Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45

Thread: Measuring calories

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,130

    Measuring calories

    IIRC when they determine how many calories (which are actually kilocalories) are in, say a chocolate sundae, they basically just burn it and see how much energy is produced.
    Is this a good way to measure this? Is digestion thermodynamically the same as combustion?
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    IIRC when they determine how many calories (which are actually kilocalories) are in, say a chocolate sundae, they basically just burn it and see how much energy is produced.
    Is this a good way to measure this? Is digestion thermodynamically the same as combustion?
    Pretty much. As Lavoisier said, "La respiration est donc une combustion."
    Carbohydrates and fats are completely oxidized during normal metabolism, so the bomb calorimeter gives an accurate result, barring a slight correction for the fact we don't absorb all the nutrients we ingest.
    But there's an overestimate for proteins, which aren't completely oxidized in the body during normal metabolism--in other words, you excrete some combustible protein metabolites. So if you run bomb calorimetry on the nitrogenous waste the body excretes, you can subtract that from the bomb calorimetry of protein, and come up with the actual metabolic calorific value of protein.

    In practice, no-one puts a chocolate sundae into a bomb calorimeter these days, however. The food is analysed for its fat, carbohydrate and protein content, and the calorific value derived using well-established conversion constants.

    BTW: You can't say "calories (which are actually kilocalories)". The unit "calorie" is always a calorie. A "Calorie" is a kilocalorie.

    Grant Hutchison

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    To add to what Grant said, It is also that not all Calories are the same in digestion. Proteins are used as amino acids and then only burned at 4 Cal/g , like carbs, if carbs and fats are not available. Carbs are used to make glucose so do get burned. If you eschew carbs, so called keto diets because of the alternative metabolism, ketosis, you burn fats at 9 Cal/g approx. and also excrete fats as ketones. Excess glucose can also be converted to fat as part of the tight glucose control by insulin, (insulin tolerance is the condition called type two diabetes). So consuming and using Calories is more complex in digestion than in combustion. Alcohol is yet another metabolic
    pathway at about 7 Cal/g
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,130
    As long as we are discussing Calories, how many Calories do I have to take out of my eating to lose a pound?
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    As long as we are discussing Calories, how many Calories do I have to take out of my eating to lose a pound?
    When I was a student, I was taught that 3500 Calories equals one pound of body fat. That's probably true enough for the first few pounds you lose, but thereafter your physiology will flip into "starvation mode", and start to work against you by conserving energy. This is why dieters often hit a wall after initially promising weight loss. At the extreme, people can get into a mode in which any further weight loss requires them to eat so few Calories that they start to become deficient in micronutrients.
    When I worked with the obesity surgery team, morbidly obese people would receive dietary supplements, supervised by specialist dieticians and physicians, to help them drive their weight down into the window that allowed me to anaesthetize them safely for their proposed surgery.

    Grant Hutchison

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    As long as we are discussing Calories, how many Calories do I have to take out of my eating to lose a pound?
    I have diabetes and have been struggling with that myself. As near as I can tell, it's virtually impossible to eat the same amount of calories per day. Too many vagaries in actual prep and cooking. It strikes me that more activity is preferable to less calories, if you are already consuming a relatively balanced diet.

    I managed to cut my A1C by more than half in a year. (13.9 vs. 6.5). I also lost 33 lbs. in the same time period. Unfortunately, I have to do the whole thing all over again because my cholesterol is spiking. That's one of the dangers of making choices when you don't know much about diet and nutrition. So, now I have to figure out how to knock off all of the unhealthy (for me) stuff that is driving up the cholesterol. And it's not real clear to me what that would be. So, I won't be writing a miracle diet book any time soon.

    It's all a delicate balance. People (my wife a nurse, included) freak out when they seem my meal logs. I tend to plan for 1400 calories per day at meal times. That too little. I also have 5 different kinds of preplanned snacks, each is about 120 calories and a sixth that is about 30 calories of just veggies. Sometimes, I eat all five and two at once. Other days, I eat none of them. It really depends on what my blood sugar is doing and how I feel, but obviously that isn't a valid measure if I have a cholesterol problem. I've reached a plateau where I can't get my insulin down, but also can't loose any more weight through diet alone. Some days, I am real stable but entirely drained. Other days, I feel great but the numbers are all over the place.

    I drive my low carb friends nuts because if I plan ahead, I can actually eat a good amount of carbs if I feel like it. They don't get the idea that the cost of doing so is either move more or faster or increase my insulin. I don't eat a plate of carbs that often, because I view the insulin as a necessary but dangerous crutch. I can arbitrarily spin up my dose to get "rid of" carbs (well... gain weight). One of my fears is following a friend who was cranking up the insulin to drink beer without moderation. He lost a leg before the end, but he said his numbers looked great until he reached a certain tipping point. Having very high or low blood sugar can really damage your ability to make choices, so I don't doubt he was accurately reporting at first. It was a slow creep upwards and poor diet over a couple of years (like just two) that got him.

    As Grant says, I wonder how bad his nutrients were. He could have had multiple deficiencies that when added to diabetes were horrible. I try to avoid that with good foods, but I still need vitamins because there are just certain things I won't eat because I won't be able to stop. Orange juice is my kryptonite. I love the stuff, I can't touch a drop of it. I've found that it's true that you can drink orange juice to remedy low blood sugar, but I feel lousy for the rest of the day. I probably need vitamin D too, but I don't like milk so I have to find other sources or pop a vitamin. I don't like taking pills, but I do it.

    It's all a balance.
    Solfe

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    The evidence, peer reviewed, that losing weight is best achieved by restricting carbohydrates has been published since the 50s and expanded by excellent controlled studies. Most studies do concentrate on obesity so it is important to distinguish any normal weight diet from deliberate weight loss. I feel the name type two diabetes is a bad name, it would be better to call it insulin tolerance. The difference between not making insulin and becoming tolerant, ie not transferring energy to cells via insulin, is chalk and cheese. Our bodies have at least three metabolic abilities to make energy from food; glucose from carbs or proteins, ketones from fats and aldehydes from ethanol. We also lay down fat using insulin to convert glucose. So , if overweight, you can still eat loads of Calories if they are all fat! Not an easy diet! But as soon as your liver converts to ketosis, the fat is consumed. It has been shown to beat starvation which causes protein loss.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    Perhaps the most convincing paper is from Young et al., Cornell univ., 1971.
    Young worked with obese men using carefully controlled 1800 Cal. Diets containing 30, 60 or 104 grams of carbs.
    The weight loss in pounds per week was:
    At 104 g carbs, 2 lb/ week,
    At 60 g, 2.5 lb / week,
    At 30 g, 3.73 lb per week. (This is higher than the theoretical fat loss through metabolism.)
    Fat is shed as Kekwick and Pawan found in 1956.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    For Calorie nerds, the earliest reference I have found was published in the Journal Metabolism, 1957, journal 6 issue 5 pp 447 to 460.
    Kekwick and Pawan made obese men eat 1000 Calorie diets of four types. 90% carbs, 90% protein, 90% fat and a mixed “normal” control.
    On the control diet they lost between 100and 200 grams per day, as you would expect on 1000 Calories.
    On the protein diet they lost up to 500 grams per day and excreted nitrogen.
    On carbs they lost from 100 to a gain of 100, net zero change, over a couple of weeks!
    On fats they lost from 350 to 650 grams per day. By far the most weight loss regime.

    This basic metabolism science has largely been ignored by public policy while obesity has got steadily worse as food producers replaced fats with complex sugars, (they are just digested as carbs) .

    The various studies have shown how to reduce weight but the corollary of inducing weight gain has ethical issues although in my opinion it is obvious. Eating carbs to excess is a really bad idea for individual or public health. It is not just a Calorie count.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,130
    Grant (or anyone, but I expect it will be Grant), what is the disadvantage of “starvation mode”? I expect there is a disadvantage or we would be in this more efficient mode all the time.
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    Well I am not Grant but starvation is of course part of our not so distant ancestry and it seems when starving we conserve fat reserves by also burning up muscle. It does not compare well to eating if the goal is to reduce excess fat. You can live on protein but most carb free protein comes with fat too. Meat, fish, cheese. I tried starvation , for 28 days, as an experiment although I took vitamins and extra water. It does have psychological highs so it is easy to see why some people practice starvation, although the metabolic changes do not happen for a few days, we use up stored glucose for at least two days before ketosis begins. Living on low carbs, say, less than 100 or even 200 grams per day, is an easy habit and has, as far as I can see, no adverse effects. Starvation is not good for more than a week of self denial. If using it to lose weight, I find you must give up ethanol too. Not only a rich Calorie
    Source but it messes with metabolism too.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,563
    The disadvantage to starvation mode is that it limits your ability to regulate body temperature and to exercise. It's a last-ditch effort to survive lean times by shutting down functions that otherwise improve survival.

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,130
    And while we are talking about food restrictions does that really double lifespan? Could whatever effect this does in animals be “normal” for humans, perhaps so we have grandparents to help us raise children? I mean with all the famines and monks in history you would think it would have happened by now.
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,563
    Calorie-restriction diets of the kind that show longevity results in animals are not equivalent to famines, and I don't understand the relevance of monks, or what you feel "would have happened by now".
    These diets are a way of staying permanently in starvation-mode physiology without developing micronutrient deficiency, which is difficult to do. So, no, humans do not normally exist in that state, and could not successfully exist in that state until quite recently.

    There a decent, recent plain-language review of the thinking behind calorie-restriction diets here.

    Grant Hutchison

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,130
    I was thinking of the fasts Christian and Buddhist monks practice.
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    Fasting for part or even all of a 24 hour period does not switch us to ketosis, we store glucose, but there has been evidence of improved health and or weight loss from , for example , regular 16 hour fasts as a habit. That does not seem surprising given a hunter gatherer past. Longer fasts take you into the ketosis switch, at two to three days which can feel like a hangover. Thus a high incentive to eat, but after that there is a euphoric phase of fasting when metabolising fats. That may well be why some people include long fasts in religious practices.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    IIRC when they determine how many calories (which are actually kilocalories) are in, say a chocolate sundae, they basically just burn it and see how much energy is produced.
    Is this a good way to measure this? Is digestion thermodynamically the same as combustion?
    It is not precisely the same process, of course, but we are not interested in the process itself, we are interested in how much the "energy content" of the involved substances changes during the process (the general term "energy content" could be made more specific, but since this is not a thermodynamics lecture...).

    The energy content is a state variable, that is, it only depends on the thermodynamic state of the substance and not on how this state has been reached (in other words: it does not depend on the process which led to the current state). The question "How much energy is liberated by the oxidation process which occurs during digestion?" is really the question "What is the energy difference between the original unoxidised substances and the final oxidised substances?".

    The answer only depends on the energy content of the unoxidised substances, compared to the energy content of the oxidised substances. The answer is independent of the details of the process which leads from the initial state to the final state. To measure the difference you can therefore use any process which leads from the same initial state to the same final state. You could use the digestion process itself, you could use any arbitrarily complex process involving horrendously complicated chemical reactions (maybe even introducing non-food substances as long as they are removed again later in the process), or you can use simple burning. You only have to make sure that the initial and the final states are the same as in digestion.

    Regards,
    Thomas

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    That is an excellent answer leaving the key element of what digestion actually does. Some food is used as proteins , some is burned , some is laid down as fat and some is eliminated, and the ratios change with circumstances. So the Calorimeter value is not necessarily the same as the digestion value but can sometimes be close. There is also the question of the water energy value but maybe that is a different question.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,130
    "Fridge thought"
    If they measure calories by burning the food, how do they measure calories of stuff like milk?
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    "Fridge thought"
    If they measure calories by burning the food, how do they measure calories of stuff like milk?
    I presume by burning it. You heat it until the H2O has evaporated and then it burns.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    The Calories are basically burned or oxidised in the body, but by different routes. Alcohol uses an aldehyde route at about 7 Cals per gram, fats by ketosis at 9 Cals per gram, carbs by oxidation of glucose at 4 Cals per gram and excess proteins burned like carbs at 4 Cals per gram. Some waste is excreted with unused Calories.
    Proteins are first converted to amino acids and used for repair work, but when starving, they can be burned even while you have fat reserves. The body clings onto fat as a last resort. Funnily enough if you are eating mainly fats, you then release body fat as ketones, presumably the body sentinel reckons you have a fat diet so no need to store it. It is carbs that turn to fat via glucose and insulin.

    So Calorie counting is physically correct but choosing which foods to eat is more effective in controlling excess body fat.

    I think it is ironic that my body wants to gain weight for a hard winter but I gain weight in winter by eating too much and lose it in summer with a better diet.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,127
    I have type 2 diabetes, and am constantly struggling with diet, partly because I live with my extended family including 2 teens. I'm not the one who makes the grocery list, and junk food is always in the house. I've found that to put one of us on a diet, we all have to go on a diet, or convenience wins out.

    My sister has made multiple attempts to go Keto, and finally realized it's just too difficult in a home where temptation is an everyday thing and shopping is by "curbside pickup" (unavoidable these days but we were doing it before it was cool for other reasons), especially when complicated by her food allergies. You have to know every ingredient that goes into what you eat and/or have enough free time to cook it from scratch.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    Sorry to hear that. When in doubt , I eat boiled eggs, no carbs.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    16,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I have type 2 diabetes, and am constantly struggling with diet, partly because I live with my extended family including 2 teens. I'm not the one who makes the grocery list, and junk food is always in the house. I've found that to put one of us on a diet, we all have to go on a diet, or convenience wins out.

    My sister has made multiple attempts to go Keto, and finally realized it's just too difficult in a home where temptation is an everyday thing and shopping is by "curbside pickup" (unavoidable these days but we were doing it before it was cool for other reasons), especially when complicated by her food allergies. You have to know every ingredient that goes into what you eat and/or have enough free time to cook it from scratch.
    Also T2. I hear you about the junk food. I simply can't have it around or I eat it.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,127
    I've seen much research that says you can't "willpower" your way to weight loss. It's more complicated than that, as it is with everything having to do with interactions of the human mind and body.

    Dang it.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I've seen much research that says you can't "willpower" your way to weight loss. It's more complicated than that, as it is with everything having to do with interactions of the human mind and body.

    Dang it.
    No that research is wrong generally, it may be true for some people, but of course it is not will by itself, it’s adopting better habits. That may be hard but by no means impossible. In the case of food, it is education mostly.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,563
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    No that research is wrong generally, it may be true for some people, but of course it is not will by itself, it’s adopting better habits. That may be hard but by no means impossible. In the case of food, it is education mostly.
    Morbidly obese people frequently run into a weight-loss "wall" that no amount of will-power or better habits can overcome, even when supported by dieticians and micronutrient supplements.
    So there's a myth that "all it takes is willpower", which is psychologically damaging for the morbidly obese.
    And there's a myth that "willpower doesn't help", which is unhelpful for people who would benefit from eating better and losing a relatively small amount of weight.

    Grant Hutchison

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,127
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    No that research is wrong generally,
    I go with the weight of evidence, pun intended. If it was one such report I'd take it with a grain of salt. But it's consistent from multiple sources using multiple methodologies.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Morbidly obese people frequently run into a weight-loss "wall" that no amount of will-power or better habits can overcome, even when supported by dieticians and micronutrient supplements.
    So there's a myth that "all it takes is willpower", which is psychologically damaging for the morbidly obese.
    And there's a myth that "willpower doesn't help", which is unhelpful for people who would benefit from eating better and losing a relatively small amount of weight.

    Grant Hutchison
    I think that is what I meant, admit I was not thinking about the morbidly obese. Peripherally I witness eating disorder studies and the counterintuitive role of the internal body map or body image. I see good news there in my field, there is a brain change in that area (of the body map) exposed in a recent paper following fMRI analysis of the whole brain type. The work was not done with obese subjects. So we know now that the internal body image can be very wrong and that leads to life threatening eating disorders.

    I was referring to the more central range of body weights and the tendency to get heavier with age in some people, I speculate whether this body map brain function is linked to insulin tolerance by an undiscovered pathway. That means that people who slowly add fat with age from middle age approximately, are adjusting their own internal map of weight distribution and see themselves differently. One sliver of evidence is that people with distorted body image see a difference between what they see in a mirror and photographs
    Maybe it is akin to not liking hearing your own voice recorded when it sounds fine to you as you speak, or sing.

    I must emphasise I am speculating, the analysis of body image in the brain is a new area.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I go with the weight of evidence, pun intended. If it was one such report I'd take it with a grain of salt. But it's consistent from multiple sources using multiple methodologies.
    Of course I do not know what research you mean, but I prefer to look at the mechanisms, since I developed type 2 . Glucose regulation still has many details we do not understand, but the basics are clear, insulin encourages muscle and fat cells to absorb glucose as ATP and fat respectively.

    To maintain body shape in homeostasis is thus a neat trick which can go wrong. These processes are beneath consciousness. If you decide to adjust your diet, it can be enough to just eat less but that stimulates hunger, a very basic emotion. It is not intuitive to limit carbs for example, because they convert quickly to glucose and that both inhibits fat metabolism and gives instant energy plus fat deposits.

    It is an act of will in the modern world, to restrict sugars and carbs generally, and to eat proteins and fats. If you do that, you force those unconscious processes to uses fats for energy. You still need glucose for nerve cells, but there are pathways for that. In other words you can live on protein and most protein comes with fat attached.

    If you “choose” that by will power, you can still gain weight because protein can be converted to excess glucose. If you fast, you must lose weight but much of that is losing muscle mass rather than fat.

    Peer reviewed research has shown that weight loss in the overweight is maximised by eating a calorie controlled diet with very little carbs. There are many such studies including the Swedish meta study:

    https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/ar...795-015-0042-6
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •