Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Calorie balance: eaten vs excreted

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Gregory Toomey - 22 Nov 2005 10:41 GMT
I'm sure there must be plenty of info on this, this is an interesting
question that's pretty fundamental.

My question is "What percentage of ingested calories are excreted?"
Say you are on 2000 calories per day, how many calories would the average
sedentary person excrete (urine/faeces)? 50% (1000 calories)? 30%? 80%?
I presume the remaining calories would be burned by the body.

gtoomey
tunderbar@hotmail.com - 22 Nov 2005 14:51 GMT
There is little to no credible info on anything having to do with
calories. It is a mirage.

TC

> I'm sure there must be plenty of info on this, this is an interesting
> question that's pretty fundamental.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> gtoomey
Joe the Aroma - 22 Nov 2005 15:10 GMT
> I'm sure there must be plenty of info on this, this is an interesting
> question that's pretty fundamental.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> gtoomey

It depends on the calories. Excess carbohydrates are stored as fat as we all
know. Fiber, however, is not. Excess protein is excreted in urine. How much
that's excreted depends upon your metabolic needs.
jbuch - 22 Nov 2005 15:28 GMT
>>I'm sure there must be plenty of info on this, this is an interesting
>>question that's pretty fundamental.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> know. Fiber, however, is not. Excess protein is excreted in urine. How much
> that's excreted depends upon your metabolic needs.

Protein is the only macronutrient furnishing the body useful nitrogen in
significant proportions (proteins are complexes of amino acids).

Excess protein is converted into fat (with little or no nitrogen) and
the nitrogen (actually the whole amino group of the amino acids that
make up protein) is excreeted in the urine.

It is easy to see how that is sometimes stated as "Excess protein is
excreeted in the urine".

The Mayo Clinic Kidney guy says this:
------------------------------------------

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-protein-diets/AN00847

Your body can store only small amounts of excess protein. During
digestion and metabolism, protein is broken down into amino acids. These
are the building blocks of protein. Next, nitrogen is removed from these
extra amino acids. The nitrogen is processed by your liver and then
excreted in urine as waste.

--------------------------------------------

Signature

1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

gweebles - 23 Nov 2005 01:24 GMT
I think what he means is how much does your body absorb.  I don't have
the facts but I am also wondering that because it is known that the
body doesn't absorb every little nutrient that we eat.
jbuch - 23 Nov 2005 11:40 GMT
> I think what he means is how much does your body absorb.  I don't have
> the facts but I am also wondering that because it is known that the
> body doesn't absorb every little nutrient that we eat.

The original poster obviously was concerned with the efficiency of
digestion.... what percentage of macronutrient taken in by mouth exits
the anus incompletely extracted from the imput food form.

I am concerned with that too, as it is one of the means that allow
variations between people on their tendency to gain weight.

If, I convert 80% of my macronutrient input into useful body chemistry,
someone who converts 40% of their macronutrient input can eat a lot more
than me, do little exercise, and not gain weight..... while I may
struggle with easy weight gain problems.

Naturally, this has a lot to do with the whole problem of diet to
maintain or lose weight.

Joe the Aroma simply made a misstatement of how protein is digested.

Signature

1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

JC Der Koenig - 22 Nov 2005 15:40 GMT
Excess protein is stored as fat.

Signature

Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that.  -- MFW

>> I'm sure there must be plenty of info on this, this is an interesting
>> question that's pretty fundamental.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> all know. Fiber, however, is not. Excess protein is excreted in urine. How
> much that's excreted depends upon your metabolic needs.
Cubit - 23 Nov 2005 15:26 GMT
I have read that humans are quite efficient at extracting calories from
food.  While checking feces for calories makes sense in a laboratory study,
it is not necessary for dieting.

Fiday, which seems to be the dominant way to measure consumed calories on
AFDC is not likely to be quite right.  However, it provides a good ballpark
number and most importantly a benchmark.  If Fitday says you are consuming
1800 calories per day over a 2 month period and you neither gain nor lose
any weight for that 2 months, Then you know the Fitday benchmark for break
even.  To lose weight, in that example, you need to "eat less" until Fitday
shows a lower average of calories per day.  The difference in calories will
match up to 3500 calories per pound.  Fitday is accurate on this difference
vs. weightloss in my experience.

http://www.fitday.com

I have no connection to Fitday, except as a download version customer.

Cubit

> I'm sure there must be plenty of info on this, this is an interesting
> question that's pretty fundamental.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> gtoomey
trader4@optonline.net - 23 Nov 2005 15:50 GMT
Am I the only one that is amazed how a well formulated and interesting
question can turn into all kinds of responses that do nothing to
address the issue at hand?

"My question is "What percentage of ingested calories are excreted?"
who - 23 Nov 2005 16:32 GMT
>Am I the only one that is amazed how a well formulated and interesting
>question can turn into all kinds of responses that do nothing to
>address the issue at hand?
>
>"My question is "What percentage of ingested calories are excreted?"

Probably none. If you don't use what you take in it gets stored as
fat. I suppose some of what you excrete might have caloric value in
which case disregard my previous statement.
Joe the Aroma - 23 Nov 2005 19:00 GMT
> Am I the only one that is amazed how a well formulated and interesting
> question can turn into all kinds of responses that do nothing to
> address the issue at hand?
>
> "My question is "What percentage of ingested calories are excreted?"

I said "it depends". My answer still stands.
Steve - 24 Nov 2005 12:26 GMT
> Am I the only one that is amazed how a well formulated and interesting
> question can turn into all kinds of responses that do nothing to
> address the issue at hand?
>
> "My question is "What percentage of ingested calories are excreted?"

I have never seen this seriously addressed.  Another way of posing the
question might be:

- Since dung has been used for fuel since time immemorial, we know that it
burns.

- Calories are measured by burning food in a Bulb Calorimeter.

- It follows that at least part of the energy measured by the Bulb
Calorimeter must end up in dung and therefore not around your waist.

I would speculate that the pass-through is dependent on the individual's
metabolism and other factors that would be difficult to quantify.  It does
seem like a rather large energy leak in the theory, however.

Signature

Steve

Cubit - 24 Nov 2005 16:31 GMT
I wonder if the burning dung is full of indigestible fiber?

> > Am I the only one that is amazed how a well formulated and interesting
> > question can turn into all kinds of responses that do nothing to
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> metabolism and other factors that would be difficult to quantify.  It does
> seem like a rather large energy leak in the theory, however.
Doug Freyburger - 27 Nov 2005 04:19 GMT
> - Since dung has been used for fuel since time immemorial, we know that it
> burns.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> - It follows that at least part of the energy measured by the Bulb
> Calorimeter must end up in dung and therefore not around your waist.

The dung of ruminants is burned, not human crap.  Human crap looks
and smells very different from cow/sheep/elephant/whatever crap.
Hmmm, yet another argument against eating grass.
Cubit - 24 Nov 2005 16:30 GMT
My answer was saying that the percentage is low.

I just wish I had checked my spelling.  How could I call ASDLC AFDC?  My
reader does have a spelling checker, but every once in a while it just skips
that step and sends whatever I wrote.  [Thank you Bill Gates]

> Am I the only one that is amazed how a well formulated and interesting
> question can turn into all kinds of responses that do nothing to
> address the issue at hand?
>
> "My question is "What percentage of ingested calories are excreted?"
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.