Interesting article.  The Atwood system does make an adjustment for the 
metabilized energy as a fraction of combustion energy.  For carbs, it 85%, I'm 
not sure about fat and protein.  It is certainly plausible that it could vary 
between 75% and 95% depending on how food is prepared.  Of course, this 
uncertainy makes the 0.1% fuss over which calorie look silly.  This ±10% 
uncertainty has nothing to do with whether the energy is measured in kilojoules 
or kilocalories.
 
Even Atwood recognized that different carbs for example had different energy 
content, but the world certainly gravitated to his simplest method in which 
only carbs, proteins, fats (and alcohol) exist with an energy content for each.
 
I guess the guy is making two points:
*Lets use the complicated version of Atwood
*Lets update the factors for "how cooked" and make it MORE complex.
 
Basically the Atwood system ignores or oversimplifies interaction and assumes 
the whole is the sum of its parts.
 
BTW, none of my argument is a proposal the calorie should continue.  We should 
migrate to the joule for ALL forms of energy.  The calorie had its place (which 
is now over) and I don't consider it the unmitigated evil you make it out to be.


--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:45439] Re: Names of old measuring methods
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 2:04 AM




 In this respect I find appalling the use of the word calorie as if it had a 
definite definition and its active promotion by folk who should know better. 
See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.200-the-calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are-wrong.html?page=1
 for a recent example in what should be a leading science magazine.


By the way, in this article, W. O. Atwater is treated with more hindsight than 
kindness.



On your point that the variation between all the different calories is only 
about 0.1 %, I made the following calculation. This could  add to something 
like a 100 grams of fat over the course of a year. I base this on a 10 000 
kilojoule per day requirement for an average male. As 0.1 % of this is 10 
kilojoules per day, or 3650 extra kilojoules of food energy each year. I then 
applied the 'Atwater factor' of 37 kilojoules per gram for fat to arrive 
approximately at the calculated 100 grams of fat.
 

 

Reply via email to