I think I broke physics

Options
13

Replies

  • angela233Z
    angela233Z Posts: 312 Member
    Options
    thanks for the laugh!!!
  • marissanik
    marissanik Posts: 344 Member
    Options
    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:
  • JG762
    JG762 Posts: 571 Member
    Options
    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.
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,067 Member
    Options
    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:
    SCIENCE
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Options
    3500cal / 9 = 388.88 grams of fat / lb

    where's the 453.592 g's / lb coming from?
    453.592 is the conversion from pounds to grams. what you calculated is the inverse of what i calculated in my first equation;

    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?
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Some_Watery_Tart
    Some_Watery_Tart Posts: 2,250 Member
    Options
    You designed with a laser and built with a chainsaw. :flowerforyou:
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    Options
    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:
    SCIENCE

    It was a great question. Thank you!
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Options
    You designed with a laser and built with a chainsaw. :flowerforyou:

    I really like those chainsaw ice sculptures.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    3500cal / 9 = 388.88 grams of fat / lb

    where's the 453.592 g's / lb coming from?
    453.592 is the conversion from pounds to grams. what you calculated is the inverse of what i calculated in my first equation;

    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.
  • No_Finish_Line
    No_Finish_Line Posts: 3,661 Member
    Options
    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 lol
  • DanielCathers
    DanielCathers Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    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 fat
  • vismal
    vismal Posts: 2,463 Member
    Options
    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.
  • funforsports
    funforsports Posts: 2,656 Member
    Options
    I can make any claim I want just by making unsound assumptions and rounding.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Options
    giphy.gif
    \m/
    whoaaaaaaa....:smooched:
  • No_Finish_Line
    No_Finish_Line Posts: 3,661 Member
    Options
    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 more
  • Showcase_Brodown
    Showcase_Brodown Posts: 919 Member
    Options
    When in doubt, question physics first.
  • JTick
    JTick Posts: 2,131 Member
    Options
    I can count to potato

    166.png
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories