The first surgical struggle at soul sculpting was in 1921 on a dancer “who wanted to modernize the shape of her ankles and knees.” The surgeon theoretically scraped yonder too much tissue and tied the stitches too tight, resulting in necrosis, amputation, and the first recorded malpractice suit in the history of plastic surgery. Liposuction is much safer today, killing only well-nigh 1 in 5,000 patients, mostly from unknown causes, such as throwing a jell into your lung or perforating your internal organs. You can see a “Cause of Death” orchestration unelevated and at 0:37 in my video The 3,500 Calorie per Pound Rule Is Wrong.
Liposuction currently reigns as the most popular cosmetic surgery in the world, and its effects are indeed only cosmetic. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed obese women surpassing and without having well-nigh 20 pounds of fat sucked out of their bodies, resulting in a nearly 20 percent waif in their total soul fat. Normally, if you lose plane just 5 to 10 percent of your soul weight in fat, you get significant improvements in thoroughbred pressure, thoroughbred sugars, inflammation, cholesterol, and triglycerides. But liposuction sucks. None of those benefits materialized plane without massive liposuction, which suggests that the problem is not subcutaneous fat, the fat under our skin. The metabolic insults of obesity upspring from the visceral fat, the fat surrounding or plane infiltrating our internal organs, like the fat marbling our muscles and liver. The way you lose that fat, the dangerous fat, is to take in fewer calories than you burn.
Anyone who’s seen The Biggest Loser television programs knows that with unbearable caloric restriction and exercise, hundreds of pounds can be lost. Similarly, there are cases in the medical literature of what some refer to as “super obesity.” In one case, a man lost a massive value of weight “largely without professional help and without surgery” and kept it off for years. He dropped 374 pounds, losing well-nigh 20 pounds a month by cycling two hours a day and reducing his daily intake to 800 calories, which is lanugo virtually what some prisoners got at concentration camps in World War II.
Perhaps “America’s most prestigious weight loss” seen on television was Oprah’s. She pulled out a wagon full of fat, representing the 67 pounds she had lost on a very-low-calorie diet. How many calories did she have to cut to unzip that weight loss within four months? If you consult with leading nutrition textbooks or refer to trusted authorities like the Mayo Clinic, you’ll learn the simple weight loss rule: 1 pound of fat equals 3,500 calories. Quoting from the Journal of the American Medical Association, “A total of 3500 calories equals 1 pound of soul weight. This ways if you subtract (or increase) your intake by 500 calories daily, you will lose (or gain) 1 pound per week. (500 calories per day × 7 days = 3500 calories.)”
The 3,500-calorie rule can be traced when to a paper published in 1958. The tragedian noted that since fatty tissue in the human soul is 87 percent fat, a pound of soul fat would have well-nigh 395 grams of pure fat. Multiplying that by nine calories per gram of fat gives you that “3,500 calories per pound” approximation. The fatal flaw that leads to “dramatically exaggerated” weight-loss predictions is that the 3,500-calorie rule fails to take into worth the fact that changes in the Calories-In side of the energy-balance equation automatically lead to changes in the Calories-Out side—for example, metabolic adaption, the slowing of metabolic rate that accompanies weight loss. That’s one reason weight loss plateaus.
Imagine a sedentary, 30-year-old woman of stereotype height who weighs 150 pounds. According to the 3,500-calorie rule, if she cuts 500 calories out of her daily diet, she’d lose a pound a week or 52 pounds a year. In three years, she would vanish. She’d go from 150 pounds to -6. Obviously, that doesn’t happen. Instead, as you can see in the graph unelevated and at 4:33 in my video, in the first year, she’d likely lose 32 pounds, not 52. Then, without a total of three years, she’d probably stabilize at well-nigh 100 pounds. This is considering it takes fewer calories to exist as a thin person.
Part of it is “simple mechanics”: Increasingly energy is required to move a heavier mass, in the same way a Hummer requires increasingly fuel than a meaty car. Think how much increasingly effort it would take to just get up from a chair, walk wideness the room, or climb a few stairs if you were delivering a 50-pound backpack. Plane when you’re at rest, sound asleep, there’s simply less of your soul to maintain as you lose weight. Every pound of fat tissue lost may midpoint one less mile of thoroughbred vessels through which your soul has to pump thoroughbred every minute. So, the vital upkeep and movement of thinner persons take fewer calories. As you lose weight by eating less, you end up needing less. That’s what the 3,500-calorie rule doesn’t take into account.
Imagine it flipside way: A 200-pound man starts consuming 500 increasingly calories a day, maybe by drinking a large soda or eating two donuts. According to the 3,500-calorie rule, in ten years, he’d weigh increasingly than 700 pounds. That doesn’t happen because, the heavier he is, the increasingly calories he burns just by existing. If you’re 100 pounds overweight, it’s as if there’s a skinny person inside you trying to walk virtually balancing 13 gallons of oil or lugging virtually a sack filled with 400 sticks of butter. As you can see in the graph unelevated and at 6:13 in my video, it takes well-nigh two donuts’ worth of uneaten energy just to live at 250 pounds, so that’s where you’d plateau if you kept it up. Given a unrepealable calorie glut or deficit, weight proceeds or weight loss is a lines that flattens out over time, rather than a straight line up or down.
Nevertheless, the 3,500-calorie rule continues to yield up, plane in obesity journals. Public health researchers used it to summate how many pounds children might lose every year if, for example, fast-food kids’ meals swapped in world slices for french fries. You can see the “Counting Calories in Kids’ Meals” graphic unelevated and at 6:39 in my video.
They figured that two meals a week could add up to well-nigh four pounds a year. The very difference, National Restaurant Association–funded researchers were no doubt delighted to point out, would probably add less than half a pound—ten times less than the 3,500-calorie rule would predict, as you can see unelevated and at 7:06 in my video. That original vendible was subsequently retracted.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-1309299401-167fc1fb333a48048e3d39329633eb56.jpg)
The 3,500 Calorie per Pound Rule Is Wrong is the first of 14 videos that are part of my fasting series, well-nigh which I did two webinars. The videos are on NutritionFacts.org, or you can get them all now in a digital download at Intermittent Fasting. You may moreover be interested in my webinars on Fasting and Disease Reversal and Fasting and Cancer.
Disclaimer: SPIRITUAL DEVOUT claims no credit for images featured on our blog site unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to its respectful owners.
