Page 1 of 1

Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:52 pm
by justinrpg
When it comes to being digested by a pred, which would be worse? Quick digestion (such as in birds) where the pain can skyrocket quickly as more and more of your flesh quickly dissolves but is less time before you are dead. Or slower digestion (such as in herbivores like Xerneas) where there is less pain to start (but still painful) but lasts an extended period of time as your flesh dissolves at a slower rate until you are dead.

In any case, pain would increase over time while you are in the stomach, but which do you find worse? Quick digestion where pain increases quickly but lasts for a shorter time, or slow digestion where pain increases slowly but you feel pain for a longer period of time?

I always imagined:

birds (30 minutes)
Carnivores (45 minutes)
Omnivores (1 hour)
herbivores (3 hours)

You can use that as a guide, but you do not have to.

I opted with the quicker option as how I view birds as lethal predators (because of their digestive system)

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:26 pm
by ArcaneSigil
Opinion: Slow digestion would be more painful because it's the equivalent, if not worse, of Hydrochloric Acid, the same stuff that can melt through bone in minutes. Being dunked in a fleshy pouch that slowly filled with that same substance, or worse, would be excruciating because you would SLOWLY feel your skin burning away, followed by your muscles. Your nerves would constantly be on fire, excruciating pain would be radiating through your entire body, and death would be slow. It would either be caused by suffocation from lack of breathable air, your flesh and bones being melted off, or your insides being melted away, but it wouldn't be quick. It would be slow and painful.

Opinion 2: Quick digestion would be just that. Quick and painless. Into the belly, melted, gone. No slow, agonizing melt of acids, just gone.

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:37 pm
by sweetladyamy
I said quick, because honestly, I'm a digestion slut; quick would be boring.

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:45 am
by largerarge
slow digestion is the worst way to go.

think about the creature from star was return of the jedi, the sarlacc. 1000 years of very slow digestion, nope.

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:44 am
by IvesBentonEaton
Yeah, that whole Sarlacc thing about "digestion over a thousand years" smacks of (a) way overblown villain boasting by Jabba, or (b) writer incompetence. A typical human body replaces a good part of itself faster than that; it wouldn't even notice digestion over a thousand years. It would dehydrate, starve, or simply die of old age first. Digestion would be the least of its worries.

All the explanations made after that about the Sarlacc's digestion process sounds like made-up nonsense to try and justify the stupid line after the fact.

Star Wars can be fun and all that, but it's more space-opera lightly-science-flavored fantasy than anything to take seriously.

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:34 pm
by sweetladyamy
IvesBentonEaton wrote:Star Wars can be fun and all that, but it's more space-opera lightly-science-flavored fantasy than anything to take seriously.


It's just a really sad story.

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:11 pm
by Nerdrarg
IvesBentonEaton wrote:Yeah, that whole Sarlacc thing about "digestion over a thousand years" smacks of (a) way overblown villain boasting by Jabba, or (b) writer incompetence. A typical human body replaces a good part of itself faster than that; it wouldn't even notice digestion over a thousand years. It would dehydrate, starve, or simply die of old age first. Digestion would be the least of its worries.

All the explanations made after that about the Sarlacc's digestion process sounds like made-up nonsense to try and justify the stupid line after the fact.

Star Wars can be fun and all that, but it's more space-opera lightly-science-flavored fantasy than anything to take seriously.


An author of an Expanded Universe supplement actually detailed the anatomy of the Sarlacc and how it sustains the prey.

Basically it’s multiple stomachs, being injected with neural toxins to keep you still, being sustained intravenously, all while being accosted mentally.

Just look up anatomy of a sarlacc if ur curious about it.

But likely when the scene was first written, it was just a line meant to be crazy and horrifying and unthinkable, and TBH, I think the anatomical descriptions I’ve read do a pretty decent job of explaining those horrors.

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:07 pm
by IvesBentonEaton
Yeah, I remember reading something about that. So my statement stands.

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:01 pm
by Scrumptious
This question is being asked of the wrong forum. Surely the correct question is:

Which would be better?

:D