Is there seriously only 3500 calories in 1lb of fat?

Fat also contains large amounts of water, which is very heavy.

To expand on this, you can think of the actual fat as more of a framework, and the water fills it in and bulks it out.

The only way that 140g of food could have enough calories to add a third of a pound of weight would be for it to be 140g of fat. Nothing else has the calorie density. That's not a chocolate bar, that's a freaking lard bar.

a 140g cadbury bar (maybe its 250) is around 1100 calories

its more wrong then correct

brainlet.

>no candy bar that's 140g and over 1000 calories
I didn't really bother to check, I just assumed he meant "if I eat 33% of a pound K-cal in chocolate, then I'll gain 1/3 of a pound?"

>Calls someone an idiot and then proceeds to get REKT by

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

see . you're making the assumption that all chocolate is created equal. like, a bag of mini twix bite garbage is over 140g, and is about 1000 calories, and theres certainly way more calorie dense shit than twix.

Your body is not 100% efficient. If you consume 3500 excess calories, it can't all be converted into fat because that conversion process requires energy. A lot of it. Using the 10% rule (between trophic levels on the food chain), only 350 of those calories would make their way into stored fat.

>samefags and then gets btfo by
AHAHAHAHA. stay mad, brainlet.

Thats more or less what I'm getting at.
In the same train of thought, does this mean I'd have to eat at a 300 kcal deficit for 4 days to lose the same amount of weight?

All assuming perfect conditions

Do you have a specific one in mind when you say that?
I'm looking at their site now and haven't seen any that make it to 1000 yet.

That trophic bit isn't about metabolism (although there is some loss in the digestion process), its largely about the energy expenditure needed to acquire food.

Humans don't really do that anymore.

Essentially yes.

As another expansion on this idea, if you want to see how much of the weight of fat is made up of the stuff that actually comes from calories, dehydrate it. Take some butter or something and boil it down to a powder. Compare the weight before and after.

Not every single calorie over your tde gets converted into fat. This is untrue.

What happens to it then?

You're probably right.

The only reason I didn't make that assumption is I'm having a hard time understanding what OP thinks is ridiculous exactly.

Like I can see how someone doing bad math can think one candy bar being 1/3 pound is ridiculous, but 1100 calories, considering how much you can eat to get there, being a 1/3 pound doesn't seem ridiculous at all.

It's burned. If you eat 1 calorie over your TDEE, assuming we knew the exact rate at which your body burned calories and the exact numbe If calories in food, it most likely would only be about .7-8 of a calorie and wouldn't be fat, because your body doesn't immediately convert excess calories to fat.

yeah that's wrong

It takes energy to produce fat from sugar via lipogenesis. It's not a lossless conversion.

Also, even if the conversion was 100% efficient, you would need to eat 15x 100g Twix Bars (for example, 250 cal each) to add a pound.

BMR takes conversion into account dumbass. the excess is ON TOP OF the roughly 2000 calories you use just to function.

why is it not?

No, it doesn't. BMR fluctuates according to diet. Your BMR decreases with lowered caloric intake and vice versa.

no a gram of fat has 9 calories, not a gram of chocolate. if you ate 140g of clarified butter you would gain 1/3 of a pound

Ugh no, you have it backwards. It's take about 10% of the calories consumed for processing in the body. The rest get used/stored. So you'd use/store 3150 of the 3500 calories.

>take butter and boil it down to a powder

fucking what. butter is an oil, there's no water to "boil out".

Not with that attitude you won't.

and that's due to the body changing to accomadate energy intake. that fluctuation has almost nothing to do with the actual burning/storing of calories.

I think people are confusing averages with one time meals. On average 3500 calories above your tdee will make you gain a pound. Now obviously bars of chocolate are going to digest different than broccoli. That doesn't matter though because it is based on the average things you eat. Not specified foods.

t. Brainlet that still doesn't use powdered butter

Wrong.

You shit/piss it out. Cow pies were used as a camp fuel way back when for fires... guess how thats possible?

Because it's undigestible fibre?

man , just lost 4-5 pounds. need to lose 10 more. just seeing that fat makes me want to keep up the calorie deficit. need to stay disciplined

Just like your moms brain

I kekd

I cut for two weeks at a time, but every two weeks I break and have a cheat day where I get drunk and subsequently eat like shit

It's astonishing how much that sets you back

Cows can break down cellulose

Your mom broke down on my dick

Alright OP, I'm here to answer your question.

>Is there seriously only 3500 calories in 1lb of fat?
That's a very rough estimation, but yes.

>if I ingest ONE 140g chocolate bar past my TDEE I'd gain a full 1/3 of a pound
Essentially, yes. If you ingested 1200 calories extra (which might be more than 140g chocolate), you would gain 1/3 of a pound.

There are a few factor that mitigate this. Google "Thermic Effect of Food". Also, the "calories" on the nutrition label are an estimate - the actual number of calories absorbed is going to be different. You can affect digestion by eating a lot of fiber, which changes the number of calories absorbed.

But yeah, that chocolate bar will make you fat.

It is undigested plant residue that passes through the intestines of the cow.

The chocolate bar will not make you fatter than eating an equal amount of calories in brocoli.

It has nothing to do with chocolate, sugar or fat.

I doubt your body is 100% efficient at turning excess energy into fat. Eat more than the TDEE and you will gain some fat, but all the food you eat doesn't magically start becoming fat at that point.

>Is there seriously only 3500 calories in 1lb of fat?
Approximately, but fat tissue typically has a high water content, which is heavy.

>That means that if I ingest ONE 140g chocolate bar . . . I'd gain a full 1/3 of a pound
Not exactly. Disregarding that the body isn't 100% effective at metabolising intake, your liver requires energy to convert sugars into fat deposits.

Also, eating fat makes you less fat than eating sugar. This is because ingested sugar can be converted into fat deposit by the liver, but ingested fat needs to be broken down into sugars and then converted into fat deposit by the liver (longer process thus requiring more energy to perform).

a 140g bar of chocolate bar is 847 calories. which is 0.242 lbs. Converting it back into metric, that's 109 grams.

So from that 140 gram chocolate bar, you are able to use 109 grams of it for calories. Depending on micronutrient breakdown and what not, you'd effectively poop out 31 grams.

That's all theoretical, of course. Nutrition is a much more in depth topic. You know, with all of the inefficiencies, from converting from material to material.

Lots of stuff. Your body doesn't just say "we're 1kcal over boys time to fatten up!" Carbs are typically broken down and converted to glycogen and stored(more so if you're active) in the muscle, with large excesses being converted to fat, and protein ofc goes towards muscles and honestly doesn't really get converted and stored as fat since it's need to be converted via gluconeogenesis and then lipogenesis which is rare. You'd struggle to eat enough protein to get to that point.

Fat is hydrophobic so there is no water in fat just like your fat ass never comes anywhere close to Chad's awesome pool party.

Butter is fat + protons + water. Why do you think it sizzles and burns when you lightly heat it?

Wait, so you think that you need to break down fat into sugar, and then turn it back into fat? Fucking moron.

Fucking lbs, why don't y'all learn proper units... Can't bother to google everytime I see something like "when you're 32 fingers tall then you should eat half a stone and 3 inches of sugar" or some shit

You are so fucking stupid

Because oil can boil just like everything else.

That does NOT look like a pound of muscle. That looks like 8 0z tops.

Does anybody have a better pic?

kek

This thread has to be one of the worst threads on Veeky Forums right now.
Holy shit.

Kyll yourself

chocolate has far more carbs than fat.
You didn't even bother to look up its nutritional value before making this shitty thread, fuck you.

>oil can boil
>utter can butter
>rap can brap
nice logic there

Why does fat contain a pen?

Correct. Did you think animal and plant fats just went directly into your own deposits making you some kind of chimera?

>you should feel like such a fucking fuckwit right now

lipase enzymes break down fats into glucose
if that glucose is not used up by your cells, it gets converted into glycerol by insulin
glycerol is not very soluble in water so it can be stored in the liver
after storage space runs out in the liver, excess glycerol gets bound to fatty acids and stored in fat adipose tissue

not at all an expert on this but this is the basic rundown

Because fatties would put literally anything in their mouth.

There's a lot more water in our muscles than in fat

Listen to this guy

IRRC leaner people with higher insulin resistance will store more of the calories in their muscles

Forget about the correlation between calories of fat, intake and weight gain/loss. What you need to take away from the 3500 calorie rule (being phased out of nutrition practice) is that if you are:
>Diligently counting calories
>tracking fluid loss
>Tracking weight loss
>Adjusting your BMR/TDEE periodically
Then you can make rough estimations that for every pound gained/lost, it represents a positive/negative 3500kcal energy balance. However, it is incorrect to assume that 1lb of weight loss is 1lb of fat loss, just as it is incorrect to assume that 500kcal extra intake will put on 1/7th of a pound of FAT
Not to mention that human metabolism is far trickier once you delve into the specifics, where absorption of energy may be increased or decreased depending on the source of the energy.

T. Dietetic student

>trophic levels
calories in vs calories out is meant as a general rule on a day-to-day basis, there's more to it in depth but the rule generally holds true, i.e. the simplest way to lose weight is to reduce intake relative to usage.

How_to_kill_the_Liver.pdf

LMAO someone's not a science major

True people forget that your body will spend more energy breaking down protein than fat. Then that varies between protein sources ex. beans vs whey protein

1000 calories from fat is ~950+ calories
1000 calories from protein is ~800-900 calories