Is 3500 calories really 1 pound?

The other thread, which is more about exercise, reminded me to ask about
this.

I've always based my CPP (calories per pound per day metabolism equations)
on the "given" that 3500 calories is about equal to 1 pound of weight loss.

But...where did that figure come from?

doug

Doug Lerner wrote:

The other thread, which is more about exercise, reminded me to ask about
this.

I've always based my CPP (calories per pound per day metabolism equations)
on the "given" that 3500 calories is about equal to 1 pound of weight loss.

But...where did that figure come from?

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=555411

Interesting. That note, though, is basing the argument on 1 lb of fat and
multiplying out at the rate of 9 calories per gram. The author gets 4046
calories that way, not 3500 calories.

But... even so... Isn't that comparing apples and oranges? We aren't eating
our own body fat. I mean, it just seems that we are comparing two different
things that way.

And if somehow they are the same thing (I need to see an explanation of why
that is so) I need to see some further explanation about why it isn't 4046
calories per pound rather than 3500 calories per pound.

doug



On 1/1/06 8:36 AM, in article ,
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote:

Doug Lerner wrote:

The other thread, which is more about exercise, reminded me to ask about
this.

I've always based my CPP (calories per pound per day metabolism equations)
on the "given" that 3500 calories is about equal to 1 pound of weight loss.

But...where did that figure come from?

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=555411

Doug Lerner wrote:

And if somehow they are the same thing (I need to see an explanation of why
that is so) I need to see some further explanation about why it isn't 4046
calories per pound rather than 3500 calories per pound.

My point in posting the link was that it just seems to be one of those
"common knowledge" things that's floating around without a real source
and you probably aren't going to figure out exactly where it came from.

But if you really want to try, get googling.

On 1/1/06 10:17 AM, in article
, "The Queen of Cans and Jars"
wrote:

Doug Lerner wrote:

And if somehow they are the same thing (I need to see an explanation of why
that is so) I need to see some further explanation about why it isn't 4046
calories per pound rather than 3500 calories per pound.

My point in posting the link was that it just seems to be one of those
"common knowledge" things that's floating around without a real source
and you probably aren't going to figure out exactly where it came from.

But if you really want to try, get googling.

I might do that.

The reason I mention it is because the equations that lead us to believe
that we need 10 or 12 or whatever calories per pound per day to lose weight
depend on that critical constant.

doug

Doug Lerner wrote:

On 1/1/06 10:17 AM, in article
, "The Queen of Cans and Jars"
wrote:

Doug Lerner wrote:

And if somehow they are the same thing (I need to see an explanation of why
that is so) I need to see some further explanation about why it isn't 4046
calories per pound rather than 3500 calories per pound.

My point in posting the link was that it just seems to be one of those
"common knowledge" things that's floating around without a real source
and you probably aren't going to figure out exactly where it came from.

But if you really want to try, get googling.

I might do that.

The reason I mention it is because the equations that lead us to believe
that we need 10 or 12 or whatever calories per pound per day to lose weight
depend on that critical constant.

Ah, right. Gotcha.

None of it is written in stone, though. Everyone's mileage is going to
vary. (And trying to nail everything down to the last calorie is, I
think, counterproductive.) Alas, even the best-tuned bodies don't
function with the precision of scientific equipment.

On 1/1/06 11:08 AM, in article ,
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote:

Alas, even the best-tuned bodies don't
function with the precision of scientific equipment.

Not even mine.

doug

Amen, Well said !

--
Will~

"... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause."

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Lerner wrote:

On 1/1/06 10:17 AM, in article
, "The Queen of Cans and
Jars"
wrote:

Doug Lerner wrote:

And if somehow they are the same thing (I need to see an explanation
of why
that is so) I need to see some further explanation about why it isn't
4046
calories per pound rather than 3500 calories per pound.

My point in posting the link was that it just seems to be one of those
"common knowledge" things that's floating around without a real source
and you probably aren't going to figure out exactly where it came
from.

But if you really want to try, get googling.

I might do that.

The reason I mention it is because the equations that lead us to believe
that we need 10 or 12 or whatever calories per pound per day to lose
weight
depend on that critical constant.

Ah, right. Gotcha.

None of it is written in stone, though. Everyone's mileage is going to
vary. (And trying to nail everything down to the last calorie is, I
think, counterproductive.) Alas, even the best-tuned bodies don't
function with the precision of scientific equipment.

Doug Lerner wrote:
And if somehow they are the same thing (I need to see an explanation of why
that is so) I need to see some further explanation about why it isn't 4046
calories per pound rather than 3500 calories per pound.

This might be of interest:
http://www.tinajuanfitness.info/articles/111803.htm


joanne

That is indeed an interesting and informative article. Thanks!

But... somehow the information about a "pound of body fat" still leaves me
feeling like some point is missing.

In particular, it seems to just show what the caloric value is of a pound of
stored body fat IF YOU ATE THAT FAT (ugh).

I still don't see the connection between that and the foods you eat in order
to add that fat. I mean I suppose I loosely do, but it still seems like some
logical leap is being taken that both are the same when it somehow doesn't
seem clear they are.

Oh well, I guess if they are they are.

doug



On 1/2/06 3:57 AM, in article
, "joanne"
wrote:


Doug Lerner wrote:
And if somehow they are the same thing (I need to see an explanation of why
that is so) I need to see some further explanation about why it isn't 4046
calories per pound rather than 3500 calories per pound.

This might be of interest:
http://www.tinajuanfitness.info/articles/111803.htm


joanne