That’s how I interpreted the question - not a challenge to conservation of matter, but a question about whether you can gain more weight than the weight of the food you eat through mechanisms such as the retention of water in association with stored fat/
The air?
I’m not saying that actually happens, it’s just an example that someone may think could happen – without breaking the conservation of mass – and hence prompt the question.
As far as I know, don’t trees get most of their mass from the air? So it isn’t a huge stretch to think maybe there are some foods that cause people to do something similar.
It is theoretically possible to gain more weight than the weight of the food consumed.
If you have depleted your body’s glycogen stores (either through intense exercise or by ketogenic dieting) and then consume some form of starch, as your body replenishes its glycogen stores you will gain water weight along with the food weight. About 3 g of water will be stored with each g of glycogen consumed. Glycogen stores would then be topped off after consuming about 1 lb of starch.
Other foods that promote water retention could do this as well.
Aren’t you counting the weight of water consumed there? If you ate dry starch and consumed no water you’d gain no more than the weight of the starch.
Yes, I should rephrase my first sentence to state “It is theoretically possible to gain more weight than the weight of the food consumed, assuming the food is consumed with water.”
OK, as soon as people start to sprout leaves and engage in photosynthesis, we’ll get back to you with that answer.
The spirit of the question seems to assume steady state calories and water and then adding a food in. If the food causes less water to be urinated off then it counts. So indeed Surreal names one example and one that I understand happens fairly commmonly to people have been low carbing it for a while who go off: they replenish glycogen stores and a unavoidably also pee off a lots less water as the water is stored with the glycogen. I’ve also heard 3 to 1 as a ballpark. So one pound carb intake could theoretically result in nearly three pounds of weight gain if there was previous balance and depleted carb stores (due to the water stored with the glycogen that otherwise would have been urinated off, no extra water taken in required). That’s also where much of the early rapid weight loss in low carb comes from.
Also a pound of fat (e.g. lard) consumed is pure fat and contains 4086 calories. Human fat as stores contains 3500 calories per pound because of water and proteins that are part of its being stored. If conversion into fat was done with loss in the process (not reality) then it would result in 1.16 pounds gained with some water not peed off and being stored instead. Processing the fat however does take some energy, called the thermic effect of food, which for fat is somewhere between 5 to 15%. That would leave some small amount more gained than eaten (again assuming otherwise previous water and calorie balance).
If that fat allowed for more muscle to be gained (in the context of otherwise adequate protein intake, calories just sufficient to maintain but not enough to gain, and again previous water balance) then 1 pound of lard over a week (3500 calories) could theoretically be turned into 1.93 pounds of protein and however much water gets stored with it to form functional muscle.
No that is not something from nothing or creating mass out of thin air. You are starting with a system in balance, breaking down food for energy and for rebuilding tissues as needed, breathing out mass as CO2 and water vapor, and urinating out water and nitrogenous compounds as well. You add excess energy in and you impact that balance on all counts. Yes stored fat and moreso muscle weighs more per calorie than consumed fat does and enough more that the cost of converting it is not enough to offset the excess.
Lard cannot be turned into protein. You need to eat protein to lay down protein in your muscles, or wherever.
The rest of your post just seems to be a roundabout way of saying that, in some circumstances, eating certain things can cause you to retain more water than you otherwise would, a point that was covered in the first two replies to this thread. Comparatively large amounts of water-weight, however, that often swamp the sorts of amounts you are considering, are gained and lost all the time for all sorts of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with what food you are eating (and the “food” that will cause the most “gain” in water-weight is salt, which is entirely non-caloric). The only sensible approach to this question is either to set aside changes in water-weight, or to treat water as a component of the diet like any other. Frankly, the second alternative is probably the more sensible approach, as most foods contain quite a lot of water, quite apart from any water or other beverages that are drunk. On either approach, you are not going to gain any more weight (and, in practice, will gain much less weight) than the weight of the food you ingest.
The answer to the OP’s question is still clearly “No”.
No, lard cannot be turned into protein. The protein that the person ate (again, in the context of otherwise adequate protein and just enough calories otherwise to maintain) however could be used for energy if it is needed for energy, or, in the context of otherwise having an energy excess, by virtue of adding in that lard, could be used for building muscle.
This is the part that you are not getting (sorry if that sounds snarky). The lard is not consumed in isolation but put into a system that was in a previous state. The question is what impact that amount of now excess energy then has the system. If conditions were such that some protein would be being used for muscle synthesis if it was not needed for energy (weight training for example) then added calories allow for that to occur.
Let me spell out that scenario for you. A bodybuilder works out but eats just enough maintain or less. He can eat 1 gram of protein per pound but his body will still not allow him to put on much muscle weight as it will use much of that protein for energy and the rest to maintain the muscle that is broken down. Now add in an excess 3500 calories of energy in the form of fat each week. That same protein intake can now be used for building muscle and he can build muscle mass. That muscle is less energy dense than fat (i.e. weighs more per unit of calories).
No, not “retain more water” in the sense that most people understand that phrase. Those sorts of retaining water-weight are the sorts that you then dismiss as gaining and losing for all sorts of reasons, like sweating more or eating more salt or having drunk an extra liter, the sorts that correct themselves over the next day. This is water that is unavoidably stored along with storing the glycogen and the fat. So long as you have the glycogen stored or the fat stored that water will be there with it. It is integral to the tissue. If you store an excess pound of carbohydrate you MUST also store another (roughly) three pounds of water along with it; if you store an excess pound of fat energy as fat you MUST store water and some protein with it in the adipose tissue. You do not have to drink more to do that and it won’t get peed off the next day like salt-based water retention or extra water intake.
You cannot dismiss that integral water storage. Water is NOT at all the same as other components of the diet because it is regulated completely differently and will end up the same amount at the end of the day despite a very wide range of amounts taken in.
The answer to the op depends what the question actually is. The initial phrasing was nonsense. You’d die if all you ate was 500 ml of corn syrup a day and nothing else. But if the question is whether or not a person in energy and water balance at baseline can gain more than 4 oz from eating 4 oz of chocolate, the answer is clearly yes.
As my wife says, she may not be right, but she is never wrong.
The part that you’re not getting in return is that while it is true that the body is a system and body mass may be added if input exceeds the threshold of what is burned off, it is still true that body mass added will always under all circumstances be less than the weight of mass consumed. If you add fat or muscle that is partly water that water originally came from outside your body. The net total retained is therefore still less that the gross total input. Mass can only be redistributed, not manufactured. As njtt said, your new post again is merely an elaborate way of saying this.
BTW, from somewhere upthread, plants get their food through their roots and from absorbing water. Photosynthesis just provides the energy to convert the raw materials into needed components.
Aside from water, most of plant’s food comes from the atmosphere, primarily carbon from CO2.
And, in turn, all of our food ultimately comes from plants making stuff from the air, using the energy of light.
Of course not. It’s just that chocolate has its own unit of measurement called the “ounce” that’s not the same as the traditional “ounce”, like gold does with the troy ounce.
I get that; it is just trite and not actually answering the question.
True or False?
A person who at normal intake is in balance taking in enough to maintain body weight, no more no less, and drinking a typical amount of water, may gain more than a pound a week in weight by adding in the consumption of one pound per week of lard while keeping everything else the same.
The answer is unequivocably True. The weight gained is less calorie dense than the food being eaten. That would be true if only fat mass was stored and is even more true because there is always also some element of less calorie dense fat free mass beng added as well. It is true even taking into account the energy required to process the food (the Thermic Effect of Food) which is estimated to be between 5 to 15% for carbs and fat. (That processing cost is higher for protein and alcohol.)
If the baseline condition includes resistance exercise that is not resulting in maximal muscle mass gain solely because there is only enough energy being provided to maintain and not enough to gain (protein ingested was baseline being used for requisite energy needs rather than new muscle synthesis) then the discrepency will be more significant.
True or False?
Someone who has been low carbing will gain more than a pound in a week by going off low carb and eating a pound of sugar in week, while keeping everything else the exact same.
Also True. Three or four times more. The body must store water along with the glycogen as it replenishes depleted muscle and liver glycogen stores.
To the op therefore:
Yes.
You’re simply taking water out of the equation by saying it has no calories. But that has nothing to do with weight gain. Water has weight, and you can’t handwave it away.
To the OP therefore: No. The OP specified “no water”. You are changing the OP’s question to an entirely different question. When you do that it’s trivial to come up with any answer your feel like.
True: you can add more weight than simply the weight of food if you add all the water you like.
Also True: You can never do so with food alone.
Importantly True: You can never gain more than the total weight of water and food.
No change in water intake.
A person who drinks no water is dead. That scenario is nonsensical. You cannot LIVE with food alone.
Here - let’s change the scenario: Take the person at baseline maintanence calories with adequate water intake. The IOM advises 3 liters a day, all sources. Use that. Add in the pound of lard a week and cut down water intake by 50%. Then everything else is the same. So over 23 pounds less water intake that week. Net 22 pounds less mass taken in.
The person may will still end up gaining more than a pound by the end of the week. Even though they took in much less total mass that week than the week before that resulted in weight maintanence.
Double the daily water intake, an extra 46 pounds of water taken in … still end of week will likely have gained a small bit more than a pound, no more.
How much water gets stored, the end of the day net water balance, is, within very wide margins, going to be independent of how much water is taken in. Double it, halve it, same end of day result.
True and trite: You can never gain more than the total weight of water and food. Uh, yeah. No duh. And not at all material. Water intake enough to store fat and glycogen, to make muscle mass, and to survive, is a given.
Honestly this is not too dissimilar to the myopia of “fat burning zone” discussions. Slow steady state aerobic exercise burns more fat during the exercise. Yes and trite; more fat is lost over the day by burning more calories in a shorter period of time.
Not only did the OP not specify “no water”, they actually specified eating corn syrup, which contains water.
Incorrect to the first part. The op stipulated that he/she ingests 500 ml of corn syrup and nothing else. Drinking water is ingesting water, so the nothing else means no water. Yes, there is water in corn syrup, but the person on that diet will not gain more than that per day, even with no output.
I Am not a Nutritionist or even ever taken a Biology/Chemistry or heaven forbid a Bio Chem course.
Simple answer… No.
Light Corn Syrup is 100 calories per 25 ml, so 2000 calories per 500 ml
Amount : 500 ml (millilitres) of light corn syrup
Equals : 1.51 lb (pound) of light corn syrup
Fraction : 1 51/100 lb (pound) of light corn syrup
then you output 500 g through your excretory system. that’s 1.10231 pounds.
Showing a net weight gain of about .4 pounds because that’s still not accounting for the calories burned to maintain the mass you currently have, your heart beating, lungs filling with and expelling air, any movement necessary to consume those calories or expel then via your excretory system.
You will always weigh less than
Weight of Food consumed - weight of excretory output sent into the toilet.
(ignoring the survivability or lack there of of subsisting on a diet of just light corn syrup.)
According to what I can Google, the most calorie dense food in the world is animal fat.
Tallow, lard, and fish oils all top the list providing 902 calories (45% DV) per 100 gram serving.
So if you change the OPs premise to 500 grams of tallow/lard/fish oil in, that’s going to be 4510 calories in every day, or more than double what 500 ml of light corn syrup would get you.
But if you’re outputting 500 grams from just your excretory system every day, you’re going to be at an even greater net loss?!? (That seems odd/wrong to me, but as disclaimed at the beginning, Biological Chemistry (which I think this all qualifies as) is something I have no formal training in at all.)