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

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

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

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

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

"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

"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

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."

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."

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."