Eka's Portal

In many a vore comic we have weight gain, the pred is fatter after eating a human prey.
But lets say our pred decided to work off those calories and fat gained from the meal, how long would our pred have to exercise to work the entire meal off if we take that the pred burns of fat and calories in the same manner that a normal human does?

You know I've thought about this a lot actually. Like, I personally really like weight gain and I always have wondered about it.

If you wanna look at it in a realistic sense (skipping over the already unrealistic idea of same-size vore in the first place), it really would vary between works. Some people will have the entire body being digested, just digesting everything but the bones, or even disposing of most of the remains altogether. All of these would wildly differ in how much fat goes on to the predator. It would also be affected by the size of the prey, and how much of the prey is actually stored as fat and muscle vs being used for energy and other bodily functions.

So if we're going to try to solve this question in the most realistic way possible, then we are stuck with a lot of other questions as well. Such as "how much energy would it take to digest a human body in the first place?", "is stomach acid even capable of melting an entire body?", "what percentage of meals actually contributes to body weight?" etc. Without these answers, it's probably impossible to reach a conclusion on this.

To be fair, I'm sure with enough time, effort, and googling, it's possible to figure this out. That being said, I'm slightly afraid that searching for "is stomach acid able to digest a human body" is going to put me on a watchlist. So if anyone else has a solid answer, feel free to let me know

Human body: 125,822 calories

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180962823/

A pound of body fat is roughly 3500 calories.

If we assume that the body is converted straight to fat, with zero loss, then we get an increase in weight of approximately 36 pounds. (Yes, that number is correct. We'll get to the issue at the tail.)

Math can be weird, but you can find a caloric expenditure calculator easily. Here, let's just use this one:

https://tdeecalculator.net/

Let's say female, 30 yo, five-foot-three, 130 lbs, and moderate exercise.

The calculator tells us the daily expenditure is 1982 calories a day (a little less than 2000, so I'll round up because ehhhh hard numbers.)

If you ate *literally nothing else with calorie*, and all this math was right, and you could convert the fat straight back to calories (which you almost can), then it would take you 62 days to burn that off. Except not exactly, because at a starting weight of 130, you'd be up to 166 after our theoretical consumption, at which the calculator tells us burns about 2200 calories a day, at which point it would be only 57 days, so it will probably be closer to 60 days, even.

I said there was a catch here - the catch is that this assumes cannibalism in the real world sense, per the Smithsonian article. If you want it more accurate, someone will have to work out the caloric density of the parts of the bodies that weren't included in the Smithsonian article.

Otherwise your working figure is probably 2 months. In real world terms.

Not sure why anyone needs that kind of realism in their fetish works, but w/e.

Depends on how big the predator and the prey is. a 250 ft. tall vixen is going to sizzle off you micros in a few steps.

This is similar to other questions posed to the board in days past, and unfortunately, the answers end up varying wildly because of a few problems:

1. There's a lot of variables at play. Everything from the pred's own metabolism to their activity levels to the dimensions of the prey, and so on, determines the outcome here.

2. The digestive process is so complex, and a person is a complex object, making the act of calculating what happens when to be...difficult. A convoluted force meets a convoluted object. Every material in the human body would take a different amount of time to digest and have a different calorie yield, and we're mostly water, and some bits can't be digested, and different bits are exposed to the digestive process as layers over them melt off, and that's not even addressing what happens to food as it goes through your stomach and intestines...it's a lot to get your head around, let alone figure out for certain. There have been noble attempts, but their veracity is unknowable.

With all the concessions needed to say that a human can swallow another whole to begin with, I would just write/draw something that passes a sniff test. Maybe look at the thorough calculations others have put forth to get a sense of what the "real" answer would be, and use that as a baseline to work around by adjusting metabolic speed/efficiency as needed for your desired outcome.

copb.phoenix wrote:Human body: 125,822 calories

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180962823/

A pound of body fat is roughly 3500 calories.

If we assume that the body is converted straight to fat, with zero loss, then we get an increase in weight of approximately 36 pounds. (Yes, that number is correct. We'll get to the issue at the tail.)

Math can be weird, but you can find a caloric expenditure calculator easily. Here, let's just use this one:

https://tdeecalculator.net/

Let's say female, 30 yo, five-foot-three, 130 lbs, and moderate exercise.

The calculator tells us the daily expenditure is 1982 calories a day (a little less than 2000, so I'll round up because ehhhh hard numbers.)

If you ate *literally nothing else with calorie*, and all this math was right, and you could convert the fat straight back to calories (which you almost can), then it would take you 62 days to burn that off. Except not exactly, because at a starting weight of 130, you'd be up to 166 after our theoretical consumption, at which the calculator tells us burns about 2200 calories a day, at which point it would be only 57 days, so it will probably be closer to 60 days, even.

I said there was a catch here - the catch is that this assumes cannibalism in the real world sense, per the Smithsonian article. If you want it more accurate, someone will have to work out the caloric density of the parts of the bodies that weren't included in the Smithsonian article.

Otherwise your working figure is probably 2 months. In real world terms.

Not sure why anyone needs that kind of realism in their fetish works, but w/e.

so a human body would be turned into just 3 stone worth of fat?

Assuming traditional cannibalism with a bit extra. Please see the Smithsonian article I linked for specifics there.

Also, because I'm in the bizzarro land where we don't just move the decimal point to convert between units, I'm afraid I don't know what "stone" is in any term familiar to me. Google says 1 stone = 14 lbs, so then 36 lbs would be about 2.57 stone. Call it 2 and a half stone because "ehhhhh hard to work with numbers"?

copb.phoenix wrote:Human body: 125,822 calories

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180962823/

A pound of body fat is roughly 3500 calories.

If we assume that the body is converted straight to fat, with zero loss, then we get an increase in weight of approximately 36 pounds. (Yes, that number is correct. We'll get to the issue at the tail.)

Math can be weird, but you can find a caloric expenditure calculator easily. Here, let's just use this one:

https://tdeecalculator.net/

Let's say female, 30 yo, five-foot-three, 130 lbs, and moderate exercise.

The calculator tells us the daily expenditure is 1982 calories a day (a little less than 2000, so I'll round up because ehhhh hard numbers.)

If you ate *literally nothing else with calorie*, and all this math was right, and you could convert the fat straight back to calories (which you almost can), then it would take you 62 days to burn that off. Except not exactly, because at a starting weight of 130, you'd be up to 166 after our theoretical consumption, at which the calculator tells us burns about 2200 calories a day, at which point it would be only 57 days, so it will probably be closer to 60 days, even.

I said there was a catch here - the catch is that this assumes cannibalism in the real world sense, per the Smithsonian article. If you want it more accurate, someone will have to work out the caloric density of the parts of the bodies that weren't included in the Smithsonian article.

Otherwise your working figure is probably 2 months. In real world terms.

Not sure why anyone needs that kind of realism in their fetish works, but w/e.

According to the article, 1 human is enough to feed 25 people for 1 day. So logically, it would feed 1 person for 25 days, which is quite diffrent from 60 days. Yes, of course, being fat and being sated are not the same thing, but still, I find this gap curious.
I decided to look up how much calories are burnt when digesting, and according to this (French) article : https://www.elle.fr/Minceur/Bien-etre-r ... nt-3783641 , when we sleep, we spend 42 calories per hour digesting dinner. So now we'd need to determine how many hours would be needed to digest a person.
Maybe we could assume it would take the 25 days I mentionned above, so 24h x 25 * 42 = 25 200 calories burnt only on digesting
That leaves us with 100 622 calories turned into fat (and that is just the meat, not the bones. I think the article might include the organs in the math), which reduces the weight gain to 29 lbs.
According to your calculations, we then burn 2200 a day, so 45 days in total.

These values are only valid for a "normal" metabolism however (regardless of how they manage to swallow a person and not get indigestion). We can always assume some pred have a faster/slower one.

PS : for those who don't understand Imperial system :
29lbs = 13 kilograms
A 130lbs womans weighs 59 kg

Your assumption with 1 person feeds x people for y days assumes normal consumption. I walked through this for a reason.

The main issue is that if someone is eaten whole and digested all at once, then most assumptions can go out the window and we can wibbly wobbly handwave anything, really. Something I lampshaded at the end when I joked that I'm not sure why anyone would want that kind of realism.

The assumption I make is pretty simple: someone is eaten whole and must go somewhere (fat). That fat, in turn, must be worked back off. This seems like the minimal assumption. The article assumes traditional cannibalism. Hence the number for y people being fed with one person (from the article) only holds if traditional cannibalism is in place.