OP wrote “ 553,2” calories. Likely a typo I guess.

It’s fairly standard calorie content for flapjacks/oatmeal bars. As you say, these bars are pretty expensive for what they are.

A bar has 461 calories.

The only way for a 120g product to contain more than 5,000 calories would be if it was made from fissile material.

There’s even a sportswear brand tailored for it:

kindafitkindafat.com/

Alas, I am unable to respond, as I fall within the non-existent age category of 40-50.

Yep!

It’s helpful only insofar as protein contains calories, and excess calories cause you to gain fat. But protein is an inefficient way to gain fat relative to dietary carbs and fat, not least because it is highly satiating.

If you want to gain fat through shakes, I’d highly recommend tried and tested double/heavy cream and or ice cream shakes. These are high in dietary fat, the most calorie dense substance on Earth and the most efficient way to get fat.

Sideways? Upon which axis are we rotating here? Since, not that I wish to reduce such matters to simple cross-sectional symmetry, but my suspicion is that merely rotating longitudinally would result in you still becoming wedged, just at a different angle, relative to the doorframe.

That only makes 700. Or do we expect the inflight snacks to hold responsibility for providing the missing 100?

Speaking as the inflight chef, I need to know how fast I'm going to have to work.

Reaching escape velocity with a payload of (I’m guessing) 800lb will (assuming your place of departure is on Earth) require quite a lot of fuel. On the other hand, your increased mass will exert a small but nevertheless real gravitational pull on the moon, bringing it a tiny bit closer and therefore making the journey shorter.

Plus, inflight snacks.

I speak with you today as an official emissary of the Council of Intergalactic Space Aliens for Peace and Unity. Your pink funnel is safe. I am here to help.