 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible 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?
Keep in mind the "Calories" they talk about are actually Kilocalories.
so 3,500 * 1,000 or 3,500,000 ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Keep in mind the "Calories" they talk about are actually Kilocalories.
> so 3,500 * 1,000 or 3,500,000 ...
Is "calorie" actually an unambiguously defined unit? I was under the
impression that there are several slightly varying definitions for it.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Is "calorie" actually an unambiguously defined unit?
No, it's just that Americans, once again, cannot use the same units of
measurement as Europeans. Thus what's "kilocalorie" here is "calorie"
there, just for the sake of creating confusion.
(I wonder what "kilocalorie" means in the US. Is it the same as a
megacalorie here?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2009 13:25:08 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Is "calorie" actually an unambiguously defined unit?
>
> No, it's just that Americans, once again, cannot use the same units of
>measurement as Europeans. Thus what's "kilocalorie" here is "calorie"
>there, just for the sake of creating confusion.
>
When talking about food we, in the UK, use calorie for Kilocalorie as well. When
talking about heat energy, those of us of a certain age, use Therm or BTU. :P
> (I wonder what "kilocalorie" means in the US. Is it the same as a
>megacalorie here?)
Meow LOL ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-4-2009 12:49, Invisible 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
That refers to a very classical experiment where someone measure his
weight while sitting on a platform for some time and became lighter all
the time. That was the first time they got a clue that perhaps we are
breathing out CO2 and that takes some weight. I can not find a reference
unfortunately.
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
>
> That refers to a very classical experiment where someone measure his
> weight while sitting on a platform for some time and became lighter all
> the time. That was the first time they got a clue that perhaps we are
> breathing out CO2 and that takes some weight. I can not find a reference
> unfortunately.
It strikes me that this would take a really, *really* long time to
happen though.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-4-2009 23:30, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> That refers to a very classical experiment where someone measure his
>> weight while sitting on a platform for some time and became lighter
>> all the time. That was the first time they got a clue that perhaps we
>> are breathing out CO2 and that takes some weight. I can not find a
>> reference unfortunately.
>
> It strikes me that this would take a really, *really* long time to
> happen though.
>
He sat there, I think, for a couple of days, it was noticeable much
sooner. The platform and the food (and the toilet, these were other
days) were on one arm of a scale and counterweights on the other.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I doubt you can actually buy a weighing machine with enough accuracy for
> that.
I'm sure you can. I've even seen a calorimeter the size of a room that could
measure (for example) the number of calories it took to stand up from being
seated in a chair. (Measuring the heat change in the room, basically.)
It wouldn't be cheap, but i'm sure there are scales that will measure a ton
of something to the gram. It's not hard to do, just expensive.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> No, it's just that Americans, once again, cannot use the same units of
> measurement as Europeans. Thus what's "kilocalorie" here is "calorie"
> there, just for the sake of creating confusion.
My understanding is that a Calorie is one thousand calories. I.e., that
technically the capitalization of the word makes a difference. Stupid.
The calorie is a metric unit, IIRC, raising one gram of water one degree C.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> No, it's just that Americans, once again, cannot use the same units of
> measurement as Europeans. Thus what's "kilocalorie" here is "calorie"
> there, just for the sake of creating confusion.
>
> (I wonder what "kilocalorie" means in the US. Is it the same as a
> megacalorie here?)
They tried to switch us to metric. We kept our confusing customary
measurements, because why on earth would I want to measure out 14.8ml of
sugar...?
(I'm being facetious...)
My dad got all agitated when I was describing the size of something in
mm instead of inches... The item was only about 1 or 2 mm in length. He
couldn't handle mm. Well, err... less than 1/16 of an inch, I suppose..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> wrote:
> My dad got all agitated when I was describing the size of something in
> mm instead of inches... The item was only about 1 or 2 mm in length. He
> couldn't handle mm. Well, err... less than 1/16 of an inch, I suppose..
You could always get really malicious about it. I'm just waiting for the
opportunity to quote a figure in attoparsecs per microfortnight. It turns out
this is about 1.0043 inches per second, if I recall correctly. Just waiting.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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?
In general, this is just the energy density of fat. It doesn't mean that if you
run 35 miles or so, you will loose one pound of fat. Aside from hydration,
there are a bunch of other things going on. The relative proportion of
carbohydrate and fat stores that you burn changes with the type and duration of
the exercise, although it's all interconnected anyway. For the most part, you
burn mostly fat in your day-to-day activity, but once you start exercising, you
go through a number of different phases. I won't pretend to know all of the
details, but the point is that this figure doesn't really tell you much about
weight gain/loss.
In my own experience, I find that if I sit around all day, I don't really need
to eat much for a couple days, and if I run quite a bit, I get really hungry
for at least a couple days. So even if I burn an extra 3500 calories, it seems
that I tend to make up for that anyway.
If you systematically deprive yourself of a net 3500 calories over the course of
a week, you might find yourself a little more sluggish, lowering your metabolism
a bit, ultimately coming closer to breaking even anyway.
In short, put the computer to sleep, enjoy the outdoors when you can, and don't
worry much about 3500 this or 500 that. :-)
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-4-2009 5:09, triple_r wrote:
> Mike Raiford <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> wrote:
>> My dad got all agitated when I was describing the size of something in
>> mm instead of inches... The item was only about 1 or 2 mm in length. He
>> couldn't handle mm. Well, err... less than 1/16 of an inch, I suppose..
>
> You could always get really malicious about it. I'm just waiting for the
> opportunity to quote a figure in attoparsecs per microfortnight. It turns out
> this is about 1.0043 inches per second, if I recall correctly. Just waiting.
>
> - Ricky
>
1.2148 inch per second
see also:
http://catb.org/jargon/html/A/attoparsec.html
http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/microfortnight.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18.04.2009 05:40, triple_r nous fit lire :
> In short, put the computer to sleep,
No, launch a good rendering instead. That's what povray is made for: locking your
computer
so that you
> enjoy the outdoors when you can, and don't
> worry much about 3500 this or 500 that. :-)
>
> - Ricky
>
Now 3500 KCalories per day is a lot.
But the real energy should be in joules.
For me, it's about 10 mega joules a day.
8 is low, 12+ is for hard work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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?
A certain amount of body fat is water. When the fat is gained, the
extra water is retained as well. When the fat is burned off, the water
is released.
This is why fat has 9 calories per gram, but eating 3500 calories of fat
(which is less than 400 grams of fat) causes you to gain 500 grams of
weight. The 9 calories per gram figure reflects the actual energy in
the food.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 1.2148 inch per second
I get "1.00432766 inches per second"
http://www.google.com/search?q=attoparsec+per+1e-6+fortnight+in+inches+per+second&btnG=Search
(Huh. I guess microfortnight isn't a commonly accepted unit.)
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 18.04.2009 05:40, triple_r nous fit lire :
>
> > In short, put the computer to sleep,
>
> No, launch a good rendering instead. That's what povray is made for: locking your
computer
My most profound apologies. I stand corrected.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-4-2009 15:50, triple_r wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> 1.2148 inch per second
>
> I get "1.00432766 inches per second"
Ouch. You are absolutely right. For some reason I forgot the
microforthnight per second factor. I'd like to blame that on it being
very late at night, being drunk, stoned, or ill, but none of these apply :(
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=attoparsec+per+1e-6+fortnight+in+inches+per+second&btnG=Search
>
> (Huh. I guess microfortnight isn't a commonly accepted unit.)
I wouldn't know why.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
