until we take into consideration density and energy expended, etc. The energy/heat expended to change food into fat and get it back again, will affect the overall outcomes and estimations.
Did I throw a monkey wrench into your theory yet? When all else fails turn to the Law of Entropy. :bigsmile:0 -
0 -
lol to everyone asking what i was calculating; its a conversion of the 9 calories contained in a gram of fat to the 3500 calories contained in a pound. basically if you go full circle you get 1 gram of fat eaten yeilding a fat gain of 1.166 g's
im going to assume its some sort of rounding error, but most numbers i got for calories in a gram of fat had a few zeros after the decimal place inferring a higher accuracy than just to one integer
Yeah... you're forgetting the part where your body actually uses the dietary fat.
Are you really a woman catfishing us? Are the doughnuts going straight to your thighs?
0 -
So bear with me here, I was just doing some brain thinking and realized something
if you eat 1 gram of pure fat, thats 9 calories. And to lose 1 lb you need to burn 3500 calories, or conversely to gain a lb you need to eat 3500 calories (above/below TDEE).
so 1 g of fat= 9 cals
9 cals divided by 3500 cals/lbs = 0.0025714285714286 lbs
0.0025714285714286 lbs times 453.592 g's per pound = 1.16637942857 g's
so 1 g of fat eaten = 1.166 g's gained? what happened to conservation of mass and energy?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1376778-recomp-math
??
ETA: OPs Quote from link above.
So one lb of fat is as much as one lb of muscle its all mass right but that is where the mistake comes in. So let me go over the numbers
1 lb = 453.6g
1g of fat=9 cal
1g of protein= 4 cal
1g of water = 0 cal
This is stuff we all know, we also know that one lb of fat =3500 cal but 453.6g x 9cal= 4082cal. So how can this be right the numbers just don't add up right. The problem is fat is not all "fat", fat is made up of cells, that are mostly made up of water, but they hold a large amount of oil in them. So a lb of fat is made up of about 86% oil so that would about 390g of fat and 63g of water. Ok so more math now.
1lb=453g
390g oil x 9= 3510
63g water x0=0
390g+63g= 453g=1 lb
Quoting because people's brains are still exploding.
^^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/0 -
453.592 is the conversion from pounds to grams. what you calculated is the inverse of what i calculated in my first equation;3500cal / 9 = 388.88 grams of fat / lb
where's the 453.592 g's / lb coming from?
3500cals/ lb divided by 9 cals = 388.88 lbs^-1. gotta watch those units
These are still estimations which lead to truncation errors. Calories and Kilocalories are units of heat. Lbs and grams are units of mass. Apples and oranges until we take into consideration density and energy expended, etc. The energy/heat expended to change food into fat and get it back again, will affect the overall outcomes and estimations.
Did I throw a monkey wrench into your theory yet? When all else fails turn to the Law of Entropy. :bigsmile:
Not to mention that the chemical structure of dietary fat is completely different than the chemical structure of body fat. There is a lot more going on than physics.0 -
i would expect bolded to result in less than a gram of fat gained then though, since energy is used in the conversion process rather than gained.
453.592 is the conversion from pounds to grams. what you calculated is the inverse of what i calculated in my first equation;3500cal / 9 = 388.88 grams of fat / lb
where's the 453.592 g's / lb coming from?
3500cals/ lb divided by 9 cals = 388.88 lbs^-1. gotta watch those units
These are still estimations which lead to truncation errors. Calories and Kilocalories are units of heat. Lbs and grams are units of mass. Apples and oranges until we take into consideration density and energy expended, etc. The energy/heat expended to change food into fat and get it back again, will affect the overall outcomes and estimations.
Did I throw a monkey wrench into your theory yet? When all else fails turn to the Law of Entropy. :bigsmile:
questions been answered though, oils n stuff are the *kitten* of this equation0 -
thanks for the laugh!!!0
-
lol to everyone asking what i was calculating; its a conversion of the 9 calories contained in a gram of fat to the 3500 calories contained in a pound. basically if you go full circle you get 1 gram of fat eaten yeilding a fat gain of 1.166 g's
Can I switch my "what" to a "why"? :laugh:0 -
So bear with me here, I was just doing some brain thinking and realized something
if you eat 1 gram of pure fat, thats 9 calories. And to lose 1 lb you need to burn 3500 calories, or conversely to gain a lb you need to eat 3500 calories (above/below TDEE).
so 1 g of fat= 9 cals
9 cals divided by 3500 cals/lbs = 0.0025714285714286 lbs
0.0025714285714286 lbs times 453.592 g's per pound = 1.16637942857 g's
so 1 g of fat eaten = 1.166 g's gained? what happened to conservation of mass and energy?
Bazinga...
Well, somebody had to say it.0 -
SCIENCElol to everyone asking what i was calculating; its a conversion of the 9 calories contained in a gram of fat to the 3500 calories contained in a pound. basically if you go full circle you get 1 gram of fat eaten yeilding a fat gain of 1.166 g's
Can I switch my "what" to a "why"? :laugh:0 -
453.592 is the conversion from pounds to grams. what you calculated is the inverse of what i calculated in my first equation;3500cal / 9 = 388.88 grams of fat / lb
where's the 453.592 g's / lb coming from?
3500cals/ lb divided by 9 cals = 388.88 lbs^-1. gotta watch those units
These are still estimations which lead to truncation errors. Calories and Kilocalories are units of heat. Lbs and grams are units of mass. Apples and oranges until we take into consideration density and energy expended, etc. The energy/heat expended to change food into fat and get it back again, will affect the overall outcomes and estimations.
Did I throw a monkey wrench into your theory yet? When all else fails turn to the Law of Entropy. :bigsmile:
Not to mention that the chemical structure of dietary fat is completely different than the chemical structure of body fat. There is a lot more going on than physics.
Cannibals have easier math then?0 -
The answer is Orange because my cat likes to dance.
No, the answer is blankets because pigeons don't like spaghetti.
Purple, because dinosaurs don't wear hats.
No, because Shroedinger's cat is perfectly capable of observing whether it's dead or alive, thus rendering the whole experiment meaningless. The experiment needs to be repeated with a more stupid animal.0 -
You designed with a laser and built with a chainsaw. :flowerforyou:0
-
SCIENCElol to everyone asking what i was calculating; its a conversion of the 9 calories contained in a gram of fat to the 3500 calories contained in a pound. basically if you go full circle you get 1 gram of fat eaten yeilding a fat gain of 1.166 g's
Can I switch my "what" to a "why"? :laugh:
It was a great question. Thank you!0 -
You designed with a laser and built with a chainsaw. :flowerforyou:
I really like those chainsaw ice sculptures.0 -
453.592 is the conversion from pounds to grams. what you calculated is the inverse of what i calculated in my first equation;3500cal / 9 = 388.88 grams of fat / lb
where's the 453.592 g's / lb coming from?
3500cals/ lb divided by 9 cals = 388.88 lbs^-1. gotta watch those units
These are still estimations which lead to truncation errors. Calories and Kilocalories are units of heat. Lbs and grams are units of mass. Apples and oranges until we take into consideration density and energy expended, etc. The energy/heat expended to change food into fat and get it back again, will affect the overall outcomes and estimations.
Did I throw a monkey wrench into your theory yet? When all else fails turn to the Law of Entropy. :bigsmile:
Not to mention that the chemical structure of dietary fat is completely different than the chemical structure of body fat. There is a lot more going on than physics.
Cannibals have easier math then?
Ah... in that case, if OP were to eat a human burger, then I suppose the fat might really go straight to his thighs.0 -
lol to everyone asking what i was calculating; its a conversion of the 9 calories contained in a gram of fat to the 3500 calories contained in a pound. basically if you go full circle you get 1 gram of fat eaten yeilding a fat gain of 1.166 g's
im going to assume its some sort of rounding error, but most numbers i got for calories in a gram of fat had a few zeros after the decimal place inferring a higher accuracy than just to one integer
probably rounding has something to do with it. 3500 is an awefully round number. plus there is a certain amount of protien in a lbs of adipose tissue so maybe thats got something to do with it?
i'm offically refusing to turn on my brain for this lol0 -
Just want to say that you can determine something about body fat using these numbers (granting the rounded constants):
(3500 Cal/lb of body fat)/(9 Cal/g of pure fat) = 388.889 g of pure fat/lb of body fat
(388.889 g of pure fat/lb of body fat)/(453.592 g of pure fat/lb of pure fat) = 0.857 lb of pure fat/lb of body fat0 -
You didn't break physics. Your whole argument is based on a lb of human adipose tissue being 100% fat. It's not. It's roughly 87% fat with some water and cellular machinery making up the remaining 13%. The math on that works out right around the 3500 calories we are all so accustomed to hearing.
454 grams in a lb.
1 lb for adipose tissue = 87% fat therefore
454 * 0.87 = 394.98 grams of fat in a lb of adipose tissue
9 calories per gram of fat
9 * 394.98 = 3554.82
People round it to 3500 for a few reasons. The number is easier to say/type then 3554.82. Also since there are 7 days in a week and dividing 3500 by 7 gives you the nice round figure of 500 people simply like to say a 500 calorie daily deficit equals a pound of fat loss a week. It simply sounds better then saying a 507.83 calorie deficit per day yields a lb of human adipose tissue loss per week.
Physics repaired.0 -
I can make any claim I want just by making unsound assumptions and rounding.0
-
whoaaaaaaa....:smooched:
\m/0 -
should have thought of the water... there is a little bit of protien as well i'm pretty sure but the water probably weights a lot more0
-
When in doubt, question physics first.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I can count to potato
0 -
im going to assume its some sort of rounding error
it isn't, as has been answered already the energy equivalent of typical weight loss is 3500 cals/lb because not all of it is fat, Typically weight loss is 70-80% fat and the rest FFM.
I've seen papers where they use 1 kcal/g for FFM and 9 for fat, citing the water loss associated with glycogen etc.
3500 kcal/lb = 7.70 kcal/g which works at 83.75% fat in weight loss using these numbers.0
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
- 426 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