32

The claim from this site:

It’s been said that the average American carries around between 5-20 extra pounds of poop in their intestines.

It's hard to believe it's true. Is there a medical evidence that proves this claim?

Losing 20 lbs (9 kg) by just flushing the intestines seems like a hoax.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Grasper
  • 3,315
  • 2
  • 22
  • 34
  • 3
    Metric equivalents for those who don't want to bother: 5-20 pounds => roughly 2.27-9.07 kg, and according to [Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/102919/average-american-weighs-pounds-more-than-ideal.aspx#:~:text=Americans%20are%20asked%20each%20November,a%20weight%20of%20159%20pounds.) the average american is around 175 pounds (~79kg) for reference. – Entropy Sep 17 '20 at 18:39
  • 3
    Deleted a whole lot of conjecture, pseudo-answers, inappropriate jokes and challenges to the question because commenters didn't trust the source (which is the whole point of the site: if we only quoted reliable sources, we wouldn't need to ask if they were right.) – Oddthinking Sep 18 '20 at 23:50
  • 4
    The density of wet fecal matter is 1.06 g/cc. 10kg of feces would be around 10 litres (2.6 gal) in volume - enough to fill a typical household bucket. If this claim were true, there would be no room in your torso for anything except poo... – avid Sep 19 '20 at 07:34
  • @avid counterargument: the upper bound of the volume of the small intestine, based on my quick read of Wikipedia and a back of the envelope calculation, would be around 12 lithers. – HAEM Sep 19 '20 at 11:56
  • Comments deleted...ok. Now the next question is, how did the people who sell the colon-cleansing (i.e. weight-loss) supplement come up with this figure? The ad itself is not telling a lie but inserting that "fact" insinuates that clients can lose up to 20 lbs in one sitting, which is ridiculous. – Mari-Lou A Sep 20 '20 at 09:19

2 Answers2

56

No.

According to the chapter "Carbohydrate Metabolism in the Colon" in Human Colonic Bacteria (1995) :

The large intestine contains about 220 g wet weight of contents (range circa 60–900 g), 35 g dry weight

Authors of the chapter are Philip D. Marsh, Ph.D. and Michael J. Hudson, B.Sc. Department of Pathogenicity PHLS Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research Porton Down, England.

(Converting to pounds that is 0.5 lbs. average and 2 lbs. maximum)

According to Comparison of fermentation reactions in different regions of the human colon Journal of Applied Bacteriology 1992, 72, 57-64.

Gut contents were obtained from two sudden-death victims...The wet weight of colonic contents, in subjects 1 and 2 respectively, were: caecum, 71.9 and 18.2 g; ascending colon, 86.5 and 11.9 g; transverse colon, 125.7 and 25.3 g; descending colon, 3.68 and 126.9 g and sigmoid/rectum, 56.6 and 6.1 g. Total wet weights of colonic contents were 344.4 and 188.4 g.

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • 4
    In imperial measures; lbs and ounces? – Mari-Lou A Sep 17 '20 at 19:06
  • 3
    @Mari-LouA 220 g is almost 0.5 lb, 900 g about 2 lb; 35g is about 1.2 oz – Henry Sep 17 '20 at 19:10
  • 2
    Oh wow, I didn't expect it that low. Interesting, thanks. I guess no weight loss with pooping, haha. – Grasper Sep 17 '20 at 19:14
  • 1
    @Grasper The colon's primary purpose is to absorb water from feces before it is excreted. I would bet that the healthy range of moisture content in feces causes the average weight in any individual to vary a great deal, since water is so heavy. So, Dave, any information on the maximum weight of feces in a healthy functioning colon? –  Sep 18 '20 at 02:06
  • 32
    That quote only talks about the large intestine, which is much shorter than the small intestine. Is there a figure for the full intestinal tract? – coagmano Sep 18 '20 at 03:41
  • 1
    An argument could be made about the eating habits and specifically the [weight of the average 2020 American being different from that of the average 1995 American](https://fortune.com/2018/12/20/average-american-adult-weight), as well as significantly [higher than the average weight in most any other country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight#By_country). – walen Sep 18 '20 at 07:30
  • 24
    at what point in your intestine does "partially digested food" become "poop"? I guess assuming the entry to the large intestine is as good a marker as any; at that point no more nutrients will be extracted so it's all waste. – Grimm The Opiner Sep 18 '20 at 09:21
  • 8
    Looking more closely at this answer, not only does it not address the differences between "intestines" and "the large intestine", but it doesn't actually establish the authority of its source; for all I know reading the text of this answer, it's a link to your own blog. The answer may be _correct_, but it is not a good answer for this site. – IMSoP Sep 18 '20 at 11:50
  • 2
    @FredStark "What is feces?" Becomes a problem there, if you ask me. The small intestine absorbs nutrients, but feces is *waste*. –  Sep 18 '20 at 14:22
  • @IMSoP Which is why I've commented here, on Dave's answer, and upvoted your previous comment. I'm considering a mod banner "needs details", because this answer is insufficient. –  Sep 18 '20 at 14:29
  • 1
    I've decided to add the "needs details" banner. I think you need to address 1) defining feces and where it resides in the body, 2) establishing the authority of your source, 3) note the *range* of weight, which your source does, but you don't. –  Sep 18 '20 at 15:00
  • Also, what's in the large intestine is not "extra", unless it stays there more or less permanently. However, there should be an easy experimental test, if anyone is due for a colonoscopy. Simply weigh yourself before drinking that cleanser, and after it has had its full effect. – jamesqf Sep 18 '20 at 16:07
  • Well, I think if one bears in mind that "up to" means "less than", it becomes marginally true, but only just. – j4nd3r53n Sep 18 '20 at 16:11
  • 2
    @fredsbend As an upper bound on the weight, I personally have had my complete large intestine (plus its contents, since the "normal exit" was blocked by a cancer) removed surgically. I came out of the operating theater about 10 kg (22lb) lighter than when I went in. Of course that figure was for an unhealthy, non-functioning and distended colon. – alephzero Sep 18 '20 at 19:23
  • @fredsbend "feces" definitely excludes the contents of the small intestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_feces . The answer says the range is "60–900 g[rams]". – DavePhD Sep 18 '20 at 19:49
36

Those Ads were popular on TV years ago. They all claim some permanent build-up of "extra poop" which only a cleanse can remove. I found a lovely 2018 quote from a skeptic medical office of McGill University from the head, a Chemistry instructor. The lead-up to it is quite funny and mentions earlier Ads. This part makes one embarrassed to have even considered lingering poop:

Now let’s get real here. Have pathologists who have carried out thousands of autopsies seen pounds of goo encrusted in intestines? No. Have colo-rectal surgeons who have operated on colons thousands of times seen such sludge? No. Have radiologists who have perused thousands of x-rays of the colon noted the buildup of “mucoid plaque?” No. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. The term itself was the invention of naturopath Richard Anderson who created Arise and Shine, a popular colon cleanser.

Not a proof, but he's reminding us of what we should know: the colon isn't some obscure part of the body no one has ever looked at before.

A search on Mucoid Plaque leads to a Wikipedia entry, funny but not as funny as the article above, with:

While colonic irrigation enjoyed a vogue in the early 20th century as a possible cure for numerous diseases, subsequent research showed that it was useless and potentially harmful [...] ( Ernst, E (June 1997). "Colonic irrigation and the theory of autointoxication: a triumph of ignorance over science". Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 24 (4): 196–198).

Then later directly addressing the "pounds of stuck poop":

Commenting on claims that waste material can adhere to the colon, Douglas Pleskow, a gastroenterologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, stated, "that is the urban legend. In reality, most people clear their GI tract within three days." (Foreman, Judy (June 30, 2008). "Beware of colon cleansing claims". Los Angeles Times).

So there's no extra poop. Food goes in, and at most 3 days later it's all out.

Owen Reynolds
  • 935
  • 6
  • 8
  • 14
    This feels _almost_ like a good answer, but it's rather let down by phrasing like "things everyone knows about the colon". I've personally never examined a colon, so have no personal knowledge of what it does or doesn't contain. Focussing on the actual authorities who do know these things would make for a better answer. – IMSoP Sep 18 '20 at 11:48
  • 1
    I think the final quote may not have stated it clearly. I believe that the case is not that your colon is clear, but that what you put in should be fully processed and ready for expulsion within three days. So whatever you have eaten within the last 3 days, is still somewhere along the line being processed. So when you take your Magnesium Citrate for a colonoscopy, you are rushing your last 3 days worth of ingested materials through the process so that your tract can be clear. – Michael Richardson Sep 18 '20 at 18:36
  • @MichaelRichardson But the Q is about the *extra* poop, right? The stuff the linked advertisement says can stay there for years. The point of the claim is that only their product can get out this permanent 20 pounds, right? Even so, I'll try to clear that up. – Owen Reynolds Sep 19 '20 at 02:45
  • @IMSoP I feel like the best answers in Skeptics include some critical thinking. Most people are aware that colons are regularly examined. But "everyone knows" is probably a bad phrase here. – Owen Reynolds Sep 19 '20 at 03:33
  • 3
    What did you mean by "the back of Pluto"... did you mean "the back of Uranus"? – Michael Sep 19 '20 at 05:41
  • @OwenReynolds If the fact that they were regularly examined was itself contrary to the claim, I might agree; but all it actually tells us is that a reputable answer should be easy to find. No amount of critical thinking will take you from "lots of people know the answer" to knowing the answer yourself, you still need to ask them. – IMSoP Sep 19 '20 at 09:29
  • @OwenReynolds The entire point of the colonoscopy prep is to purge everything out of the digestive tract so that the camera and light gives a clear view of the walls of the digestive tract to find any problematic polyps or other issues. If there was still 20 lbs of old poo spackled to your intestines, that would be pointless. – Michael Richardson Sep 21 '20 at 01:51