Burn 3500 calories a day to lose 1lb..........Fact or fiction???

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.

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 related

Zoe Hardcombe is, in fact, a blithering idiot.

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.

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?).

kgeyser wrote: »

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.

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 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.

kamurray6 wrote: »

I am no scientist, but common sense tells me that all calories are not created equal.

I don't even know what to say to this.

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.

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.