If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
I know that this may seem a little far fetched but please bear with me.
If this is a post in the wrong group and I sound like a nut, please point me to the correct place. The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. Which brings some questions for me: - isn't applying the same energy units to the body an oversimplification? after all, the calorie unit seems to refer to a simple thermodynamics system and not to a complex bio-chemo-electro-psycho-mechanical one. we are not simply burning the food - or we would probably be drinking kerosene. - how do we define the amount of calories in food? do scientists burn every conceivable eatable substance and measure the heat? or, is the measure based on the units of fat/sugars/etc. which have clearly defined calorie amounts? (and, how are the calorie amounts in these basic ingredients determined? burning and measuring heat?) - are calories from different eatable ingredients equal? obviously 1000 calories from sugar != 1000 calories from saturated fat != 1000 calories from lean beaf != 1000 calories from an overprocessed, salt- and sugar- and preservative-packed fast food meal .... even more, how will the body absorb 1000 calories from one basic ingredient vs. 500 calories of sugar + 500 calories of fat (a combination)? what about different combinations? From all I've seen, the energy is being measured before intake. But different bodies in different condition and level of health, age and activity will absorb the same food in a different manner. Then wow can one measurement unit be OK for everyone? Please, clarify (point me to) the scientific approach to using calories to measuring energy in food. Another question: are conventionally raised/grown foods equal in ENERGY to organic ones? (apart from the levels of toxins/hormones etc.) What about the concept of "prana" ( Sanskrit term for universal energy; used in yoga (pranayama). See also life force, biofield, chi. ) for instance? Will a tomato organically grown from rich soil in a sunny garden, provide the same amount of energy as one conventionally grown? Is there a measurement for this aspect of food energy? What about the living conditions and death experience of animals raised for food? Is there a measurable difference between caged/free range etc. apart from antibiotics/food supplements? Please provide verifiable sources with your answers. Thank you. -- Andre |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
Thermodynamics is all about energy. Are you saying no energy is involved in metabolism? Then you probably need to read a basic biology textbook, particularly the parts on how energy is transferred around a living organism. "andre a." wrote in message ... I know that this may seem a little far fetched but please bear with me. If this is a post in the wrong group and I sound like a nut, please point me to the correct place. The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. Which brings some questions for me: - isn't applying the same energy units to the body an oversimplification? after all, the calorie unit seems to refer to a simple thermodynamics system and not to a complex bio-chemo-electro-psycho-mechanical one. we are not simply burning the food - or we would probably be drinking kerosene. - how do we define the amount of calories in food? do scientists burn every conceivable eatable substance and measure the heat? or, is the measure based on the units of fat/sugars/etc. which have clearly defined calorie amounts? (and, how are the calorie amounts in these basic ingredients determined? burning and measuring heat?) - are calories from different eatable ingredients equal? obviously 1000 calories from sugar != 1000 calories from saturated fat != 1000 calories from lean beaf != 1000 calories from an overprocessed, salt- and sugar- and preservative-packed fast food meal ... even more, how will the body absorb 1000 calories from one basic ingredient vs. 500 calories of sugar + 500 calories of fat (a combination)? what about different combinations? From all I've seen, the energy is being measured before intake. But different bodies in different condition and level of health, age and activity will absorb the same food in a different manner. Then wow can one measurement unit be OK for everyone? Please, clarify (point me to) the scientific approach to using calories to measuring energy in food. Another question: are conventionally raised/grown foods equal in ENERGY to organic ones? (apart from the levels of toxins/hormones etc.) What about the concept of "prana" ( Sanskrit term for universal energy; used in yoga (pranayama). See also life force, biofield, chi. ) for instance? Will a tomato organically grown from rich soil in a sunny garden, provide the same amount of energy as one conventionally grown? Is there a measurement for this aspect of food energy? What about the living conditions and death experience of animals raised for food? Is there a measurable difference between caged/free range etc. apart from antibiotics/food supplements? Please provide verifiable sources with your answers. Thank you. -- Andre |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
Thermodynamics is all about energy. Are you saying no energy is involved in metabolism? Then you probably need to read a basic biology textbook, particularly the parts on how energy is transferred around a living organism. "andre a." wrote in message ... I know that this may seem a little far fetched but please bear with me. If this is a post in the wrong group and I sound like a nut, please point me to the correct place. The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. Which brings some questions for me: - isn't applying the same energy units to the body an oversimplification? after all, the calorie unit seems to refer to a simple thermodynamics system and not to a complex bio-chemo-electro-psycho-mechanical one. we are not simply burning the food - or we would probably be drinking kerosene. - how do we define the amount of calories in food? do scientists burn every conceivable eatable substance and measure the heat? or, is the measure based on the units of fat/sugars/etc. which have clearly defined calorie amounts? (and, how are the calorie amounts in these basic ingredients determined? burning and measuring heat?) - are calories from different eatable ingredients equal? obviously 1000 calories from sugar != 1000 calories from saturated fat != 1000 calories from lean beaf != 1000 calories from an overprocessed, salt- and sugar- and preservative-packed fast food meal ... even more, how will the body absorb 1000 calories from one basic ingredient vs. 500 calories of sugar + 500 calories of fat (a combination)? what about different combinations? From all I've seen, the energy is being measured before intake. But different bodies in different condition and level of health, age and activity will absorb the same food in a different manner. Then wow can one measurement unit be OK for everyone? Please, clarify (point me to) the scientific approach to using calories to measuring energy in food. Another question: are conventionally raised/grown foods equal in ENERGY to organic ones? (apart from the levels of toxins/hormones etc.) What about the concept of "prana" ( Sanskrit term for universal energy; used in yoga (pranayama). See also life force, biofield, chi. ) for instance? Will a tomato organically grown from rich soil in a sunny garden, provide the same amount of energy as one conventionally grown? Is there a measurement for this aspect of food energy? What about the living conditions and death experience of animals raised for food? Is there a measurable difference between caged/free range etc. apart from antibiotics/food supplements? Please provide verifiable sources with your answers. Thank you. -- Andre |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
I am saying that the movement of energy in the metabolism of the body
is not identical with burning fuel in an open flame. Therefore the logic of applying identical energy units to very different systems with different complexity escapes me. Please reply if you have an answer to my questions and point me to the science behind this logic. Thank you. -- Andre Patricia Heil wrote: Thermodynamics is all about energy. Are you saying no energy is involved in metabolism? Then you probably need to read a basic biology textbook, particularly the parts on how energy is transferred around a living organism. "andre a." wrote in message ... I know that this may seem a little far fetched but please bear with me. If this is a post in the wrong group and I sound like a nut, please point me to the correct place. The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. Which brings some questions for me: - isn't applying the same energy units to the body an oversimplification? after all, the calorie unit seems to refer to a simple thermodynamics system and not to a complex bio-chemo-electro-psycho-mechanical one. we are not simply burning the food - or we would probably be drinking kerosene. - how do we define the amount of calories in food? do scientists burn every conceivable eatable substance and measure the heat? or, is the measure based on the units of fat/sugars/etc. which have clearly defined calorie amounts? (and, how are the calorie amounts in these basic ingredients determined? burning and measuring heat?) - are calories from different eatable ingredients equal? obviously 1000 calories from sugar != 1000 calories from saturated fat != 1000 calories from lean beaf != 1000 calories from an overprocessed, salt- and sugar- and preservative-packed fast food meal ... even more, how will the body absorb 1000 calories from one basic ingredient vs. 500 calories of sugar + 500 calories of fat (a combination)? what about different combinations? From all I've seen, the energy is being measured before intake. But different bodies in different condition and level of health, age and activity will absorb the same food in a different manner. Then wow can one measurement unit be OK for everyone? Please, clarify (point me to) the scientific approach to using calories to measuring energy in food. Another question: are conventionally raised/grown foods equal in ENERGY to organic ones? (apart from the levels of toxins/hormones etc.) What about the concept of "prana" ( Sanskrit term for universal energy; used in yoga (pranayama). See also life force, biofield, chi. ) for instance? Will a tomato organically grown from rich soil in a sunny garden, provide the same amount of energy as one conventionally grown? Is there a measurement for this aspect of food energy? What about the living conditions and death experience of animals raised for food? Is there a measurable difference between caged/free range etc. apart from antibiotics/food supplements? Please provide verifiable sources with your answers. Thank you. -- Andre |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
I am saying that the movement of energy in the metabolism of the body
is not identical with burning fuel in an open flame. Therefore the logic of applying identical energy units to very different systems with different complexity escapes me. Please reply if you have an answer to my questions and point me to the science behind this logic. Thank you. -- Andre Patricia Heil wrote: Thermodynamics is all about energy. Are you saying no energy is involved in metabolism? Then you probably need to read a basic biology textbook, particularly the parts on how energy is transferred around a living organism. "andre a." wrote in message ... I know that this may seem a little far fetched but please bear with me. If this is a post in the wrong group and I sound like a nut, please point me to the correct place. The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. Which brings some questions for me: - isn't applying the same energy units to the body an oversimplification? after all, the calorie unit seems to refer to a simple thermodynamics system and not to a complex bio-chemo-electro-psycho-mechanical one. we are not simply burning the food - or we would probably be drinking kerosene. - how do we define the amount of calories in food? do scientists burn every conceivable eatable substance and measure the heat? or, is the measure based on the units of fat/sugars/etc. which have clearly defined calorie amounts? (and, how are the calorie amounts in these basic ingredients determined? burning and measuring heat?) - are calories from different eatable ingredients equal? obviously 1000 calories from sugar != 1000 calories from saturated fat != 1000 calories from lean beaf != 1000 calories from an overprocessed, salt- and sugar- and preservative-packed fast food meal ... even more, how will the body absorb 1000 calories from one basic ingredient vs. 500 calories of sugar + 500 calories of fat (a combination)? what about different combinations? From all I've seen, the energy is being measured before intake. But different bodies in different condition and level of health, age and activity will absorb the same food in a different manner. Then wow can one measurement unit be OK for everyone? Please, clarify (point me to) the scientific approach to using calories to measuring energy in food. Another question: are conventionally raised/grown foods equal in ENERGY to organic ones? (apart from the levels of toxins/hormones etc.) What about the concept of "prana" ( Sanskrit term for universal energy; used in yoga (pranayama). See also life force, biofield, chi. ) for instance? Will a tomato organically grown from rich soil in a sunny garden, provide the same amount of energy as one conventionally grown? Is there a measurement for this aspect of food energy? What about the living conditions and death experience of animals raised for food? Is there a measurable difference between caged/free range etc. apart from antibiotics/food supplements? Please provide verifiable sources with your answers. Thank you. -- Andre |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
"andre a." wrote in message
... I am saying that the movement of energy in the metabolism of the body is not identical with burning fuel in an open flame. Therefore the logic of applying identical energy units to very different systems with different complexity escapes me. Get a high school biology text book, or do some online searches. Calories are simply a measure of how much "energy" is contained within a substance. How they are measured (i.e., "open flame") is not relevant. Kerosene has an energy content that can be expressed in calories, but our bodies are not designed to "burn" kerosene (unlike, for instance, sugar or fats). 1000 calories of sugar provides the same amount of energy to the body as 1000 calories from fish, brocolli, whatever. Our bodies digest them differently, but the energy yield would be the same. Read this for mo http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002457.htm BTW - things like "chi" and "prana" are superstitions based on ancient beliefs about how the body worked, but without any scientific basis whatsoever. Please reply if you have an answer to my questions and point me to the science behind this logic. Thank you. -- Andre Patricia Heil wrote: Thermodynamics is all about energy. Are you saying no energy is involved in metabolism? Then you probably need to read a basic biology textbook, particularly the parts on how energy is transferred around a living organism. "andre a." wrote in message ... I know that this may seem a little far fetched but please bear with me. If this is a post in the wrong group and I sound like a nut, please point me to the correct place. The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. Which brings some questions for me: - isn't applying the same energy units to the body an oversimplification? after all, the calorie unit seems to refer to a simple thermodynamics system and not to a complex bio-chemo-electro-psycho-mechanical one. we are not simply burning the food - or we would probably be drinking kerosene. - how do we define the amount of calories in food? do scientists burn every conceivable eatable substance and measure the heat? or, is the measure based on the units of fat/sugars/etc. which have clearly defined calorie amounts? (and, how are the calorie amounts in these basic ingredients determined? burning and measuring heat?) - are calories from different eatable ingredients equal? obviously 1000 calories from sugar != 1000 calories from saturated fat != 1000 calories from lean beaf != 1000 calories from an overprocessed, salt- and sugar- and preservative-packed fast food meal ... even more, how will the body absorb 1000 calories from one basic ingredient vs. 500 calories of sugar + 500 calories of fat (a combination)? what about different combinations? From all I've seen, the energy is being measured before intake. But different bodies in different condition and level of health, age and activity will absorb the same food in a different manner. Then wow can one measurement unit be OK for everyone? Please, clarify (point me to) the scientific approach to using calories to measuring energy in food. Another question: are conventionally raised/grown foods equal in ENERGY to organic ones? (apart from the levels of toxins/hormones etc.) What about the concept of "prana" ( Sanskrit term for universal energy; used in yoga (pranayama). See also life force, biofield, chi. ) for instance? Will a tomato organically grown from rich soil in a sunny garden, provide the same amount of energy as one conventionally grown? Is there a measurement for this aspect of food energy? What about the living conditions and death experience of animals raised for food? Is there a measurable difference between caged/free range etc. apart from antibiotics/food supplements? Please provide verifiable sources with your answers. Thank you. -- Andre |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
"andre a." wrote in message
... I am saying that the movement of energy in the metabolism of the body is not identical with burning fuel in an open flame. Therefore the logic of applying identical energy units to very different systems with different complexity escapes me. Get a high school biology text book, or do some online searches. Calories are simply a measure of how much "energy" is contained within a substance. How they are measured (i.e., "open flame") is not relevant. Kerosene has an energy content that can be expressed in calories, but our bodies are not designed to "burn" kerosene (unlike, for instance, sugar or fats). 1000 calories of sugar provides the same amount of energy to the body as 1000 calories from fish, brocolli, whatever. Our bodies digest them differently, but the energy yield would be the same. Read this for mo http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002457.htm BTW - things like "chi" and "prana" are superstitions based on ancient beliefs about how the body worked, but without any scientific basis whatsoever. Please reply if you have an answer to my questions and point me to the science behind this logic. Thank you. -- Andre Patricia Heil wrote: Thermodynamics is all about energy. Are you saying no energy is involved in metabolism? Then you probably need to read a basic biology textbook, particularly the parts on how energy is transferred around a living organism. "andre a." wrote in message ... I know that this may seem a little far fetched but please bear with me. If this is a post in the wrong group and I sound like a nut, please point me to the correct place. The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. Which brings some questions for me: - isn't applying the same energy units to the body an oversimplification? after all, the calorie unit seems to refer to a simple thermodynamics system and not to a complex bio-chemo-electro-psycho-mechanical one. we are not simply burning the food - or we would probably be drinking kerosene. - how do we define the amount of calories in food? do scientists burn every conceivable eatable substance and measure the heat? or, is the measure based on the units of fat/sugars/etc. which have clearly defined calorie amounts? (and, how are the calorie amounts in these basic ingredients determined? burning and measuring heat?) - are calories from different eatable ingredients equal? obviously 1000 calories from sugar != 1000 calories from saturated fat != 1000 calories from lean beaf != 1000 calories from an overprocessed, salt- and sugar- and preservative-packed fast food meal ... even more, how will the body absorb 1000 calories from one basic ingredient vs. 500 calories of sugar + 500 calories of fat (a combination)? what about different combinations? From all I've seen, the energy is being measured before intake. But different bodies in different condition and level of health, age and activity will absorb the same food in a different manner. Then wow can one measurement unit be OK for everyone? Please, clarify (point me to) the scientific approach to using calories to measuring energy in food. Another question: are conventionally raised/grown foods equal in ENERGY to organic ones? (apart from the levels of toxins/hormones etc.) What about the concept of "prana" ( Sanskrit term for universal energy; used in yoga (pranayama). See also life force, biofield, chi. ) for instance? Will a tomato organically grown from rich soil in a sunny garden, provide the same amount of energy as one conventionally grown? Is there a measurement for this aspect of food energy? What about the living conditions and death experience of animals raised for food? Is there a measurable difference between caged/free range etc. apart from antibiotics/food supplements? Please provide verifiable sources with your answers. Thank you. -- Andre |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
andre a. wrote:
The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. The first thing you need to know is that food Calories are actually kilocalories -- 1000 of those energy calories. Biochemistry does indeed involve basically burning those calories for energy. Scientists do burn foods in calorimeters, and things that burn but people can't digest are subtracted. 1000 calories of fat/sugar/protein will differ in how your body uses or stores the calories depending on its needs, but they still contain the same amount of potential energy or stored fat. There are minimal differences in absorbtion and wastage from person to person, but they're not significant except in cases of diseased or damaged digestive systems. As to your question of "prana", since it's a belief "energy" and not something measurable, there's no way to tell if it exists much less whether it affects your food. Organically grown veggies are not proven to be more nutritious than not organically-grown ones. Personally, I avoid organic veggies, because the popular notion that they don't use pesticides is false. Organic farms are allowed to, and do use so-called "natural" pesticides, including copper sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum. Modern commercial organophosphate pesticides break down in several days of sunlight and water, and typically leave no measurable residue by harvest. This cannot be said for the pesticides used by organic farms. Organic vegetables that grow at ground level, such as lettuces, have also been found to be contaminated with E coli bacteria from improperly cured manure. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
andre a. wrote:
The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. The first thing you need to know is that food Calories are actually kilocalories -- 1000 of those energy calories. Biochemistry does indeed involve basically burning those calories for energy. Scientists do burn foods in calorimeters, and things that burn but people can't digest are subtracted. 1000 calories of fat/sugar/protein will differ in how your body uses or stores the calories depending on its needs, but they still contain the same amount of potential energy or stored fat. There are minimal differences in absorbtion and wastage from person to person, but they're not significant except in cases of diseased or damaged digestive systems. As to your question of "prana", since it's a belief "energy" and not something measurable, there's no way to tell if it exists much less whether it affects your food. Organically grown veggies are not proven to be more nutritious than not organically-grown ones. Personally, I avoid organic veggies, because the popular notion that they don't use pesticides is false. Organic farms are allowed to, and do use so-called "natural" pesticides, including copper sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum. Modern commercial organophosphate pesticides break down in several days of sunlight and water, and typically leave no measurable residue by harvest. This cannot be said for the pesticides used by organic farms. Organic vegetables that grow at ground level, such as lettuces, have also been found to be contaminated with E coli bacteria from improperly cured manure. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is the logic behind using calories as an energy unit in food?
andre a. wrote:
The reason I am asking this question is the fact that calorie's definition (1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to increase the temperature of 1g of water with 1 degree C) seems to refer to the process of burning. The first thing you need to know is that food Calories are actually kilocalories -- 1000 of those energy calories. Biochemistry does indeed involve basically burning those calories for energy. Scientists do burn foods in calorimeters, and things that burn but people can't digest are subtracted. 1000 calories of fat/sugar/protein will differ in how your body uses or stores the calories depending on its needs, but they still contain the same amount of potential energy or stored fat. There are minimal differences in absorbtion and wastage from person to person, but they're not significant except in cases of diseased or damaged digestive systems. As to your question of "prana", since it's a belief "energy" and not something measurable, there's no way to tell if it exists much less whether it affects your food. Organically grown veggies are not proven to be more nutritious than not organically-grown ones. Personally, I avoid organic veggies, because the popular notion that they don't use pesticides is false. Organic farms are allowed to, and do use so-called "natural" pesticides, including copper sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum. Modern commercial organophosphate pesticides break down in several days of sunlight and water, and typically leave no measurable residue by harvest. This cannot be said for the pesticides used by organic farms. Organic vegetables that grow at ground level, such as lettuces, have also been found to be contaminated with E coli bacteria from improperly cured manure. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Minnesota seeks ban on junk food | Roger Zoul | General Discussion | 37 | May 7th, 2004 02:41 AM |
Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory | John | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 14 | March 30th, 2004 05:32 AM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | tcomeau | Low Calorie | 113 | February 14th, 2004 02:26 PM |
Political Causes of Obesity | FOB | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | October 20th, 2003 10:36 PM |
Eating less does not result in weight loss | NR | General Discussion | 255 | October 13th, 2003 11:09 PM |