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

jodiecooks281
jodiecooks281 Posts: 22 Member
edited March 6 in Health and Weight Loss
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/
«13

Replies

  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    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.
  • nmandine1
    nmandine1 Posts: 10
    Wouldn't it be nice if it were true... :p
  • KaranRai5
    KaranRai5 Posts: 1
    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
  • perseverance14
    perseverance14 Posts: 1,363 Member
    edited October 2014
    It bothered me I had to get to the end see it was basically promoting a 10 carbs, 30 fat, 60 protein diet. I don't think there is a one size fits all diet. Some people do better on high protein, some do better as vegetarians, etc. I think everybody should do what works for them, also I don't agree with eating very low calorie other than to get out of obese range, it is not good for you and it can damage your body. I don't think comparisons made with doing this diet instead of eating 900-1000 calories a day are valid, I reject all of that.

    Eating consistently and reasonably healthy at a reasonable deficit (500 or less) and getting enough exercise to me is valid.

    I thought the whole article was just flawed, it was like, oh don't do this one extreme, do this other extreme instead because it is better. I did not find that helpful.
  • AllOutof_Bubblegum
    AllOutof_Bubblegum Posts: 3,646 Member
    Zoe Hardcombe is, in fact, a blithering idiot.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    I've always heard 3500 a WEEK not in a day. I think it would be pretty impossible to do in a day.
  • kamurray6
    kamurray6 Posts: 7 Member
    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.
  • harribeau2012
    harribeau2012 Posts: 644 Member
    AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »
    Zoe Hardcombe is, in fact, a blithering idiot.
    I do like to read a "blithering" it's been a while. Thank you x
  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    edited October 2014
    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?).
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    I have to laugh sorry...I checked some of the links and here are some quotes

    Eating less makes us want to eat more and/or do less. Doing more makes us want to eat more and/or do less. Neither eat less nor do more has worked, can work, or ever will work as a solution for the obesity epidemic.

    Don’t take my word for it. As Dr Robert Lustig says – you wouldn’t dream of giving your child beer or cola, but fruit juice is metabolised by the body in the same way. Or, as Gary Taubes says, “If you are overweight, fruit is not your friend.”

    Man is as evolutionary disposed to being sedentary as he is to gathering food. What man would have done, and what we should do today, is natural activity. Walk, talk, sing, dance, cook, clean and tend the land – that’s what we should do. Not pumping iron!

    And to top it off

    Here are her Qualifications

    Zoë is a qualified nutritionist with a Diploma in Diet & Nutrition and a Diploma in Clinical Weight Management, but she is first and foremost an obesity researcher. She works exclusively in the area of weight and obesity and reads, writes and talks about obesity as many hours as possible, seven days a week

    So basically she is trying to sell books and be a lecturer on tour getting money to talk to overweight people and give them more excuses.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    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.
  • arrrrjt
    arrrrjt Posts: 245 Member
    But how does she exercise so much when she talks about obesity as much as she can? Huh?!
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    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.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    I think she is standing in the background of every shot in FED UP. Seriously, The first sentence was BS, same for #2, and #3. Yes, this article had little to no value except it was somewhat amusing.
  • DiabolicalColossus
    DiabolicalColossus Posts: 219 Member
    edited October 2014
    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.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    edited October 2014
    DiabolicalColossus wrote: »
    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.

    I do...

    visit this thread

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10005140/true-or-false-a-calorie-is-a-calorie-is-a-calorie#latest

  • 50sFit
    50sFit Posts: 712 Member
    edited October 2014
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,151 Member
    In for the "a unit of measurement is not a unit of measurement" posts.
    9h3sulb866p7.gif
  • SrJoben
    SrJoben Posts: 484 Member
    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.
  • Branstin
    Branstin Posts: 2,320 Member
    Total BS and lied on Weight Watchers. WW never claimed or proved that sh$t.
  • missyme10
    missyme10 Posts: 38 Member
    I think it's true, and that's based on my own personal experience.

    I tracked my food daily and realised I maintained at 2200kcal a day.
    I then reduced to 1200kcal a day and lost 2lb a week consistently - this equivalent to 7000kcal.
    When I upped my calories to 1700 a day, I lost on average 1lb per week.

    The maths is bang on with me.

  • NewMeowLean
    NewMeowLean Posts: 58
    You need to spend 3500 kcal more than you consume to lose one pound of fat. Whether you do that in a day or a month is your choice. And calorie is a unit that measures energy. So one calorie is one calorie, same as one pound is one pound and one °C is one °C.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Read an article from that woman before, maybe even the same one. The nicest thing I could say about it is that she at least referenced studies. The worth of those studies is a different question and the fact she handwaves away all problems people in the comments had about her sources is a red flag as they say.
  • funchords
    funchords Posts: 413 Member
    There is a connection between the thyroid and the speed of ones metabolism, and thyroid isn't the only factor. For these people, 3500 calories is not a pound.

    But for most of us, 3500 calories is a pound is probably a decent generality. It's useful even if it isn't perfectly factual.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    funchords wrote: »
    There is a connection between the thyroid and the speed of ones metabolism, and thyroid isn't the only factor. For these people, 3500 calories is not a pound.

    But for most of us, 3500 calories is a pound is probably a decent generality. It's useful even if it isn't perfectly factual.

    How does the speed of ones metabolism negate math?

    3500 is commonly referred to as a lb of fat not weight.

  • DiabolicalColossus
    DiabolicalColossus Posts: 219 Member
    Special people and their mighty metabolisms can overcome pesky math on a whim.
  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »
    Zoe Hardcombe is, in fact, a blithering idiot.
    Yeah. Just selling a low carb diet. There's nothing interesting to see here.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    A 3500 calorie deficit does not guarantee a one pound of fat loss due to the number of variables in play as the human body. Of course, the 3500 calories for one pound concept is a guideline not an absolute law of nature.
  • BramageOMG
    BramageOMG Posts: 319 Member
    One of the "Biggest Loser" winners averaged 1lb per day for over 100 days. She got a lot of heat for it... but she did not die. I don't know if you blew back up.. I lost 60 faster than people say is "acceptable".. don't really care. Dr said: Nice Job
This discussion has been closed.

Categories