Why do we use Calories as a measure of energy that humans derive from food?
A calorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C.
The process of human metabolism is totally different to combustion, so why is this used as a marker for food energy?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
How warm are you senpai?
warm enough thanks to chemical reactions that do not resemble combustion
Because theres no reason to change it. It works just fine for all practical purposes.
This. Why do autists always insist on wasting vast sums of money on fixing systems that don't need fixing.
Because you are mostly water and you expend most of your energy heating yourself
calories are the fahrenheit of energy. use joules isntead.
Because the amount of potential energy contained in a system (food) is the same regardless of whether you burn it or break it down with hydrochloric acid.
people in other countries use joules (kJ really). mostly asian countries as I remember
we just chose kcals. presumably the guy who decided that had some sort of reason, but it really doesn't matter.
If not for kcal or kJ what would you use, OP? it has to be quantified some way, and one of these basic measures of energy seems fine enough
>1 gram of water through 1 °C
that is a gram-calorie
the food Calorie is a kilogram-calorie
Because with calories the numbers are nicer, you need around 2k calories each day.. and so on
Yeah, this. What we call calories in food are actually kilocalories. So the 300 calorie candy bar actually has 300,000 calories.
Are you an engineer?
You sound like an engineer. Only an engineer can say something this dumb.
Mathematician master race here.
Inb4
>Muh -1/12
human metabolism and combustion engines are basically the same. thats all you need to know.
>1 pound of coconut butter is 3800 calories
Science can't explain this
Your body literally carries out the same reaction, it's just catalyzed so you don't have rapid oxidation and catch on fire.
>warm enough
can I....
*rubs your thighs*
...test that theory?
>process of human metabolism is totally different to combustion
Wrooong
Its so that we can mentally calculate how hot the fire needs to be to burn the fat kid down the street.
>it's a "energy conversion mechanism that is inefficient and inherent with dated pathways that produces stress which ages/kills us" episode
>The process of human metabolism is totally different to combustion, so why is this used as a marker for food energy?
Because it's accurate, represents a solid way of definitively measuring real chemical energy stored in food, is easy to measure, and represents useful data for dieting and diet dependant metabolic processes.
Do you even KNOW how ATP synthase works, pleb?
youtube.com
Your body IS basically a biologically controlled form of combustion energy.
The energy of your cells that allows you to live is based on the oxidization of sugar, period.
The oxidization of sugars release energy in the form of free electrons that are used to synthesize ATP, which is used in your muscle cells to give them the energy to move.
The formula of cellular respiration actually does look a lot like combustion.
youtube.com
This is an animation that explains how ATP is used to power muscle cell contraction.
>The formula of cellular respiration actually does look a lot like combustion.
It's the oxidization of sugar to produce chemical energy.
The literal ONLY reason that we DON'T call it combustion, is because it's happening 1 molecule at a time.
Also, in the presense of some catylists, enzymes, etc....
But sugar oxidization (combustion), is the chemical process that fuels our bodies, muscles, heart, etc.....
FAT, like body fat... is the body's way of storing this sugar energy in a less volatile form.
enter, the fat cell.
A convenient little cell that acts as a fuel tank for your bodies metabolic processes (like homeostasis, ATP synthesis, etc...)
So, obesity is a problem inherent in the "EAT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN BEFORE WINTER OR WE WILL STARVE", instinct.
With the recent overabundance of foods for humans to choose from, not to mention technological advances in individual dwelling thermal insulation, but also heat for the dwelling.
Throw in heavy clothes, automobiles with interior heating spaces, etc...
And you have an environment where the "Binge before winter to survive" instinct is no longer applicable, and now borders on the "Directly harmful for the individual"
THIS is one of many crossroads, any intelligent species MUST overcome, to survive.
Industrial agriculture and civilization has made MANY of your instincts SO irrelevant, that they border on detrimental.
How do you proceed?
>:_
OP is right it's silly to measure calories like this considering the metabolic pathways, amounts of excretion etc different food groups have
we use kilojoules where im from, i think most of the world does actually. also by calorie you mean kilocalorie.
i dont see anything wrong with either, what's the issue? they describe chemical energy in our food, this is serviceable for what we apply them to.
Dear Veeky Forums,
You are scaring me.
D:
;)
It's literally operating on the same principle of a combustion reaction though, by which I mean the breakdown of a hydrocarbon into h2o and co2 in the presence of oxygen. Now it's not like a true combustion reaction when you look at how the molecules are broken down step by step but overall the process is the complete oxidative breakdown of suger.
Sadly in the world outside of academia most industries will use old technologies until they are literally bankrupt or the new technology is so much better than the old that not upgrading would cost them more money.
>If hya caint tell its broke, don't bother fixin it
I cannot believe the number of utter brainlets ITT who still think calories are in any way a useful measure for nutrition.
Maybe it's because they're too stupid to think beyond a simple intake-outtake scheme based on them, in which case I can't really say I blame them for their ignorance.
my country uses kJ for food kJ/kcal for soft drinks/juices which makes sense since it gives you rouch idea how much "water" you have to "lose"
> who still think calories are in any way a useful measure for nutrition.
As opposed to?
It's easy to shitpost that something is wrong.
Come up with a better system. Post it here.
We'll be the judge.
>As opposed to?
The glycemic index.
>glycemic index
...is blood-glucose response to food,
not energy content (like Calorie) you retard.
Haha, you thought you could trick me by playing dumb?
Calling your bluff.
Can someone point me to where the 2000 calories a day meme came from?
It's what simpletons (((think))) nutrition is.