1744: "Metabolism"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

1744: "Metabolism"

Postby thunk » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:35 pm UTC

Image

Alt text: I have this weird thing where if I don't drink enough water, I start feeling bad and then die of dehydration.

That being said, "calories out" varies from person to person.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2075
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Flumble » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:44 pm UTC

I have one of those metabolisms where I get a strong reaction from eating anything containing rat poison, nuclear fuel rods, molten rock or mussels. Who ever came up with the idea that mussels are food?

[edit] s/edible/food/
Last edited by Flumble on Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Cuvtixo
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:41 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Cuvtixo » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:55 pm UTC

A less classy cartoon would say something about not digesting corn kernels and how they often come out the same as they come in. :roll:
Actually about rat poison: rat poisons take advantage of the fact that rats cannot vomit. It's true. Therefore since you and your cat or dog certainly can and do vomit, rat poison isn't very dangerous. Of course, they can also digest things we wouldn't dream of eating.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby jc » Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:11 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:I have one of those metabolisms where I get a strong reaction from eating anything containing rat poison, nuclear fuel rods, molten rock or mussels. Who ever came up with the idea that mussels are edible?

Actually, as omnivores, pretty much anything organic material is "edible". Whether it's "tasty" is mostly a cultural artifact.

Nutritionists have pointed out that insects are not just edible, but highly nutritious. But we humans rarely eat them in any quantity. The explanation can't be their "edibility"; it has to be something else. Curiously, a lot of us do eat similar critters like shrimp and crayfish, so it's not their appearance. Again, the best explanation is that it's cultural. People in some societies reject shrimp with the same words that they use with insects; other societies (such as the US) use entirely different words to describe, say, locusts and crayfish, eating one but not the other.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Whizbang » Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:13 pm UTC

Don't forget lobsters.

jozwa
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby jozwa » Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:33 pm UTC

Bullets, my only weakness! How did you know?

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5805
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Angua » Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:01 pm UTC

Cuvtixo wrote:A less classy cartoon would say something about not digesting corn kernels and how they often come out the same as they come in. :roll:
Actually about rat poison: rat poisons take advantage of the fact that rats cannot vomit. It's true. Therefore since you and your cat or dog certainly can and do vomit, rat poison isn't very dangerous. Of course, they can also digest things we wouldn't dream of eating.

Warfarin can be pretty dangerous for everyone. That certainly doesn't rely on being able to vomit or not.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:05 pm UTC

First coffee, then calories. What could possibly be on Randall's mind this month?

Maybe he's just listening to Weird Al. Practically all his songs involve food or eating.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:51 pm UTC

jc wrote:People in some societies reject shrimp with the same words that they use with insects; other societies (such as the US) use entirely different words to describe, say, locusts and crayfish, eating one but not the other.


And some people in societies such as the US reject shrimp etc by saying they won't eat anything that lives in the water. Others won't eat "anything with a face" which should make oysters and the like fair game and shrimp a borderline case, but there's substantial overlap with the "lives in the water" people.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Whizbang » Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:04 pm UTC

Wait, what? There are people who specifically won't eat things that live in the water? I can understand not eating animals, or not eating things with faces, or even not eating animals that live on land, or specific types of sea life, but why exclude all water life? Is it because of over-fishing? Because fishers almost always catch not-food things in their nets as well? Anything I can think of that one could object to eating seafood also applies on land (or has a parallel), so specifically boycotting water life just seems to be a way to have a label that isn't as common as vegetarian or whatever, or maybe to appear even MORE environmentally conscious than The People's United Front mere vegans.

speising
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby speising » Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

There are cultures where fishing is considered "lazy", as no husbandry is required. People are starving next to abundant seas because of pride.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:05 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Don't forget lobsters.

Interesting. I've read a similar story involving potatoes. In France, at least, they were thought to be only fit for feeding to pigs until a certain doctor was fed them while a prisoner of war and found that they weren't half bad. Upon his release, he devoted his life to spreading the word about the incredible edible pomme de terre, which included posting armed guards by his potato patch and instructing them to accept bribes from anyone who wanted to steal his valuable produce.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

The_Alchemist
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:42 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby The_Alchemist » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:30 pm UTC

jc wrote:
Flumble wrote:I have one of those metabolisms where I get a strong reaction from eating anything containing rat poison, nuclear fuel rods, molten rock or mussels. Who ever came up with the idea that mussels are edible?

Actually, as omnivores, pretty much anything organic material is "edible". Whether it's "tasty" is mostly a cultural artifact.

Nutritionists have pointed out that insects are not just edible, but highly nutritious. But we humans rarely eat them in any quantity. The explanation can't be their "edibility"; it has to be something else. Curiously, a lot of us do eat similar critters like shrimp and crayfish, so it's not their appearance. Again, the best explanation is that it's cultural. People in some societies reject shrimp with the same words that they use with insects; other societies (such as the US) use entirely different words to describe, say, locusts and crayfish, eating one but not the other.


I think you are mixing up edible and palatable.

There are lots non-edible organic material. Toxic plants. Poisonous mushrooms. You get the idea.

Then there are the non-edible, non-toxic ones. Cellulose jumps to mind. And even the aforementioned whole corn. i.e. non-soluble fiber.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3455
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:04 am UTC

The trick where his body converts cold iron to energy is particularly impressive.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:36 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:The trick where his body converts cold iron to energy is particularly impressive.

What if all he'd ever want to eat is pizza?

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby heuristically_alone » Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:40 am UTC

I have one of those metabolisms where I eat mcdonalds every day and don't care.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

You can learn to levitate with just a little help.

:idea: = Surprised Cyclops

Mikeski
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:10 am UTC

heuristically_alone wrote:I have one of those metabolisms where I eat mcdonalds every day and don't care.

heuristically_alone's avatar wrote:Age: 25

I did too, when I was your age. You won't have to wait much longer...

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2992
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby orthogon » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:53 am UTC

So I can see where this is coming from. There's some utter crap that people come out with in relation to obesity, diet etc, a lot of which actually violates conservation of energy or mass or both. However, there is surely variation between individuals, beyond willpower and the ability to delay gratification.

On the input side, some people eat more than others because their stomach doesn't signal fullness as soon, or because they enjoy food a bit more (because of a heightened sense of smell, perhaps).

On the output side, some people can convert blood sugar into work more effectively, so their peak power output from exercise is greater, meaning they can burn more sugar/fat in a given gym session. Some people need to burn more "fuel" to maintain their body temperature, presumably owing to surface area/volume ratio. Also I understand that some people naturally make more micro-movements - fidgeting and jiggling - which burns calories constantly in the background.

I'm one of the lucky ones: I do cycle quite a bit but I can eat whatever I like and stay skinny. I used to be pretty hard-line about the "eat less and do exercise" thing, and i still think it's the answer, but I recognise that it's easy for me to say. Stopping eating when there's food available and expending effort unnecessarily are not actions that evolution prepared us for. An interesting question is why some of us do find exercise enjoyable.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:56 am UTC

The_Alchemist wrote:There are lots non-edible organic material. Toxic plants. Poisonous mushrooms. You get the idea.


Isn't that category "edible, but only once"?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

wayne
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:41 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby wayne » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:06 am UTC

Isn't that category "edible, but only once"?


Pretty much anything is only edible once.

Although some people...

... Sorry. Just blew a fuse. Some places my brain just won't allow me to go.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:15 am UTC

The joke used to be "You don't need a parachute to skydive, you only need a parachute to skydive twice". But that's been well and truly busted in recent years thanks to Gary Connery and Luke Aikens.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

The_Alchemist
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:42 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby The_Alchemist » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:40 pm UTC

wayne wrote:
Isn't that category "edible, but only once"?


Pretty much anything is only edible once.

Although some people...

... Sorry. Just blew a fuse. Some places my brain just won't allow me to go.


I don't think so.

Search Results
ed·i·ble
ˈedəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: edible

1.
fit to be eaten (often used to contrast with unpalatable or poisonous examples).
"nasturtium seeds are edible"synonyms: safe to eat, fit for human consumption, wholesome, good to eat;


It is that whole safe bit IMO

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby heuristically_alone » Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:25 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
heuristically_alone wrote:I have one of those metabolisms where I eat mcdonalds every day and don't care.

heuristically_alone's avatar wrote:Age: 25

I did too, when I was your age. You won't have to wait much longer...


That is when I switch to KFC.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

You can learn to levitate with just a little help.

:idea: = Surprised Cyclops

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:52 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:I've read a similar story involving potatoes.
Well, they will make you sick if you don't know which part to each.
Romeo and Juliette killed themselves with a near relative of the potato.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Muswell
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Muswell » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:10 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:I've read a similar story involving potatoes.
Well, they will make you sick if you don't know which part to each.
Romeo and Juliette killed themselves with a near relative of the potato.


A dagger is a near relative of the potato?!

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

Whoops, I guess I remembered that play wrong.

I was thinking knight's bane. Both plants are members of the nightshade family and have toxins in their leaves.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Zinho
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby Zinho » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:24 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Wait, what? There are people who specifically won't eat things that live in the water? . . . why exclude all water life?

Having grown up near the Chesapeake Bay, I can speak to this. I've seen the Bay, smelled it, and washed it off after swimming in it, so I have little desire to eat anything that lived in it - especially filter feeders like oysters. Overfishing is part of the problem: if the Bay's oyster population were at capacity the entire volume of the Bay would be filtered by them three (3) times daily, and it would be crystal clear to the bottom even at its deepest points. I might be willing to eat an oyster raised in that environment. As it stands, we're lucky if the oysters cycle the bay's water once per year and turbidity is such that you can't see more than 6in deep in most places.

I've gotten over my childhood fear of eating water pollution to some extent. I've learned to enjoy lobster, and I'm OK with assuming that most fish I eat are either farm raised or caught in open ocean. I still have trouble eating crab, though, and oysters are off my menu permanently. Unless I grow them myself and can vouch for the water quality they were raised in, bivalves of any kind are unlikely to enter my mouth.

Muswell wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:Romeo and Juliette killed themselves with a near relative of the potato.

A dagger is a near relative of the potato?!

To be fair, Romeo drank a poison to kill himself; it was Juliette who used Romeo's dagger to kill herself. I don't recall anything in the text indicating nightshade as the poison, just that it was illegal to sell and the apothecary had it on hand.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3455
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:19 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:I'm one of the lucky ones: I do cycle quite a bit but I can eat whatever I like and stay skinny. I used to be pretty hard-line about the "eat less and do exercise" thing, and i still think it's the answer, but I recognise that it's easy for me to say. Stopping eating when there's food available and expending effort unnecessarily are not actions that evolution prepared us for. An interesting question is why some of us do find exercise enjoyable.


Because maintaining fitness can be (literally) a matter of life and death, so it's natural for staying in good condition to feel good.

jigawatt
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1744: "Metabolism"

Postby jigawatt » Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:55 pm UTC

His body converts what he eats to energy? So he's a nuclear reactor?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 29 guests