Believe Me, I Scare Myself Too

It's been on my mind ever since I posted it. I knew people were going to try to "explain" it to me... even though I think I already "get it." But now I just can't let it go.

I mentioned that I could not figure out how a person could lose two and a half pounds overnight without using the bathroom, and drinking a cup of tea. Someone left a link to an article about glycogen storage. It was interesting, but it didn't answer my question.

Because this is a simple application of the Law of Conservation of Mass: it doesn't matter where your food goes or what it turns into inside of your body. If you don't poop it, pee it, sweat it, flatulate it, sneeze it, puke it, cry it, or ooze it in some other manner, you will weigh the sum total of all the food you've put in your mouth. End of story.

Here is a way to visualize it:

Step on the scale. It says you weigh 100 lbs. (And, by the way, I might have to get catty about that.)

Now find a bag of marbles and weigh it. The scale says the marbles weigh 2 lbs.

What would you weigh if you stepped on the scale while HOLDING the bag of marbles? (I'll give you time to calculate.) If you said 102 pounds, you are right.

Now, think of every piece of food that you eat as a bag of marbles. Some folks have been known to call these marbles "atoms," but we'll call them marbles here because marbles don't make people want to run to the nearest corner, curl up in a ball, and start rocking back and forth while repeatedly muttering "Please don't make me do chemistry. I never did like chemistry."

So, you and your marbles weigh 102 pounds. Now step off the scale and open the bag of marbles. Put some in your pockets. Put a few in your underwear. Hold the rest in your hands. Just make sure you have all the marbles on your person, somewhere... and we'll agree that I won't ask you where you put them all, okay?

Now, step back on the scale. How much do you weigh?

102 pounds.

Rearrange those marbles any way you want. Make new groups, LET THE MARBLES MINGLE! It doesn't matter. No matter where you put the marbles, you will still weigh the same. (In other words, store it as fat, store it as glycogen, make a new cell out of it... it just doesn't matter. All the atoms you ate still weigh the same, even if they've been re-grouped and made into something new inside your body.)

The only way to lose weight is to lose marbles. BURNING ENERGY ISN'T WHAT MAKES YOU LOSE WEIGHT. "Burning energy" is the term we use when we mean "break the bonds that are holding atoms together." In other words, we need to use energy to pull apart the marbles that are stuck together. But pulling them apart doesn't make us weigh less. Excreting them does. In order for us to lose weight, a molecule of fat, for example, has to be pulled apart, made into smaller pieces, and sent OUT OF THE BODY. (The ultimate out-of-body experience, eh?)

But I didn't do any major, uh, marble removal that night... yet I lost 2.5 pounds!

So the question has been sitting in the back of my head for over two weeks now. Brewing. Gaining information. Resulting in furrowed brow and far-off looks as I pondered: How in the world is it possible to lose weight while you are sleeping? I know we are always giving off water vapor, but it didn't seem like water vapor could account for the entire loss I experienced that night.

And then it hit me: Breathing.

Yes, you can lose weight by breathing.

It's brilliant.

Because here's the deal: We inhale oxygen (made of 2 oxygen atoms.) But what do we exhale? Carbon dioxide, which is the same two oxygen atoms, but with an extra carbon attached. So, with every breath, we are actually losing weight by getting rid of some of our carbon marbles.

I needed to check this out, so I stayed up way too late last night looking for some basic information and calculating the amount of carbon lost by the average person in a day.

Oh, I am not kidding.



I used the value that Wikipedia lists as the volume of carbon dioxide exhaled in one day by the average person. The temperature of the gas will affect the volume, but I used average room temperature, and also average atmospheric pressure. From these I used the Ideal Gas Equation and the atomic mass of carbon to figure out how much carbon that would be in grams. Then converted to pounds.

My temperature and pressure values were only estimates, and I suspect they throw the results off. This guy gets a different mass than I do. And I did not try to correct for the fact that the gas we exhale is generally warmer than room temp. But, from what I calculated, I determined that the average person loses 0.49 pounds every day just by exhaling carbon dioxide. (There you have it! Scientific proof that we are all losing our marbles!)

Adjusting that to reflect the six (probably fewer) hours that I was sleeping, allows me to conclude the following:

The average person loses NOWHERE NEAR 2.5 POUNDS of exhaled carbon while they are sleeping!

BUT, what I did learn is that if I don't eat or drink all day and make sure that I keep up with my breathing, I'm pretty much guaranteed to lose about a half a pound!

SWEEEEEET!

Someone call the marketing gurus... I've got a new diet to share with the world!

The Breather's Diet?

No, I got it -

How to Lose Weight in 1000 Easy Breaths

(I'm gonna be famous...)

Wistful Sigh...

-Been thinking about teaching, lately. Sometimes I miss it. Mostly I am glad that I don't ever have to go back... but sometimes I miss it.

I miss being able to teach. Chemistry, in particular. I find chemistry so fascinating and of great practical importance. And I got a great sense of accomplishment from making connections for kids that helped them make sense of the science.

I miss making a room full of kids laugh.

I miss watching kids learn how to use math for a purpose rather than just do math as an exercise. And seeing the satisfaction they get from figuring it out for themselves.

I miss challenging questions, though, to be honest - in the five years that I taught, I only got two questions that I would consider "challenging." So, in a sense, I missed them when I was teaching too. But both times it happened, I had no answer (which is probably why I thought they were challenging.) It forced me to learn something new so I could answer the question. It also made me think "this kid is THINKING," which always gets a teacher jazzed. The best part is that both times, the questions came from kids who were just average students.

Not too long after I left teaching, I saw one of my former students. She asked me why I left. It was one of those questions that had a complex answer. But, at the time, I was content to never think about teaching again, so I hadn't really formulated the answer in my own mind. What I ended up saying was "it was so hard."

Such a stupid answer. I wouldn't care if my job was hard. The issue was that I didn't enjoy it.... and that made the last 2 or so years very hard. I burned out.

And there was/is a lot going on in education in the state of Ohio that made/makes me want to run away, screaming and waving my arms, from any offer to teach in this state. So that didn't help matters for me. (Please note that I have resisted the urge to turn this into a rant. Maybe another time.)

I've said before that I would love to teach chemistry to someone who just wanted to learn. (I don't know if you have noticed, but teaching is one of the few jobs a person can have where they will be surrounded by large numbers of people who actually want you to NOT do your job as often as possible.) So it would be cool to be free of that, and free of state requirements, and school bureaucracy, and just teach someone who says "that's cool" a lot.

Yes. Now the title of this post makes sense, huh?

She Blinded me with Science

Here is the cerebral post I promised. Warning: it's kinda long. So, you might want to go get a cup of coffee before you read this... and maybe something to draw a few pictures with (it might help.)

Friends, let's get chemical.

I have been able to explain this basic concept to two people in recent history, and they both found it interesting. I thought you might too. I realize that I am biased because it is chemistry. But, just hang with me. Even if you don't find it interesting, there is a point at the end.

Here we go... (where's my model kit?)

Carbon atoms have the ability to bond four times. Assuming that no double or triple bonds are formed, the other atoms bonded to a carbon are generally evenly spaced around the carbon, in all three dimensions. This forms a shape called a tetrahedron. (I don't have my chalk board, so you are going to have to envision it: it is not flat - picture carbon in the middle, with three atoms below it spread in a triangular shape, and the other atom is directly above the carbon.)

Now, let's say, for example that we bond a hydrogen (H,) a nitrogen (N,) a chlorine (Cl,) and a fluorine (F) to a single atom of carbon (C.) You could put the H, N, Cl, and F onto the C in any order you wish without it affecting the properties of the "molecule." (This would not be a stable molecule, but I use it for sake of simplicity.) So, if you went to the lab and mixed all of these things in a beaker, you would come up with a molecule with a formula something like CHNClF. And, if you added a new chemical to the beaker to react with this molecule, all the other molecules would react exactly the same way.

But that doesn't mean they are all the same. Imagine a specific molecule. If you were looking down (as described above, with carbon in the middle) let's say that these atoms were in the following positions: H at 2 o'clock, N at 6 o'clock, Cl at 10 o'clock. That would leave F in the spot directly above the carbon. Now imagine a second molecule that is identical. The two atoms are superimposeable. Neato. Two of the exact same thing.

Now, take ANY two of the bonded atoms, and switch their locations. This molecule can no longer be superimposed onto the original molecule. No matter how you turn it in space, it just can't happen. The two are now mirror images of one another. The carbon is called a chiral carbon, because it has these mirror images.

In fact, EVERY carbon is chiral if it has four DIFFERENT things bonded to it. And, in a lab situation, where you simply mix a bunch of stuff in a beaker to make a molecule such as this, you will always end up making a mixture of both molecules (the "original" and the "mirror." Such a mixture is referred to as racemic.) The reason you end up with a mixture, is because the bonding atoms will bump into different carbon atoms in different places. One H bumps (and bonds) into a C at the 2 o'clock position, but another H might bump a different C at 6 o'clock.

The mirror-image molecules are called enantiomers. Chemists call one molecule "R" and the other "L." * (Like our Right and Left hand, which are also mirror images.) There are criteria for determining which is which, but it isn't important here.

But, this whole R and L thing is not such a "big" deal, since, as mentioned above, both molecules behave exactly the same way, chemically.

UNLESS...

The molecule happens to be a drug in your body. (So as to minimize any panic, what I am about to say is not true of every drug. But it is true of drugs that can be categorized as I describe below.) And that's where this all gets interesting. (Hopefully.)

Now, think back to your high school biology book. They all have a picture somewhere of an antibody or something, binding to a cell. The cell was always illustrated as a "blob" with a "key-shaped" hole. And the antibody was always illustrated as another blob with a key-shaped protrusion. The idea being that this specific antibody could only bind on cells with key-shaped holes. The concept is the same here. Keep this in mind, and I'll get back to it.

Almost all drugs are molecules that are made of a lot of carbon chains, linked into strings or rings, and frequently with branches. And there are tons of things that can be bonded to these carbons. Remember ONLY a carbon that has four DIFFERENT things bonded to it is chiral. But the four things are not limited to single atoms... it could be another branch or ring or something like that. So you might have a H at 2 o'clock, a ring structure at 6 o'clock, a branch at 10 o'clock and another C directly above. (And the mirror image of that as well.)

Anyhoo. Having a chiral carbon in a drug isn't even such a big deal....

UNLESS....

That chiral carbon holds the "key" that attaches to the cell in your body. Remember the receptor on a cell has a very specific shape. If the receptor has a hole that receives H at two o'clock, ring at 6 o'clock, branch at 10 o'clock, and C above, then only that specific enantiomer will work on the cell.

Ibuprofen is just like that. The part of the molecule that relieves the pain involves a chiral carbon. When you swallow an ibuprofen pill, you swallow both the R and L enantiomers. But only one is actually doing the trick. The other one is just floating around your body doing nothing.

We hope, anyway. Because.....

If there are unknown receptors on cells that just happen to be shaped like the other enantiomer, guess what is going to happen? The other enantiomer will start doing something... though what that is, no one knows.

This was the problem with thalidomide. It was used in the UK in the 50's and 60's as a tranquilzer for pregnant women. While one enantiomer worked to tranquilize the mom, the other enantiomer was busy giving their babies birth defects. (A fun example, I think, of how we can't always refer to chemicals as "good" or "bad" since these were, in fact the *same* chemical.... but now I am off on a tangent.)

So, as of 1995, the FDA has required that all new drugs be enantiomerically pure. In other words, you can only put the enantiomer that "works" into a pill before you market it.

Why did I just waste my time telling you all this? First, because it is interesting... whether you like it or not ;) Second, because, IMHO, I think this can drastically effect the cost of drugs.

Remember, enantiomers have the same chemical and physical properties. Drug companies can no longer make drugs in a way that lets atoms bond wherever they want. If they do, they end up with a racemic product... and how the heck to you separate the R molecules from the L's if they will all react the same way? It can be done, but it requires additional processes, on top of the initial manufacturing. However, I am guessing this is not the preferred option, b/c then they'd be left with a whole lot of the other, useless, enantiomer.

The other option is to figure out how to produce these drugs so that only one specific part of the molecule can bond at a time, and figure out how to get that part to bond in a very specific place on the carbon. (Reason #692 that I did not become an organic chemist.) This tends to increase the number of steps and the number of chemicals used in the manufacturing process. And that ain't cheap.

I tell you all of this simply because I don' think most people know, yet it is an easy concept to grasp (assuming I have taught you well, I suppose!) And, I think it sheds some light on a topic of concern for some (many?) people.

And, not to put the FDA on a pedestal, or anything (we all know they haven't exactly go it all together over there,) but, until I know more about how this kind of thing is handled around the world, it makes me reluctant to jump on the "buying-drugs-from-other-countries" bandwagon.

Thanks for playing. Hope you found it interesting.

Thanks to Nelson Sartoris for supplying the info about thalidomide.

*CORRECTION - enantiomers are labelled R or S, not L, as originally posted. My bad!

For an interesting article related to this (which is not completely impossible to comprehend) click here. It offers some interesting information some of which sheds new light on my understanding and presentation of this topic. (12/15/05)

Ten chemical/scientific concepts that most people don't know

Here is my pseudo-response to a long-ago post and Shelby's corresponding comment (which I realize was only meant to humor me.)

1. A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon which is true in all areas of science. It can often be expressed mathematically.

2. A theory is an attempt to explain "why" or "how," based on lots of observation, experimentation, and revision. A theory cannot be proved, but it can be disproved. Theories do not "grow up" to become laws.

3. Thermodynamically speaking, there IS such a thing as spontaneous combustion.

4. Most people who study chemistry don't know "what happens when you mix...........?" So don't ask them.

5. Every physical thing in the entire universe is either a chemical or a mixture of chemicals. Anyone who tells you that something "contains no chemicals" is either lying or ignorant.

6. Results of radiometric dating are highly questionable. (Here is a technical article, a much less technical article, and one very convincing article. You can find these and more here.)

7. Experimental evidence does not support the idea that electrons travel around the nucleus in fixed orbits (like planets around the sun.) Though most atoms are represented in this way, it is generally believed that these representations are inaccurate.

8. NaCl (sodium chloride) is not a molecule.

9. Most "neon" lights don't actually contain any neon.

10. Dilithium crystals, (which any true Trekkie (NOT me) would know power the Starship Enterprise,) can be explained, theoretically, by the Molecular Orbital Theory, but do not, actually, exist. (Try not to be too disappointed.)

Okay, any of you chem geeks want to add anything? Feel free.

I might have to do a little blogging about numbers 1 and 2 in the future.

Truth be Told, I am Nothing!

If an atom was the size of a football stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a marble. Please recall, the nucleus contains the protons and neutrons and is located in the center of the atom... Anyway, the only other part of the atom is the electron cloud. Now, electrons are about 1/1800 the size of a single proton. So, take a medium sized atom...it's got, say 40 protons and about 40 neutrons all packed into a marble-sized ball. Floating around this marble are 40 STINKING TINY electrons. But they get to roam around the rest of the stadium. My question is this, what the heck is taking up the rest of the space in that stadium? Answer: literally, nothing.

Take into consideration the following: every protein that makes up every cell, every bit of water, every molecule of DNA, absolutely everything in our bodies (and in the rest of the world, for that matter) is made up of these atoms which are more NOTHING than they are SOMETHING. In the purely physical sense, it blows my mind that I can have arms and legs and hair, knowing that they are made up of "little balls of mostly nothing."

Colossians (my favorite) 1:17 says:
And He (Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Having taken a few chem classes in my life, this verse has added meaning to me. Maybe the question is not so much about "what" takes up the empty space in an atom, but "who."