~4000cal/lb of fat?

cacrat
cacrat Posts: 336 Member
edited September 27 in Food and Nutrition
Not that I feel the need to throw a monkey wrench into the system but I just figured I'd do the simple math on this one lately. So 1g of fat is 9cal. There are about 28.3g/oz. There are 16oz/lb. Mathman says (9*28.3)16 ~ 4050cal. Now I'm guessing the 3500cal per lb number is thrown around because the hormones (leptin, ghrelin, insulin, AMPk, etc) will force you to lose muscle when you lose fat. Because muscle doesn't hold as much energy as fat (4cal/g) the 4050calish number comes down to an easy to digest 3500cal. The reason I post this is for anyone actually trying to calculate real fat loss, as opposed to weight loss in general. I was trying to calculate my caloric deficit this next week around my CKD, and found that I was probably going to be a pound off by the end of the 6wk cycle using the 3500 number.

Any thoughts?

Replies

  • mrstudz
    mrstudz Posts: 30 Member
    too much math, not enough treadmill.
  • bekkyhughes
    bekkyhughes Posts: 63
    too much math, not enough treadmill.

    Agreed!
  • dragonbug300
    dragonbug300 Posts: 760 Member
    In a word... yes.

    Weight loss/gain is far more complicated than just eating or burning x calories.
    But the human body is extremely complex.
    If you want to get technical, there is also some caloric burn from eating and digestion. Digestion of plants requires more energy than the digestion of simple carbs.
    And the calorie burn estimates from the website include what you would burn without exercise... so the estimates are quite a bit higher than they should be.
    And the calories for foods logged are an extremely rough estimate (1/2 cup strawberries... chopped finely? Large chunks? Puree? 10 grapes... large? Small?)
    The math is far from perfect, but it's a guideline. The main idea is that, for many people on this site, any weight loss is good weight loss--and a tremendous improvement in lifestyle as well.

    So I wouldn't get too caught up in numbers. Just don't stress--that releases cortisol, which causes a decreased digestive efficiency and causes a release of the hormone that causes hunger.... which further fudges up this numbers game. :tongue:
  • McKayMachina
    McKayMachina Posts: 2,670 Member
    Weight loss/gain is far more complicated than just eating or burning x calories.

    I beg to differ. The math checks out for me, every time so far. Why complicate a beautiful thing?

    :flowerforyou:
  • JeninBelgium
    JeninBelgium Posts: 804 Member
    also although we generally say calories and not kilocalories- it's not actually 9cals per gram of fat but 9kcals per gram of fat so that begs the question is it really 9000 clas: per gram or is this a rounded number from say 8,953 kcals/ gram or 9,114 per gram - which would make a difference and for alcohol is it really 7kcals or 6.9 or 7.2?

    making me need to google now :-)
  • ironmonkey
    ironmonkey Posts: 1
    Processed fats are not the same as fat cells. Fat tissue has cytoplasm, a nucleus, and fat that accounts for 85 percent.
    (9*28.35)(16*.85)=3470
  • JeninBelgium
    JeninBelgium Posts: 804 Member
    ok waaay too much information to post here but for a good explaination on this topic please see
    http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y5022E/y5022e04.htm

    in a nutshell not all fats are alike (nor carbs, nor proteins, etc) depending on the type/source of the fat etc and the mathematical model used to calculate the calories fat varies from about 8.37 to 9.02kclas/ gram
    protein .91-4.36 kcals/ gram carbs 2.48 to 4.07 (main facotr in this is the amount of digestible/fermentable fiber)
    alcohol seems to be 6.9 ish and not actually 7

    anyway the link is interesting reading but, as I said, far too long to post here :wink:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories