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