Calorie question

[duk]

This comes from one of the fat threads, but seems like it might be worthy of an independent line of discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
A calorie is a calorie, the source does not matter----IT IS A MEASUREMENT OF ENERGY AND NOTHING ELSE. A calorie = a calorie. A watt = a watt. A joule = a joule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calories are measured by the amount of energy required to heat water, right? So a donut produces 500 calories when they burn in a fire (or however these things are measured), but may produce a completely different number of calories when your body processes it.

It doesn't seem too far fetched that some sorts of food items may produce calories at different rates outside and inside the body. That is, it seems possible that what is measured to be "500 calories of donut" might produce 400 calories in one's body while "500 calories of steak" might produce 200 calories in that same body, no?

If this is true, then eating 2000 calories as measured by the external calorie measurement process might actually provide one's body with very different amounts of calories depending on the food one eats, and how efficient one's body is at breaking it down.

Or perhaps 500 measured calories of donut equals 500 measured calories of steak regardless of the process used to release those calories. Someone who knows this stuff tell me what's up.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps 500 measured calories of donut equals 500 measured calories of steak regardless of the process used to release those calories.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[econophile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps 500 measured calories of donut equals 500 measured calories of steak regardless of the process used to release those calories.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[/ QUOTE ]

this can't be entirely true from a nutrition standpoint.

you need protein, for instance, and donuts don't have much protein while steak has plenty.

otherwise, i would be fine eating 2,000 calories a day from sugar or 2,000 calories a day from soy beans.

[amplify]

If you eat 1000 calories of sugar, this is immediately available to the body for energy, the surplus is stored as fat. The body cannot burn protein for energy without first converting it to sugar, which takes longer. Some of the Protein and fat is used for cellular regeneration and rebuilding the body in general. Sugar isn't, it's just good for fuel.

So if you burn a donut and a steak they might have the same calories but are nutritionally of course far different. has nothing to do with "producing X calories in the body"

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps 500 measured calories of donut equals 500 measured calories of steak regardless of the process used to release those calories.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[/ QUOTE ]

this can't be entirely true from a nutrition standpoint.

you need protein, for instance, and donuts don't have much protein while steak has plenty.

otherwise, i would be fine eating 2,000 calories a day from sugar or 2,000 calories a day from soy beans.

[/ QUOTE ]


it's all energy. that doesn't mean that you'll be "ok" if you eat 2k cal/day in sugar rather than steak or whatever. nutrition is not really being mentioned here, just caloric content.

[SmileyEH]

Just a clarification. In north america "kilo calorie" is used synonymously with calorie. So a donut that has 300 "american" calories is actually 300,000 calories (going by the definition of 1 gram of water heated by 1 degree Celsius). Again no big deal, but something few people know about.

-SmileyEH

[econophile]

[ QUOTE ]
it's all energy. that doesn't mean that you'll be "ok" if you eat 2k cal/day in sugar rather than steak or whatever. nutrition is not really being mentioned here, just caloric content.

[/ QUOTE ]

i suppose you are right about the energy. but in the end, it seems we should be concerned about the effects on our weight/health rather than the caloric intake.

[onthebutton]

This is explained ad nauseum in the other thread. A calorie is a measurement of energy, and nothing else.

Some of the arguments used here are the same thing as saying something like "Well, this watt of energy comes from a hydroelectric plant and it will light this bulb for X hours. However, THIS watt of energy comes from a nuclear power plant, and it will light the same bulb for Y hours."

People who disagree with this shouldn't be on 2p2, they should be in a middle school science class. Most of the disagreement here seems to be about what you've learned from anecdotal sources as opposed to scientific definition.

[econophile]

[ QUOTE ]
This is explained ad nauseum in the other thread. A calorie is a measurement of energy, and nothing else.

Some of the arguments used here are the same thing as saying something like "Well, this watt of energy comes from a hydroelectric plant and it will light this bulb for X hours. However, THIS watt of energy comes from a nuclear power plant, and it will light the same bulb for Y hours."

[/ QUOTE ]

but is energy the only thing that matters for fat/health? that is the question that ppl want answered.

[duk]

If I burn a lump of coal it might provide 1000 calories. If I eat a lump of coal, have I consumed half of my suggested 2000-calorie diet?