# Weight loss question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 14, 2009, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962 "2009-07-14T07:47:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![JerseyFrank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bcef8e/32.png) [@JerseyFrank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerseyFrank)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/21 "2009-07-16T15:06:56Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > You can? How? Weigh the food on the moon, eat it in Death Valley. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/22 "2009-07-16T15:46:02Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > [The calorie delusion: Why food labels are wrong | New Scientist](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.200-the-calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are-wrong.html) > > Might find this article relevant. > > Otara Pretty much covers in more detail what has been flushed out over and over and over again and over again. A good read, but I believe we have not been able to dodge a common theme in health/nutrition: Eat your fruits/grains/veggies, lean meats/fishes. Mix it up. Keep and eat food fresh, and eat it as close to its natural state as possible, and you will eat less calories because the food is denser and heavier. You won’t even need to count calories when you have a diverse, filling, fiber-rich diet chock full of protein and minimal fat. I love the studies… I love the science… but K.I.S.S (keep it simple, stupid). ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/23 "2009-07-16T18:38:44Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > You can? How? A pound of pure protein is about 1800 calories. A pound of pure fat is about 4000 calories. That’s as energy dense as you’re going to get, as far as I know. Either way, you get vastly varying numbers for weight to calorie value among different types of food. The really dense [protein](http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-protein-shake-powder-i46) powder I mentioned before, which is apparently less dense than fat, is about 1877 calories for a pound according to my calculator. A pound of something much less dense, like watermelon, is even fewer calories per pound. So how can someone say “3500 calories = 1 pound”? ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/24 "2009-07-16T18:53:05Z")
3500 calories is enough to create one pound of human fat. So, if a given chunk of food you consume can be 100% (no fiber) broken down (and miraculously without energy being expelled in the digestion, including chewing), and 100% wasted by the body (never burned for energy), and said food weighs exactly one pound on a scale prior to consumption, and contains no water (hence my 100% broken down comment), then in a perfect, controlled experiment it should result in an instant weight gain of 1lb as it sits in you ready for digestion, and then 100% is shuttled away by the body and stored as fat. Of course, to gain a pound of body fat, you need to eat considerably more than a pound of food, because of the NET effect. To gain a pound of WEIGHT, you just need to swallow (or simply hold in your hand) a pound of food (or rocks, for that matter). If you eat 2200 calories (on average) and burn 2200 per day on average, you have a net weight gain of zero. It has to play out over time, due to variations. An AVERAGE is not a predictor. Today, you might burn 2400 cals, and tomorrow you might burn 2000, and your consumption (and wieght) might vary. But over time, the averages will tell a story. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/25 "2009-07-16T20:13:12Z")
> [@bienville](#): > > How do the benefits of running compare with the benefits of walking? > > I do about 30/35 miles a week, but most of it walking (half of which is going down a very steep hill, making it neccessary for the second half to be going UP a very steep hill). Actually the slower you run/walk, the more inefficient you are and, thus, lose more weight than a more efficient runner. The rule of thumb is one mile equals 100 calories, but of course there are so many variables. That’s just a rule of thumb. Equating work done with calories, if you run/walk four miles an hour (15 minute pace), you will expend slightly more calories than someone who runs the four miles in half that time. The difference, however, is minimal, and the faster runner needs less time to do the same work. If he runs for an hour, as the hypothetical “you” did, he would actually use up twice as many calories, having performed the work of eight miles. That is just considering the weight factor. Running faster gets your heart rate up higher is cardiovascularly better than running slower or walking. The fastest way for cardiovascular improvement is to do interval workouts. Theoretically, one’s maximum heart rate can be calculated by taking 80% of 220 minus your age, but that is just for unfit individuals. That cannot be applied to fit persons. I am 71 now and have got my HR up to over 160 recently, and it wasn’t too long ago that I could get it up to 200. If you do intervals or speed work by way of _fartlek_, the time between the faster running is the “interval” and that is the time your body is able to recover somewhat and build up your cardiovascular system. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/26 "2009-07-16T20:25:56Z")
If you have a given amount of time to exercise, opt for running. You’ll burn more calories. Your heart will be stronger, too. This is how the world operates. People have a given amount of time to accomplish something, like exercise, so in the real world, running is better exercise. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/27 "2009-07-16T20:47:36Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Either way, you get vastly varying numbers for weight to calorie value among different types of food. The really dense [protein](http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-protein-shake-powder-i46) powder I mentioned before, which is apparently less dense than fat, is about 1877 calories for a pound according to my calculator. What’s density have to do with it? A pound of pure protein is a pound of pure protein no matter how dense it is. Your number 1877 is very close to my number 1800. Rounding errors on either of our parts can account for the difference. And this is not even close to your claim of eating something less than one pound causing you to gain a pound. You’ve only got a half-pound of fat gain there, if the calories all end up being digested and stored as excess fat. > [@](#): > > A pound of something much less dense, like watermelon, is even fewer calories per pound. So how can someone say “3500 calories = 1 pound”? Perhaps this is the confusion. 3500 calories is one pound of _fat_. If you gain a pound of fat, you’ve accumulated an excess of about 3500 calories that didn’t go towards your metabolism. As for why it’s 3500 calories, that’s just what it is. You know how calories are measured in a laboratory by weighing, burning, taking temperature of water, etc.? Well, one gram of fat contains 9 (kilo)calories of energy. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/28 "2009-07-16T20:59:41Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I’m using the daily plate on livestrong, I assume this is an equivalent site. I believe Sparkpeople is more robust, with Fitness Trackers, message boards, and blogs, not to mention articles on fitness, nutrition, and wellness. Of course, if you’re just using Daily Plate for nutrition info, then it’s enough…I’ve hopped on there to look for info on restaurants. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962/29 "2009-07-16T21:24:45Z")
You will lose the most belly fat by exercising intensely in any sport (_Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise_, November 2008). Three groups of overweight, middle-aged women who suffered from Metabolic Syndrome completed 16-week programs of: (1) continuing their existing levels of activity with no change; (2) low-intensity exercise training five times a week at a level that did not cause breathing hard; and (3) high-intensity exercise training with three days a week hard enough to become short of breath and two days a week at an intensity not becoming short of breath. Cat scan X rays and air displacement plethysmography studies showed that the high intensity exercisers lost belly fat, both underneath their skin and inside their bellies. The low-intensity exercisers lost no measurable belly fat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weight-loss-question/502962.md?page=1)