 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / September 2004Calorie storage ratio
If I am in equilibrium, consuming approximately what I burn, and then one day consume 10,000 calories extra, how much of that will be stored as fat? Anecdotal evidence says very little, but if I increase my calories by 500 per day over time I will begin to add one pound per week. My question is how much of a spike in eating is absorbed versus a steady and consistent increase over burned. Thanks Dave If you are inactive I'm guessing your body takes about 3,000 calories a day to get by. And a pound of blubber is 3,500 calories. Sounds like that if you take in 10,000 calories you will pack on 2 more pounds of fat --likely going straight to your burgeoning belly. And hard as unholy HELL to get off there, once it attaches. > If you are inactive I'm guessing your body takes about 3,000 calories a day to > get by. And a pound of blubber is 3,500 calories. Sounds like that if you take > in 10,000 calories you will pack on 2 more pounds of fat --likely going > straight to your burgeoning belly. And hard as unholy HELL to get off there, > once it attaches. Nope, the calorie/pound of fats formula only works in reverse direction. That is, *if you are in deficit*, you will burn your fat at a rate of 3500 calories per pound, until you meet your daily needs. But, if you're in excedent, you don't convert excess calories at 100% efficiency. First, extra calories are available as different kind of nutriments, and they have to be converted to the proper form before getting stored. There is quite a bit of lost energy when metabolizing proteins and carbs into fats. Actually, even dietary fats do not convert to storage fats with 100% efficiency. So, out of these 7000 extra calories, quite a bit will be wasted in the process of metabolizing them for storage. Second, digestion burns energy. And it burns energy in proportion to the amount of food to process. Around 10% of the energy is burnt as part of digestion, though it probably doesn't scale when you go into extremes like this one. Depending on what form these 10000 calories are in, processing them might be quite wasteful. Third, it is quite possible that the digestive system cannot cope with a huge amount of food. Some of it might just not get digested. Especially if these 10000 come from a binge, where food is often swallowed in large unchewed chunks. Finally, not all people are equal when it comes to handling extra calories. The Sims experience (overfeeding inates) showed that on such a diet (IIRC, they were fed 10000 calories/day), most people gain weight much slower than what would be expected from straight maths. Those who gain very fast often come from famillies with obesity, or are themselves already overweight. Short answer: it depends on your genetics. Thanks, this helps tremendously. In summation; Pour 7000 extra calories into your body; As confectionary sugar = X retained. As a hunk of poorly chewed rare beef = X - Y retained. (Y being energy required to process protein and inability to process unchewed food.) I am training for the Marine Corp Marathon in Late October and I have been bumping up mileage and food consumption. I have put on weight from my lows but not really lost any speed or endurance. I believe the weight is showing up in more muscle mass with a little stored fat. Which I think is fine considering how hard it is to add muscle and shed fat while maintaining calories. I need to consume enough calories to increase muscle while shedding fat to meet my goals and sometimes my body craves excess food, usually every three or so days and I take that as a sign to feed it without focus on structured diet. BTW I do not eat 10,000 calories on ANY day. My example is usually I add 1000 to 2000 calories to a 2300-2600 calorie diet @ 5-11 and 197 LBS age 43. This usually occurs the next day after a long run. Thanks again. Dave > Pour 7000 extra calories into your body; > As confectionary sugar = X retained. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (Y being energy required to process protein and inability to process > unchewed food.) You do need some enzymes to break up saccharose. Whether your body is able to produce enough enzymes to process 1.750kg of sugar is a good question... Besides, it's not only a matter of enzymes, you will also have to "wet" it enough for enzymes to work, and then enzymes will have a hard time diffusing through the blob of sugar. It's quite possible that X will not be as high as expected. Though eating that much sugar in one go, even if half of it doesn't process, will test very quickly if you have any diabetic tendency... Even if you're not diabetic in the least, I hope this is only for the sack of illustration ;) > I am training for the Marine Corp Marathon in Late October and I have > been bumping up mileage and food consumption. Do you need that much muscles for a marathon? Many long distance runners seem to be rather on the light side... > I believe the weight is showing up in more muscle mass with a little stored fat. Don't believe, get a scale with body fat% or have someone use callipers on you ;) If you're training for near-pro stuff, that's something you should do anyway... > I need to consume enough calories to increase muscle while shedding fat > to meet my goals and sometimes my body craves excess food, usually every > three or so days and I take that as a sign to feed it without focus on > structured diet. BTW I do not eat 10,000 calories on ANY day. My example > is usually I add 1000 to 2000 calories to a 2300-2600 calorie diet @ > 5-11 and 197 LBS age 43. Well the best way to tell is to keep checking the scale and your body fat. Did you ever have any problem with weight gain or needed to go on a weight loss diet? If you don't, it's quite possible that your body is sending you the proper signal that you must feed it. If, as you say, you are running a lot and building muscle, it's pretty hard to guess your specific needs, but they might be quite high. Each metabolism is different... Again, the only way to know for sure is to keep track of your net fat weight. If it's remaining fairly constant, it means that you can trust your body to adjust your hunger for its needs. > Even if you're not diabetic in the least, I hope this is only for the sack > of illustration ;) Yes, just an extreme example to help make a point! > Do you need that much muscles for a marathon? Many long distance runners > seem to be rather on the light side... While I am not trying to bulk up, I want to minimze my % of body fat. > Don't believe, get a scale with body fat% or have someone use callipers on > you ;) If you're training for near-pro stuff, that's something you should do > anyway... Got one and am currently 19 - 20 %, which i think is too high for a marathon. Of course it is down from 30% @ 247 LBS in February, so i am happy but not to my goal yet. > way to know for sure is to keep track of your net fat weight. If it's > remaining fairly constant, it means that you can trust your body to adjust > your hunger for its needs. Yep, the body is amazing if you listen to it. Thanks again. Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.