Is it possible to gain more than a pound from a pound of food?  For
instance if I eat one pound of cheese is the maximum weight I can gain
one pound - or  - can I gain 1.25 pounds?  It seems counter intuitive
to me to gain more mass thena I comsume.  Where would the extra mass
come from? I know it might take longer to burn or gain one pound from
one pound of broccoli than it would for one pound of cheese, but it
doesn't make sense that additional mass would appear magically.  I
would like a simple but comprehensive answer with references and not a
yes or no answer.  Thanks.

---

Request for Question Clarification by hedgie-ga on 20 Dec 2005 14:12 PST

pjmccann3-ga

          Conservation of mass does apply to living systems, of course
nevertheless answer is 'yes' in principle.

Extra 'weight' (mass really) comes from oxygen (which is not considered food)
which combines with organic matter in the process of 'burning the calories'

Then to CO2 is exhaled, .. and if all these processes (matter in and out)
are added, it adds up prefectly to confirm the Conservation of Mass.

There are not many recent references around - In 19 century some people
actually did run such experiments. 

Do you want more on this question?

There shoud be only one time when weight gain will (might) exceed the
weight of "food" eaten, but the effect is small, temporary, and
somewhat deceiving (more below).

In general, though, the weight gain will not be more than the weight
of food eaten. Excess food is stored in two forms, as the
carbohydrate, glycogen, and as fat. The body has limited capacity to
store glycogen and excess food is generally converted to fat.

* Use (that is, oxidation to carbon dioxide and water) of part of
ingested food is required to store the rest of the food as fat or
glycogen. This uses up some of the weight of the ingested food, so
this is one  reason weight gain does not exceed the weight of the food
eaten.

For fats eaten in the diet and stored as fat, this energy consumption
is minimal. The fats in the diet are generally in the form of
triglycerides; at least some of the bonds in triglycerides must be
broken in the intestine so that the fats can be digested; these bonds
then need to be resynthesized when the fats are converted back to
triglycerides when they are stored in the body. A small amount of the
fat intake needs to oxidized to carbon dioxide and water to provide
this energy.

For carbohydates in the diet to be stored as glycogen, there is a
similar requirement for energy to synthesize the bonds holding glucose
molecules together in glycogen. This energy requirement is also small
in relation to the carbohydrate ingested.

Most excess carbohydrates, however, are stored as fat, not as
glycogen. The conversion of carbohydrates to fat takes a fair amount
of energy. (There are measurements that show this - cited below - but
you could also go through the biochemical steps in the conversion of
glucose (or other carbohydrates) to fat - these steps are given in
biochemistry textbooks if you have that deep of an interest.)

Similarly, it takes energy to convert the amino acids of proteins to
glycogen or to fats.

* The weight of the major stored energy source (fat) is less on a per
carbon atom basis than the weight of carbohydrate or amino acids (on a
per carbon basis) that end up stored as fat. For fat stored as fat,
there is very little weight change.

To see understand these statements, you can consider the structure of
fats versus carbohydrates and amino acids in terms of what atoms are
connected to the carbon backbones.

Most of a stored fat (triglyceride) is in the form of long chain fatty
acids, typically having a chain length of 16 - 18 carbon atoms. The
formula for a common fatty acid is CH3(CH2)16COOH; the important
feature to note is that a fat molecule is mostly carbon and hydrogen,
with about 2 hydrogens for each carbon. A typical carbohydrate will
have a formula somewhat like C6H12O6 - or (CH2O)6, which lets you see
that for each carbon in a carbohydrate, there are 2 hydrogens (as in a
fatty acid) but also an oxygen atom. Thus, when a carbohydrate is
converted to a fat for storage, an oxygen (and its weight) is lost, so
that there is loss of weight in converting a pound of carbohydrate to
fat from two sources: oxygen atoms must be removed and some of the
carbohydrate must be oxidized to provide the energy for the steps
needed to convert the carbohydrate to a fatty acid. (Again, if you
want all the details for these steps, you will have to consult a good
biochemistry textbook.) Similar reasoning applies to the amino acids
from proteins. In very simple form, an amino acid always ends in
....CHNH2COOH, which will end up either as ...CH2COOH or ....CH2CH2...
in a fatty acid, depending on where those two carbons end up in a
fatty acid. Again, the nitrogen atom is removed in converting an amino
acid to a fatty acid, and there is weight loss (as well as the need to
oxidize some of the amino acids to provide energy to carrry out the
steps to convert amino acids to fatty acids). (Some amino acids also
contain other oxygen, nitrogen, and even sulfur atoms that are lost
when they are converted to fatty acids.)

At the end of this comment are some quotes showing that energy is
needed to store food in the body. These are based on actual
measurements.

The one time you _might_ have a slight weight gain is if you fasted so
that most of your glycogen stores were depleted. Then if you ate hard
candy, that is, candy that is mostly sugar and little fat or water,
you could gain more than the weight of the candy. This could occur
despite having to oxidize a small amount of that candy to store the
rest as glycogen. However, this weight gain is spurious because to
gain weight, you also have to drink some water. Glycogen, like
carbohydrates in general, has a good affinity for water, and that
water that is attached / stored with glycogen is about, if I remember
correctly, 5 times the weight of glycogen itself. (You can see that
there is some affinity between water and carbohydrates in that
carbohydrates dissolve in water easily while fats do not. Also, the
fat you see in meat and bacon is pretty much pure fat / grease - and
water doesn't mix with it or be attracted to it. Carbohydrates in
food, on the other hand, generally come with plenty of water; you have
to remove that water to get sugar and most carbohydrates in a pure
form.

Back to the _possible_ increase in weight after eating candy: Such a
weight gain would be small since the body creates only limited
glycogen stores; most of the candy will be converted to fats. The
increase is also spurious; it is greater than the weight of the candy
consumed, but not greater than the weight of the candy and the extra
water that comes from drinking water.

Oops! The relevant passages listing the amounts of ingested
carbohydrates, fats, or amino acids are in images from Google books,
so I'll just have to give the references here:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=MlA_OpfsFegC&dq=carbohydrate+fat+storage&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Dcarbohydrate%2Bfat%2Bstorage%26lr%3D%26start%3D10&lpg=PA295&pg=PA295&sig=5mhIkN1KZOYcaUcMwlWI8lyvKy0

The middle of the above page states that 75% - 80% of the energy of
carbohydrates gets stored as fats and that 90 - 95% of fats can be
stored as fat.

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=jIQK12WJ7EYC&dq=carbohydrate+fat+storage&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Dcarbohydrate%2Bfat%2Bstorage%26lr%3D%26start%3D30&lpg=PA155&pg=PA155&sig=hLMpT2yehraYAWHPUr4kUZWTKnQ

The middle of the above page states that the body has very limited to
store excess food as carbohydrate; most must be converted to fats.

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=fP2Vi6WzTCgC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=carbohydrate+fat+storage&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Dcarbohydrate%2Bfat%2Bstorage%26lr%3D%26start%3D20&sig=p5EF1Gv3hpCuT-Z_kaO0ZQDUfBY

The bottom of the above page cites a study showing that up to 25% of
excess carbohydrate must be consumed for energy, so that only about
75% of the consumed carbohydrate can be converted to stored fat.

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=hHLF0tH7EzoC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=carbohydrate+fat+storage&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Dcarbohydrate%2Bfat%2Bstorage%26lr%3D%26start%3D20&sig=wbjMg6NZpdigGoFOFUyNe_7qeZ4

The above page has additional statements on energy needs to store
glycogen and fats. It also indicates the energy cost of converting
amino acids to glucose is very high.

"A simple, but comprehensive, answer"  ???  I may have gotten carried
away. The main points: some food needs to be consumed to convert the
rest of the food into stored glycogen or fats; conversion of
carbohydrate or amino acids to fat will always involve some weight
loss (oxygen or nitrogen atoms) in addition to the energy required to
synthesize fat.

Correction re loss of oxygen and nitrogen atoms: Actually, there is
more weight loss than I indicated in converting a carbohydrate or an
amino acid to a fat for storage. There is also a loss of carbons as
carbon dioxide. For a simple carbohydrate, such as glucose,C6H12O6,
only 4 of the carbons are converted to fat, the other two are lost as
carbon dioxide. (You'll have to go through the metabolic pathway to
see this.) Also, for the two end carbons of an amino acid,
...CHNH2COOH, only the carbon containing the nitrogen is converted to
part of a fat, the end carbon is generally (always?) lost as carbon
dioxide. (I'd have to go through the pathways for all 20 amino acids
to be sure of saying "always.") The effect of this correction, though,
is further in the direction of weight loss when storing carbohydrates
and amino acids as fats, that is, weight gain does not exceed the
weight of the food eaten.

Thanks - this is a good start to helping me find the logical flaw in this article:

How you can gain more than a pound of weight when you?ve only eaten a pound of food

Eating food and gaining weight is not really about physics; it is
about biochemistry. When we eat food, it doesn?t maintain its original
form and mass. It is digested and metabolized, according to its
biochemical makeup, to create energy, which our bodies use for
physiological purposes, eg, to grow, to maintain the body and to
support activity. The energy not used is then converted to fat and
stored in the body. (Which actually does follow the physical law of
conservation of energy and mass: the food [mass] is converted to
energy [calories] and unused energy converted back to mass [fat]). The
undisputed maxim of weight maintenance is if you take in more calories
than you expend, you gain weight.

Food is digested into 3 components: fats, proteins and carbohydrates.
Each of these components is then metabolized to create energy,
measured in calories, as follows:
   ? carbohydrates = 4 calories/gm
   ? proteins =4 calories/gm 
   ? fats = 9 calories/gm.

Now, a pound of anything equals 452.8 grams (28.3 gm/oz x 16 oz/lb).
Thus, a pound of
   ? carbohydrates or protein produces 1811.2 calories
   ? fat produces 4075.2 calories.

Now, say you?re a couch potato, so you expend only about 85 calories
(an hour, but for argument?s sake, we won?t consider time, assuming
it?and all other considerations like metabolic rate, dietary
thermogenesis?is constant whatever you eat).
? If you eat a pound of carbs or proteins, after an hour of sitting,
you still have 1726.2 calories (1881.2 ? 85) to burn. If you don?t
burn it, it is converted back to fat and stored. Now it takes about
3500 unused calories to create a pound of stored energy (fat), so you
will gain 0.49 pounds (1762.2/3500) from eating that pound of carbs or
proteins and not doing anything more than sitting to burn the
calories.
? But if you eat a pound of fat, after that hour you still have 3990.2
(4075.2 ? 85) calories of energy your body can use. If you don?t use
it, you will gain 1.14 lbs (3990.2/3500)?more than a tenth of a pound
more than the quantity that you ate.

And what is that extra weight created from? From the biochemical
components always and already circulating within our bodies, including
the metabolites from that pound of food just digested, rearranged into
another form (fat).

That?s why if you eat more French fries than broccoli pound for pound,
you will gain weight.

can you comment on the logical flaw?  Or do I need to submit another question?
Thanks,

The comments I have read have tried to answer the question from a
precise scientific point of view.  But the question sounds more like
the dieter's lament along the lines of "I gain weight just walking
past the candy store".

No matter how the body rearranges and stores unburned calories, you
won't gain more than you ate unless you also took something else in. 
I don't think anybody weighed themselves, ate a pound of food, then
weighed themselves again without eating or drinking anything more, and
found that they gained more than a pound.

I think the answer lies elsewhere.  Some foods will cause a person to
retain more water temporarily.  But water may not have been considered
becuase it has no calories.  But it does have weight.

Thanks.  I found http://www.caloriesperhour.com/faqs_gram.html and
http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/fatcalories.HTM which
explains the flaw in the math.  And in case you find the topic
interesting here are some articles on the topic from Richar Muller of
Berkeley http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_13384,296,p1.html
and http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/11/wo_muller111204.asp?p=1.

I appreciate your help.  I consider the question answered.  Is there
anything I need to do to finalize or rate the answer?

* The claim: "Here is a calculation based on scientific data that
shows that if you eat 1 lb of fat, rest for 1 hour to digest the fat,
subtract the energy you used in that hour, you will have gained 1.14
lb."

* The error: misinterpretation of a number we are all familiar with:
"3500 cal is equivalent to 1 lb." Specifically, it is not true that it
"takes about 3500 unused calories to create a pound of stored energy
(fat)." This is an overextension of the exact meaning of the "3500 cal
/ 1  lb" value we are all familiar with. The exact meaning is
something like "extended restriction of caloric input to 3500 calories
below what is needed for energy balance results in the loss of 1 lb of
body weight; this weight loss is due both to loss of fat (primarily)
and to loss of protein and water; this is the principal means of
weight loss after several weeks of dieting." Regarding creation of 1
lb of fat, somewhat greater than 4086 cal are required (details given
later) - not 3500 cal.

* Overall: The calculation relies on our familiarity with "9 cal/gm
for fat," with "3500 cal is equivalent to 1 lb in losing weight," with
fat being the principal storage form of energy in the body, and with
our general knowledge that it is easier to gain weight by eating food
high in fat content than the same amount of food high in carbohydrates
/ protein. Its error is overextending the meaning of terms that are
commonly used: "9 cal / gm of fat" and "3500 cal per 1 lb." These
values were determined in specific circumstances and have specific
meaning. Although we often interpret these values correctly, they are
easily subject to misinterpretation if we try to use them as exact
values in situations other than the circumstances in which they were
determined. Generally, there is no problem with slight
misinterpretations since an approximation is often good enough for
what we want.

Very few people know the exact meaning and origin of these values (I
didn't). Both values are cited very frequently, but without reference
to how they were determined or to the specific circumstances involved.
I located a source describing how the value, "9 cal/gm fat," was
derived, but the closest I got to the original experimental
determination of the "3500 cal ... 1 lb" is a description of its
meaning in an expert opinion given at an FTC workshop regarding claims
for weight-reducing products.

* Specifically, "3500 cal per pound" refers to the weight loss that
occurs after several weeks of dieting. Although this weight loss is
primarily fat loss, there is also protein and water loss; the
calculation in question makes the assumption that the weight loss is
entirely due to fat when it makes 3500 calories the value needed to
create 1 lb of fat .

After the first few weeks of rapid weight loss, the body relies mostly
on fat for energy; however, blood glucose must still be produced to
some extent. This glucose is produced by breakdown of protein; the
primarily function of protein is not to serve as an energy source, but
it will be used to some extant for that in times of prolonged dietary
restriction. Per gram, breakdown of protein produces fewer calories
than fat, and so breakdown of body mass that is a combination of fat
and some protein will produce fewer than "4086 calories" expected for
complete oxidation of fat.

A quote on the meaning of "3500 calories is equivalent to 1 lb" is
given shortly, but I'd like to go into two other matters first. The
first is that the law of conservation of energy is very well
established, so that if oxidation of 1 lb of fat produces 4086
calories, then creation of 1 lb of fat will require 4086 calories (not
3500).

The second is really quite minor and generally we don't bother with
it: the 4086 calories applies exactly only in very specific
circumstances, that is, ingestion of fat. (You can ignore the rest of
this paragraph if you really aren't interested in a very fine
distinction.)  The value 9 cal/gm was determined in 1899 _from_ the
value for complete combustion of fat in a calorimeter; complete
oxidation of fat in the body should produce the same amount of heat.
However, the heat derived from combustion of 1 gm of fat is actually
greater than 9 cal/gm, but since 5% of ingested fat is not absorbed by
the body, the actual value was reduced by 5% to give 9 cal/gm.
Technically, this 9 cal/gm is the actual energy we would get from (the
portion of) 1 gm of fat in the diet (that we actually absorb). The
effect of this minor fact is that although we get 4086 cal (454 gm /
lb * 9 cal / gm) from 1 lb of fat, we could only produce 0.95 lb of
fat from that energy if all the energy could be used with 100%
efficiency to make fat in the body - a fairly minor factor in this
problem, and one we can ignore by comparison with the
misinterpretation in "it takes 3500 cal to create 1 lb of stored
energy (fat)."

Here is a quote on the meaning of "3500 cal is equivalent to 1 lb" by
a Dr. Steven Heymsfield from Columbia University:

?We burn energy in the body to commute function,  muscle strength and
to keep us alive, to keep us thinking, and that heat is given off by
the body and that's our energy output.  That's the output, the
expenditure side of the equation, and that really comes off in two
forms, two main forms.  That is, at rest, it's called our resting
metabolic rate.  That's about two- thirds of the energy we expend and
the remainder is physical activity.  There's a few other small things,
but physical activity is the rest.  So, that's the output side of the
equation.
On the input side of the equation, we eat food that has energy in it
and that energy is in the form of protein, fat and carbohydrate.  So,
all of that energy we expend in our tissues to commute life, then, is
replaced by the energy in the food that we eat.

Now, there's a little bit in between and that is we don't absorb all
of the energy we eat.  We absorb normally about 95 percent of the
energy we eat.  The rest comes out in our stool and urine.  That 5
percent we lose is normal.  It's the non-absorbed components of our
diet.  So, if you eat 2,000 calories a day, you lose about 1,000 [He
means 100; this is corrected later.] in terms of undigestible and
unmetabolizable components. Then once we absorb that energy, it's used
by the tissues and it really distributes into three different forms of
energy in the body; carbohydrate, protein and fat.  Fat is the main
storage depo in the body.  It's very high energy density, as you know.
 It's nine calories per gram.  It's very high energy density. That's
most of the calories in our body. Then we also store energy as
protein.  It's not really a storage energy depo, it's what really
creates function.  It's the protein in our muscles that give us
strength and so on.  So, we have protein in the body as a form of
energy.
 
And then, finally, we have a small amount of carbohydrate and that's
in the form of glycogen and glycogen's in cells and it's only a small
amount, about  percent of the total energy in our bodies in the form
of glycogen.  But what's interesting about glycogen and protein both,
they require a fair amount of water to keep them in solution, and so
their energy density is actually very low.  It's about one calorie per
gram whereas fat's nine calories per gram.  So, it's very low energy
density and glycogen is only a small amount, about 1,000 to 2,000
calories in the body.
Now, when we change energy balance -- let's say we're all eating
normally here and we change our energy intake, and we go down, say,
500 calories a day or something like that.  We immediately go into
negative energy balance and that will cause us to lose weight because
we have to replace that missing energy with energy from our tissues. 
The first place it's drawn from is from these glycogen stores, this
small amount of glycogen.  And that glycogen has a lot of water.  So,
for the first five to ten days that you're on a hypo-caloric diet, you
will lose a fair amount of weight because that glycogen has a very low
energy density.
Then after that you begin to consume some of the fat in your body at
an accelerated rate and your weight loss will slow down at that point
and you'll be consuming most of the energy deficit from your fat
stores.  But also, you do burn a small amount of protein, and we know
that on the average person who goes on a diet, about three-quarters of
the weight loss comes from fat and about one-quarter comes from
protein, after the first week or two, when the glycogen stores are
exhausted.  So, that gives you a little bit of a picture.
Now, we have certain rules we follow, these are very rough rules in
the weight control field.  We know that roughly one pound of weight
loss requires a deficit of about 3,500 calories, roughly 3,500
calories per pound, and that means if you drop your intake 500
calories per day, that after one week, you lose about one pound. 
Those are rough estimates.  And we know that most adults have
somewhere -- depending on how heavy you are, 200,000 calorie stores in
your body.  This is a normal weight adult, 200,000 calories.  So,
people can survive without eating somewhere around 70 or 80 days
depending on how overweight you are, just without eating at all,
creating deficits of, say, 100,000 calories or something like that.
So, that gives you some sense of this overall energy intake and energy
output and energy balance situation.

?... ?Dr. Heymsfield, there was one question that I had about your
presentation.  I wanted to make sure that this just wasn't a
misstatement.  In a 2,000 calorie diet, did you say 1,000 calories are
lost or 100?
DR. HEYMSFIELD: A hundred.? (page 26)

The above is from

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/weightloss/transcripts/transcript-13-112.pdf

starting on page 20, line 16.

----
The rest of this comment is about two other issues: the meaning of 9
cal/gm and an alternate explanation of "3500 cal" vs "4086 cal." Based
on what I learned about the meaning of "9 cal / gm," I think this
alternate explanation is incorrect in adding in a 5% correction to
reduce the 4086 towards 3500; as I understand it, the 5% is already
incorporated in the 9 cal/gm, which was used to get the 4086 cal/lb.

Here is information about the meaning of 9 cal/gm; it is peripheral to
the main issue, but is relevant to a problem with the alternate
explanation.

**** ?9 calories/gm?
This value was determined in 1899 by Atwater, presumably from a
University of Connecticut division. He found that the heat energy
available from complete combustion of 1 gm of fat is greater than 9
cal/gm. This should be the same whether the fat is completely
converted to carbon dioxide and water in a calorimeter or in the body.
However, Atwater was interested in the energy that could be generated
from 1 gm of fat in the diet, so he needed to determine if the entire
1 gm was actually absorbed. He found that 5% of fat is not absorbed
during digestion, so he reduced the energy from combustion of 1 gm of
fat in the diet by 5%; this result is the 9 calories/gm that is used
in nutrition. It refers to the energy available from the portion of 1
gm of fat that is actually absorbed.

I found a USDA document describing in detail how the values: ?fat, 9
cal/gm; carbohydrate, 4 cal/gm; and protein, 4 cal/gm? were
determined. These values were derived by Professor Atwater and
associates at the Storrs, CT, Agricultural Experiment Research
station. His original values were 4, 8.9, and 4 ? and rounded to 4, 9,
and 4 in a 1910 revision. This information is on the 15th pdf page
[numbered as page 11] of a scanned image of a document from a USDA
site. Because the pdf is a scanned image, I can't cut and paste the
relevant quotes. This document can be downloaded by first going to a
FAQ:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=6233#4-9-4

To find the scanned document, go to the section beginning: 

"I multiplied protein, fat and carbohydrate values by 4-9-4 my energy
value is different from USDA's. Why?

Calorie values are based on the Atwater system for determining energy
values. The factors used in the calculation of energy in the database
are given in the food description file of the USDA Nutrient Database
for Standard Reference, Release 18. The basis and derivation of these
factors are described in

Merrill, A.L. and Watt, B.K. 1973. Energy Value of Foods...Basis and
Derivation. Agriculture Handbook No. 74. U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, DC. 105p.

This reference is out of print, but a scanned copy is viewable on our
home page. It may also be available at many university libraries. The
Atwater system uses specific energy factors which have been determined
for basic food commodities. These specific factors take into account
the physiological availability of the energy from these foods. The
more general factors of 4-9-4 were developed from the specific calorie
factors determined by Professor Atwater and associates."

***** Alternate explanation:
I did find an alternate explanation regarding the differences between
9 cal/g, aka 4086 cal/lb, and the 3500 cal/lb issue, but I suspect it
may not be correct. Part of the explanation seems to be using the 5%
of fat that is not digested as an explanation for part of the 4086 /
3500 difference. However, as best I can tell from the USDA reference,
that 5% difference has already been used to reduce a higher value to
the 9 cal/g commonly used and so shouldn't be used again to reduce the
4086 cal. I also don't think that the 3500 cal refers to weight that
is fat alone from what is described above. The alternate explanation
regarding the 4086 / 3500 difference is at

http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/fatcalories.HTM

"Q. In books on nutrition, I'm told that to lose one pound of fat it's
necessary either to reduce my food intake by 3500 calories or to
exercise so that 3500 calories are burned. How is the value of 3500
determined? If fat contains 9 calories per gram, and there are 454
grams in a pound, then there should be 4086 calories in a pound of
fat-- not 3500.

A. The nutrition books are correct-- 3500 calories per pound of fat is
not an absolute amount, but it's very close. However, your math is
correct, too. Here is the story.

When we burn fat, or other nutrients, heat is produced, which is
measured in calories. As you note, each gram of fat generates 9
calories, and 454 grams equals one pound. But a pound of fat is not
all fat. It's about 10% water. All of our body tissues--fat, muscle,
bone, skin--contain some water. And water has zero calories.

In addition, not all the nutrients we eat are completely absorbed from
the digestive tract to meet metabolic needs. In the case of fat,
roughly 5% is eliminated in the feces. This 10% water content and 5%
non-absorbed fat accounts for the 15% difference between your
calculated 4086 calories and the actual 3500 calories in a pound of
fat."

pjmccann3, I started my last comment when your comment wasn't up yet.
I posted it without knowing of your last comment. Here's hoping mine
isn't in conflict with the sites you mention.

You can't rate comments. If you want to prevent an answer being given
(it'll save you $9.50), you can cancel the question. Here is the
relevant part of the FAQ:

"I posted my question and a registered user answered it in a comment.
Can I cancel my question?
Yes, you can cancel your question, as long as the question has not
been locked or answered. You will still be charged the $.50 listing
fee, but you will not need to pay the price to answer the question. To
cancel your question, log into to your account and go to "My Account".
When you see the list of questions you have asked, click on the
question you wish to cancel. Then click on the "Cancel Question"
button at the top of the page. Confirm your decision by clicking "Yes,
Cancel Question."

I don't know if this erases the question and comments entirely.
Another approach might be to set the question to expire immediately; I
suspect that this prevents anyone from officially answering the
question, but still leaves the question and comments available.

However, the safest way to save the $9.50 is to cancel the question.