/vore/ - Vore Board

>>3307

>Digestion takes approximately 1.5 hours under stable conditions within the human stomach, and up to 45.5 more hours to traverse the rest of the digestive system

>The human stomach has a rough median capacity of about 0.94 liters, which facilitates the time of 1.5 hours for the stomach to churn its contents into chyme

>The average human body, however, has a total volume of approximately 66.4 liters

>Through linear extrapolation, we can assume that digestion of a human body within a distended human stomach might take roughly 4.4 days (106 hours)

>From there, we spend the next 4.5 hours in the 3 liter small intestine, a time of 4.1 days for a full human being (99 hours). The large intestine, or colon, usually tends to take the longest time out of all the "stops" in the digestive system, going up to 40 hours on average

>Its volume is roughly 4.5 liters, and so its processing of a full human being would take about 24.5 days (590 hours).

>You may note that the times here are a bit different, proportionally, than the normal human digestion of food. This isn't a miscalculation, it's a result of the food's volume versus the digestive system's components' volumes affecting time.

>>3308

>The average weight of humans the world over is roughly 136.7 lbs (62 kg), so we'll use this as our base androgynous meal for calculations.

>50% of the human (81.9 lbs) is totally-digestible meaty tissue, 35% is skeletal tissues (20% of which is digestible trabecular bone and marrow, a fatty set of tissues), 4% brain (which is, in turn, 60% fat), and 11% blood solids, lymph, or other watery gush.

Digesting a human being will take 33.1 days (795 hours), yield 139,725 calories (109,661 fat cal.; 23,461 protein; 2,000 carbs; 4,603 blood sugars), produce 40.5 lbs (18.4 kg) solid waste, and cause you to gain about 19.1 lbs (8.7 kg)

>assuming a semi-active lifestyle of doing anything more than just lazing around in front of a computer all day.

>A sedentary lifestyle will result in a gain of about 24.3 lbs (11 kg), You won't actually produce direct liquid waste from this alone, at least not in excess of the norm, and will still need water intake––the human body only holds a 24-day supply of water!

>Moreover, most of your supplemental hydration would be during the first 4.4 days––the colon and small intestine absorb far, far larger volumes of water than the stomach.

>Also, it might be prudent to add this: as prey, you may want to regulate your breathing. If you remain calm, you're likely to go unconscious from asphyxiation in around 8.6 minutes. In a panic, however, you have 48 seconds. You die 15 minutes after passing out either way, so hey, maybe it doesn't matter at all.

>>3309

Question Corner:

User DethXev asked

>Ok, now I'm actually curious and too lazy to look it up…I can understand why bone is indigestible but brain, blood, and lymph is also unnutritious and/or indigestible as well? Why is that? If so, then what is the purpose of eating this "junk food" from animals (for those people who actually eat these parts I mean)?

It IS nutritious, but doesn't provide any statistically significant calories. You can get vitamins, minerals, etc. from it, but you won't get energy, and I did not calculate this to provide full human "Nutrition Facts."

To add to this, I want to point out that, yes, bone material is digestible and, no, it does not have a significantly high caloric content. It is almost totally indigestible when whole, and would not fully digest unless ground up. Bone marrow, however, is a significant source of calories that I had overlooked, and I will factor changes accordingly.

User AndrewLondon asked

>I'm interested in how you allowed for the fact that as food gets larger then volume scales as the cube, but contact surface scales as the square. (Your paragraph four?) Not because I want to check your work, but because it's hot to think about the stomach being stretched glassy-smooth as it struggles to process the sheer scale of the meal.

The reason I scaled solely for volume is that there's no real evidence to support that surface area contact regulates the speed of the process. While it is the most important fact of digestion, it does seem that the mass of a meal has a greater impact on its speed through the digestive tract than the extraction of nutrients from it. I realize that volume and mass are not equivocal, but I can only believe in this lack of actual experimental evidence that the volume matters most in the passage of the food.

That said, I also have to believe that the amount of time the food is kept inside the digestive tract in this thought experiment (the 33.1 days) would be enough for it to be properly sifted through and leached of nutritive value by the system. I'm not going to pretend it's an infallible assumption, but it does seem logical enough.

>>3307

>>3308

>>3309

>>3310

Dude, it's a fucking fantasy. There's no need to bring it into reality. The logistics are heavily flawed in every way, regardless of what you say.

>>3313

Well. I'm not OP, but I can offer that this isn't - I find this interesting and it's a way of calculating the data that can be checked. So that's worth something.

One could conceivably cannibalize most of a human corpse; you'd want to skip the brains and I think it's the liver (?). One leads to Cruefeld-Jakob's disease (spelling?) and the other would lead to vitamin A poisoning.

That's not to say that I'm all for cannibalizing a human corpse. But if you want more believable vore, you have to work with whatever data you can actually manage. "Hypothetically, if you could get to point X, this is what would then happen."

>>3313

Meh, no reason to get upset about it. I find the line bolded in red to be kind of neat really.

>>3452

Because this bullshit study and the people who follow the study or try to put too much realism in their fantasies is retarded and heavily flawed in every way, that's why. You making, showing, and presenting that list is only helping me prove the retarded part.

>>3309

That's a whole lot of shit.

>>3455

Well…

… That list is more obsession than even I'm comfortable with, so user needs to seek psychological help…

… But the study itself doesn't seem like BS in context of aiding some degree of believablity. Suspension of disbelief is aided by plausibility more than anything.

>>3457

There are many factors for me to explain why this is flawed, so I'll spare you the details:

1. The rate of digestion is treated as if they are multiplying the amount of ingredients needed to make multiple batches of cookies (or biscuits if you're British).

2. The digestive speed depends on the person in question.

3. The stomach isn't as powerful as everybody claims it to be.

4. The stomach will give up if there's too much in it or is indigestible, and will either send the contents to the intestines or force you to regurgitate.

5. Swallowing anything whole makes it less nutritious, less tasteful, and more difficult to process in your digestive tract.

6. The "predator" could die from infection/illness by either an infected "prey" or the lack of disinfection in the gut.

There's many more factors, but I'm not going to list them all. As for the part about the celebrities/porn-stars, I'm ok with fantasizing about being eaten by them (In a Soft Vore sense). I just don't like the idea of it turning dark. Of course, this is the Internet: where all the crazy people get to roam free.

>>3313

> waaah don't think, thinking bad!

> math is hard!!

>>>/oven/

>>3469

>this is the Internet: where all the crazy people get to roam free.

It's not 1998 anymore.

>>3497

Oh, please. I actually read this months before this post came up and still know that the math on this is bullshit. And plus, that topic was actually criticized on Eka's for not using a proper equation for the rate of dissolving materials (https://aryion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=41038&start=20#p2165776). I'm actually surprised that it's still up on Eka's because their rules strictly prohibit any attempts to connect vore with reality.

>>3498

Doesn't matter what year it is, it's still the same.

>>3503

> I'm actually surprised that it's still up on Eka's because their rules strictly prohibit any attempts to connect vore with reality.

Sitewide rule #1 points you at a post by Eka. Here it is for your conveinience and laziness: http://aryion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10943

Please note the date. Eka herself seems to indicate some remorse for the "my way or the highway" egotism she displayed in earlier years, even if her personality overall appears to change at a glacial pace.

>>3536

First Rule on Eka's: "This is a Strictly Fantasy Only website!

Any attempt to bold connect bold real life vore are disallowed and heavily enforced!"

This states that Lumesa, the OP of the topic on Eka's, has violated the 1st rule, and the topic should be removed from Eka's (and from /vore/ too since it states no real life vore.).

And yes, I have read both the rules and that post multiple times and it still hasn't changed regardless. They even removed a "What if Vore was in the Real World" Topic around late 2013-early 2014 for connecting vore to reality. That is why I'm surprised that this topic still exists on Eka's. I'm probably going to ask the Board Manager if threads like these are safe to be on this board. If they are, then I'll leave it alone with an apology.

>>3538

Aw, shit! I was wondering on how to bold words. Now I know that this ain't like your average forum.

>>3538

Eka's Portal is a joke when it comes to rules. The admin decides what they allow on a whim. Eka is probably thee single biggest hypocrite when it comes to that and it's simply a fact. Not a personal attack, it's the truth. The rules state that 3D vore isn't allowed to be uploaded to their galleries but many of the artists do anyway. The only thing that Eka's Portal is good for is viewing pleasure. Discussing things with people there just doesn't help.

bump

>>3538

Trying to find out the logistics of vore I would not say is connecting it to real life much. The rule is there so that people don't think they can just talk about actual cannibalism and the link. And, if the math is flawed and the equations nonsensical or incorrect, then does it matter much? I have gotten use out of that thread in terms of fantasy, it is interesting to have a bit of a better view of how things about could go within a setting, how much weight about is gained and how much of the body is turned to energy and so on.

Is it correct? I do not think so. Does it matter? not really, since it is still only outlining things in terms of fantasy. It is simmilar to exploring and setting rules to magic or impossible architecture, it can be interesting and very scientific, but it is used for fantasy.

So, someone did something like this, but for Cock Vore:

https://aryion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=48200

>How much cum would a given prey produce in US gallons since we use those to hold our milk in my area?

>So we need to find a few numbers, the density of milk/semen, and how much they would weigh when taking up a US gallon (~3785.41 ml) of volume. Note that cubic centimeter and milliliter are the same thing in this case. So we multiply density and volume to get the mass. So if it's grams per cubic centimeter, we just multiply it by the amount of cubic centimeters in our gallon.

>Milk Density - 1.033 grams/cm3 x 3785.41 cm3 = ~3.9 kg which converts back into 8.6 pounds which is the stated number on google, so our numbers are right.

>(normal) Semen Density - 0.9982 g/cm3 x 3785.41 cm3 = 3.778 kg = 8.32 pounds

>But my friend has special cum. Not the white cloudy stuff humans spew, but real cum. The extra thick and creamy kind! Seeing as his cum was thicker, we assumed it was more dense than milk being 8.6 pounds a gallon and the thicker maple syrup being 11 pounds as an example. So his thick cream was assumed to be around 9.5lbs/4.3kg per gallon based on that.

>So now we know if a gallon were filled with these fluids, how much they'd weigh.

>Milk: 8.6lbs/4.3kg

>Normal Semen: 8.32lbs/3.77kg

>Creamy Semen: 9.5lbs/4.3kg

>Now that's great and all, but how much cum would a given prey produce? Since we know how much a gallon would weigh when filled with a certain fluid, and has a specific volume, we can use that as a yard sick for our preys volume. Since they transformed into the fluid in question, they'd inherit the properties of that fluid. Thus, if their converted mass is half of a gallons mass of that fluid, they'd take up half of a gallon of space. Of course, we need to know the conversion ratio. To keep the numbers simple, we and my partner assumed the prey skroggling away in his loins would have 100% of their body mass converted into the fluid they are making. So 5lbs of prey make 5lbs of cum. Since we know the mass and density, we can know the volume. To make sure the numbers work, if we take a prey mass of 4.3 which is half of a full milk gallons mass of 8.6, the prey would take up half of a gallon of space if they were converted into milk. See where I'm going?

>So the numbers go: (Mass of prey) Divided by (Mass of 1 gallon of the fluid they are being turned into) = (Number of gallons they'd fill, with 1.0 = 1 gallon)

>Example 45\9.5 = 4.73, or four and three quarters of a gallon filled with that thick semen.

>Why do all this? I was wondering, if something were turned into cum, how much would it make? With this in hand now, instead of guessing how much a cum - a ferret for example would make - or something abstract like a "big load" or "enough to fill a cup!" With these numbers, I can have something concrete. In an example, if we take a prey creature such as a ferret - with an average weight of 2 and 1/3lbs - divided by 9.5lbs to make creamy semen, we get ~0.24 or a little under a quarter of a gallon/liter or ~33fl.oz

bump?

>>3452

>tfw emma watson and Kim kardashian will never eat you and digest you into belly and ass fat