So I guess im just dumb but I was reading about what a "calorie" is, like in food, and it brought me to Carbohydrates and every Wikipedia article kept talking about "energy" in food and I dont know what they mean by "energy" and it talks about "1 kilocalorie is 4184 joules" and I just dont get it how can you even measure energy of a hamburger or a human body?
>>16881567I'm feeling pretty nice today and got nothing else to do for now, so I'll help you out a bit.Not sure if you've taken organic chemistry, but calorie is the measure of the chemical potential energy (stored in covalent bonds - ik some fucks are going to come at me for this but in high level chemistry ionic bonds are not a thing so smd). Breaking those bonds and rearranging atoms in the molecule releases or takes energy. We assume it releases energy because our body processes it in such a way using enzymes. You might be wondering then, "how about E = mc^2?". That's not a measure of chemical potential energy, but the actual total energy of anything with mass. Essentially, anything with a mass can be converted to pure energy with a theoretically perfect machine. Anything that has 1 kg of mass will have 9e16 kg m^2/s^2 (AKA Joules). Naturally, chemical potential energy is MUCH MUCH smaller than this. E = mc^2 guarantees us the maximum energy we can convert from anything with mass with a 100% efficient machine. So anything you eat will have less than mc^2 joules of energy since chemical potential energy is just guaranteed to be less than the mass of the thing energified because the chemical potential energy comes from bonds.
>>16881570>(Tue)21:36Sorry, forgot to answer the core question. To measure the energy of a hamburger, here are the steps:Estimate the amount of:Carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins in the hamburger.Then, for simplicity, assume there is only one type of carb, lipid, proteins, nucleic acid, etc (number so big error doesn't matter). Sum up the chemical potential energy of all of the ingredients (in Joules) & convert to kilocalories (kcal = cal in the food industry because they are stupid as shit).
>>16881567In theory at least it's derived from the heat of combustion. In other words, how much heat food releases when its completely burned in a calorometer. For info on how they do it in practice, see: the Atwater system.
>>16881567Calorie is just a unit of energy, it's easier for your dumb ass to understand what 2000 calories means if a burger has 500 vs the same calculation done with joules where the numbers would be much bigger so people use calories. They measure calories by checking how much energy the thing releases when burned in a measuring device. Though most food labels just use the known values for the ingredients and calculate it based on that instead since actual lab testing is more expensive. If you want you can buy a calorimeter measurement for like couple hundred bucks and send them a sample of your burger.
>>16881570Thanks im just trying to understand it better. Lately ive been realizing a lot of stuff I use in my daily life I dont really get on a scientific level I mean I know how it works through observation but like learning why it works is interesting to me
>>16881567Burn the food to ash.Measure the additional heat.Drop "kilo-", because.Profit.
>>16881567Google Bomb calorimeters. And ignore this >>16881570. Dude has confused himself
Zoe Harcombe exposed the problems with calories in a diet context
>>16881570I'll give you a prize weener if you can show loss of mass from breaking of chemical bonds experimentally
>>16881572>To measure, make shit up and calculateyou're doing high-energy physics like a champ
>>16881567>>16881886This, they burn it, but since your body is not an actual furnace, but uses biochemical reactions it's not a 100% accurate, but close enough.That's why for example non saturated fats are better for you than saturated ones even though caorie wise they are the same, your body digests unsaturated fats much better.
>>16885256>That's why for example non saturated fats are better for you than saturated ones even though caorie wise they are the same, your body digests unsaturated fats much better.nigger you just said the oppositefats that dont digest are better for you so that you dont get cholesterol buildup in your veins. your calories should be coming from carbs in the food, not just from oil
>>16882675>womanscienceLol, lmao
>>16885259>/fit/bro has entered the chatIF IT MEETS YOUR MACROS BRO
>>16881886>>16885256So if I make a 1 of a kind custom cake big as a pillar for a wedding and the bride asks me how many calories does the cake have I have to burn the entire cake in a furnace and then make a second one. Yeah that doesn’t seem right.Calculate individual calories of the base ingredients? No it changes when mixed and there are multiple chemical reactions. Guess based on other cakes? This is a custom cake. Half the layers could have random holes, other layers could be denser or lighter.How would you calculate the calories
>>16881567what the ever loving fuck are people being taught in grade school now? I mean seriously.is there no science class in grade school or high school now?is OP trolling or pretending to be retarded?This is all stuff I learned by the time I was in high school? it was bad enough we had the willfully stupid thread about computers pre 90's.
>>16886196>How would you calculate the caloriesI am curious where your complaining troll will go next.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system
>>16886196>How would you calculate the caloriesI do this almost every day. to find out how many calories are in the food I make.I use tables for products where the calories are already calculated. here is the break down for biscuits and gravy I made this morning.biscuits recipe: 100% 300g white lily or other soft winter wheat self rising flour (the percentages will not add up don't think about it to hard bread makers will understand) 60% 180g milk 15% 45g lard calorie break down for biscuits:flour 999 calories118 calories milk .66calories per gram405 calories lard 9c per g136 calories butter 19g1658 calories for complete dough. 525g uncooked478g cooked3.3calories per gram for biscuits.Sausage gravy recipe and calorie breakdown:136 calories wondra 37g397 calories 3 cups scalded milk 651g1546 calories jimmy dean sausage 405g171 calories sausage grease 19g leave in pan302 butter added to sausage 42g jimmy dean does not have enough fat in it.total calories 2441 total weight cooked 10242.3c per gsince I only eat 500 calories for breakfast I weigh one biscuit calculate the calories, then subtract that from 500 I take the remainder and divide that by 2.3 and get the number of grams of gravy I can have. I have done this with many different recipes. I have lost 100lbs this way.You see skippy the USDA and other sources have done the calorie research for you plus there are standard calories: all oils are 9cpgpure drinkable alcohol is 9cpgwhite sugar 4cpgprotein 4cpgmeat fat 9cpgetc.so you don't have to burn the cake like a retard. you just need the calories for the ingredients and weigh everything (no volume measurements).the calories do not have to be 100% accurate. when I make some of my recipes and substitute something, or put a little bit more of one ingredient recalculating the calories often results in a change of .00X of the total calories per gram.your argument is silly because no one would eat the whole cake
>>16886196>No it changes when mixed and there are multiple chemical reactions.this is being willfully stupid.
>>16881567It's almost like you haven't even made an effort to find the answers to your questions. like you are just posting here to start an argument, or you know... what's the word... ah yes! trolling.https://www.ars.usda.gov/arsuserfiles/80400525/data/hg72/hg72_2002.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorimeterhttps://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1908https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
>>16886023yeah thats some weird cope projection, you could just admit you're wrong, or just not have said anythingunderstanding biology specifically rules out me being a /fit/ user, because that board is entirely /r9k/ incels trying to pretend they aren't gay
>>16885259>fats that dont digest are better for you so that you dont get cholesterol buildup in your veinsthat's not how it works.
>>16886798Nailed it, the body just takes in and holds onto things it doesn't know how to process and thats why gum will stay inside you for 7 years if you swallow it
>>16887186no you idiot. plaque builds up on artery walls because of micro fractures in the arteries. micro bleeding occurs platelets stop the bleeding and build up.the micro fractures are caused by chronic vitamin C deficiency because the minimum daily requirement for vitamin C is at least one order of magnitude too low. most people with arteriosclerosis are borderline scurvic.
>>16886214It's because every time people ask a question to try and learn something some asshat like you comes along to make them feel bad for not already knowing what they're trying to know, and then some other asshat comes along to accuse anyone who does answer such questions of being an arrogant know it all. The answer to your question "what the ever loving fuck are people being taught in grade school now" is: how to behave like women.
>>16881567Fun factThe calorie is based on the Energy Balance Model or EBM and it's a broken model that ignores the laws of physics.A more accurate model you can search papers for was created by real physicists and is the mass balance model where a differential equation can model perfectly exactly how much weight you will lose or gain based on which foods you intake that the body converts to mass. This model explains why some meme diets who are high in calories still result in weight loss.
>>16887451BULLSHIT almost all of those threads have willfully stupid OP's. who argue and nit pick shit they were asking about. fighting against EVERY response. OP is either a complete retard or a troll.
>>16881567Mr. Wizard, a popular science show for kids, had an episode where he literally burns food and measures the energy to explain calories. See in the 20th century we used mass media to teach kids science. The Discovery channel and The Learning Channel were wall to wall documentaries mostly about nature and science. You could put those channels on a TV and fall asleep to relaxing nature videos and a soothing narrator telling you about science and biology. The world was better then, kids were educated and not turned into Tik Tok addicts. You were robbed of a life of value anon, you should have never needed ask this question. You have been betrayed and left to rot like a pig in the sun. Many such cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv_aqytquPchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czMb2KwEUbw
>>16887549god I miss the old TLC and discovery.
