Losing 1 lb or more in 24 hours

"To add to that, there is approximately 3500 calories in 1 pound of fat. If you were to lose that 1 pound of fat in 24 hours, you would have to burn at least 7000 calories MORE than what you ate. For the average person, that would be more than 10 hours of moderately hard exercise... If you think you lost a pound of fat, think again... "

Just wondering why I would have to burn 7000 more than I eat to lose one pound. That does not make sense to me.

It's from what I said earlier in the post: When you workout, at most, 50% of the calories you burn are from fat. 50% of 7000 is 3500, which = 1 lb of fat.

I don't believe MFP agrees with you on this part. They assign a burn of 3,500 per week over what a person has eaten to equal loss of one pound. I am not a nutritionist or other expert, but everything I have read supports this...including personal experience. That being said, the rest of your post is spot-on. I even put on muscle fast (especially for a girl) but 1 pound in a day...absolutely no way. Now if steroids are thrown in there...idk...no experience there.

"To add to that, there is approximately 3500 calories in 1 pound of fat. If you were to lose that 1 pound of fat in 24 hours, you would have to burn at least 7000 calories MORE than what you ate. For the average person, that would be more than 10 hours of moderately hard exercise... If you think you lost a pound of fat, think again... "

Just wondering why I would have to burn 7000 more than I eat to lose one pound. That does not make sense to me.

It's from what I said earlier in the post: When you workout, at most, 50% of the calories you burn are from fat. 50% of 7000 is 3500, which = 1 lb of fat.

I don't believe MFP agrees with you on this part. They assign a burn of 3,500 per week over what a person has eaten to equal loss of one pound. I am not a nutritionist or other expert, but everything I have read supports this...including personal experience. That being said, the rest of your post is spot-on. I even put on muscle fast (especially for a girl) but 1 pound in a day...absolutely no way. Now if steroids are thrown in there...idk...no experience there.

I will agree with this for one reason - they tell you have a deficit of 3500 calories *over a period of 1 week.* How your body processes calroies over an extended period of time is very different from how it reacts when it needs extra calories right away. If you burned off those extra 3500 calories in 12 hours, as opposed to 7 days, you would not lose a pound of fat. It would burn off your glycogen stores first, then it will start eating away your muscles before it started to eat away your fat.

If it is a long, slow burn, over a week or longer, then your body will have time to digest the calories slower, and then it will target fat first, because it knows it needs the muscles to function properly. There's no immediate need for the calories, so it can take it's time at breaking down the cells into usable energy.

Hmm...What happens if there is not enough glycogen stored? I am thinking "Biggest Loser" type setting...low calorie intake and high levels of activity. With the low calorie intake, the glycogen stores cannot be adequately replenished, right? See, if my high school/college biology classes would have gotten into this stuff...maybe, just maybe, I'd have been more interested in the sciences...but I digress.