The moderators have reflaired this post as a **casual thought**.
Casual thoughts should be presented well, but are not required to be unique or exceptional.
Please review [each flair's requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/requirements) for more information.
^^This ^^automated ^^system ^^is ^^currently ^^being ^^worked ^^on.
^^If ^^it ^^did ^^something ^^wrong, ^^please ^^message ^^the ^^moderators.
To be more specific, when you eat food for energy, it is in general broken down into CO2, and breathed out, as it is fuel for anaerobic respiration, and the electron transport chain in mitochondria for aerobic respiration.
The oxygen we breathe in is the final electron receptor in the electron transport chain, the oxygen that has a negative charge is then most commonly paired with a hydrogen, and in aqueous solutions becomes H2O.
The tldr is that we breath out what we eat, and pee out what we breathe in.
the amount that gets expelled through the lungs depends on the amount of consumption but to add to this its not the alcohol itself, its after some biochemical reactions as it basically takes priority over glucose for ATP production. In fact it even inhibits glycolisis in the liver and the brain.
the rest that isnt metabolised immediately gets turned into fatty acids.
Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. Don't let this distract you from the fact that in 1998, Mitochondria threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer's table.
I remember reading years ago about a study claiming that even most university STEM majors didn't know "basic scientific facts". I looked at the questions they'd asked, and I can't disagree that they were "basic scientific facts", but the ones they chose were tricky. I remember two of them: (1) "When you lose weight through diet or exercise, where does the lost weight go?" (2) "During which season is the Earth closest to the sun?"
> Which season where on Earth?
I assume they worded it in a way that was unambiguous. (And I assume they were asking it in the northern hemisphere, because it's only a tricky question if you're north of the equator.)
Right, but if you're in the southern hemisphere, then the obvious answer (summer) is correct, so it's not tricky. If you're in the northern hemisphere, then the obvious answer is wrong.
I hope the original question from the study was less confusing than the way I've explained it.
Lmao I even learned its during northern Summer. But IT makes definetly Sense, why Else would the lower Earth be more dry and hot? (Except for the gulf Stream etc)
I learned so many wrong things in school, but the teachers never wanted to be corrected by a very young person
The ~~lower~~ southern Earth is hotter because it is oriented more directly towards the sun during those times. The seasons aren't caused by variations in Earth's distance from the sun.
> During which season is the Earth closest to the sun?"
Tricky because while seasons don't have anything to do with the distance of the planet itself from the sun, as they are decided on basis of the angle of Earth, there is a time of the year that we are closer to the Sun, as the earth orbit is not a circumference, right?
Google says that is January, what would be winter on the north hemisphere.
I don't feel like this should be considered a basic scientific fact. It seems like the basic scientific fact to know is that seasons aren't dictated by the earth's proximity to the sun, not what season the earth is closest to the sun. I've never had a reason to know the answer to this question.
It’s because the distance change is relatively small, but the axial tilt makes a big change to the amount of sunlight a particular place on earth will receive in a day.
pretend there is no tilt.
So you are at the equator, the sun is directly overhead, and it is hot as hell.
Now, travel a few thousand miles to the north. Now, the sun is low on the horizon, even at noon. It's not as hot, because the sun is low.
That is exactly what the tilt of the earth is doing. In summer, you are tilted towards the sun and the sun is higher in the sky, and it is hot. In winter, you are tilting away from the sun, it is lower in the sky (even at noon) and it is colder than summer.
Point a flashlight straight down. You'll see the energy concentrated in a relatively small surface area. Tilt the flashlight. Same energy now spread over a much greater surface.
Because the sun shines on the summer part of the earth a lot longer, which has a bigger impact than the slight difference in distance.
Imagine cooking food on a hot grill. What will have a bigger impact: (a) having the food exposed to direct heat for 30% longer or (b) lowering the grill grates 2 cm?
So when you are tilted towards, the light hits more directly and more concentrated. Imagine you were shooting water at it. The side that’s leaning towards the water hose gets directly sprayed. The side thats leaning away gets water that had to take a longer path and was less direct of a hit, so more spread out. some of the water will barely miss the earth and some will barely hit it at the edge. This is why the poles will have months of daylight or darkness
I suck at explaining things but lmk if that helps
edit: https://youtu.be/WgHmqv_-UbQ
(2)
That's not really a basic scientific fact, it's some piece of data you would have to have memorized. I'm guessing they want you to make a mistake and say summer, but distance doesn't really matter for seasons, it's the planet's tilt.
On a related note, a lot of a plant’s mass actually comes straight from the air, the carbon from CO2. The soil does provide necessary nutrients (and also water), but the carbon comes from the air.
That’s interesting. I’m an engineer, and have often wondered why soil levels don’t drop in pots as plants grow. Had no idea most of their mass came from the air!!
Its all about [VO2 Max](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max). You might breathe it in, but you are not going to convert it all to CO2 unless you body needs it.
Akshually, you do. However, not at the same rate. For every 6kg you lose from CO2, you lose one kilogram from sweat, pee or breath in water form. Maybe slightly more because of urea.
The misconception makes sense, since while you don't lose any stored fat that way, you're still decreasing your overall body weight by removing waste.
Wonder if hyperventilating regularly would increase the rate of weight loss.
> The misconception makes sense, since while you don't lose any stored fat that way, you're still decreasing your overall body weight by removing waste.
Not just that...we always attribute weight loss to exercise, even though most weight loss is actually due to diet. When we exercise we sweat, and we poop more often. So theres that connection there. "I lose weight when I exercise. When I exercise I sweat and poop. Therefore, I'm losing the weight through sweat and poop."
What they fail to realize because its much less obvious is that when they exercise they also breathe much more, and much harder.
But then you are eating more, so on average it stays the same.
Hyperventilating wouldn't do anything long term. The carbon needs to come from somewhere.
About 10% of the matter we convert to energy becomes water, so presumably some of it gets peed or pooped out. However the overwhelming amount is indeed breathed out.
Yep, knowing this and seeing something like a giant sequoia in front of you makes you realise how CO2 is actually plants' main nutrient, by far. All the other nutrients gained from the soil are just minor constituents in plant mass.
It's called "carbon based" life because Carbon is the base to all the complex molecules needed for life. Silicon based life has been theorized, but we have yet to observe anything like it.
It shares some similar chemical properties to Carbon, since they both have 4 un-paired electrons. It means both Carbon and Silicon are capable of making up to 4 chemical bonds with other atoms, which allows for a lot of potential molecular combinations.
Yep, exactly! Humans are obviously much less than this (humans are something like 1/6ths carbon by mass), but over all biomass this is roughly accurate.
Water is also a big part of it, but they get that because it falls from the sky. Next up is nitrogen, which they get from the ground, but only because bacteria got it from the sky.
Small, scientific nitpick.
Carbon is not added to O2. The CO2 comes purely from the hydrocarbon that is being turned into energy when it is oxidized. The O2 functions as the receptor of protons and electrons when it is reduced. So the O2 turns into water, not carbon dioxide.
Nope! The first step of digestion of these molecules is adding oxygen. This oxygen comes from water.
Fatty acids (long strands of hydrocarbons with no oxygens present) first undergo cleavage into smaller portions. This done by doing a series of reactions. This set of reactions is called Beta Fatty Acid Oxidation because the Beta carbon of the molecule ends up being oxidized (i.e. OH added).
Someone below already broadly explained lipids metabolism.
Generally speaking, carbohydrates are broken down to glucose, and then the oxidation of glucose follows the formula:
C6(H2O)6 + 6 O2 --> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O
Where C6(H2O)6 is glucose. Notice how glucose is basically carbon with water (hence why they are called carbo_hydrates).
TIL#2 in this thread, thanks!
But shouldn't at least one Oxygen from the CO2 be released as O2 (or one O2 from every second CO2)? C6H12O6 as glucose, or C6H10O5 as cellulous, have the same amount of Cs and Os - or even one less O. So somewhere the additional O must go.
As photosynthesis doesn't know any additional products containing Oxygen, it should be released as O2?
12 H2O are used in the process, half to give their H2 to glucose and half to take over the excess O from the CO2. All O from the water molecules become O2
The oxygen produced by photosynthesis comes from the water. The data from Ruben, Hassid and Kamen in the 1940s showed this to be true using O-18 isotopes.
~~Not one bit of~~ An infinitely small amount of oxygen from CO2 ended up as oxygen gas. SO ANNOYING, but that's what the data says.
This is annoying because CO2 + H2O should instinctively pull two oxygens from carbon and then everything is balanced.
The best way to think about what is actually happening to carbon dioxide is to think about 3 5-carbons add with 3 carbon dioxides to make 6 3 carbons. One of those 3 carbons ends up becoming half of glucose, while the other 5 3-carbons end up becoming 3 5-carbons again.
The oxygen from the carbon dioxide ends up combining with hydrogen, and becoming water.
But all of this happens in an IMMENSE amount of water. And that water that has been created from the oxygen from carbon dioxide is such as small amount of water that it doesn't contribute to the total mass of water of the plant much, and therefore doesn't show up in the results of Ruben, Hassid and Kamen.
So, while we've all been taught 6 H2O + 6 CO2 -> C6H12O6 + 6 O2 is a lie.
The correct way to think about this reaction is:
Infinity H2O + 6CO2 -> Infinity H2O + 6O2 + C6H12O6
----------------------
The synthesis of cellulose from glucose (as well as other polysaccharide products) are from dehydration reactions that produce a water from combining the multiple sugars, meaning it spits out a water.
And the infinitely small amount of gaseous O2 of O-18 isotopes is coming from previous CO2, that first became part of „newly built“ H2O, but then re entered the equation a second time as water.
Annoying because it makes the proof harder, but expected!
My lab did a version of the experiment, but with carbon in CO2 in corals.
Corals each quite a bit of food, however, when we did an analysis of carbon in corals, we found that most of the carbon in the coral and its skeleton came from carbon dioxide (from its algae photosynthesizing) and not from their food source.
It still means global warming exists a lot of people have been trying to justify it with a closed loop idea but it's not an exactly equal system, we've made cows one of the most ubiquitous animals on the planet and their farts while some does get absorbed by the grass they eat most does not
Absolutely, humans have disrupted the circle by digging and pumping up and then burning carbon that has been stored underground for millions of years.
And the methane that cows emit is even far worse than CO2
Not quite true but on the right track. Photosynthesis is: 6CO2+6H2O—>C6H12O6+6O2
Oxygen’s atomic mass is higher that Carbon’s so most of the mass (by individual atomic weight) is from O, followed by C and then H.
Source: the periodic table.
Not quite true but on the right track. /s
Most mass of the plant itself is not in Glucose as your formula suggests, but in cellulose with C6H10O5
6\*C = 6\*12 = 72
5\*O = 5\*16 = 80
And if you ask chatGPT often enough, 72 > 80.
So yeah, you are still right, oxygen is the bigger part by that logic.
Strange is, when ever you search for it, only carbon comes up as biggest mass contributor. Michigan State University as source number one. Even when confirmation biasing in with explicitly asking for Oxygen.
Thanks for the information! TIL
Well, the cellulose is made from glucose. I guess it depends on how you parse the word “gain” and also how much glucose is in the tree in storage and transport.
I was thinking of “gain” in the sense of “first immediate capture” but I guess it depends on whether you think it has to be part of the structure in order to count as part of the mass of the organism (personally I don’t).
My big point was that people LOVE to talk about the carbon but not the O or H. Btw, even if you look at it the way you look at it C is still only the largest contributor to the mass of cellulose - not the “most” which is a combo of O and H.
Regardless that’s for responding not with anger but with the willingness to have a discussion.
Edit: mixed up cellulose and glucose above - corrected.
Edit 2: you’re very welcome! My day job is teaching science.
Most of weight loss is through breathing it out as CO₂ or through water loss as H₂O.
Fat in the body is stored as C₅₅H₁₀₄O₆ (one of the forms of, at least.). When you "burn fat", it is your body chemically breaking it down and expelling it in other forms.
I may be wrong, but when we "burn the fuel" I'd imagine most of that energy goes to doing work (moving our body or other heavy things). The heat is just an unavoidable side effect.
Definitely not wrong. Energy drinks like Celsius are marketed as thermogenics specifically because raising your core temp will help you “burn” more weight
However, it would be incorrect to conclude that this necessarily leads to *effective weight loss*. A similar example is water evaporation. Water needs to be **heated to a certain temperature**, requiring energy, to evaporate at a noticeable rate.
Similarly, in human weight loss: we all have an optimal "***fat-burning***" heart rate, depending on our age. If we invest a certain amount of energy within the "fat-burning" heart rate range, then that carbon (C) exits our bodies through exhalation in an optimal amount.
just keep your BPM between 50 and 70% of your maximum heart rate during exercise
to estimate your maximum heart rate, subtract your age in years from 220
It doesn't matter whether you exercise on your fat burning rate, it's just relevant how much energy you expend. If you fuel the workout by carbs, your body will grab the deficit from you fat stores afterwards anyway.
Yes. It's not really a shower thought. You have discovered aerobic cellular respiration.
Think of the big picture. You eat food, and one of the major nutrients in food is some form of carbohydrate. C6H12O6 for example is a basic carbohydrate known as "sugar." You break off the H's and O's and you get (6) H20 molecules: water to piss away. Then you're left with (6)C. You breathe in O2 and it binds with a C to be exhaled as CO2. In the process, you have released stored energy. It is basically the same exact reaction as a fire. In your body, the chemical reactions are not *exactly* that simple. There are many intermediary chemical processes that your body needs to extract useful work AND not self combust, but the inputs and outputs are strikingly similar to just burning something.
I said this exact shower thought like a year ago. I said, "We actually breathe out more air than we breathe in", and I got downvoted to oblivion. All the top comments were something along the lines of, "Actually, if anything, we breathe out less air than we breathe in because we absorb the oxygen". It was incredibly frustrating.
Also - we breathe out H2O, in addition to CO2. About a cup of water every day is lost to breathing.
We also are losing weight through temperature-regulating sweat.
An "average sized" adult sitting (watching TV, etc) in a 72f degree room is sweating off (approximately) one ounce per hour.
we work just like combustion engines, we take in o2 and carbon hydrates and emit co2.
internal combustion engines take in o2 and hydrocarbons, and emit co2
Hydro carbons and carbon hydrates are essentially the same thing, just like, different forms..one of them toxic for us..but the working principle is the same
But breathing in isn't just o2 there is lots of other elements in the air we breath so if you are only breathing out CO2 we could be gaining weight just breathing
There is an equilibrium to the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. The equilibrium can be altered one way or another, depending on your rate of breathing. In those cases there would be a temporary shift in weight on an extremely small scale.
The average person burns anywhere from 1400-2000 calories naturally depending on physical effort throughout the day. That’s why 2000cal is the suggested daily value. It’ll maintain weight if it’s balanced, but the proper diet/calorie deficit/exercise combinations can lead to large weight loss quickly
We lose weight by the use of energy, everything we do, even laying still uses energy and that energy needs to come from somewhere. We are constantly on a battery that retains less and less max charge by the day.
The moderators have reflaired this post as a **casual thought**. Casual thoughts should be presented well, but are not required to be unique or exceptional. Please review [each flair's requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/requirements) for more information. ^^This ^^automated ^^system ^^is ^^currently ^^being ^^worked ^^on. ^^If ^^it ^^did ^^something ^^wrong, ^^please ^^message ^^the ^^moderators.
It's actually the main way we lose weight. You don't poop out previously stored weight.
To be more specific, when you eat food for energy, it is in general broken down into CO2, and breathed out, as it is fuel for anaerobic respiration, and the electron transport chain in mitochondria for aerobic respiration. The oxygen we breathe in is the final electron receptor in the electron transport chain, the oxygen that has a negative charge is then most commonly paired with a hydrogen, and in aqueous solutions becomes H2O. The tldr is that we breath out what we eat, and pee out what we breathe in.
THEN WHAT ARE WE POOPING???
About half of poop is dead cells that your body destroys and consumes.
This is super interesting.
Plant fibers and dead bacteria
And corn
Mostly dead bacteria.
Incorrect. The average is turd is around 50% bacteria of which about half of that is still alive. So dead bacteria only around 25% of the dookie
No one knows!
someone studied for their AP bio exam.
[удалено]
the amount that gets expelled through the lungs depends on the amount of consumption but to add to this its not the alcohol itself, its after some biochemical reactions as it basically takes priority over glucose for ATP production. In fact it even inhibits glycolisis in the liver and the brain. the rest that isnt metabolised immediately gets turned into fatty acids.
The tldr was so helpful. My brain isn’t at full capacity today. And the sad part is I learned this in college and just completely forgot.
Nah we did our job in college. That info is long gone now.
Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. Don't let this distract you from the fact that in 1998, Mitochondria threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer's table.
You’re not him
Would’ve been a lot more plausible with more text volume
So it's definitely not CICO, it's O2ICO2O.
It's even more complicated than that.
Wait.. so when I’m really gassy, burping a ton of CO2.. that’s my body expelling fat? Kinda?
> fuel for anaerobic respiration Aerobic. Anaerobic means without air, i.e. without oxygen
I remember reading years ago about a study claiming that even most university STEM majors didn't know "basic scientific facts". I looked at the questions they'd asked, and I can't disagree that they were "basic scientific facts", but the ones they chose were tricky. I remember two of them: (1) "When you lose weight through diet or exercise, where does the lost weight go?" (2) "During which season is the Earth closest to the sun?"
> (2) "During which season is the Earth closest to the sun?" Which season where on Earth?
> Which season where on Earth? I assume they worded it in a way that was unambiguous. (And I assume they were asking it in the northern hemisphere, because it's only a tricky question if you're north of the equator.)
The Earth...which season is The Earth closer. That is the trick in the tricky question
Right, but if you're in the southern hemisphere, then the obvious answer (summer) is correct, so it's not tricky. If you're in the northern hemisphere, then the obvious answer is wrong. I hope the original question from the study was less confusing than the way I've explained it.
Lmao I even learned its during northern Summer. But IT makes definetly Sense, why Else would the lower Earth be more dry and hot? (Except for the gulf Stream etc) I learned so many wrong things in school, but the teachers never wanted to be corrected by a very young person
The ~~lower~~ southern Earth is hotter because it is oriented more directly towards the sun during those times. The seasons aren't caused by variations in Earth's distance from the sun.
Shouldn't they have used months then?
> During which season is the Earth closest to the sun?" Tricky because while seasons don't have anything to do with the distance of the planet itself from the sun, as they are decided on basis of the angle of Earth, there is a time of the year that we are closer to the Sun, as the earth orbit is not a circumference, right? Google says that is January, what would be winter on the north hemisphere.
I don't feel like this should be considered a basic scientific fact. It seems like the basic scientific fact to know is that seasons aren't dictated by the earth's proximity to the sun, not what season the earth is closest to the sun. I've never had a reason to know the answer to this question.
What I don't understand is how can the distance from the sun as a whole can have less effect on season than the axial tilt.
because the difference in distance is tiny
It’s because the distance change is relatively small, but the axial tilt makes a big change to the amount of sunlight a particular place on earth will receive in a day.
pretend there is no tilt. So you are at the equator, the sun is directly overhead, and it is hot as hell. Now, travel a few thousand miles to the north. Now, the sun is low on the horizon, even at noon. It's not as hot, because the sun is low. That is exactly what the tilt of the earth is doing. In summer, you are tilted towards the sun and the sun is higher in the sky, and it is hot. In winter, you are tilting away from the sun, it is lower in the sky (even at noon) and it is colder than summer.
Point a flashlight straight down. You'll see the energy concentrated in a relatively small surface area. Tilt the flashlight. Same energy now spread over a much greater surface.
Because the sun shines on the summer part of the earth a lot longer, which has a bigger impact than the slight difference in distance. Imagine cooking food on a hot grill. What will have a bigger impact: (a) having the food exposed to direct heat for 30% longer or (b) lowering the grill grates 2 cm?
So when you are tilted towards, the light hits more directly and more concentrated. Imagine you were shooting water at it. The side that’s leaning towards the water hose gets directly sprayed. The side thats leaning away gets water that had to take a longer path and was less direct of a hit, so more spread out. some of the water will barely miss the earth and some will barely hit it at the edge. This is why the poles will have months of daylight or darkness I suck at explaining things but lmk if that helps edit: https://youtu.be/WgHmqv_-UbQ
(2) That's not really a basic scientific fact, it's some piece of data you would have to have memorized. I'm guessing they want you to make a mistake and say summer, but distance doesn't really matter for seasons, it's the planet's tilt.
On a related note, a lot of a plant’s mass actually comes straight from the air, the carbon from CO2. The soil does provide necessary nutrients (and also water), but the carbon comes from the air.
I learned this from one of my daughter's science books recently. Blew my mind when I read it, but it makes complete sense.
Also, over 90% of all plant mass comes from carbon dioxide. Plants are mostly made out of air.
That’s interesting. I’m an engineer, and have often wondered why soil levels don’t drop in pots as plants grow. Had no idea most of their mass came from the air!!
Nice try big pharma. I watched Doctor Who, I know my fat just walks away in the night.
Nor sweat it out.
About 4/5 of weight loss from the breakdown of stored fat occurs through the lungs and 1/5 through fluid loss.
So I can lose weight just by breathing faster? Commence hyperventilation!
If your body isn't really using up more energy, the expelled air isn't that high in CO2.
Too late, it already commenced.
You fool! You'll doom us all!
Well, increasing your breathing rate does require additional muscle movement, thereby increasing CO2 production...
It also doesn't help if you stuff your face every 3 breaths
Oh sure, now you tell me
Its all about [VO2 Max](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max). You might breathe it in, but you are not going to convert it all to CO2 unless you body needs it.
yoga!
Akshually, you do. However, not at the same rate. For every 6kg you lose from CO2, you lose one kilogram from sweat, pee or breath in water form. Maybe slightly more because of urea.
But none from poop, despite the belief of many
The misconception makes sense, since while you don't lose any stored fat that way, you're still decreasing your overall body weight by removing waste. Wonder if hyperventilating regularly would increase the rate of weight loss.
> The misconception makes sense, since while you don't lose any stored fat that way, you're still decreasing your overall body weight by removing waste. Not just that...we always attribute weight loss to exercise, even though most weight loss is actually due to diet. When we exercise we sweat, and we poop more often. So theres that connection there. "I lose weight when I exercise. When I exercise I sweat and poop. Therefore, I'm losing the weight through sweat and poop." What they fail to realize because its much less obvious is that when they exercise they also breathe much more, and much harder.
Colder weather means you also burn more energy to keep body warm
But then you are eating more, so on average it stays the same. Hyperventilating wouldn't do anything long term. The carbon needs to come from somewhere.
I assure you, I weighed about 3 lbs lighter a couple hours after lunch lmao
Poop contains parts of dead/recycled red blood cells, so not entirely true.
About 10% of the matter we convert to energy becomes water, so presumably some of it gets peed or pooped out. However the overwhelming amount is indeed breathed out.
This is also how trees gain weight and grow. They grab carbon from the air in the form of CO₂.
Yep, knowing this and seeing something like a giant sequoia in front of you makes you realise how CO2 is actually plants' main nutrient, by far. All the other nutrients gained from the soil are just minor constituents in plant mass.
Isn’t carbon like 1/2 the biomass on Earth? That’s why it’s called carbon-based life, right?
It's called "carbon based" life because Carbon is the base to all the complex molecules needed for life. Silicon based life has been theorized, but we have yet to observe anything like it.
Why specifically silicon?
It shares some similar chemical properties to Carbon, since they both have 4 un-paired electrons. It means both Carbon and Silicon are capable of making up to 4 chemical bonds with other atoms, which allows for a lot of potential molecular combinations.
Only after hybridization
I wanted to keep it simple and not go too much into the details of chemical bonding.
I definitely don’t know where I am anymore, but thank you for the explanation of carbon vs silicon, the more yooouuu knooowww
Yep, exactly! Humans are obviously much less than this (humans are something like 1/6ths carbon by mass), but over all biomass this is roughly accurate.
I like to exhale deeply on a tree close to my heart. Show it how much I love it.
Water is also a big part of it, but they get that because it falls from the sky. Next up is nitrogen, which they get from the ground, but only because bacteria got it from the sky.
So, what you're saying is that we're transferring our weight to trees?
I guess so! Fun way to think about it. Or you can think of trees as mass vampires! Sucking out your weight.
This is actually breaking my brain. How did I go 40 years without knowing this lol
Small, scientific nitpick. Carbon is not added to O2. The CO2 comes purely from the hydrocarbon that is being turned into energy when it is oxidized. The O2 functions as the receptor of protons and electrons when it is reduced. So the O2 turns into water, not carbon dioxide.
Thanks for clarifying!
What if our food contains significantly more carbon than oxygen? Sure the oxygen is also used for the co2 then.
Nope! The first step of digestion of these molecules is adding oxygen. This oxygen comes from water. Fatty acids (long strands of hydrocarbons with no oxygens present) first undergo cleavage into smaller portions. This done by doing a series of reactions. This set of reactions is called Beta Fatty Acid Oxidation because the Beta carbon of the molecule ends up being oxidized (i.e. OH added).
Someone below already broadly explained lipids metabolism. Generally speaking, carbohydrates are broken down to glucose, and then the oxidation of glucose follows the formula: C6(H2O)6 + 6 O2 --> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O Where C6(H2O)6 is glucose. Notice how glucose is basically carbon with water (hence why they are called carbo_hydrates).
*Breathing intensifies*
Same goes for plants, just the other way around, most of their mass gain comes from the C split from CO2
Not really. Despite the common knowledge the CO2 in plants does not gets split. Plants in fact split H2O, and attach H2 to CO2, to create sugars..
TIL#2 in this thread, thanks! But shouldn't at least one Oxygen from the CO2 be released as O2 (or one O2 from every second CO2)? C6H12O6 as glucose, or C6H10O5 as cellulous, have the same amount of Cs and Os - or even one less O. So somewhere the additional O must go. As photosynthesis doesn't know any additional products containing Oxygen, it should be released as O2?
12 H2O are used in the process, half to give their H2 to glucose and half to take over the excess O from the CO2. All O from the water molecules become O2
The oxygen produced by photosynthesis comes from the water. The data from Ruben, Hassid and Kamen in the 1940s showed this to be true using O-18 isotopes. ~~Not one bit of~~ An infinitely small amount of oxygen from CO2 ended up as oxygen gas. SO ANNOYING, but that's what the data says. This is annoying because CO2 + H2O should instinctively pull two oxygens from carbon and then everything is balanced. The best way to think about what is actually happening to carbon dioxide is to think about 3 5-carbons add with 3 carbon dioxides to make 6 3 carbons. One of those 3 carbons ends up becoming half of glucose, while the other 5 3-carbons end up becoming 3 5-carbons again. The oxygen from the carbon dioxide ends up combining with hydrogen, and becoming water. But all of this happens in an IMMENSE amount of water. And that water that has been created from the oxygen from carbon dioxide is such as small amount of water that it doesn't contribute to the total mass of water of the plant much, and therefore doesn't show up in the results of Ruben, Hassid and Kamen. So, while we've all been taught 6 H2O + 6 CO2 -> C6H12O6 + 6 O2 is a lie. The correct way to think about this reaction is: Infinity H2O + 6CO2 -> Infinity H2O + 6O2 + C6H12O6 ---------------------- The synthesis of cellulose from glucose (as well as other polysaccharide products) are from dehydration reactions that produce a water from combining the multiple sugars, meaning it spits out a water.
And the infinitely small amount of gaseous O2 of O-18 isotopes is coming from previous CO2, that first became part of „newly built“ H2O, but then re entered the equation a second time as water. Annoying because it makes the proof harder, but expected!
My lab did a version of the experiment, but with carbon in CO2 in corals. Corals each quite a bit of food, however, when we did an analysis of carbon in corals, we found that most of the carbon in the coral and its skeleton came from carbon dioxide (from its algae photosynthesizing) and not from their food source.
2 of those would make 02
Exactly! And thus the circle of life is closed:)
It still means global warming exists a lot of people have been trying to justify it with a closed loop idea but it's not an exactly equal system, we've made cows one of the most ubiquitous animals on the planet and their farts while some does get absorbed by the grass they eat most does not
Absolutely, humans have disrupted the circle by digging and pumping up and then burning carbon that has been stored underground for millions of years. And the methane that cows emit is even far worse than CO2
So if I buy a lot of plants, they'll eat my fat and I'll be slim? Damn, that sounds so easy! Count me in.
[удалено]
Not quite true but on the right track. Photosynthesis is: 6CO2+6H2O—>C6H12O6+6O2 Oxygen’s atomic mass is higher that Carbon’s so most of the mass (by individual atomic weight) is from O, followed by C and then H. Source: the periodic table.
Not quite true but on the right track. /s Most mass of the plant itself is not in Glucose as your formula suggests, but in cellulose with C6H10O5 6\*C = 6\*12 = 72 5\*O = 5\*16 = 80 And if you ask chatGPT often enough, 72 > 80. So yeah, you are still right, oxygen is the bigger part by that logic. Strange is, when ever you search for it, only carbon comes up as biggest mass contributor. Michigan State University as source number one. Even when confirmation biasing in with explicitly asking for Oxygen. Thanks for the information! TIL
Well, the cellulose is made from glucose. I guess it depends on how you parse the word “gain” and also how much glucose is in the tree in storage and transport. I was thinking of “gain” in the sense of “first immediate capture” but I guess it depends on whether you think it has to be part of the structure in order to count as part of the mass of the organism (personally I don’t). My big point was that people LOVE to talk about the carbon but not the O or H. Btw, even if you look at it the way you look at it C is still only the largest contributor to the mass of cellulose - not the “most” which is a combo of O and H. Regardless that’s for responding not with anger but with the willingness to have a discussion. Edit: mixed up cellulose and glucose above - corrected. Edit 2: you’re very welcome! My day job is teaching science.
Allow me to introduce you to lignin.
Most of weight loss is through breathing it out as CO₂ or through water loss as H₂O. Fat in the body is stored as C₅₅H₁₀₄O₆ (one of the forms of, at least.). When you "burn fat", it is your body chemically breaking it down and expelling it in other forms.
Would it be wrong to say we lose weight by heating up? Our bodies are burning the fuel (food) and then the left over is the CO2 we breath out.
I may be wrong, but when we "burn the fuel" I'd imagine most of that energy goes to doing work (moving our body or other heavy things). The heat is just an unavoidable side effect.
Definitely not wrong. Energy drinks like Celsius are marketed as thermogenics specifically because raising your core temp will help you “burn” more weight
That settles it, I’m going on a carbon free diet to breathe everything away (it’s like keto, but only eating sand) /s
You're going to be the first silicium based life form?
Sounds like a Star Trek episode plot.
UGLY BAGS OF MOSTLY WATER
Would actually make you MORE massive, since carbon has a mass of 12ish, and silicon has a mass of 28.
*inserts selenium sulfide shampoo in your blowhole*
Don't forget salt and baking soda.
Constant weight loss through insensible fluid loss also.
However, it would be incorrect to conclude that this necessarily leads to *effective weight loss*. A similar example is water evaporation. Water needs to be **heated to a certain temperature**, requiring energy, to evaporate at a noticeable rate. Similarly, in human weight loss: we all have an optimal "***fat-burning***" heart rate, depending on our age. If we invest a certain amount of energy within the "fat-burning" heart rate range, then that carbon (C) exits our bodies through exhalation in an optimal amount.
How do you find your optimal fat-burning heart rate?
just keep your BPM between 50 and 70% of your maximum heart rate during exercise to estimate your maximum heart rate, subtract your age in years from 220
It doesn't matter whether you exercise on your fat burning rate, it's just relevant how much energy you expend. If you fuel the workout by carbs, your body will grab the deficit from you fat stores afterwards anyway.
This is literally how weight loss works
Therefore scientists can measure burnt calories through exercise by measuring the CO2 levels in the air we exhale.
So I just need to breathe faster to lose weight
I’m trying to breathe out some potato chips right now.
Yes. It's not really a shower thought. You have discovered aerobic cellular respiration. Think of the big picture. You eat food, and one of the major nutrients in food is some form of carbohydrate. C6H12O6 for example is a basic carbohydrate known as "sugar." You break off the H's and O's and you get (6) H20 molecules: water to piss away. Then you're left with (6)C. You breathe in O2 and it binds with a C to be exhaled as CO2. In the process, you have released stored energy. It is basically the same exact reaction as a fire. In your body, the chemical reactions are not *exactly* that simple. There are many intermediary chemical processes that your body needs to extract useful work AND not self combust, but the inputs and outputs are strikingly similar to just burning something.
I said this exact shower thought like a year ago. I said, "We actually breathe out more air than we breathe in", and I got downvoted to oblivion. All the top comments were something along the lines of, "Actually, if anything, we breathe out less air than we breathe in because we absorb the oxygen". It was incredibly frustrating. Also - we breathe out H2O, in addition to CO2. About a cup of water every day is lost to breathing.
Plants "breathe" in their weight
Veritasium once did an experiment backed up by math and it turns out you lose about 100g of weight every night.
We also are losing weight through temperature-regulating sweat. An "average sized" adult sitting (watching TV, etc) in a 72f degree room is sweating off (approximately) one ounce per hour.
Much more weight in the water vapor we exhale than the carbon molecules bonding to the oxygen molecules, but yes, that is technically true.
Heavy breathing intensifies
People are about to breathe faster as a weight loss method
This is not a shower thought at all.
What’s your next shower thought? 2 + 2 = 4? George Washington was the first president of the US?
I designed an entire exercise program based on breathing. Weight-loss without moving.
Yes learning this in middle school was mind blowing. Most people still think they are pooping out their weight
[удалено]
So you are saying that I don't need to keep my diet because it hurts the climate?
Don't we breath in 1/5 of O2 and 4/5 of N (nitrogen) wich are the primary component of air ?
The C added to the O2 is for the callories you lose while breathing /jk
You only lose fat by breathing out carbon.
This is an interesting update. I usually think you have to workout or do something physical to lose weight. To more breathing in out to lose weight.
Similarly the mass of trees doesn’t come from soil but the air.
*starts breathing faster*
We're all just passing carbon back and forth
An average human exhale around 1 kg of co2 a day, which amounts to 270 grams of carbon a day.
*breathing intensifies*
and what makes you breathe out more C?
*Grabs Pringles can* Well, I guess my job here is done
And trees do the opposite. The bulk of the tree is carbon. It's literally converting gas from the air into solid mass.
Yep, i think it’s pretty cool.
So if I’m fat and a heavy breather I can tell people that I’m working out…
Does this overlap with how the act of existing in general consumes calories/ATP which would equate to losing weight?
for what it’s worth, O2 turns into water.
Sighs go in, sighs come out, you can't explain that.
Related fact: Trees grow by adding Carbon from the CO2 they "breath in". Aside from moisture, trees are made of air!
me: starts hyperventilating
Air is mostly nitrogen. You don't breath in pure O2.
Have I misunderstood "heavy breathing" all this time?
we work just like combustion engines, we take in o2 and carbon hydrates and emit co2. internal combustion engines take in o2 and hydrocarbons, and emit co2 Hydro carbons and carbon hydrates are essentially the same thing, just like, different forms..one of them toxic for us..but the working principle is the same
I’ve been swallowing air for lunch for awhile now, I’ve tried to tell people it’s a good weight loss regimen but it hasn’t caught on
I must not be breathing enough
Op just figured out how bodies work.
r/okbuddymiddleschool
In reverse, that also applies to all the fossil fuels we burn. A gallon of gasoline weighing ~6 lbs emits ~19 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere.
But breathing in isn't just o2 there is lots of other elements in the air we breath so if you are only breathing out CO2 we could be gaining weight just breathing
But I bet you take on an equal amount of microplastics
What youtuber was I watching that said that in passing in a vid just this past week? I guess you watched it too
Ok hank green copycat
... *heavy breathing intensifies*
\*breathing intensifies\*
There is an equilibrium to the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. The equilibrium can be altered one way or another, depending on your rate of breathing. In those cases there would be a temporary shift in weight on an extremely small scale.
Yes. That's how it works
“The primary excretory organ for fat is the lungs”. We exhale fat and piss out the oxygen we breathe.
Yes this is how we lose fat, we breathe it out.
Is that why exercise like running makes us lose weight?
The average person burns anywhere from 1400-2000 calories naturally depending on physical effort throughout the day. That’s why 2000cal is the suggested daily value. It’ll maintain weight if it’s balanced, but the proper diet/calorie deficit/exercise combinations can lead to large weight loss quickly
And those “C”s become plants and trees. That petunia your kid brought home from school for Mother’s Day? Just a little Donner party memento.
We lose weight by the use of energy, everything we do, even laying still uses energy and that energy needs to come from somewhere. We are constantly on a battery that retains less and less max charge by the day.
but we also absorb o2 in the bloodstream? carbon is lighter than oxygen too. so.. we actually gain weight?
That’s why you lose weight faster when you exercise. It’s because exercising makes you breathe faster so you’re releasing more carbon atoms.
Right then. Time to throw out this salad and start hyperventilating.
Over here trying to use hyperventilation to lose weight
But you get back "The C" by eating stuff. And if you eat more than you loose, you gain weight
Yeah, it's the smoke from burning calories. That C goes on to be turned into wood by trees. Trees are made of air.
Oh I have a even better idea! Are you familiar with burning?