brassyblonde900
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 331
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
No you are not shallow, ever since I went from, a size 24 to a size 10, I am 19 again.
Absolutely clothes mad, like a 19yr old.
No you are not shallow, ever since I went from, a size 24 to a size 10, I am 19 again.Included: Sam Feltham as an example of CICO (Psycho? Good one, Zoe). Insulin, glucagon and alcohol.
Why we do not disappear when in calorie deficit, BMR and why it does matter.
Not included: Where Dr. Harcombe bought that gorgeous dress (Yes, you can call me shallow).
Oh Well Done!No you are not shallow, ever since I went from, a size 24 to a size 10, I am 19 again.
Absolutely clothes mad, like a 19yr old.
Think we'd all like to be trivial in this case!!!No you are not shallow, ever since I went from, a size 24 to a size 10, I am 19 again.
Absolutely clothes mad, like a 19yr old.
Kettles and Calories with Zoe Harcombe. About 40 mins from PHC.
Someone asked just recently how a unit of measurment could be 'wrong', I think it may have been @Diakat (sorry if it wasn't you).
What a great presentation - thank you for sharing!
Different fats have different structures and produce slightly different numbers of calories per gram - 9 calories per gram is just an approximation and there is no 'missing 54g'.Check out the missing 54g.
Different fats have different structures and produce slightly different numbers of calories per gram - 9 calories per gram is just an approximation and there is no 'missing 54g'.
This article https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat#section2 cites Max Wishnofsky as the originator of the 3,500 calories /pound figure in 1958. It also explains that the approximation, whilst reasonable in the short term, does not hold in the long term because the body changes as weight loss occurs. There are 2 links to calculators which do take these kind of changes into account, one of which is here:- https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-...behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
The exact calorific value of a pound of fat is not really important. The point is, that although you could burn a pound of fat in a laboratory and find out how many calories are generated, this does not mean that eating an "excess" of that amount of calories would lead to a gain of a pound of fat, or a "deficit" of that amount of calories would mean a loss of a pound of fat. There are several reasons, including the fact that Basic Metabolic Rate varies and food needs energy to digest, that means that the things don't equate. Suppose I grew a marrow and it contained a litre of water, if I watered it with a litre of water it would not exactly double in size and then with another litre of water, exactly triple in size and so on. Some of the water would be wasted, some would go to build other parts of the plant, and the genetic makeup of the plant would affect the size of the marrows.I'm no mathematician but wrt the 54g doesn't that rise with each passing 3,500 calories used? i.e 7000 calories = 108g and so on.
The exact calorific value of a pound of fat is not really important. The point is, that although you could burn a pound of fat in a laboratory and find out how many calories are generated, this does not mean that eating an "excess" of that amount of calories would lead to a gain of a pound of fat, or a "deficit" of that amount of calories would mean a loss of a pound of fat. There are several reasons, including the fact that Basic Metabolic Rate varies and food needs energy to digest, that means that the things don't equate. Suppose I grew a marrow and it contained a litre of water, if I watered it with a litre of water it would not exactly double in size and then with another litre of water, exactly triple in size and so on. Some of the water would be wasted, some would go to build other parts of the plant, and the genetic makeup of the plant would affect the size of the marrows.
If it was an exact figure, the small 'error' would accumulate in the way you describe. However, it is a rough average and differs slightly between people (as the exact fats stored depend on which fats are eaten in the diet) and even between different locations within the same person. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2756915I'm no mathematician but wrt the 54g doesn't that rise with each passing 3,500 calories used? i.e 7000 calories = 108g and so on.
If it was an exact figure, the small 'error' would accumulate in the way you describe. However, it is a rough average and differs slightly between people (as the exact fats stored depend on which fats are eaten in the diet) and even between different locations within the same person. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2756915
The difference between 3,436 and 3,752 calories (the estimated range of energy produced by a pound of fat) is much smaller than the errors people make when trying to weigh foods and calculate their calorie intake so 3,500 as a rule of thumb is not unreasonable .
People aren't very good at estimating how many calories they take in and calorie requirements are generally a 'ball-park' figure - it varies depending on body composition, exercise, gut flora, ambient temperature etc. I suspect people may have similar difficulties in estimating the number of carbs they take in.So, does it follow that being ultra vigilant about the numbers of calories in your food is just as approximate as the calories you 'burn'? We sometimes hear from members who come across as obsessive about calorific values and in at least one case I can think of a member who places far more importance on calories than on carbs.
The calories and carbs in food is also approximate, particularly in fresh food. Meat may have more or less fat content, fruit can be more or less ripe, vegetables can have more or less water or be more or less fibrous. Most nutritional tables only have a generic name for foods, they will say "apple" for example, not a very sour Granny Smith or a very sweet Golden Delicious.So, does it follow that being ultra vigilant about the numbers of calories in your food is just as approximate as the calories you 'burn'? We sometimes hear from members who come across as obsessive about calorific values and in at least one case I can think of a member who places far more importance on calories than on carbs.
The calories and carbs in food is also approximate, particularly in fresh food. Meat may have more or less fat content, fruit can be more or less ripe, vegetables can have more or less water or be more or less fibrous. Most nutritional tables only have a generic name for foods, they will say "apple" for example, not a very sour Granny Smith or a very sweet Golden Delicious.
However, despite the inaccuracy the figures are still a good guide in comparing foods, whatever the exact percentage of carbs in turnips the fact that it is about a tenth of that in potatoes is very useful.
People aren't very good at estimating how many calories they take in and calorie requirements are generally a 'ball-park' figure - it varies depending on body composition, exercise, gut flora, ambient temperature etc. I suspect people may have similar difficulties in estimating the number of carbs they take in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?