3 ms·

So boiling reduces the amount of calories? And carbs, and proteins? How can that be? In principle boiling could induce a lot of evaporation, so the milk would

So boiling reduces the amount of calories? And carbs, and proteins? How can that be? In principle boiling could induce a lot of evaporation, so the milk would be more concentrated, and so it would have more calories per cup. But people don’t boil the milk so much as to materially reduce the amount of water in it.

monitron 5y ago
I would guess that the heat chemically alters or breaks down (denatures might be the right term?) some of those macronutrients into molecules that can no longer provide caloric energy.
manquer 5y ago
The chemical breakdown of bonds also generates thermal energy, so the milk emits black-body radiation slightly more than input heat alone accounts for.
alasdair_ 5y ago
“Calories” measures the amount of energy a human can extract from the food. Interestingly, if you cook.a steak (for examples le) it can gain calories, not lose them.
- VBprogrammer 5y ago
  Does it really? I thought it was a simple chemical test where you burn a set amount of it and check how much it heats a given amount of water.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    That's the old, less accurate way. By that measure, fiber tends to have quite a lot of calories, as it's a carbohydrate, but that is now known to be wrong - fiber passes through our digestive systems almost completely undigested, and yields almost 0 calories. Today, calorie counts are usually obtained by checking the protein, fat, sugar and fiber contents, and using known values for calorie/g of each. Those well-known values are ideally obtained either through human calorimetric studies, or through burning protein, fat, sugar directly.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Citation for the stake numbers? I can see it being possible, if cooking increases bioavailability
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/why-cooking-counts/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/why-cooking-c... Is one.

monitron 5y ago

I would guess that the heat chemically alters or breaks down (denatures might be the right term?) some of those macronutrients into molecules that can no longer provide caloric energy.

manquer 5y ago

The chemical breakdown of bonds also generates thermal energy, so the milk emits black-body radiation slightly more than input heat alone accounts for.

alasdair_ 5y ago

“Calories” measures the amount of energy a human can extract from the food. Interestingly, if you cook.a steak (for examples le) it can gain calories, not lose them.

VBprogrammer 5y ago
Does it really? I thought it was a simple chemical test where you burn a set amount of it and check how much it heats a given amount of water.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  That's the old, less accurate way. By that measure, fiber tends to have quite a lot of calories, as it's a carbohydrate, but that is now known to be wrong - fiber passes through our digestive systems almost completely undigested, and yields almost 0 calories. Today, calorie counts are usually obtained by checking the protein, fat, sugar and fiber contents, and using known values for calorie/g of each. Those well-known values are ideally obtained either through human calorimetric studies, or through burning protein, fat, sugar directly.
netizen-936824 5y ago
Citation for the stake numbers? I can see it being possible, if cooking increases bioavailability
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/why-cooking-counts/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/why-cooking-c... Is one.