Hot food = higher calories?

[Espee]

Hi there. Thought occurred to me the other day: If calorific
value of food 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]

> 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?

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.

[Alf Christ]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:05:35 +0000, Espee
<fakename@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. 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 Harr]

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.

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.

[Ada]

In my estimation if the temperature of the food/beverage
consumed is 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

[Steve Harr]

Alf Christophersen wrote in message
<3c9e3f82.6578578@nntp.uio.no>...
>On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:05:35 +0000, Espee
><fakename@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.

--
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 Tanzma]

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

[Ada]

> Overall, I don't think that the loss and the gain are pretty
> small to bother with.

This sentence s/b: Overall, I think that the loss and the gain
are too small to bother with.

ada

[Bryher]

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?

"ada" <ben_nur@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37621b2e.0203212150.49fb61b2@posting.google.com...
> In my estimation if the temperature of the food/beverage
> consumed is 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

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:20:11 -0800, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@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. L]

mbansch314 wrote:
> 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 <sbharris@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 - kfl@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" <sbharris@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 Harr]

Jay Tanzman wrote in message
<3C9A8161.4F076341@sph.llu.edu>...
>
>
>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?

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

--
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.

[Suzee]

bryher wrote:
>
> 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]

in article %%Im8.4099$bh1.321412@news11-gui.server.ntli.net,
bryher at bryher_m@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.

[Steve Harr]

Tom Osborn wrote in message ...
>
>"Steve Harris" <sbharris@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...

Oh, crap! How embarrassing.

--
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.

[Bryher]

Most of the examples are in a book I have which lists calorie
counts for different foods.

"suzee" <qiuser@nidlink.com> wrote in message
news:3C9B5DFD.1FF4@nidlink.com...
>
> 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