http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/men4060/Pages/beatthebulge.aspx

"You need to burn 3,500 caleries to loose 500g of body fat."

Um... really? I would have thought that the amount of energy you need to 
burn would be related to the amount of energy you consume in the first 
place... no?

Post a reply to this message

> "You need to burn 3,500 caleries to loose 500g of body fat."
>
> Um... really? I would have thought that the amount of energy you need to 
> burn would be related to the amount of energy you consume in the first 
> place... no?

I don't think so, burning 3500 calories is burning 3500 calories, which 
apparently will make you lose 500g of fat.  Whether you then immediately 
consume 3500 calories and put it back on is another matter :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> "You need to burn 3,500 caleries to loose 500g of body fat."
>>
>> Um... really? I would have thought that the amount of energy you need 
>> to burn would be related to the amount of energy you consume in the 
>> first place... no?
> 
> I don't think so, burning 3500 calories is burning 3500 calories, which 
> apparently will make you lose 500g of fat.  Whether you then immediately 
> consume 3500 calories and put it back on is another matter :-)

LOL! WTF?

That's pretty special, right there. And you're telling me you engineer 
stuff for a living? ;-)

That's almost as broken as the logic in Braniac's weight experiment. 
They got a girl, weighed her, and then made her eat a quarter pounder. 
Afterwards, she was less than a quarter of a pound heavier. This is 
because of "the energy used by eating the burger". And not because, say, 
1/4 lb is THE UNCOOKED WEIGHT OF THE BURGER or anything like that... :-P

Post a reply to this message

> That's pretty special, right there. And you're telling me you engineer 
> stuff for a living? ;-)
>
> That's almost as broken as the logic in Braniac's weight experiment. They 
> got a girl, weighed her, and then made her eat a quarter pounder. 
> Afterwards, she was less than a quarter of a pound heavier. This is 
> because of "the energy used by eating the burger". And not because, say, 
> 1/4 lb is THE UNCOOKED WEIGHT OF THE BURGER or anything like that... :-P

You're talking about the instant weight change due to the mass of food. 
Compare consuming 3kg of water with 3kg of cheese.  Both will cause you to 
instantly "put on" 3kg, but guess which one will cause your weight to be 
higher (by 500g per 3500 calories apparently) a few days later?

Post a reply to this message

>> That's almost as broken as the logic in Braniac's weight experiment. 
>> They got a girl, weighed her, and then made her eat a quarter pounder. 
>> Afterwards, she was less than a quarter of a pound heavier. This is 
>> because of "the energy used by eating the burger". And not because, 
>> say, 1/4 lb is THE UNCOOKED WEIGHT OF THE BURGER or anything like 
>> that... :-P
> 
> You're talking about the instant weight change due to the mass of food. 

Indeed yes. You'd think eating a 1/4 lb burger would make you 1/4 lb 
heavier. But it didn't in their experiment.

> Compare consuming 3kg of water with 3kg of cheese.  Both will cause you 
> to instantly "put on" 3kg, but guess which one will cause your weight to 
> be higher (by 500g per 3500 calories apparently) a few days later?

Indeed.

Although... 3kg is a hell of a lot of water... or cheese, for that 
matter... wow. I wonder if you can actually eat that much at once?

Post a reply to this message

> Indeed yes. You'd think eating a 1/4 lb burger would make you 1/4 lb 
> heavier. But it didn't in their experiment.

I expect that your weight would go up approximately by 1/4 lb, give or take 
a tiny amount for sweat evaporation etc.  Any larger differences are 
probably just measurement error, what equipment or method can accurately 
measure changes of a few grams when weighing 80 kg (that's 0.001% accuracy) 
?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Indeed yes. You'd think eating a 1/4 lb burger would make you 1/4 lb 
>> heavier. But it didn't in their experiment.
> 
> I expect that your weight would go up approximately by 1/4 lb, give or 
> take a tiny amount for sweat evaporation etc.  Any larger differences 
> are probably just measurement error, what equipment or method can 
> accurately measure changes of a few grams when weighing 80 kg (that's 
> 0.001% accuracy) ?

As I say, a "1/4 burger" only weighs 1/4 lb BEFORE you cook it. Also, 
she didn't just eat the burger; it was in a bun.

But sure, knowing Braniac, I doubt the highest standards of scientific 
measurement were employed. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> As I say, a "1/4 burger" only weighs 1/4 lb BEFORE you cook it. Also, she 
> didn't just eat the burger; it was in a bun.

I assumed they would actually weigh the food just before it was eaten rather 
than rely on the name...

> But sure, knowing Braniac, I doubt the highest standards of scientific 
> measurement were employed. ;-)

I doubt you can actually buy a weighing machine with enough accuracy for 
that.  The most expensive medical one I could find that went up to 100 kg 
only offered an accuracy of 150 g, which is pretty useless when the burger 
weighs less than that.  I just don't think a machine that can weigh up to 
100 kg is practically possible with an accuracy of 1 g, the tolerances 
involved in manufacturing and calibration would be insane!

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> As I say, a "1/4 burger" only weighs 1/4 lb BEFORE you cook it. Also, 
>> she didn't just eat the burger; it was in a bun.
> 
> I assumed they would actually weigh the food just before it was eaten 
> rather than rely on the name...

Why would they do that? This is Braniac! If it says 1/4 lb on the box, 
it must be 1/4 lb, right? :-D

>> But sure, knowing Braniac, I doubt the highest standards of scientific 
>> measurement were employed. ;-)
> 
> I doubt you can actually buy a weighing machine with enough accuracy for 
> that.  The most expensive medical one I could find that went up to 100 
> kg only offered an accuracy of 150 g, which is pretty useless when the 
> burger weighs less than that.  I just don't think a machine that can 
> weigh up to 100 kg is practically possible with an accuracy of 1 g, the 
> tolerances involved in manufacturing and calibration would be insane!

You're probably right about that...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> scott wrote:
> >> "You need to burn 3,500 caleries to loose 500g of body fat."
> >>
> >> Um... really? I would have thought that the amount of energy you need
> >> to burn would be related to the amount of energy you consume in the
> >> first place... no?
> >
> > I don't think so, burning 3500 calories is burning 3500 calories, which
> > apparently will make you lose 500g of fat.  Whether you then immediately
> > consume 3500 calories and put it back on is another matter :-)
>
> LOL! WTF?
>
> That's pretty special, right there. And you're telling me you engineer
> stuff for a living? ;-)
>
> That's almost as broken as the logic in Braniac's weight experiment.
> They got a girl, weighed her, and then made her eat a quarter pounder.
> Afterwards, she was less than a quarter of a pound heavier. This is
> because of "the energy used by eating the burger". And not because, say,
> 1/4 lb is THE UNCOOKED WEIGHT OF THE BURGER or anything like that... :-P

What's wrong?

A calorie is a unit of chemical energy.  Whether the assertion makes sense
depends on the energy density of body fat.  The value is pretty close to what
I've heard before.   He's even got the psychology right-- when I've all of a
sudden started up a major exercise program, I'm sure the first week I've
consumed many more calories than I was the week prior.

Post a reply to this message