Nutrition Question

[CJW]

The wife & I were discussing food intake & weight gain - I suggested that no matter what you eat, the most weight you can gain is equal to the weight of the food you eat. For example, If you eat a pound of Doritos, the most weight you will gain is a pound. Of course, if you eat a pound of Doritos every day, you'll be in trouble pretty quick.

She said that my thinking is not correct and that you can effectively gain more weight than the weight of the food you eat, depending on the food's calorie level.

Anyone have any thoughts on this arguement? Or can point me in a direction to determine the validity of my arguement?


Thanks,
Chris

 

[BillyJoe]

Add in the weight of the fluid you drink, CJW, and you are correct

 

[CJW]

Thanks, BillyJoe.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Of course, if you eat a pound of Doritos every day, you'll be in trouble pretty quick.

Thats why my wife is so fat.

 

[aggle_rithm]

The average American eats 200 pounds of sugar a year. I don't think the average American gains 200 pounds a year.

BTW, in colonial times the figure was 2 pounds of sugar a year.

 

[Crossbow]

The wife & I were discussing food intake & weight gain - I suggested that no matter what you eat, the most weight you can gain is equal to the weight of the food you eat. For example, If you eat a pound of Doritos, the most weight you will gain is a pound. Of course, if you eat a pound of Doritos every day, you'll be in trouble pretty quick.

She said that my thinking is not correct and that you can effectively gain more weight than the weight of the food you eat, depending on the food's calorie level.

Anyone have any thoughts on this arguement? Or can point me in a direction to determine the validity of my arguement?


Thanks,
Chris

I do not think so.

I would think that it would be possible for food to produce more fat than its weight.

Think about gasoline for a moment. It only takes a few seconds and about an ounce of gasoline to move a 2000 pound car up a road 2000 feet long that is 100 hundred feet higher than its starting point.

I think a better way to think of it is in terms of energy density and that is one of the reasons why gasoline is such a useful fuel as are things like pizza and candy bars.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

Re: Re: Nutrition Question

I do not think so.

I would think that it would be possible for food to produce more fat than its weight.

Think about gasoline for a moment. It only takes a few seconds and about an ounce of gasoline to move a 2000 pound car up a road 2000 feet long that is 100 hundred feet higher than its starting point.

I think a better way to think of it is in terms of energy density and that is one of the reasons why gasoline is such a useful fuel as are things like pizza and candy bars.

Apples and oranges. We're talking about the mass (i.e. weight) of the fuel we put on board (for the human body, we're including water to assist in the biochemical oxidation process). For the car, putting in a pound of gasoline increases the car's weight by a pound. Eating a half pound of tater chips and drinking a half pound of water increases your weight by a pound. How long it takes to burn/excrete that pound of gasoline/consumable, and how much energy is expended doing so (Sunoco 260 racing gas vs regular/kettle cooked chips - designer water vs Cheapo Chips - tap water) has no relation to how much the original fuel load weighed.
For the food/water to create a larger weight of fat than the food/water weighed means that your digestive system is creating matter - and if it can do that, why bother to eat? Your stomach will create what you need without your consuming anything.

 

[Crossbow]

Re: Re: Re: Nutrition Question

Apples and oranges. We're talking about the mass (i.e. weight) of the fuel we put on board (for the human body, we're including water to assist in the biochemical oxidation process). For the car, putting in a pound of gasoline increases the car's weight by a pound. Eating a half pound of tater chips and drinking a half pound of water increases your weight by a pound. How long it takes to burn/excrete that pound of gasoline/consumable, and how much energy is expended doing so (Sunoco 260 racing gas vs regular/kettle cooked chips - designer water vs Cheapo Chips - tap water) has no relation to how much the original fuel load weighed.
For the food/water to create a larger weight of fat than the food/water weighed means that your digestive system is creating matter - and if it can do that, why bother to eat? Your stomach will create what you need without your consuming anything.

Sorry if I confused you Charlie, I was not trying to compare apples and oranges which I why I tried to keep the topics of gasoline and food seperated in my post.

Now then as to food itself,

The average adult needs about 1800 calories/day to maintain their weight given an average amount of activity, and an average 4 ounce hamburger has about 450 calories.

So try this, eat four of these hamburgers (total, 1 pound) and you will ingest the 1800 calories, then spend the rest of the day sleeping and watching TV. That means one will take in more calories than they will consume, ergo, weight gain.

Now then, instead of hamburger, try something like chocolate cake, and the weight gain will be still more. And instead of cake, try something like a can of bacon grease.

In short, I am sure that under the right conditions one can gain more weight than is provided by the actual weight of the food.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutrition Question

In short, I am sure that under the right conditions one can gain more weight than is provided by the actual weight of the food.

Nah. There's a little thing called the law of conservation of energy that kinda prohibits that. Where does this extra mass come from?

Edited to add: Considering any liquids you might drink to be "food" for these purposes. I suppose a tiny fraction of the air you breathe might also be bound into fat cells in the process, too, but I bet that's negligible.

Jeremy

 

[zakur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutrition Question

In short, I am sure that under the right conditions one can gain more weight than is provided by the actual weight of the food.

But doesn't that violate the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy?

Let's say you eat 32 oz. of either celery, cheeseburgers, or chocolate cake. You may gain very little (if any) total weightwith the celery, some with the cheesburgers, and a lot with the chocolate cake, but the most possible is 32 oz.

Edited to add: I see I was beaten to the punch by Jeremy.

 

[Yahweh]

The wife & I were discussing food intake & weight gain - I suggested that no matter what you eat, the most weight you can gain is equal to the weight of the food you eat. For example, If you eat a pound of Doritos, the most weight you will gain is a pound. Of course, if you eat a pound of Doritos every day, you'll be in trouble pretty quick.

She said that my thinking is not correct and that you can effectively gain more weight than the weight of the food you eat, depending on the food's calorie level.

Anyone have any thoughts on this arguement? Or can point me in a direction to determine the validity of my arguement?


Thanks,
Chris

Celery is only food known to have negative calories (correct me if I'm wrong). It takes more energy (calories) to eat celery than the amount of calories you get out of it when it's gone through your digestive system... by all technicalities, eating a pound of celery should make you lose weight (and it'll punish the hell out of your colon).

Long Answer:

I was thinking about the question "Can you gain more weight than the food you eat." I guess it breaks down into "Calories per square inch" or something like that. 3500 calories equal 453.6 grams (1 pound) of fat. Rememeber, calories translate into potential energy, not weight. So technically, if you ate 1 pound of food that contained 15.4 calories per gram, you would expect to gain 2 pounds. At the moment, I cant think of a food so rich that it contained 1540 calories per 100 gram serving.

Edit to add: Short answer: Yes.
Another Edit to add: Notice how American I am... I didnt realize how confusing my post was incorporating pounds, grams (metric), and calories (metric).

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutrition Question

Nah. There's a little thing called the law of conservation of energy that kinda prohibits that. Where does this extra mass come from?

Edited to add: Considering any liquids you might drink to be "food" for these purposes. I suppose a tiny fraction of the air you breathe might also be bound into fat cells in the process, too, but I bet that's negligible.

Jeremy

And don't forget the air you breathe.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutrition Question

And don't forget the air you breathe.

At work, the PE teachers make fun of the students. You'll be amazed at what some of these kids say. During wrestling weight class assigning, they will argue back and forth:
"Before you step on the scale, blow all the air out of your lungs. It'll make you lighter"

"Nuh-uh, you have to suck in as much air as you can."

"No, you have to blow out all the air, and blow down because it's like jet propulsion"

"Then you can look toward the ceiling and suck in air"

"You should also poop before stepping on the scale"

I dont have the heart to tell the kiddies that their little plans won't make them any lighter, because their bicking is just so funny to me (maybe that poop strategy could shed a good 10 to 15 pounds).

 

[rwald]

One thing to note: Though the food you eat can't increase your mass more than the mass of the food, it could (theoretically) increase your volume more than the volume of the food. And that may be of concern to some.

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutrition Question

And don't forget the air you breathe.

O₂ in and CO₂ out.
Sounds like a net loss to me.

 

[Missy]

Correct me if I'm off here, but wouldn't the speed of someone's metabolism play a big part? It varies with different people..so wouldn't it depend on the individual??

 

[CJW]

Nah. There's a little thing called the law of conservation of energy that kinda prohibits that. Where does this extra mass come from?

Jeremy

This was really the basis for my position. I think though, that metabolism being equal, the higher the calorie & fat count of the food you eat, the longer it will take for you to burn off the weight.

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread!

Chris

 

[Dr. Imago]

CJW-

You are correct. Your wife is wrong. There are many incorrect assumptions here.

Food weight + water consumed - food waste out - thermic effect of food (~10-12% of energy in food used simply to digest and process the food) - water out - carbon dioxide out = no way you can gain more weight from the caloric value in a particular food item.

Roughly 60% of our body weight is water. People see fluctuations in their water weight after, say, eating a bag of salty potato chips and assume that they "gained more weight" from the potato chips than the chips actually weighed themselves. They're not accounting for the extra water stored in their body compartments - and subsequent transient addition of weight - to equal out the osmolarity gradient they created by eating a bunch of dry-weight electrolytes (namely Na+ and Cl- in chips).

Cheers,

-TT

 

[Crossbow]

Nah. There's a little thing called the law of conservation of energy that kinda prohibits that. Where does this extra mass come from?

Edited to add: Considering any liquids you might drink to be "food" for these purposes. I suppose a tiny fraction of the air you breathe might also be bound into fat cells in the process, too, but I bet that's negligible.

Jeremy

But doesn't that violate the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy?

Let's say you eat 32 oz. of either celery, cheeseburgers, or chocolate cake. You may gain very little (if any) total weightwith the celery, some with the cheesburgers, and a lot with the chocolate cake, but the most possible is 32 oz.

Edited to add: I see I was beaten to the punch by Jeremy.

Oh boy! I start off with a simple example of a car and that confuses people. Later, I provide more details of just how much energy a person needs as opposed to what is ingested hoping to clarify and I confuse still more people. Oh well, maybe I am not explaining things too well, so I will try again.

Jermey, Zakur, I am afraid that both of you are wrong; there is no violation of the conservation of energy.

The energy from food comes from the chemical bonding energy that is released when the food is metalbolized. The food had to absorb energy in order to be produced, then there was energy that was expended in order to manufacture, pack, and distribute, and sell the said food. By contrast, you have to expend energy to obtain, eat and digest the said food, which ultimately leads to the food providing some of the energy that is needed to support your life processes (for a while, at least).

Now then, does a 1700 pound airplane violate the conservation of energy when 144 pounds of fuel is used to provide the energy needed to fly thousands of feet above the ground for three hours?

No, of course not! And why? Because there is a great deal of energy that can be obtained by breaking the chemical bonds in the fuel. By the same token, with the right food, there is also a great deal of energy that can be liberated via biological processes (as opposed to mechanical) in those chemical bonds.

I hope this helps!

 

[Dr. Imago]

Now then, does a 1700 pound airplane violate the conservation of energy when 144 pounds of fuel is used to provide the energy needed to fly thousands of feet above the ground for three hours?

No, of course not! And why? Because there is a great deal of energy that can be obtained by breaking the chemical bonds in the fuel. By the same token, with the right food, there is also a great deal of energy that can be liberated via biological processes (as opposed to mechanical) in those chemical bonds.

I hope this helps!

But, the plane gets lighter as it burns the fuel, not heavier. Or, am I missing something?

-TT