• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Where does the weight actually go?

blutoski said:
Old trick question from when I was a kid, yeah... "What weighs more - a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?"
Click to expand...

Are these 2000 pound tons or 1000 kilo tons? And then there are the issues of mixing mass vs weight as your measurement.
 
RogueKitten said:
Oh. In retrospect that was a dumb question but I guess I never thought through the actual mechanism of that.
Click to expand...

If you're feeling silly for having missed what seems obvious in retrospect, check out this video of MIT graduates having trouble lighting a lightbulb with a battery and a wire:

 
Here's another question that people routinely get wrong.

A tree has a lot of mass, much more mass than the seed it grew from. Where does most of that mass come from?
 
Ziggurat said:
Here's another question that people routinely get wrong.

A tree has a lot of mass, much more mass than the seed it grew from. Where does most of that mass come from?
Click to expand...
Wasn't that mentioned already? Mostly from carbon dioxide from the air, secondarily water from the ground.
 
RogueKitten said:
The reverse from what we do to burn fuel, they do to make carbohydrates. Right?
Click to expand...

Partly, although there's a hidden subtlety. Here's the basic glucose balance:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O <=> C6H12O6 + 6 O2

But there's actually some ambiguity in there. In particular, where does the O from the sugar come from and go to? The CO2 or the H2O? You can't tell just by looking at the balance.

It turns out that during photosynthesis, ALL of the oxygen which goes into the sugar comes from the carbon dioxide, and none of it comes from the water. Only the hydrogen comes from water. That's why most of the mass is from air. Had it been the other way around, had all the oxygen come from water and only the carbon from the air, then most of the mass would come from water.
 
Ziggurat said:
Partly, although there's a hidden subtlety. Here's the basic glucose balance:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O <=> C6H12O6 + 6 O2

But there's actually some ambiguity in there. In particular, where does the O from the sugar come from and go to? The CO2 or the H2O? You can't tell just by looking at the balance.

It turns out that during photosynthesis, ALL of the oxygen which goes into the sugar comes from the carbon dioxide, and none of it comes from the water. Only the hydrogen comes from water. That's why most of the mass is from air. Had it been the other way around, had all the oxygen come from water and only the carbon from the air, then most of the mass would come from water.
Click to expand...

That is incredibly cool! It amazes me all these different types of thing all came from one original thing. I can't wrap my head around the time scales here, but it is incredible that all this intricate diversity all came through time and making babies!
 
RogueKitten said:
No, I mean I have celiac disease and so much intestinal damage I don't digest food well. A side effect of this for many people is gaining weight. (I seem to be losing). I am curious why.
Click to expand...

If you don't digest food well, you should lose weight, not gain weight. You can't gain weight from food you can't digest and absorb.
 
jt512 said:
If you don't digest food well, you should lose weight, not gain weight. You can't gain weight from food you can't digest and absorb.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way, because "food" isn't one thing. The body is pretty good about absorbing calories from food, and less efficient at absorbing certain other nutrients. If your intestines lose functionality, you may need to eat more food in order to get enough non-caloric nutrients. But that will produce an excess of calories, hence weight gain.
 
Ziggurat said:
It doesn't work that way, because "food" isn't one thing. The body is pretty good about absorbing calories from food, and less efficient at absorbing certain other nutrients. If your intestines lose functionality, you may need to eat more food in order to get enough non-caloric nutrients. But that will produce an excess of calories, hence weight gain.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think it works the way you're saying. We don't eat more when we need micronutrients. We eat more when we need energy. She said she doesn't absorb food well. If that's true, then she should lose weight.
 
jt512 said:
If you don't digest food well, you should lose weight, not gain weight. You can't gain weight from food you can't digest and absorb.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
It doesn't work that way, because "food" isn't one thing. The body is pretty good about absorbing calories from food, and less efficient at absorbing certain other nutrients. If your intestines lose functionality, you may need to eat more food in order to get enough non-caloric nutrients. But that will produce an excess of calories, hence weight gain.
Click to expand...

It is split about 50/50 for people presenting with celiac if they lose or gain before they are diagnosed.http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/050114p22.shtml some info

Celiac isn't a GI disease, it is an autoimmune disorder. Many people with it don't have any GI symptoms at all. I was in early renal failure when I was diagnosed. Inflamation and severe vitamin deficiency, and also weight gain.

As I understand it, you aren't getting the nutrients you need, so your body tells you that you're hungry, so you eat. But you keep eating and keep eating, still not getting the nutrients. Also, simple carbohydrates are easier to digest than protein or complex carbs, so you get the sugar but nothing else.

Could be wrong, that might be Celiac For Dummies ala my doctor. Like I said, I am an accountant, not a biologist.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Actually, I don't think it works the way you're saying. We don't eat more when we need micronutrients. We eat more when we need energy. She said she doesn't absorb food well. If that's true, then she should lose weight.
Click to expand...
RogueKitten said:
Also, simple carbohydrates are easier to digest than protein or complex carbs, so you get the sugar but nothing else.
Click to expand...

Protein is definitely not a micronutrient, and protein absorption has a lot to do with satiety.

RogueKitten: have you thought about taking a protein supplement?
 
Ziggurat said:
Protein is definitely not a micronutrient, and protein absorption has a lot to do with satiety.

RogueKitten: have you thought about taking a protein supplement?
Click to expand...

I have to be sure to eat a lot of protein and relatively few carbs, in addition to a multivitamin and other supplements. As long as I avoid gluten and take a lactaid with dairy I can digest tolerably well (although kale kicks my ***, which is such a shame because I really love it).

We get this which is like, dang what died in there?! Because we can't digest all the nutrients. It is actually so common that celiac websites will warn you what it is so you don't tweak and call the doctor lol
 
Ziggurat said:
If your intestines lose functionality, you may need to eat more food in order to get enough non-caloric nutrients.
Click to expand...

jt512 said:
Actually, I don't think it works the way you're saying. We don't eat more when we need micronutrients. We eat more when we need energy. She said she doesn't absorb food well. If that's true, then she should lose weight.
Click to expand...

Protein is definitely not a micronutrient, and protein absorption has a lot to do with satiety.
Click to expand...


Protein is definitely not a "non-caloric nutrient."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom