Hot food = higher calories?
Espee
represents the energy which is contained in the food, and which is released
during digestion, does it mean that food that is consumed when hot has a
higher calorific value than the same food consumed when cold?
Surely, food that is hot provides the calories locked in its constituents
PLUS the heat added to it through cooking, therefore giving a higher net
total?
Just wondering.
mbansch314
> PLUS the heat added to it through cooking, therefore giving a higher net
> total?
Interesting question, one I've never thought about before. It's usually
just the opposite, especially with water intake in a cold enironment (can
drinking cold water lower body temperature and make it easier to develop
problems with hypothermia?).
When food is consumed more blood moves into the abdomen and the metabolic
rate increases. This is called the thermogenic effect of food. If you are
eating in a hot climate, the increase in body temperature can make you more
uncomfortable and you may actually start to sweat more.
I've never seen a study comparing eating cold food with the same food that
is hot to see what happens to energy balance.
Since the thermogenic effect of food is pretty much dictated by the
composition of the food, my guess is that the extra heat from the hot food
is just passed out as extra body heat from food consumption and does not
really alter energy balance (does not really change the caloric value of the
food).
But that's purely a guess on my part.
It's amazing what people think of and issues that people raise in this
forum. I find that my world greatly expands when I spend some time here.
Thanks for a very interesting question.
Steve Harris
>I've never seen a study comparing eating cold food with the same food that
>is hot to see what happens to energy balance.
That's because if you work out the amount of energy required to heat food,
it's usually small compared to the energy you get in burning it.
Take your average piece of ham with 3 kcal per gram, or 300 kcal/100 g. Ham
has about 70% the heat capacity of water, so the heat to get that ham from
refrigerator temp (5 C) to as hot as you're likely to want to eat it (40 C)
is 35 C * 0.7 * 100g = 2435 cal = 2.4 kcal. In other words, only 2.4/300 =
8% of the energy you get from the ham. Warming the ham from room temp to
40C before eating gives you only half that, or 4%.
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Jay Tanzman
Steve Harris wrote:
>
> mbansch314 wrote in message ...
>
> >I've never seen a study comparing eating cold food with the same food that
> >is hot to see what happens to energy balance.
>
> That's because if you work out the amount of energy required to heat food,
> it's usually small compared to the energy you get in burning it.
Steve, were you, like, one of those sick P-Chem majors, or something?
-Jay
Steve Harris
I did major in chem, minor in physics, intending to become a medicinal
chemist. Didn't decide to go to medical school until my last year in
college, then had to scramble and take a life sciences classes to meet the
requirements. As a result, never many classes with pre-meds as an
undergrad. Lucky me.
SBH
ada
lower than the body's normal temp, certain body heat is transferred
from the body to the food by diffusion until the food reaches the
body's temp. The opposite occurs when the food temp is higher than
that of the body. That's the reason why it feels good to drink a cold
beverage in the summer and hot soup in the winter. When heat from hot
food is transferred to the body it saves the body some calories that
it would otherwise had to spend in maintaining its normal temp. In
that regards I think you're correct that it provides more calories
than the total caloric value of the food consumed, while the opposite
happens with cold food.
But there is another aspect to eating hot food- it is usually brings
satiety faster and might therefore reduce the amount of food consumed
and therefore the number of calories and thereby offsets the gain of
eating hot food.
Overall, I don't think that the loss and the gain are pretty small to
bother with.
ada
ada
> bother with.
This sentence s/b: Overall, I think that the loss and the gain are too
bryher
have noticed that the calorie count per 100g for the same foods - one
cooked, the other uncooked will vary , the cooked version having the higher
count. Anyone else noticed this?
"ada" <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37621b2e.02032...@posting.google.com...
suzee
>
> I thought the calories in some cooked foods are more readily digested. I
> have noticed that the calorie count per 100g for the same foods - one
> cooked, the other uncooked will vary , the cooked version having the higher
> count. Anyone else noticed this?
Where are you getting the info on calorie count? On packaged foods,
there's a difference because of the other things you add....
butter/margarine or milk, for instance.
sue
Espee
bryh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote on 3/22/02 4:36 PM:
> I thought the calories in some cooked foods are more readily digested. I
> have noticed that the calorie count per 100g for the same foods - one
> cooked, the other uncooked will vary , the cooked version having the higher
> count. Anyone else noticed this?
I think this is simply because the food's mass and composition will be
different after cooking, which would therefore alter any nutritional figures
given 'per gramme' etc. that's all.
bryher
different foods.
"suzee" <qiu...@nidlink.com> wrote in message
news:3C9B5D...@nidlink.com...
Alf Christophersen
>Surely, food that is hot provides the calories locked in its constituents
>PLUS the heat added to it through cooking, therefore giving a higher net
>total?
The heat calories are in the scale in 1/1000 of what is else contained
in the food. In food we are talking about kcalories, while heat is
measured in calories. The daily intake of energy in food is measured
also in Megajoules while the heat of food are in the joule range :-)
So it means physically nothing. And, in addition, there are also other
differences in heat and chemical energy potentials. Like the
difference btw. running cold water and electric power derived from it
if it streams down a tunnel and drive a Pelton turbine :-)
Steve Harris
>On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:05:35 +0000, Espee <fake...@yahoo.moc> wrote:
>
>>Surely, food that is hot provides the calories locked in its constituents
>>PLUS the heat added to it through cooking, therefore giving a higher net
>>total?
>
>The heat calories are in the scale in 1/1000 of what is else contained
>in the food
No. The scale is more like 1/10th to 1/20th, for temperature changes
associated with food preparation.
Alf Christophersen
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>No. The scale is more like 1/10th to 1/20th, for temperature changes
>associated with food preparation.
Have you forgotten the scale of 1000 btw. physical definition of
calories and food calories??
Keith F. Lynch
> I've never seen a study comparing eating cold food with the same
> food that is hot to see what happens to energy balance.
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> That's because if you work out the amount of energy required to heat
> food, it's usually small compared to the energy you get in burning it.
Plus, unless the food makes you *really* cold, you'll make up the
difference not by shivering (which burns calories), but by a slight
constriction of the peripheral capilliaries (which doesn't -- at
least not enough to notice).
Anyhow, shivering is not the most pleasant of exercises. I've been
fat, and I've been cold enough to shiver, and if those were the only
two choices, I'd rather be fat.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Tom Osborn
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message news:a7durr$au9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Take your average piece of ham with 3 kcal per gram, or 300 kcal/100 g. Ham
> has about 70% the heat capacity of water, so the heat to get that ham from
> refrigerator temp (5 C) to as hot as you're likely to want to eat it (40 C)
> is 35 C * 0.7 * 100g = 2435 cal = 2.4 kcal. In other words, only 2.4/300 =
> 8% of the energy you get from the ham. Warming the ham from room temp to
> 40C before eating gives you only half that, or 4%.
Steve's usually right, but not this time:
2.4/300 = 0.8%, not 8%. Ie, order of 100:1.
Hot or frozen makes very little difference...
Tom.
Steve Harris
Oh, crap! How embarrassing.