Negative Calories

[dissonance]

I'm suspicious of equating a 100 calorie portion of sugar with a 100 calorie portion of alfalfa sprouts.

I tend to think it takes a bit more work to process the alfalfa than it does to process pure glucose.

It takes considerably less time to process the sugar than it would to process the alfalfa sprouts, but caloriewise they are equivalent. If you can maintain your weight on 2000 calories a day, and you overeat each day 500 calories of sugar or 500 calories of alfalfa sprouts, you should store the extra 500 calories as fat, no matter which one you overate (leaving aside issues of whether the whole extra 500 would be stored or not, which is an interesting question in its own right, but not really important here).

The person eating the alfalfa sprouts will probably be happier, though, given that they are getting more good stuff, like fibre. If they manage to eat all the alfalfa sprouts - 500 calories of sprouts is a LOT!

So in one sense, you can equate the sprouts with the sugar, but in another sense, you can't. Pure sugar is digested very quickly, and you wind up being hungry very quickly after digesting it. Foods with high fibre/protein/fat content are digested more slowly, so you don't get hungry as quickly and therefore wind up eating less (basic principle behind low-carb diets).

Oh, and Peterson, thanks for digging up that link. Looks to me like calorie counts do take into account the energy used in digestion, if I'm reading that correctly.

 

[Fade]

Uh, is this the science forum? You are honestly trying to make an argument by equating the two different units of distance and work?

Edited to add a physics lesson:
http://shawnee.noacsc.org/teachers/bergerl/Physics Chapter 8 notes.htm

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume you haven't read the entire thread.

The idea that "A calorie is just a calorie" is true inasmuch as a given calorie is always the same, just like a given unit of distance (a meter) is exactly the same. My example was illustrating that eating a bunch of say, cake and pie that equal 1,000 calories is going to be less healthy than eating 1,000 calories worth of carrots. The calorie isn't the only relevant measure of food that you need to take into account. The amount of fat, the type of fat, the amount and type of sugar, and other factors all have to do with how "healthful" a food is.

In the same way, the orientation of a meter has a lot to do with how difficult it is to traverse. I don't know what the 'different measurements' comment meant, but I could walk the height of Everest (8,810, or 8,848 meters, depending on what year you asked me in) layed on the ground horizontally without any issues at all.

Consider yourself informed

 

[uneasy]

In the same way, the orientation of a meter has a lot to do with how difficult it is to traverse. I don't know what the 'different measurements' comment meant, but I could walk the height of Everest (8,810, or 8,848 meters, depending on what year you asked me in) layed on the ground horizontally without any issues at all.

Consider yourself informed

Again, the example about a flat meter and a meter up a mountain is a very bad example. Once you start talking about applying force (against gravity) over a distance (up mountain), then you are not talking about a meter at all, but another unit of measure entirely (a joule). In physics, there is no such thing as the "orientation" of a meter.

So I still say if you start talking about how a calorie is "easier" or 'harder" or "better", you are not talking about a calorie any more, but some other unit. Probably a new unit is needed: calories per time to digest or calories of fat stored per total calories or calories per meter of intestine.

 

[wollery]

Part of the diet thing is also volume. I just did a quick websearch and found that 100 calories worth of pure glucose is ~25 grams ie 2 or 3 teaspoons, 100 calories worth of celery is ~2 kilograms. You'd hardly notice eating that amount of sugar, you'd have to be on a mission to eat that much celery.

It's not just the calorie content it's how much mass you have to eat to get at the calories!

 

[Drifterman]

I remember a few years ago being gushingly informed by a female coworker that grapefruit juice had negative calorific value. I was surprised 'cos I was drinking about 2 pints of the stuff a day, and it wasn't having much of a noticeable effect

 

[Soapy Sam]

1. Proceed to hamburger shop, with dog. Purchase hamburger in tasteful , environmentally friendly, styrofoam box.
2. Season liberally with salt, mustard etc.
3. Feed hamburger to dog.
4.Eat box.
5. Rinse & repeat.

You'll be surprised how much weight you lose, despite the fact that there are plenty calories in styrofoam

 

[clusterm2]

I'm suspicious of equating a 100 calorie portion of sugar with a 100 calorie portion of alfalfa sprouts.

I tend to think it takes a bit more work to process the alfalfa than it does to process pure glucose.

I'm thinking perhaps the sprouts are far more likely to be ejected from the body (with astounding force) and not to hang around long enough to 'stick'

 

[Fade]

Again, the example about a flat meter and a meter up a mountain is a very bad example. Once you start talking about applying force (against gravity) over a distance (up mountain), then you are not talking about a meter at all, but another unit of measure entirely (a joule). In physics, there is no such thing as the "orientation" of a meter.

That is hogwash. Energy is energy. The "meter" is used as a measurement for distance, just as a calorie is. The amount of energy needed to move that distance is what I am comparing.

So I still say if you start talking about how a calorie is "easier" or 'harder" or "better", you are not talking about a calorie any more, but some other unit. Probably a new unit is needed: calories per time to digest or calories of fat stored per total calories or calories per meter of intestine.

It's hilarious to me that you aren't even making a strawman, you are just flat out not parsing what I am saying, even though I've made myself fairly clear.

When I say "I have moved 1 meter" it doesn't matter which direction I have moved, I will have moved 1 meter. The idea that physics doesn't recognize "orientation" is preposterous. All things are relational, relative to everything else. If I move 8,000 meters, I have moved 8,000 meters.

My example is this:

I move 8,000 meters on the ground (eat 100 calories worth of carrots) and that is easier on my body, and faster.

You move 8,000 meters directly up Mt. Everest (Eat 100 calories worth of cake) which is harder on the body, and is less healthy over all.

The idea, when one counts calories, is to remain below a certain threshold. But, you can remain below that threshold and still be unhealthy if the food you are eating is high in cholesterol, or omega3 fatty acids, or sugar.

The idea is that a "calorie is just a calorie" gives people the wrong idea about how human digestion works. Just like "a meter is just a meter" doesn't tell you anything about the conditions around that meter.

Read. Comprehend. Post.

You have done 2 of the 3. Try again.

 

[69dodge]

I know a bit about physics but not much about nutrition. Interpret my comments in that light.

That is hogwash. Energy is energy. The "meter" is used as a measurement for distance, just as a calorie is. The amount of energy needed to move that distance is what I am comparing.

The meter is a unit of distance. The calorie is a unit of energy.

I think your Mt. Everest analogy is not the best, and just distracts people from your main point, which is entirely correct.

The idea, when one counts calories, is to remain below a certain threshold. But, you can remain below that threshold and still be unhealthy if the food you are eating is high in cholesterol, or omega3 fatty acids, or sugar.

Yes, exactly.

I wouldn't describe this fact by saying, "The calories in apples are healthier than the calories in chocolate cake." I'd say, "Apples are healthier than chocolate cake for reasons that have nothing to do with energy content."

A calorie is a calorie, but there's more to food than just calories.

 

[Fade]

I know a bit about physics but not much about nutrition. Interpret my comments in that light.
The meter is a unit of distance. The calorie is a unit of energy.

Okay, I am going to try this AGAIN.

I was making an analogy. Not a literal comparison. An analogy.

Read my very first post.

Analogy.

Analogy.

Analogy.

K?

I think your Mt. Everest analogy is not the best, and just distracts people from your main point, which is entirely correct.

Maybe not perfect, but who cares. I have said what, three times now that the calorie isn't the only pertinent unit of measure when considering a given food, just like distance isn't the only pertinent unit of measure when considering how difficult it is to get from Point A to Point B.

It's a pretty damned good analogy.

I wouldn't describe this fact by saying, "The calories in apples are healthier than the calories in chocolate cake." I'd say, "Apples are healthier than chocolate cake for reasons that have nothing to do with energy content."

I didn't say the former, or the latter.

A calorie is a calorie, but there's more to food than just calories.

Welcome to yesterday. When I said:

A calorie is not JUST a calorie, because calories aren't the only pertinent measurement when analyzing food.

Understand?

 

[69dodge]

It seems I came across as rather rude. I didn't mean to. Sorry about that.

 

[uneasy]

I've reconsidered. Everything I have said in this thread is wrong. Everything everyone else has said is right. Bye.

 

[DogB]

If anybodies interested this was discussed a while back in this thread

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19671&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

Dog.