5 ms·

Well, I imagine so. The calorie-per-dollar ratio for apples is negative.

syncopatience 14y ago
I don't think this is true. According to this table a large apple has more than 100 calories: http://calorielab.com/foods/apples/62 http://calorielab.com/foods/apples/62
gburt 14y ago
How can it be negative? Do you mean less than 1?
JDGM 14y ago
Erm...what? I don't understand. Calorie-per-dollar ratio = p/q for p calories and q dollars. What model are you using where p or q but not both is negative for the apples example but not the BigMac one?
- raverbashing 14y ago
  To digest an apple it takes calories. Yes, an apple has around 100 calories (depends on size) but the net value can be negative. Celery is the classical example of this.
  - jmilloy 14y ago
    Might want to check up on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_calorie_food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_calorie_food
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      That's very interesting The thing is, the digestion calories are one small portion of the dietary effects of any food. For example, some increase thermogenesis, so you could account for that Yes, apart from cold water it seems hard to think any food can provide no calories. Evolution took care of our digestive tract extracting the most of food (unless you're eating paper)
  - JDGM 14y ago
    I'm certain that apples do not fall into the negative calorie category of celery, cress, etc. but it's still a possible answer to the "what model" question, so thanks. I guess that's what "Filligree" was going for...
  - puivert 14y ago
    Disregarding biology, an apple has .15 kg * (c^2) -> cal = 3.2 × 10^15 calories
  - ufo 14y ago
    Apples and other fruits are full of fructose (sugar). How the hell are people suggesting that they take more calories to digest than they contain?
- ISL 14y ago
  Have you ever eaten a dollar? Those things just don't fill you up.
  - JDGM 14y ago
    Hahaha, "for p calories [in the food] and q dollars [cost of the food]" is supposed to be implied but I like your quip!

I don't think this is true. According to this table a large apple has more than 100 calories: http://calorielab.com/foods/apples/62 http://calorielab.com/foods/apples/62

gburt 14y ago

How can it be negative? Do you mean less than 1?

JDGM 14y ago

Erm...what? I don't understand. Calorie-per-dollar ratio = p/q for p calories and q dollars. What model are you using where p or q but not both is negative for the apples example but not the BigMac one?

raverbashing 14y ago
To digest an apple it takes calories. Yes, an apple has around 100 calories (depends on size) but the net value can be negative. Celery is the classical example of this.
- jmilloy 14y ago
  Might want to check up on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_calorie_food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_calorie_food
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    That's very interesting The thing is, the digestion calories are one small portion of the dietary effects of any food. For example, some increase thermogenesis, so you could account for that Yes, apart from cold water it seems hard to think any food can provide no calories. Evolution took care of our digestive tract extracting the most of food (unless you're eating paper)
- JDGM 14y ago
  I'm certain that apples do not fall into the negative calorie category of celery, cress, etc. but it's still a possible answer to the "what model" question, so thanks. I guess that's what "Filligree" was going for...
- puivert 14y ago
  Disregarding biology, an apple has .15 kg * (c^2) -> cal = 3.2 × 10^15 calories
- ufo 14y ago
  Apples and other fruits are full of fructose (sugar). How the hell are people suggesting that they take more calories to digest than they contain?
ISL 14y ago
Have you ever eaten a dollar? Those things just don't fill you up.
- JDGM 14y ago
  Hahaha, "for p calories [in the food] and q dollars [cost of the food]" is supposed to be implied but I like your quip!