Can 1lbs of food make you gain more than 1lbs?
Options
Hypsibius
Posts: 207 Member
So this is purely a theoretical question.
Let's say you decided to drink a pound of olive oil (3,998 calories). This is the best example I can think of, because even a pound of dense caloric food like sesame butter only has 2,707.25 calories (which is less than the estimated 3,500 calories for a pound of human fat -- if that figure is accurate).
THEORETICAL QUESTION: Is it possible to gain more weight than the weight of the food you just consumed?
So put another way -- if you eat a big meal, and you're feeling annoyed/discouraged by that -- if you step on the scale in that moment can you be rest assured that you won't ever gain more than the amount you weigh in that moment?
Seems there are a lot of potential factors here:
So am I correct that if someone eats a pound of chocolate fudge, it's unlikely they'll gain an entire pound of weight from that pound of fudge if they are otherwise (and for argument sake) on a diet of perfect weight maintenance?
Nutrition amateur here. Curious what y'all think.
Let's say you decided to drink a pound of olive oil (3,998 calories). This is the best example I can think of, because even a pound of dense caloric food like sesame butter only has 2,707.25 calories (which is less than the estimated 3,500 calories for a pound of human fat -- if that figure is accurate).
THEORETICAL QUESTION: Is it possible to gain more weight than the weight of the food you just consumed?
So put another way -- if you eat a big meal, and you're feeling annoyed/discouraged by that -- if you step on the scale in that moment can you be rest assured that you won't ever gain more than the amount you weigh in that moment?
Seems there are a lot of potential factors here:
- Water weight: 10 percent of human fat is water -- so the more fat, the more water weight you'll retain.
- Calories burned eating and digesting: Your body will expend energy simply in the act of burning up that pound of food.
- It's very unlikely you'd ever consume a pound of food anywhere near 3,500 calories.
- Regular food is loaded with fiber -- need to consider what your body will pass unprocessed.
- Law of conservation of energy...
So am I correct that if someone eats a pound of chocolate fudge, it's unlikely they'll gain an entire pound of weight from that pound of fudge if they are otherwise (and for argument sake) on a diet of perfect weight maintenance?
Nutrition amateur here. Curious what y'all think.
1
Replies
-
The physical weight of the food isn't related to the energy contained in the food. So if you ate 1,850 calories worth of fudge (my rough guess of the calorie contents of a pound), you would immediately weigh a pound more (because you just added a pound to your body). But your body is going to deal with those 1,850 calories just like it would deal with 1,850 calories of apples or broccoli or tofu.
The difference is that for most people, it would require a lot more effort to eat 1,850 calories of broccoli than it would to eat 1,850 calories of something like fudge.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The physical weight of the food isn't related to the energy contained in the food. So if you ate 1,850 calories worth of fudge (my rough guess of the calorie contents of a pound), you would immediately weigh a pound more (because you just added a pound to your body). But your body is going to deal with those 1,850 calories just like it would deal with 1,850 calories of apples or broccoli or tofu.
The difference is that for most people, it would require a lot more effort to eat 1,850 calories of broccoli than it would to eat 1,850 calories of something like fudge.
I understand that weight of food is unrelated to calories (again this is more theoretical). Are you sure the bolded part is accurate? My understanding is that the body metabolizes sugar calories different from vegetable calories, because one includes loads more fiber and is more difficult for the body to break down... and the other will up insulin levels and instantly convert those calories to fat. That's ignoring things like satiety etc...1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The physical weight of the food isn't related to the energy contained in the food. So if you ate 1,850 calories worth of fudge (my rough guess of the calorie contents of a pound), you would immediately weigh a pound more (because you just added a pound to your body). But your body is going to deal with those 1,850 calories just like it would deal with 1,850 calories of apples or broccoli or tofu.
The difference is that for most people, it would require a lot more effort to eat 1,850 calories of broccoli than it would to eat 1,850 calories of something like fudge.
I understand that weight of food is unrelated to calories (again this is more theoretical). Are you sure the bolded part is accurate? My understanding is that the body metabolizes sugar calories different from vegetable calories, because one includes loads more fiber and is more difficult for the body to break down... and the other will up insulin levels and instantly convert those calories to fat. That's ignoring things like satiety etc...
Vast oversimplification of insulin response...3 -
So this is purely a theoretical question.
Let's say you decided to drink a pound of olive oil (3,998 calories). This is the best example I can think of, because even a pound of dense caloric food like sesame butter only has 2,707.25 calories (which is less than the estimated 3,500 calories for a pound of human fat -- if that figure is accurate).
THEORETICAL QUESTION: Is it possible to gain more weight than the weight of the food you just consumed?
So put another way -- if you eat a big meal, and you're feeling annoyed/discouraged by that -- if you step on the scale in that moment can you be rest assured that you won't ever gain more than the amount you weigh in that moment?
Seems there are a lot of potential factors here:- Water weight: 10 percent of human fat is water -- so the more fat, the more water weight you'll retain.
- Calories burned eating and digesting: Your body will expend energy simply in the act of burning up that pound of food.
- It's very unlikely you'd ever consume a pound of food anywhere near 3,500 calories.
- Regular food is loaded with fiber -- need to consider what your body will pass unprocessed.
- Law of conservation of energy...
So am I correct that if someone eats a pound of chocolate fudge, it's unlikely they'll gain an entire pound of weight from that pound of fudge if they are otherwise (and for argument sake) on a diet of perfect weight maintenance?
Nutrition amateur here. Curious what y'all think.
Are we somehow under the impression that we don't burn calories? If you drank a pound of EVOO which you say is 3,998 calories, and you body burns 2,500 at rest you would still only be 1,498 calories over what you burned that day.
It's the same as any surplus with any food. if you go over you calorie allotment for the day you are going to gain weight. As for the old but do I gain more than my food weighs... Do you ever weigh yourself with absolutely no food or water in your body, and can you replicate that every day?
1 -
So this is purely a theoretical question.
Let's say you decided to drink a pound of olive oil (3,998 calories). This is the best example I can think of, because even a pound of dense caloric food like sesame butter only has 2,707.25 calories (which is less than the estimated 3,500 calories for a pound of human fat -- if that figure is accurate).
THEORETICAL QUESTION: Is it possible to gain more weight than the weight of the food you just consumed?
So put another way -- if you eat a big meal, and you're feeling annoyed/discouraged by that -- if you step on the scale in that moment can you be rest assured that you won't ever gain more than the amount you weigh in that moment?
Seems there are a lot of potential factors here:- Water weight: 10 percent of human fat is water -- so the more fat, the more water weight you'll retain.
- Calories burned eating and digesting: Your body will expend energy simply in the act of burning up that pound of food.
- It's very unlikely you'd ever consume a pound of food anywhere near 3,500 calories.
- Regular food is loaded with fiber -- need to consider what your body will pass unprocessed.
- Law of conservation of energy...
So am I correct that if someone eats a pound of chocolate fudge, it's unlikely they'll gain an entire pound of weight from that pound of fudge if they are otherwise (and for argument sake) on a diet of perfect weight maintenance?
Nutrition amateur here. Curious what y'all think.
Are we somehow under the impression that we don't burn calories? If you drank a pound of EVOO which you say is 3,998 calories, and you body burns 2,500 at rest you would still only be 1,498 calories over what you burned that day.
It's the same as any surplus with any food. if you go over you calorie allotment for the day you are going to gain weight. As for the old but do I gain more than my food weighs... Do you ever weigh yourself with absolutely no food or water in your body, and can you replicate that every day?
That's why I said, "if the person is otherwise (and for argument sake) on a diet of perfect weight maintenance?"0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The physical weight of the food isn't related to the energy contained in the food. So if you ate 1,850 calories worth of fudge (my rough guess of the calorie contents of a pound), you would immediately weigh a pound more (because you just added a pound to your body). But your body is going to deal with those 1,850 calories just like it would deal with 1,850 calories of apples or broccoli or tofu.
The difference is that for most people, it would require a lot more effort to eat 1,850 calories of broccoli than it would to eat 1,850 calories of something like fudge.
I understand that weight of food is unrelated to calories (again this is more theoretical). Are you sure the bolded part is accurate? My understanding is that the body metabolizes sugar calories different from vegetable calories, because one includes loads more fiber and is more difficult for the body to break down... and the other will up insulin levels and instantly convert those calories to fat. That's ignoring things like satiety etc...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
Tl;dr: Sugar does not instantly convert to fat. It doesn't convert to fat over time either. In fact, it turns into fat rarely ever at all.5 -
Lots of factors come into play. Individual humans are different in body size, function and health, therefore, of course a larger person contains more cells than the smaller person. Now, the type of pound of food you consume would make a difference for a next day weigh-in, which is what you are asking...I am assuming because obviously you wouldn't put on fat mass gain after consuming a meal "right that moment". Carbs hold twice their weight in water for absorption. Consequently, one of the advantages of glucose and other carbohydrates is that they can enter into the oxidation process much more quickly and provide energy more rapidly. Complex carbohydrates, are one step further removed from the citric acid cycle than is glucose. As a result, complex carbohydrates provide glucose more steadily and more slowly (kind of a time-released glucose) than simpler sugars such as glucose and fructose. If we eat sugar directly, it's available almost immediately. Fats make energy available at a slower pace than carbohydrates. So, on the other hand, gram for gram, fats provide more energy than carbohydrates. All of that information to say this...lets say that an individual follows a high fat/low carb diet. Electrolytes can become imbalanced in this "diet" because glucose/carbohydrates bind sodium in the body. With such little to no glucose/insulin production, the kidneys flush these electrolytes rather than them being stored, hence why the term "water weight" loss could be included because you have less binding and/or retention of fluids due to lowered carbohydrates and insulin production.3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »The physical weight of the food isn't related to the energy contained in the food. So if you ate 1,850 calories worth of fudge (my rough guess of the calorie contents of a pound), you would immediately weigh a pound more (because you just added a pound to your body). But your body is going to deal with those 1,850 calories just like it would deal with 1,850 calories of apples or broccoli or tofu.
The difference is that for most people, it would require a lot more effort to eat 1,850 calories of broccoli than it would to eat 1,850 calories of something like fudge.
I understand that weight of food is unrelated to calories (again this is more theoretical). Are you sure the bolded part is accurate? My understanding is that the body metabolizes sugar calories different from vegetable calories, because one includes loads more fiber and is more difficult for the body to break down... and the other will up insulin levels and instantly convert those calories to fat. That's ignoring things like satiety etc...
So you're arguing that regardless of energy needs, what else is eaten, etc the 1,850 in fudge will be instantly converted into fat? This doesn't match anything I've read before (in a reputable source).
If you go over your calories in broccoli, you're still going to put on weight -- even if you are burning a bit more calories to digest the broccoli. Taking into account things like fiber, the increased energy taken to burn protein, etc excess calories are going to result in weight gain.2 -
I'm pretty sure that if you drank a pound of olive oil you would lose weight because it would make you very sick... Sorry, little joke.9
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The physical weight of the food isn't related to the energy contained in the food. So if you ate 1,850 calories worth of fudge (my rough guess of the calorie contents of a pound), you would immediately weigh a pound more (because you just added a pound to your body). But your body is going to deal with those 1,850 calories just like it would deal with 1,850 calories of apples or broccoli or tofu.
The difference is that for most people, it would require a lot more effort to eat 1,850 calories of broccoli than it would to eat 1,850 calories of something like fudge.
I understand that weight of food is unrelated to calories (again this is more theoretical). Are you sure the bolded part is accurate? My understanding is that the body metabolizes sugar calories different from vegetable calories, because one includes loads more fiber and is more difficult for the body to break down... and the other will up insulin levels and instantly convert those calories to fat. That's ignoring things like satiety etc...
So you're arguing that regardless of energy needs, what else is eaten, etc the 1,850 in fudge will be instantly converted into fat? This doesn't match anything I've read before (in a reputable source).
If you go over your calories in broccoli, you're still going to put on weight -- even if you are burning a bit more calories to digest the broccoli. Taking into account things like fiber, the increased energy taken to burn protein, etc excess calories are going to result in weight gain.
Actually more asking than arguing (hence the "my understanding") -- I saw that in a documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLKwiNpjLZ8
0 -
This is exactly what I was thinking. I got nauseous just thinking about it.nevadavis1 wrote: »I'm pretty sure that if you drank a pound of olive oil you would lose weight because it would make you very sick... Sorry, little joke.
0 -
Oh. Pro-tip: ignore everything you saw/heard/read in Fed Up. It's complete nonsense.4
-
-
Oh. Pro-tip: ignore everything you saw/heard/read in Fed Up. It's complete nonsense.
Gah, really? Anything better out there for a layman on how the body processes and metabolizes food? Very much want to better understand this and macros/nutrition, how different foods affect the body, the difference between "bad" and "good" foods and the correct balance -- but it seems like there's a lot of contradiction and articles that argue the exact opposite of something I just read.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The physical weight of the food isn't related to the energy contained in the food. So if you ate 1,850 calories worth of fudge (my rough guess of the calorie contents of a pound), you would immediately weigh a pound more (because you just added a pound to your body). But your body is going to deal with those 1,850 calories just like it would deal with 1,850 calories of apples or broccoli or tofu.
The difference is that for most people, it would require a lot more effort to eat 1,850 calories of broccoli than it would to eat 1,850 calories of something like fudge.
I understand that weight of food is unrelated to calories (again this is more theoretical). Are you sure the bolded part is accurate? My understanding is that the body metabolizes sugar calories different from vegetable calories, because one includes loads more fiber and is more difficult for the body to break down... and the other will up insulin levels and instantly convert those calories to fat. That's ignoring things like satiety etc...
So you're arguing that regardless of energy needs, what else is eaten, etc the 1,850 in fudge will be instantly converted into fat? This doesn't match anything I've read before (in a reputable source).
If you go over your calories in broccoli, you're still going to put on weight -- even if you are burning a bit more calories to digest the broccoli. Taking into account things like fiber, the increased energy taken to burn protein, etc excess calories are going to result in weight gain.
Actually more asking than arguing (hence the "my understanding") -- I saw that in a documentary:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLKwiNpjLZ8
I would not consider that video a reputable source for information.2 -
Oh. Pro-tip: ignore everything you saw/heard/read in Fed Up. It's complete nonsense.
Gah, really? Anything better out there for a layman on how the body processes and metabolizes food? Very much want to better understand this and macros/nutrition, how different foods affect the body, the difference between "bad" and "good" foods and the correct balance -- but it seems like there's a lot of contradiction and articles that argue the exact opposite of something I just read.
IMO, eating well is pretty straight forward and largely a matter of common sense...but the diet and fitness industry tend to muddy the waters and people throw common sense out the window and the next thing you know they're scared of an apple 'cuz sugar...
I eat a diet consisting largely of whole foods and my wife and I cook most of the time...I eat a lot of veg, some fruit (more in the summer), whole grains, legumes, lentils, plenty of whole food starches like potatoes and sweet potatoes, lean sourced protein (and sometimes fattier sourced), and good fats from things like nuts and avocados and good oils. I also eat pizza most Friday nights and have a little something for desert a few nights per week and the occasional candy bar at the office...1 -
Oh. Pro-tip: ignore everything you saw/heard/read in Fed Up. It's complete nonsense.
Gah, really? Anything better out there for a layman on how the body processes and metabolizes food? Very much want to better understand this and macros/nutrition, how different foods affect the body, the difference between "bad" and "good" foods and the correct balance -- but it seems like there's a lot of contradiction and articles that argue the exact opposite of something I just read.
Start with the "stickied" posts in the various threads. You are going to find more knowledge and experience with the veterans of these forums than any documentary or alternate source. The reason behind this is money. Most services are ultimately selling you something and will drive fear into the marketing "You cannot lose weight if you don't follow my program!" pitch. The posters here however, have been there, lived through it, and maintained for a significant period of time and wanting to pass this knowledge on.2 -
Love this post! I regularly eat a salad made up of cucumbers, tomatoes, onions, avocado, and bell peppers. It is not calorie dense at all but weighs over a pound in most cases. I can honestly say that the fiber and other non-digestibles contributes to a very large waste output the following day. Also, due to the high water content, I urinate a LOT after eating this. And I typically weigh less the next day.
It really makes you think about how complicated our bodies really are. It does mostly come down to calories in vs calories out but there is so much more to it when you dive in deeper!1 -
Let's be clear, we are talking about the possibility of the upper limit, i.e.:
Is it possible, even with perfect conversion of food energy into mass to achieve more weight gain than the weight of the food?
Short answer: NO.
Long version:
1. Conservation of mass/energy in physics - no possible event will result in more mass or energy out of nowhere. So, no matter what you eat, you cannot gain more mass than what you've eaten by any means whatsoever, using any food whatsoever.
2. Napkin calculations:
1 kg of olive oil = 8840 ccal
8840 ccal = 982.22g of fat
982.22g < 1kg.
So, even with the perfect conversion of calories into fat mass, you can't get more than you've eaten. Add to that all the imperfect conversions of food into carbs, protein, waste, heat, &c. - and you'll end up with even less mass adding to your weight as time goes by.
To answer those who'd say:
- you won't be able to convert those calories into carbs/protein. Olive oil is 100% fat. Other foods will have different densities, so they won't make up the same weight with the same amount of calories.But if you convert those calories into carbs/protein, they'll end up weighing more than 1 kg.
Let me demonstrate:
1 kg of sugar = 3870 ccal
3870 ccal = 967.5g of carbohydrates
967.5g < 1kg.
Again, we know carbohydrates pack fewer calories per gram than fat. At the same time, 1 kg of sugar packs fewer calories than 1 kg of olive oil. Sugar is 99.98% carbs.
Finally, an example with proteins (and mixed in fat).
1 kg of Salmon = 1460 ccal of which there are 38% fat and 62% protein. That is, you have 554.8 calories locked in fat, and 905.2 calories locked in protein.
1460 ccal = 61.64g of fat + 226.3g of protein = 287.94g.
287.94g << 1kg.
So, between fat, protein and the rest of it, salmon is a very poor candidate if you want to gain weight which would be nearly equal to the mass of food you've eaten.
These rough calculations suggest, that sticking to pure-fat and pure-carbs options will yield the closest weight gain to the food mass, should you wish to achieve it.3 -
Of course it's possible, eat a pound of extra salty chips and you'll add water weight on top of any fat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions