3 ms·

A cup of gasoline has ~2,000 calories. Assuming you don't die from drinking it, this trivially and obviously would not have the same impact as eating 2 McDonald

by 015a 5y ago

A cup of gasoline has ~2,000 calories. Assuming you don't die from drinking it, this trivially and obviously would not have the same impact as eating 2 McDonald's McDoubles. But it does have the same calories. So, it turns out, calories are kinda useless if your body can't break down what they're contained in. You'd poop it out, calories intact (or breathe it out, pee it out, or in the case of gasoline, probably just die). Even pulling back into things which are wholly edible: ever heard of the meat sweats? They can occur because your body has to expend a lot of energy in breaking apart proteins commonly found in meats; more-so than while digesting other foods. In other words, if you eat 400 calories of meat, but it takes an investment of 30 calories to digest it, how does that compare to 400 calories of tomatoes? What about lactose intolerance? The inability to digest, and gain nutrients, from milk products. One person drinks 200 calories of milk and gets lots of nutrients; another shits their pants and is now dehydrated. It seems trivially obvious to me that anyone who says "a calorie is a calorie" is trying to sell you something. Though, I suppose, the people who say "my diet will work for you, buy my special food plan" are saying the opposite, but are also trying to sell you something.

josephcsible 5y ago
Don't nutrition facts labels already not count calories that you can't absorb (e.g., dietary fiber)?
bena 5y ago
You're confusing "inside of me" as "consumed". I can stick my fist in my mouth, but no one would say I've consumed 100 (?) calories of fist. Also, 400 calories of steak is roughly 6oz. 400 calories of tomatoes is about 20 tomatoes. Or about 80oz. It's better to say that every calorie taken in is a calorie that must be accounted for. So if you're lactose intolerant and drink a cup of milk, we can account for that milk when you blow it out of your ass in a bit.
SkeuomorphicBee 5y ago
I honestly thought that the quoted "Calories" on food packages were a measure of typical bio-available energy, and not simply a measure of the total theoretical oxidation energy.
- 015a 5y ago
  Its kind of in-between. The number reported is the additive oxidation energy of the generally bio-available components in the food. But, of course, no one's body is as efficient as "burning a twinkie in a cleansing fire", so its definitely more on the side you're saying than the other even if the calculations do cut out some components which aren't all that bio-available. Especially since it does significantly differ for each individual. Lactose intolerance is an obvious example. Something like 70% of adults around the world are lactose intolerant, which would absolutely impact how well they (well, "we" lol) absorb energy from food with lactose in it. But, the rates specifically in the US are closer to like 10%. It definitely doesn't reduce the total availability of energy in the food to zero, but its still strange to think about countries like some in east Asia, where rates can reach as high as 90%, not taking it into account when reporting things like calories, vitamins, minerals, etc in, say, dairy cheese. There are plenty of other examples, like gluten intolerance/celiac, some food allergy reactions, reduction in gut flora, plenty of other intestinal disorders... In other words, the reported numbers try to communicate something like, what kind of nutrition could a typical, healthy adult get from consuming this. Unfortunately, no one is typical. [1] But its not obvious (to me) how this could be meaningfully improved. [1] https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
jareklupinski 5y ago
had to look up the ld50 for gasoline https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp72.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp72.pdf after trying to calculate the amount of gasoline accidentally ingested while siphoning gas
- 015a 5y ago
  An excellently fascinating diversion (page 47): it appears to be about 1.5 cups, and the cause of death actually can be asphyxiation due to fume inhalation even during ingestion.

by 015a 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

Don't nutrition facts labels already not count calories that you can't absorb (e.g., dietary fiber)?

bena 5y ago

You're confusing "inside of me" as "consumed". I can stick my fist in my mouth, but no one would say I've consumed 100 (?) calories of fist. Also, 400 calories of steak is roughly 6oz. 400 calories of tomatoes is about 20 tomatoes. Or about 80oz. It's better to say that every calorie taken in is a calorie that must be accounted for. So if you're lactose intolerant and drink a cup of milk, we can account for that milk when you blow it out of your ass in a bit.

SkeuomorphicBee 5y ago

I honestly thought that the quoted "Calories" on food packages were a measure of typical bio-available energy, and not simply a measure of the total theoretical oxidation energy.

015a 5y ago
Its kind of in-between. The number reported is the additive oxidation energy of the generally bio-available components in the food. But, of course, no one's body is as efficient as "burning a twinkie in a cleansing fire", so its definitely more on the side you're saying than the other even if the calculations do cut out some components which aren't all that bio-available. Especially since it does significantly differ for each individual. Lactose intolerance is an obvious example. Something like 70% of adults around the world are lactose intolerant, which would absolutely impact how well they (well, "we" lol) absorb energy from food with lactose in it. But, the rates specifically in the US are closer to like 10%. It definitely doesn't reduce the total availability of energy in the food to zero, but its still strange to think about countries like some in east Asia, where rates can reach as high as 90%, not taking it into account when reporting things like calories, vitamins, minerals, etc in, say, dairy cheese. There are plenty of other examples, like gluten intolerance/celiac, some food allergy reactions, reduction in gut flora, plenty of other intestinal disorders... In other words, the reported numbers try to communicate something like, what kind of nutrition could a typical, healthy adult get from consuming this. Unfortunately, no one is typical. [1] But its not obvious (to me) how this could be meaningfully improved. [1] https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...

jareklupinski 5y ago

had to look up the ld50 for gasoline https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp72.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp72.pdf after trying to calculate the amount of gasoline accidentally ingested while siphoning gas

015a 5y ago
An excellently fascinating diversion (page 47): it appears to be about 1.5 cups, and the cause of death actually can be asphyxiation due to fume inhalation even during ingestion.