All Calories are not created equal!

1457910

Replies

  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 7,725 Member
    Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way. :innocent:

    they just think that your calories are off maybe. like, why is brain so calorie dense? and wouldn't an lean arm have less calories than one with some serious disco wings? also, are disco wings a thing? it doesn't sound right.

    Bat wings. But now I'm imagining making the bat wings dance so thanks for that! :)
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited October 2017
    Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way. :innocent:

    they just think that your calories are off maybe. like, why is brain so calorie dense? and wouldn't an lean arm have less calories than one with some serious disco wings? also, are disco wings a thing? it doesn't sound right.

    No "disco wings" there I'm afraid. The data is based on men averaging 145 pounds in weight. I vote lurking cannibals. I guess not all calories are created equal. Some calories will rot your brain.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Wrenranae wrote: »
    “It is NOT how many "calories" you eat, but what they are made up of.

    What exactly are calories made up of...?

    I'm going to take a crack at answering this fully.

    Calories are a unit of measurement of energy in the form of heat. Specifically one calorie is the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius. When you are talking calories in food then it is written as Calorie and you are actually talking about kilocalories or the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degree celsius. 1 kg of water is the same as 1 liter of water.

    Hydrocarbons (combinations of hydrogen and carbon) react with oxygen in high heat to form carbon dioxide and water plus releasing heat. All of our macros, protein/fat/carbs are hydrocarbons. The fact that the reaction releases heat means that once started it can self-sustain.

    Take glucose (sugar) for example, it is a hydrocarbon...specifically it is a carbohydrate (hydrated carbon). Hydrated carbons have the chemical formula of C(x)H(2x)O(x) because they are literally carbon C with water H20. Glucose is C6H12O6.

    If you heat up glucose in atmosphere containing oxygen the following reaction happens.

    C6H12O6 + 602 + heat ==> 6CO2 + 6 H2O + heat

    In atmosphere with sufficient heat this manifests as fire where the CO2 billows off as smoke and the water produced turns gaseous from the heat and leaves with the smoke as steam. If you capture all the heat produced from this reaction you would find that burning 10 grams of glucose would provide enough to heat 40 liters of water by 1 degree celsius (which is actually a very large amount of energy) and that amount of energy is equal to 40 Calories. Therefore carbohydrates have about 40 Calories in 10 grams or 4 Calories per gram.

    In your body you injest the glucose and you breath in oxygen. Rather than cause the chemical reaction between glucose and oxygen by heat your body instead uses enzymatic catalysis by having enzymes in your body arrange the molecules in such a way that the reaction happens at 37 degrees celsius instead of much hotter. The reaction proceeds through many different enzymatic steps at the end of which 6 CO2 and 6 H2O are produced. Heat is also produced which helps maintain your body at 37 degrees celsius (or hotter in which case you perspire) and your body gets rid of the CO2 through exhaling and the H20 through urination. The reason more heat isn't produces (as in the case of a fire) is that most of that energy is actually captured and contained by enzymatically coupoling the metabolic breakdown of the carbohydrate to the formation of new chemical bonds in other molecules. Commonly this is in the form of the molecule ATP which can then be used in other chemical reactions as a means of supplying the energy required to carry out those reactions.

    Reactions breaking down molecules are called catabolic, reactions building molecules are called anabolic and combined they are called metabolic. The metabolic breakdown of glucose forms ATP molecules and some waste heat in addition to CO2 and H2O in pretty much what amounts to a controlled burning of the molecule.

    So with all of that said a "calorie" isn't a physical thing, its a unit of energy. Our bodies derive that energy from the metabolic conversion of foods in the forms of hydrocarbons into water, carbon dioxide, a little waste heat and ATP that can be used for other useful work. The amount of energy we derive from a certain amount of hydrocarbon is measured in Calories because it is a measure of energy production. When you say this hamburger has 600 Calories you are literally saying that if you fully metabolized (burning or enzymatically breaking down) that hamburger it would release enough energy to heat 600 liters of water by 1 degree celsius.

    Can I just say--WOW!
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way. :innocent:

    they just think that your calories are off maybe. like, why is brain so calorie dense? and wouldn't an lean arm have less calories than one with some serious disco wings? also, are disco wings a thing? it doesn't sound right.

    No "disco wings" there I'm afraid. The data is based on men averaging 145 pounds in weight. I vote lurking cannibals. I guess not all calories are created equal. Some calories will rot your brain.

    Who said anything about lurking...

    giphy.gif

    hannibal2.01never-feel-guilty1.gif
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,056 Member
    jpaulparis wrote: »
    Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.

    If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?

    Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?

    Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.

    How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.

    I'm half tempted to game on this, except Twinkies are hard to get and damn expensive over here.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    @Aaron_K123
    Thanks for that.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,056 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    jpaulparis wrote: »
    Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.

    If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?

    Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?

    Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.

    How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.

    I'm half tempted to game on this, except Twinkies are hard to get and damn expensive over here.

    I couldn't do it, I don't particularly like Twinkies. But with all this talk about them, I'm probably going to have to go get one if only to remind myself why I don't like them. #cakeculture

    I don't like them either, they coat my mouth with ick. But I'm stubborn and a bit of an a'hole, so if it wouldn't cost a bomb, I'd give it a go, just to make the point.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,313 Member
    jpaulparis wrote: »
    Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.

    If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?

    Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?

    Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.

    I would be miserable eating 800 calories of twinkies for a week, but I would lose weight. If you mean 800 total for the week I would be even more miserable. If it was 800 a day, a little less miserable, but would still lose weight. At the end of it I would likely hate twinkies though.
  • Sunnybrooke99
    Sunnybrooke99 Posts: 369 Member
    This is a very thoughtful post. It’s sound advice for eating guidelines, if calorie counting isn’t possible, but it does look like you confused “calorie” and “nutrition.” It’s a good way to eat low calorie, filling foods, without counting calories, but no matter what you are eating, calories ultimatly determine weight loss; not nutrition.