I was always intrigued by how people calculate calories. "Burning Calories" is just a common phrase but now we all know where it comes from and how its calculated. Thanks!
Even this doesn't make sense. Our bodies release different things to digest different kinds of foods with differing efficiency. We are not calorimeters.
Ok, and? I don't understand why you even ever think that we are caloriemeter. They're simply measuring how much energy is in the meal. It's like saying how much energy is in a gallon of gasoline vs a gallon of diesel vs coal, etc. Then, you come and say each engine has different efficiency and blablabla. The engines aren't "energymeter". I mean, nobody is saying that..
@@triparadox.c Thats exactly what we are saying. We say: a Human needs to eat x amout von calories to be feed correctly. Diets are based on that concept. Thats why its written on food packages. However we arent 100% efficent like a calorimeter would be. We dont excrede only carbon. If you eat 3000 calories of wood - as measured by burning in a calorimeter - you would starve If you eat 3000 calories of fat - as measured by burning in a calorimeter - you would get fat Humans cant digest wood efficently but can digest fat. However both burns very well and therfore creates a high reading on a calorimeter. But @oddassembler thats a non issue because we know that and just use compensation factors for fats, protins and fibers. Its an estimate ... so not 100% accurate but good enough
Human digestion and metabolism of food is a chemical and hormonal process and has no association or translation with the laws of thermodynamics related to a bomb camorimeter and calories.
This video didn't mention that in bomb calorimetry, the sample is surrounded by oxygen (which can cause explosive ignition). The electricity only ignites the sample with the help of the surrounding oxygen which means the addition of electricity is negligible. The energy given off with the combustion this measured amount of oxygen is easily subtracted out of the total process.
The food sample is burned inside the bomb, and the heat produced by the combustion is transferred to the water. By measuring the temperature change of the water, the amount of heat released can be determined, and this value is used to calculate the caloric content of the food sample. It's all rough estimates.
@@aaronbeardsley3261but it is almost impossible to get the concept. Weird that there is no other way than burning the food to find the calories. What if someone finds another way and tells that we were wrong calculating the calories?😊
@@VibraniumDetectorit *is* wrong. I have been dropping comments to generate discussion on this. The food leaves our bodies with lots of calories!! Just ask the flies 🪰
I've been wondering if one could get reasonably close at home, let's say within 15%, using any kind of jury-rigged setup. Is it possible without spending thousands?
Calorie is just a measure of energy. It's like meter, but for energy instead of distance. So, that energy from food is converted into what your body can use. If there is any leftover energy, it's stored as fat. Your body emitting warmth is your body using the energy. As for whether it is intentional or not (solely using fat to simply heat up your body molecule vs organ movement where friction causes heat), I don't know. It's probably a combination of both. But it's using the energy you ate.
That's the difference between a calorie and a Calorie. A lowercase calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree, but that's such a small amount of energy that the calories on nutrition labels are actually kilocalories (1000 calories, or 1 capital Calorie). They're measuring food calories so they want Calories, which is the amount of energy needed to raise 1000g of water 1 degree
@@matthewhodes1908 a kilo calorie is a name given to Calorie with a big C to avoid confusion between cal and Cal. So basically kcal = Calorie = 1000 calorie
And then I find out calories on a nutrition label are near useless because I burn about 30 percent of protein calories digesting it, and who knows what calories of fat and carbs digesting that. At 36 years old, I finally learned that high fat and moderate protein make my body run the best, and counting calories is a non factor.
LMAO WHAT? I am so intrigued. Do people like you just sit up one day, think about the random nutritional advice you received, and make the most wack job assumptions about nutrition? Sitting and debating with you would be such a colossal waste of time like you have to be living on another planet. No way. Please for the benefit of your own healthiness and everyone else's sanity, grab a nutritional book and LEARN.
No. You want decent medium low fat, medium protein, lots of carbs. Carbs from nuts and unprocessed grain is best. Why? You need protein but your body shouldn't be burning protein for energy. That results in many nasty byproducts. Too much meat is a cancer risk, now you know one of the reasons. Proteins should be metabolized to perform repairs on the body, not energy. Fat: fat is essential. Your muscles needs it as an instant source of energy, so low body fat ppl...yeah. Now you understand why the best lifters are chunky. It's also essential for temporarily storing byproducts and toxins so fat actually keeps your organs healthy, in the right amounts. Carbs: Docs say get 2-300 g of carbs a day. No, get all you want. Carbs from the right sources, like those that beak down slowly, are the best way to pace the sugar distribution in your system. Short chain sugars, including fruit, spike your blood sugar, freaks out your body, and sends your liver and pancreas rushing. This can sometimes lead to health complications, including insulin resistance which is pretty much diabetes. The reason you don't eat too much fat is that your body will store those excess carbs/sugars as lipids, which is fat. Some fatty meat and whole grain is all you need. Veggies have many trace nutrients but little in the way of sustaining you. Take supplements if you don't like green stuff.
