Can you help settle an argument with my brother Veeky Forumsentists...

Yes, it's possible although unintuitive. Just vomit it up and then eat it again. You'll gain 1 point twice, and 1*2 = 2.
This principle is why bulimia is such a dangerous eating disorder, as it creates a vicious cycle of weight gain/purging.

I don't get this either. What's all the fuss with calories then?
What if you eat a small pill engineered to store 2000 cal and you only consume 1000 cal?
Science says you should gain weight, but where is that weight coming from. Very strange

unless you're a complete lard ass, most of your excess weight is retained water

It would be impossible to engineer a small pill that contains 2000 calories; pure fats, the most energy dense substances humans can digest, are ~9 calories per gram; thus 2000 calories would need at least 222 grams of food, or about half a pound in freedom units.

Attached: a35fa495f571eea08e3799139bf6b025.jpg (466x680, 73K)

Sorry but I immediately hide posts that contain anime. If you want me to read what you have to say try again without that trash.

i think you're on the wrong site
>>>/reddit/

Anime website.

Attached: 1515330818053.gif (1200x666, 1.26M)

To farther add to this, remember that calories are a unit of measurement, not a physical thing. They measure how much energy could be extracted from a food to power your body; thus over the long term if you run any energy surplus your body will create fat to store it for later; if you run a deficit your body will burn through your existing tissue to make up the difference.

What makes weight loss so hard for people is a combination of your body turning down its metabolism when food intake is reduced, thus reducing the energy you use, and the fact that most people are complete shit at accurately counting the actual amount of calories in the food they eat.

Attached: 1498519613830.jpg (640x800, 190K)

Why so upset?

how is that upset? i didn't even call you a shitstained inbred moron, or use the "get the fuck out"

Technically, yes - as the body already has already gathered within it the ability to produce additional mass. You can ingest "weight gaining" food, and produce more muscle mass, which weighs more than most tissue, and said weight gaining food may very well weigh less than the mass so gained.

Similarly, simple sugars and other foods that mess up your endocrine system can cause weight gain and water retention, as can certain medicines that weigh less than an ounce per dose. Even just straight up salt can lead to weight gain via water retention - and you do not need to eat a pound of salt to gain a pound of water.

Granted, it all takes time, and it is only possible because of food the system has integrated previously.

True of most all living things. A Redwood may weigh a few thousand tons, but it does not ingest an equal mass of soil or even water during its growth cycle - combining sunlight, moisture, and nutrients to continuously produce denser mass.

Attached: thicc.jpg (736x490, 109K)

Read the question again you dumfuck

>writes huge paragraph trying to sound super intelligent while totally missing the initial premise

Who's worse - you or OP? Idk

Yes, when leaving ketosis. Lookup water storage due to glycogen.

You idiots both missed the part where he's right

That mass has to come from somewhere. You're confusing mass and weight.

The weight of a redwood may appear to be far greater than intake because of the density of the materials.

The absolute mass of a redwood DOES equal what it ingests from its growth cycle down to the atom because there would be no conservation of energy otherwise, are we just inventing atoms inside of redwoods? Moisture, nutrients (and you forgot CO2 which is the primary source of carbon for this plant) is where all of the mass comes from.

Also you're explanation of water retention makes no sense. Eating salt does not cause you to gain disproportional amounts of weight through water retention, it causes you to retain water that was either already inside of you (in which case you don't "gain" weight, you just hold on to some weight you already had for longer), or retain water that you drink afterward which will increase weight in proportion to the amount of water you drink.

Endocrine stress does not cause additional weight gain from "nothing". Those materials were already in your body from previous food eaten, which again will always be proportional to some previous input. The carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus etc. you are made of had to have come from somewhere and it's absolute mass (not density) will never exceed the intake.

The not-pseud answer to OPs question is: if you put 1 pound of food inside of you and eat nothing else and your body has no resources beyond what you ingested, it is IMPOSSIBLE to gain more or less than exactly 1 pound.

>Can you gain two pounds(or whatever unit) from eating one pound of food, given that you eat nothing else, and your body has no resources beyond what you have just ingested?
Clearly we're down to Twitter level responses or else people get confused, but he's right, the TL;DR version is yes, cuz the body already has mass it can make into denser mass. Various foods, drugs, and exercise can trigger this.

Redwoods combine lighter elements and energy into heavier compounds. Chlorophyll photosynthesis is literally energy to matter process. Redwoods do not take in an equal amount of matter to what they create.

Holy shit you nigger, density is not mass

Which part is that? The water rentention part? Because it's irrelevant to the question

Your body combines things a that are not food - such as air and water - to create more biological mass. The cells within it are constantly growing. Your body is perfectly capable of generating more than a pound of biomass from less than a pound of food.

>oops I did it again
>didn't read the OP question
This is the correct answer. You can't get something from nothing.

Any air and water you intake will count towards your 1 pound
>hurr durr if I eat some salt then drink 10 pounds of water I will gain more than I ate

The mass of the atoms that go into those compounds does not change. Are you finished highschool? Do you know what the molecular weight of a compound means?

Chlorophyll photosynthesis is not a "literally energy to matter process" and you're retarded if you think so. All is does is provide the energy to sequester carbon from CO2 in the Calvin cycle.

You don't know shit. Respond to posts for which you're qualified to have an opinion.

Attached: C3cycle.gif (601x430, 50K)

>you can't get something from nothing
>except for the entire universe, you can get that from nothing
the state of fedora "intellectuals"

Food and biomass are not generated at a 1:1 ratio. Indeed, it's generally a far better ratio than that, as nearly all living things have multiple energy intakes that they use to grow.

>Air is food.

Water isn't food either, so what?
>your body has no resources beyond what you have just ingested

>quoting things no one said
>I'm user and I suck a bunch of fucking cocks all day

This fucking thread...

We're dealing with something that in animal husbandry is known as FCE or feed conversion efficiency. FCE is a measure of the efficiency of an animal in turning feed in to weight gain (or milk production in the case of dairy cows.) Some farmed animals will have a very high FCE putting on as much as 50% of the weight of high quality feed as body mass. So for example a meat hen being fed a high quality feed can put on as much as 1 kilo body weight for every 2 kilos of feed it eats. (that of course is in ideal conditions and a lot of variables come in to play that makes that figure hard to reach.)

Short version: You are taking in more than just food, technically speaking - but your body combines food, with other energy intakes and chemical processes, to produce more mass than the food you take in.

But you just stated the opposite. FCE under ideal conditions if 50% and that's considered very high. And then you somehow conclude that you can produce more mass than the food you take.

FCE will never exceed 100%. You cannot produce more mass than the food you take in

>your body has no resources beyond what you have just ingested
Well then you have no body to begin with. Also you're dead, cuz apparently you aren't breathing.

this is a christian board

Fuck off you dumb nigger

That's actually still an open question in science. Sorry that we couldn't help.

Well, there's also "weight" and "size" to consider. Different foods and levels and types of activity are going to be converted into different types of tissues.

So, someone who eats a pound of meat and exercises quite a bit is going to gain muscle, while someone who eats a pound of chocolate and shitposts on Veeky Forums all day is going to gain fat. Chocolate shitposter guy is also going to retain more of anything else he eats or drinks, storing it as fat, unlike exercise guy, who burns that energy off instead of storing it.

...and then there's children to consider. If you're still growing your weight gain to food intake rate much more extreme over time, but yes, as others have pointed out, human bodies take in more than just food, even if you're never going to produce mass than you take in energy and food from various sources.

What are these other sources?
t. brainlet

Air and water, primarily.

If you eat 1 pound of food, then drink 1 pound of water, you will gain 2 pounds even though you only ate 1 pound of food

Can you gain more than 1 pound from eating and drinking 1 pound of food and water combined?

yeah but that's cheating
see

Yup, air also has mass, so you can breathe some air

but that air gets expelled instants after being taken in, besides its input is negligible.
let's try this again: can you gain more than 1 pound from eating and drinking 1 pound of food and water combined that won't be immediately lost the moment you breath out?

If absolutely nothing gets into your body, obviously you will not gain mass since conservation of energy

CO2 is more massive than O2 obviously so breathing is actually causing you to lose mass all the time.
It's one of the biggest contributors to weight lost during sleep, along with sweat.

So you gain more weight from a low calories high mass meal than from a high calories low mass meal

The body combines food, water, and air to feed its cells. Cells multiply, so, particularly if you're still growing, yes - though generally the ratio is less rather than more, depending on what sort of cells you are growing. Babies tend to gain more weight than the food you put into them because of this - converting more calcium into bone, adults not so much so, creating more fat and excreting more of their intake. (Though, if you've ever had to deal with a baby, they shit so much it sure doesn't seem like that.)

But like says, since it isn't just this one pound of food you take in your whole life, different foods and drugs and activities (or lack of activity) will cause you to gain weight at different rates. So, in the long term, two pounds of shit food will eventually cause you gain more weight than two pounds of good food, when combined with everything that comes after it. In some cases it'll also change your appetite, causing you to ingest more shit food, and the cycle continues into Gabenhood.

Yes, but then you're dead in short order - at which point you will lose mass very quickly.

I saw on TV a case about a super fat lady in the hospital cause she was too fat. Like they had to cut open the walls to get her inside. The hospital starved her but she kept gaining weight so they assumed she was getting food snuck into her. She insisted she wasn't eating and she was gaining weight for some other reason. Turns out she wasn't eating and all the weight was from water which was a symptom of some disease that later killed her in the hospital.

Yes, because the body can use air, water, and its chemical processes convert its own stores into more tissues. They probably had her on a glucose drip too, and the body can combine all that to go a long way on very little glucose.

So you don't gain mass, which is what I said

You keep talking about shit thats irrelevant to the question

Listen you dumbshit nigger. You are not gaining more mass than the mass of your intake

Well, if we're talking short term, you're not going to gain any more weight from eating a one pound burrito than you are from holding it in your hand.

But gaining and losing weight in the non-autistic sense takes time, so we assume there's a long term bioprocess going on here. Literally having no intake at all just means your dead, which makes the question irrelevant.

Which is exactly what that post says - but OP is just asking about food. Food is not your only intake.

Technically, bodies gain mass when they die, for a time. Some cells continue to grow for awhile as do the microbes within the body, at increasing rates as they are left unchecked by the now dead immune system - though then you get into that complex debate about what is and isn't part of your body.

Even in the long term, if you eat 1lbs of food everyday, you will not gain more than 365lbs in a year. Energy from other sources are negligible. Some foods might make you gain more weight, some less, but no food will make you gain more than what you ate

Generally, you will gain *less* weight than you take in - a lot of that gets used up and excreted as well as converted into other chemicals that are in turn excreted - though this isn't true for babies, which combine all their intakes to create more dense materials than adults.

But again, different foods and drugs cause you retain weight from water and other foods at different rates, particularly if you have certain conditions, and these stores can in turn be converted to additional tissues. So you can take in less than a pound of the wrong food and chemicals and gain more than a pound of weight, as a result, in the long term. OP's question doesn't address that, but your assertion does. (Also energy from other sources are not negligible - they are indeed primary - just not as it relates to weight gain.)

>take in a pound of the wrong food and chemicals and gain more than a pound
No this is fucking incorrect, how many times are you going to repost about density. Are you the same user as before? Density is not relevant here, it's the mass that matters. How is this untrue for babies? Babies have a higher conversion percentage because they are growing rapidly but this conversion will never ever exceed 100%.

Density is irrelevant I don't know why you keep thinking more dense = more mass
>energy from other sources are not negligible...just as it relates to the question
Guess what? WE ARE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING QUESTION SO ITS NEGLIGIBLE

In the case of babies, weight gain always exceeds the weight of the food they take in alone, as they are converting more of their water and air, coupled with that food, into growth. It takes more water to make bone, for instance, than it does calcium.

If you combine all the mass and energy they are taking in, then yes, it isn't more than that, obviously, but they do generate more than weight that of their food intake alone.

And you can gain more weight from certain foods and chemicals than they have in themselves, in the long term, because of the effects it has on subsequent food and water intake and retention, as well as the sort of tissue generation it induces in your body.

Hurr durr this water retention shit again

>weight gain always exceeds the weight of the food they take in alone
i doubt this is true, sounds way too fishy, got any source?

It's not just water retention - it's fat retention. Different foods and activities have effects on how much you store and grow vs. how much energy you use and excrete.

Say you take some steroids, negligible mass. You are arguing that the steroids would make you gain more weight than the weight of the steroids alone. But this is a retarded argument because the steroids alone will not make you gain weight, you must eat food afterwards. THAT FOOD YOU EAT AFTERWARDS WILL WEIGHT MORE THAN WHATEVER MUSVLE YOU GAIN

That is irrelevant you dumbfuck. The weight you are retaining is from food you ate. You are not retaining more than 100% of what you ate

You eat 1lbs a day, you will not gain more than 365lbs in a year no matter how much you retain

Weight that would otherwise be stored as fat or excreted. Thus that negligible intake of steroids coupled with exercise is causing you to gain more weight than you otherwise would, often in short order.

I'm arguing that you generally gain *less* weight than you eat, but what you intake has an effect on what you retain and what sort of mass the body produces. In some circumstances, the body can take very little food, and by combining its existing stores and water, make a much heavier overall biomass.

Actually you can, when you include water, as the body can use water and air convert its previous mass into heavier tissues, should it be inclined to do so. If triggered to do so, the body will convert more of its tissues, coupled with water and air, into heavier elements, even with just a light glucose intake. It just has to be a rather extreme circumstance, before it gets to the point where that food intake weight is more than the weight gained.

>It just has to be a rather extreme circumstance, before it gets to the point where that food intake weight is more than the weight gained.
to the point where that food intake weight is less* than the weight gained, rather.

No one is questioning whether or not what you eat has an effect on your weight

Yes. starving african childrens bellies are bloated with gas which has a net gain to weight.

Well, the point is one pound of food or chemical intake can lead to more of the subsequent intake being retained, or more mass grown from the biomass that is already in play, where there'd otherwise be less or it would be excreted.

I'm not arguing for some sorta violation of conservation, body just reacts differently to different intakes. Some trigger growth, some gets kept, some just goes straight through, but most critically, some has a rather drastic effect on what is done with subsequent intake.

You said 50% FCE is "very high"
Then you conclude that a FCE above 100% is possible?
Sounds like you're on crack my nigger

But is nothing lost when you throw up the weight? Technically, if you're able to throw up the entire pound, you've basically not absorbed or digested anything from it and it hasn't turned to waste yet. You're not gaining two pounds, you're gaining 1, losing it and then gaining it back.

>You can weigh two pounds and only consume one
Wow, great observation.

you can't
if you were a plant you could because plants use carbon from the air to make sugar and so they gain weight from the air they breathe. conservation of mass still obviously applies though
you can gain a lot of weight from drinking fluids, but I assume this falls under "eating"

particular foods can impact your metabolism or appetite though

mathematicians writing math curricula is the reason we don't teach calculus students how to manipulate differentials

The assumption from the OP question is that the person would be weighed, eat the 1lb of food (no additional water etc), and then be reweighed soon after (before more food/water is consumed, and before much energy is expended, since both of these affect the results).

In that case, I'm having a hard time seeing how, in the very short term, the subject would weigh more than 1lb extra, assuming accurate scales.

>1 pound of food
>nothing else ingested, probably including water

You can lose over a pound of water per hour just sitting around through keeping your body cool. Up to 4 pounds an hour if things are super hot.

If you travel to a planet with twice earth's gravity, then yes

The experiment should definitely control for this possibility

Mass is independent if a gravitational field.

Confirmed for failing basic high school biology

If you've never failed you've never tried

>I don't know the answer
>but I know you have no idea

Attached: 1487871818612.png (709x462, 660K)

simple, add a dark number to the equations

Attached: 1415542522327.png (637x500, 265K)

It is interesting that trees are mostly made of air.

But if you are eating sammiches, you are probably not a tree.

>when a filthy bag of water replies to your thread

Attached: 1520177689417.png (703x491, 399K)