3 ms·

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

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-...

3 ms·

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

by 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-...