Blood donation

This seems to be the most recent thread on this, so I'll post here. Sorry if thread necro upsets anyone, I figured it'd be less offending than yet another post on the topic.

I notice all anyone discusses with regards to this is the burn *after* the donation from replenishing red blood cells etc. No one seems to note the instant loss of nutrients, etc. that leave the body with the blood. That stuff doesn't magically avoid the blood that you lose and stay in your system. Obviously you don't immediately lose 600-650 calories in the donated pint. The average human has 8 pints, so maybe it might be more honest to log the 75-82 calories presumably in that single pint, and then just mulligan the rest since it happens over a decent span? Not sure I can see the donation offsetting the rich breakfast one had beforehand, but it does seem fair that *something* be counted due the instant loss, not just the overall. Thoughts?

Jruzer wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think there's one right way to do this. I usually give myself a maintenance day when I donate, and divide the calories up over two days. I find that exercising is very difficult on days I've donated - so much so that I usually take it very easy. NB: I often do double red.

I can't lie, I was hoping I'd be able to offset more of the breakfast I had, vs. what I'd normally eat. It won't be a huge deal, aside from my sodium being a fair bit over. I still plan on going for a bit of a walk this evening to burn off a few hundred to help as well. Donating blood has never really caused me to not be able to work as normal. Never done double red though. How does that affect you generally, vs. standard donation?

TR0berts wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I donate every six weeks and I never log the calories because (as is pointed out above) the calories are replenished gradually day-by-day over the next few weeks -- not all at once. 15-20 calories a day isn't worth logging, IMO. I just make sure to hydrate well around those days.

@janejellyroll If you don't mind me asking, to what organization do you donate? I give to the American Red Cross. I'm only allowed to donate every 8 weeks. Or do you not donate whole blood? Because ARC has different time limits on platelets and plasma.

I donate to Memorial and I just checked their site -- they're 8 weeks too, I just got confused on the time. I just go down there whenever they show up at my workplace so I don't keep track of the time between donations. I just know when they come back, I'm good to go. Sorry about that!

powr69 wrote: »

Jruzer wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think there's one right way to do this. I usually give myself a maintenance day when I donate, and divide the calories up over two days. I find that exercising is very difficult on days I've donated - so much so that I usually take it very easy. NB: I often do double red.

I can't lie, I was hoping I'd be able to offset more of the breakfast I had, vs. what I'd normally eat. It won't be a huge deal, aside from my sodium being a fair bit over. I still plan on going for a bit of a walk this evening to burn off a few hundred to help as well. Donating blood has never really caused me to not be able to work as normal. Never done double red though. How does that affect you generally, vs. standard donation?

I find that I just don't have much aerobic capacity for a day or 2. Considering that red blood cells carry oxygen perhaps that's not surprising. However, it is possible it's mostly psychosomatic.

Spitspot81 wrote: »

Didn't know where to post this. I am donating blood tomorrow and I have read that you burn up to 400 calories from donating. I have been donating for years but have never logged it on mfp.

Does anyone else log blood donation in their calorie log

Congrats!

The calorie burn is true, but considering that the energy expended to replenish will take place over the next 60 days this is meaningless for the purposes of MFP. I still add this to my diary just to note when my donations take place.

I'm a life-long donor and we're only beginning to understand the health benefits of long term donation.

I mark blood donation days in my "food notes" for the day I donate, so that I have the record of it for analysis later, and then don't care if I go a bit over my calorie consumption the day of donation. I never go very far over, and I increase my fluid consumption slightly. I average 70oz a day normally, so for a couple of days after donation I shoot for more like 80oz. I have been a regular donor my entire adult life as well *_*

powr69 wrote: »

This seems to be the most recent thread on this, so I'll post here. Sorry if thread necro upsets anyone, I figured it'd be less offending than yet another post on the topic.

I notice all anyone discusses with regards to this is the burn *after* the donation from replenishing red blood cells etc. No one seems to note the instant loss of nutrients, etc. that leave the body with the blood. That stuff doesn't magically avoid the blood that you lose and stay in your system. Obviously you don't immediately lose 600-650 calories in the donated pint. The average human has 8 pints, so maybe it might be more honest to log the 75-82 calories presumably in that single pint, and then just mulligan the rest since it happens over a decent span? Not sure I can see the donation offsetting the rich breakfast one had beforehand, but it does seem fair that *something* be counted due the instant loss, not just the overall. Thoughts?

You're misunderstanding. The immediate loss is ~650 calories - not burned, but physically removed from the body. The total energy contained in your blood - all the nutrients, cells, the glucose, any fat that was in there - has been reduced by 650 calories (or perhaps a little less) as soon as that pint is gone.

Over the next 6-8 weeks you burn energy from other sources - food, fat stores, glycogen, whatever - in order to replenish the energy lost from your blood. So the energy is both lost immediately, and burned over the following 6-8 weeks to replenish it.

If you find it hard to believe that you can lose 650 calories by donating a pint of blood, imagine drinking a pint of blood, dracula-style, and then logging it in your diary. That's two and a half big mugfuls of the stuff. A mug of whole milk comes in at 160 calories. 260 for a mug of blood does not seem hard to believe. Remember, this is the fluid that transports all the body's energy and nutrients. It's a high calorie beverage.

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

powr69 wrote: »

This seems to be the most recent thread on this, so I'll post here. Sorry if thread necro upsets anyone, I figured it'd be less offending than yet another post on the topic.

I notice all anyone discusses with regards to this is the burn *after* the donation from replenishing red blood cells etc. No one seems to note the instant loss of nutrients, etc. that leave the body with the blood. That stuff doesn't magically avoid the blood that you lose and stay in your system. Obviously you don't immediately lose 600-650 calories in the donated pint. The average human has 8 pints, so maybe it might be more honest to log the 75-82 calories presumably in that single pint, and then just mulligan the rest since it happens over a decent span? Not sure I can see the donation offsetting the rich breakfast one had beforehand, but it does seem fair that *something* be counted due the instant loss, not just the overall. Thoughts?

You're misunderstanding. The immediate loss is ~650 calories - not burned, but physically removed from the body. The total energy contained in your blood - all the nutrients, cells, the glucose, any fat that was in there - has been reduced by 650 calories (or perhaps a little less) as soon as that pint is gone.

Over the next 6-8 weeks you burn energy from other sources - food, fat stores, glycogen, whatever - in order to replenish the energy lost from your blood. So the energy is both lost immediately, and burned over the following 6-8 weeks to replenish it.

If you find it hard to believe that you can lose 650 calories by donating a pint of blood, imagine drinking a pint of blood, dracula-style, and then logging it in your diary. That's two and a half big mugfuls of the stuff. A mug of whole milk comes in at 160 calories. 260 for a mug of blood does not seem hard to believe. Remember, this is the fluid that transports all the body's energy and nutrients. It's a high calorie beverage.

I don't think I am (this isn't to say I am correct, however). Every discussion I have read is very pointedly discussing *only* gradual burn of replenishing the lost blood, and that's why no one seems to log it. If a single pint of blood has 600 to 650 calories, and the average human has 8 total, then at any given time you have 4800 to 5200 calories just flowing around your body. That doesn't quite sound right. If the actual instant loss was 600 to 650 calories, then I would think everyone would want to log that because it's quite significant. It absolutely would offset at least one meal for the day.

This is why I resurrected this thread to discuss the topic, because only once did I see someone else point out the instant loss, and not a person in that thread (it wasn't here) bothered to address it. I'd love to know for sure what the instant effects of the blood donation are, along with the overall from replenishment.

powr69 wrote: »

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

powr69 wrote: »

This seems to be the most recent thread on this, so I'll post here. Sorry if thread necro upsets anyone, I figured it'd be less offending than yet another post on the topic.

I notice all anyone discusses with regards to this is the burn *after* the donation from replenishing red blood cells etc. No one seems to note the instant loss of nutrients, etc. that leave the body with the blood. That stuff doesn't magically avoid the blood that you lose and stay in your system. Obviously you don't immediately lose 600-650 calories in the donated pint. The average human has 8 pints, so maybe it might be more honest to log the 75-82 calories presumably in that single pint, and then just mulligan the rest since it happens over a decent span? Not sure I can see the donation offsetting the rich breakfast one had beforehand, but it does seem fair that *something* be counted due the instant loss, not just the overall. Thoughts?

You're misunderstanding. The immediate loss is ~650 calories - not burned, but physically removed from the body. The total energy contained in your blood - all the nutrients, cells, the glucose, any fat that was in there - has been reduced by 650 calories (or perhaps a little less) as soon as that pint is gone.

Over the next 6-8 weeks you burn energy from other sources - food, fat stores, glycogen, whatever - in order to replenish the energy lost from your blood. So the energy is both lost immediately, and burned over the following 6-8 weeks to replenish it.

If you find it hard to believe that you can lose 650 calories by donating a pint of blood, imagine drinking a pint of blood, dracula-style, and then logging it in your diary. That's two and a half big mugfuls of the stuff. A mug of whole milk comes in at 160 calories. 260 for a mug of blood does not seem hard to believe. Remember, this is the fluid that transports all the body's energy and nutrients. It's a high calorie beverage.

I don't think I am (this isn't to say I am correct, however). Every discussion I have read is very pointedly discussing *only* gradual burn of replenishing the lost blood, and that's why no one seems to log it. If a single pint of blood has 600 to 650 calories, and the average human has 8 total, then at any given time you have 4800 to 5200 calories just flowing around your body. That doesn't quite sound right. If the actual instant loss was 600 to 650 calories, then I would think everyone would want to log that because it's quite significant. It absolutely would offset at least one meal for the day.

This is why I resurrected this thread to discuss the topic, because only once did I see someone else point out the instant loss, and not a person in that thread (it wasn't here) bothered to address it. I'd love to know for sure what the instant effects of the blood donation are, along with the overall from replenishment.

Given that it takes a shortage of 3,500 calories to lose a pound, I don't know if a 600-650 swing within a day is that significant especially given the inherent variables in logging calories anyway.

My guess is that even the most avid blood donor (one who gives on the spot every eight weeks) isn't likely to get results they would notice if they don't replenish the calories. Yes, blood itself is high calorie. But we're "rebuilding" it over a period of time. It may indeed offset one meal. But if your weight loss plan was to skip one meal every eight weeks, I doubt you would ever seen a result that you would notice.

That's just a guess though.

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be right? Animal bodies contain a LOT of calories, and that includes the blood. Why do you think mosquitoes bite?

That's a good question, which is why I resurrected this thread. Google "blood donation calories". Read all the threads and such all over. You'll note exactly what I did: every discussion is full of people saying they don't log it, the calories lost are via burn over XX days and therefore insignificant. No one counts an instant loss. I'm trying to find out if this is right, because it doesn't seem so. I'm trying to figure out what the overall caloric content of blood might be, because even if it's only a few hundred, that's still worth logging and would mean a whole lot of people and what appears to be the "conventional wisdom" is incorrect.

janejellyroll wrote: »

Given that it takes a shortage of 3,500 calories to lose a pound, I don't know if a 600-650 swing within a day is that significant especially given the inherent variables in logging calories anyway.

My guess is that even the most avid blood donor (one who gives on the spot every eight weeks) isn't likely to get results they would notice if they don't replenish the calories. Yes, blood itself is high calorie. But we're "rebuilding" it over a period of time. It may indeed offset one meal. But if your weight loss plan was to skip one meal every eight weeks, I doubt you would ever seen a result that you would notice.

That's just a guess though.

How could it not be? If it wasn't, then why bother logging that walk or jog or run? They're only a few hundred more calories over that, and if it's meaningless... My basal metabolic rate is around 2700 calories right now. I do my best to accurately track my intake and exercise on MFP. The calories burned in a walk allow me to either eat more for the day if I'm hungry and still come under, or lose a bit faster. 600-650 calories is damn significant, that's a good walk for me. If I counted that and the walk I'll be doing tonight, that potentially gives me back at least 1000+/- calories. I'm not suggesting blood donation/loss as a diet plan, I'm just pointing out that it's rather ludicrous to not track a donation every two months because it's "insignificant," if you'll track a walk that burns the same and count it because it is. It's illogical. One can't be significant and the other not. Both are a caloric deficit of non-trivial levels (assuming that pint of blood is indeed 600-650 calories).