nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Blood donation

Spitspot81

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

Replies

zdyb23456

I've only donated twice, but I've never felt the side effects. I feel completely normal and will workout/run the next morning.

I've never logged as calories burned though. I figured any calories burned was just a bonus.

NEOHgirl

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 *_*

T1DCarnivoreRunner

Wow, that seems like a lot of calories... even over 6 weeks. It kinda makes me wish I could donate blood (I can't because I took beef insulin decades ago when that was a thing).

CattOfTheGarage

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

Just to add I found this article -http://www.maynardlifeoutdoors.com/2010/09/calories-in-human-blood_15.html - which breaks it all down and concludes a pint of blood contains about 450 calories, the vast majority of which is in the red blood cells themselves.

So that's a bit less than 650 - however it's possible that difference represents energy lost in the process of building new cells. You never get back what you put in.

And that's still more calories than a Starbucks latte. Nearly twice as much

powr69

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.

CattOfTheGarage

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.

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

janejellyroll

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.

junodog1

A pint 's a pound the world around.

powr69

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).

kkress92

Well, according to the database, Charlie Sheen's tiger blood has 0 cal. So I'm just going to go with that.

CattOfTheGarage

@kkress the blood entries in the database are mostly jokes and the numbers are nonsense. There's one for duck blood which looked more reasonable but I'd have to check it again.

@powr69 I see where you are coming from. At the end of the day, it makes no difference if you log it as 650 on the day or a tiny amount every day following, it all adds up the same in the end.

Personally I'm with you, I'd log 650 on the day, partly for pedantry (the system has instantaneously lost calories, the replenishment over the following weeks is just bookkeeping) and partly for practicality - the donation is a big shock to the system and the extra calories will help, right then and there, to start the recovery process.

powr69

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

I see where you are coming from. At the end of the day, it makes no difference if you log it as 650 on the day or a tiny amount every day following, it all adds up the same in the end.

Personally I'm with you, I'd log 650 on the day, partly for pedantry (the system has instantaneously lost calories, the replenishment over the following weeks is just bookkeeping) and partly for practicality - the donation is a big shock to the system and the extra calories will help, right then and there, to start the recovery process.

I'm glad you agree, it helps me feel a little less like Sisyphus on this subject. I just couldn't fathom how it's literally gone years with this question coming up over and over and no one ever really acknowledging or discussing the instant loss.

janejellyroll

powr69 wrote: »

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).

If I only exercised once every two months, I wouldn't track that either. I log my exercise because it is significant over the course of an entire week, not for the impact on any one day. One day of heavy activity is going to be pretty meaningless for your weight loss.

I realize that anecdotal experiences aren't worth much, but I've been logging for over two years and I've never factored in whatever calories I'm losing through blood donation (and I donate every two months) and I lose/maintain exactly as I would expect.

You may have an approach that works for you, but I would say generally that a hyper-focus on rare events isn't really productive in weight loss or maintaining. It's our day-in-day-out routines that typically define our weight, not the things that happen every other month. We probably have a wider swing in typical logging errors and lack of accuracy than we do with blood donation.

That said, if it works for you, then feel free to do it.

DrifterBear

powr69

janejellyroll wrote: »

If I only exercised once every two months, I wouldn't track that either. I log my exercise because it is significant over the course of an entire week, not for the impact on any one day. One day of heavy activity is going to be pretty meaningless for your weight loss.

I realize that anecdotal experiences aren't worth much, but I've been logging for over two years and I've never factored in whatever calories I'm losing through blood donation (and I donate every two months) and I lose/maintain exactly as I would expect.

You may have an approach that works for you, but I would say generally that a hyper-focus on rare events isn't really productive in weight loss or maintaining. It's our day-in-day-out routines that typically define our weight, not the things that happen every other month. We probably have a wider swing in typical logging errors and lack of accuracy than we do with blood donation.

That said, if it works for you, then feel free to do it.

I see where you're coming from in the vein of the calorie loss being a drop in the bucket (no pun intended, but damn if that wasn't a great double!). Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to count it, pedantic as it may be.

DrifterBear wrote: »

I think you're still missing the point... There is an instant loss of calories when the blood is removed. We're animals, just as cows and chickens are. And like them, all of our tissues, fluids, etc., contain calories. If you were to chop your arm off you would remove calories that are part of your body. The difference is, your arm wouldn't grow back. In the case of blood donation the calorie burn, which is what most of us are interested in, occurs gradually as blood is replenished. In this case, removing calories is completely different from calorie burn. Your body isn't a perfect system so I'd imagine that if you donated some number of calories worth of blood, say 400 calories worth, it would actually take more calories for your body to generate that much to replace the lost fluid. So maybe it would take 600 calories to replace 400 calories of blood.

It takes a few weeks for the blood to be replaced so it's probably 20-30 calories extra per day as others have pointed out. Eating after donation just increases your blood sugar levels to keep you from passing out. I'd say enjoy the snack and maybe there's some benefit over the next few weeks of slightly higher burn. But it might amount to a 1/3 extra pound on the scale when it's done.

My body doesn't rely on my arm the way it does blood for nourishment. In that regard this feels like an apples > oranges comparison. Loss of an arm is not at all the same as the loss of blood. Losing an arm will reduce my "caloric load/requirements" as well as a small portion of calories available to the rest of the body due to the blood lost at the same time, but it's not the same as only losing calories available to the body via the donation. This is why the calorie burn part is only part of the equation, not the whole.

As pedantic as it may be, the loss of blood does amount to a fair loss of calories for the body immediately, followed by the slow burn of rebuilding said loss. Is it insignificant over the long run? Perhaps. Is it wrong to still want to count it? I don't think so.

janejellyroll

powr69 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

If I only exercised once every two months, I wouldn't track that either. I log my exercise because it is significant over the course of an entire week, not for the impact on any one day. One day of heavy activity is going to be pretty meaningless for your weight loss.

I realize that anecdotal experiences aren't worth much, but I've been logging for over two years and I've never factored in whatever calories I'm losing through blood donation (and I donate every two months) and I lose/maintain exactly as I would expect.

You may have an approach that works for you, but I would say generally that a hyper-focus on rare events isn't really productive in weight loss or maintaining. It's our day-in-day-out routines that typically define our weight, not the things that happen every other month. We probably have a wider swing in typical logging errors and lack of accuracy than we do with blood donation.

That said, if it works for you, then feel free to do it.

I see where you're coming from in the vein of the calorie loss being a drop in the bucket (no pun intended, but damn if that wasn't a great double!). Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to count it, pedantic as it may be.

DrifterBear wrote: »

I think you're still missing the point... There is an instant loss of calories when the blood is removed. We're animals, just as cows and chickens are. And like them, all of our tissues, fluids, etc., contain calories. If you were to chop your arm off you would remove calories that are part of your body. The difference is, your arm wouldn't grow back. In the case of blood donation the calorie burn, which is what most of us are interested in, occurs gradually as blood is replenished. In this case, removing calories is completely different from calorie burn. Your body isn't a perfect system so I'd imagine that if you donated some number of calories worth of blood, say 400 calories worth, it would actually take more calories for your body to generate that much to replace the lost fluid. So maybe it would take 600 calories to replace 400 calories of blood.

It takes a few weeks for the blood to be replaced so it's probably 20-30 calories extra per day as others have pointed out. Eating after donation just increases your blood sugar levels to keep you from passing out. I'd say enjoy the snack and maybe there's some benefit over the next few weeks of slightly higher burn. But it might amount to a 1/3 extra pound on the scale when it's done.

My body doesn't rely on my arm the way it does blood for nourishment. In that regard this feels like an apples > oranges comparison. Loss of an arm is not at all the same as the loss of blood. Losing an arm will reduce my "caloric load/requirements" as well as a small portion of calories available to the rest of the body due to the blood lost at the same time, but it's not the same as only losing calories available to the body via the donation. This is why the calorie burn part is only part of the equation, not the whole.

As pedantic as it may be, the loss of blood does amount to a fair loss of calories for the body immediately, followed by the slow burn of rebuilding said loss. Is it insignificant over the long run? Perhaps. Is it wrong to still want to count it? I don't think so.

If anything I wrote conveyed that I think there is something wrong with counting them, I apologize for that. I don't think there is anything wrong with your approach, even though it isn't what I would personally do.

powr69

janejellyroll wrote: »

If anything I wrote conveyed that I think there is something wrong with counting them, I apologize for that. I don't think there is anything wrong with your approach, even though it isn't what I would personally do.

Not at all, that was my choice of words, not yours. No need to apologize.

Packerjohn

midwesterner85 wrote: »

Wow, that seems like a lot of calories... even over 6 weeks. It kinda makes me wish I could donate blood (I can't because I took beef insulin decades ago when that was a thing).

600 calories over 6 weeks is 14 calories a day. I doubt if anyone is able to track that level of granularity.

DietVanillaCoke

Good on you for donating! =D

As someone who is type O neg i use to donate as often as possible and i still managed to gain 50kgs while donating XD

The burn is pretty high but i don't usually log it or worry about it too much, i do however make sure I get enough food and water before and after to prevent fainting... I always would faint though as i do even when seeing others donating =(.

firephoenix8

I donate platelets, often every other week. You can do every week, but at about three hours of moderate discomfort early on a Saturday morning...I don't go every time I could.

The first few times I did it I was wiped out all day Saturday (as in, I slept all day and all night) and didn't do much Sunday either. I experimented and found what I need for my body in order to manage donating and not losing the weekend (homework, laundry, grocery shopping, cooking for the week, cleaning - it's kind of important as a full time student with a full time job) is to eat relatively heavy the night before. An extra 500-800 calories, mostly carbs, often with some modest alcohol intake too (and lots of water). I know that sounds like a lot, but it's what works. I go back to my normal schedule afterwards, because eating after doesn't help. I never see an unusual weight swing doing it this way, and I've done while successfully (so far) losing 35lbs.

ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken

I guess if you are afraid of needles and you stress hard enough about it perhaps you could lose weight like this???

powr69

Packerjohn wrote: »

midwesterner85 wrote: »

Wow, that seems like a lot of calories... even over 6 weeks. It kinda makes me wish I could donate blood (I can't because I took beef insulin decades ago when that was a thing).

600 calories over 6 weeks is 14 calories a day. I doubt if anyone is able to track that level of granularity.

You might wanna go back and read through from where I joined in. It's more than just 600, there's the instant loss of about that from the donation, and then again from the rebuild, which is the part that you speak of. I've conceded that maybe I'm being a pedant, but to me that instant loss is worth tracking. The slow rebuild is not.

DietVanillaCoke wrote: »

Good on you for donating! =D

As someone who is type O neg i use to donate as often as possible and i still managed to gain 50kgs while donating XD

The burn is pretty high but i don't usually log it or worry about it too much, i do however make sure I get enough food and water before and after to prevent fainting... I always would faint though as i do even when seeing others donating =(.

O+ here, so not quite as universal a donor as you. I donate every couple months when my work does it as an outing or they have the bus come. As for the rest, I weather it pretty well. Fairly certain I could do strenuous work without much of an issue too, but I don't risk it. Never passed out, only once ever did I feel slightly faint once after, and I think it was a combo of things at the time. One of my coworkers on the other hand, he faints nearly every time. He's a pretty thin guy though, and doesn't eat much.

ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »

I guess if you are afraid of needles and you stress hard enough about it perhaps you could lose weight like this???

Weight loss via donating isn't the goal and isn't attainable without shenanigans and major risk of harm to self. That's been gone over. When I first resurrected this thread, my main thing was wondering how much the donation could offset the unusually calorie heavy breakfast I had, so that I could resume with my normal diet and still come in under my goal. Looking back, it seems I would've only been over my usual breakfasts caloric cost by about 100 once donation is accounted for.