upworthy

interesting

Canva Photos

Food energy is real energy, and it can be measured as such.

About ten years ago I started working out for the first time in my life, and with it, paying attention to the food I put in my body for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I never knew much before that about calories, other than the tired "2000 a day" guideline. I could hardly tell you about macronutrients, or how much protein an active person should get. And so, later in my life, I had quite an education.

But there's still a lot that I don't know, apparently, because it wasn't until very recently that I learned where calories come from; or rather, how they're tallied up for inclusion on a food label. Of course, I am familiar with the idea that you can always count up the different ingredients in a meal and their known nutritional values. For example, if you're baking, it's easy to find out the calories in one cup of flour, a tablespoon of sugar, and so on.

But how are the calories in base foods even calculated? And furthermore, how do we know for sure how much protein, fat, or carbs are in certain foods?

It "blew" my mind when I learned that food scientists have a fascinating process for determining the amount of energy contained in different foods. It involves a strange machine called a "bomb calorimeter."


 food, nutrition, calories, healthy eating, protein, fats, carbs, vitamins, minerals, eating, science, food science An old bomb calorimeter from the 1960sSeth/Flickr

We all know that food gives us energy, but you've likely never thought of food energy in the same terms as the other different forms of energy like lights, heat, electricity, etc. I know I had never thought of it like energy energy.

But that's exactly what it is, and calories are a very specific measure of that energy.

So in order to determine how many calories are in a certain food, ingredient, or meal — get this — scientists literally blow it up and measure the results of the explosion.

How cool is that!?

In the video below, scientists from the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University show the fascinating process from start to finish.

In the experiment, the team prepares a Christmas dinner plate of turkey, gravy, and potatoes. The first step to determining the calories in the meal is to "homogenize it" or blend it into smithereens, destroying any large chunks and turning the meal into a smooth, near-liquid. Yum!

"Then, over the course of three days we slowly remove all the moisture from it in a freeze drier," says Dr. Sue Roberts. Imagine turning that gooey slop into something similar to the consistency of astronaut food.

The dried samples are then compressed into extremely dense pellets about the size of a Tums antacid.

Now here comes the Parr 6200 "bomb" calorimeter. The very precisely measured pellet-ized portion of the original dinner is put into a chamber and lowered into some water inside the machine. An electrical charge is then applied to the food to "explode it."

Why the water? The calorimeter is able to measure the exact temperature of the water before and after the food explosion. When you look at the actual definition of a calorie, which according to Merriam-Webster is: "the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water one degree Celsius," it all starts to make sense. Take the temperature of the water after the explosion and you can determine exactly how much energy was contained in the food pellet based on the temperature increase. Amazing!


  - YouTube  www.youtube.com  

The calorimeter first came about in the 1800s. Even then, our understand of heat, energy, and food science was extremely limited.

As recently as the 1700s, scientists generally believed heat was made of some kind of weightless gas, which they called "caloric."

The theory was disproven in 1799 when Sir Humphrey Davy, an English chemist, rubbed two pieces of ice together in a vacuum (which contains no air or gas) and was able to generate friction heat, thus melting the ice. It was roughly around the same time that Antoine Lavoisier and Pierre Simon de la Place developed the first calorimeter.

Calorimeters, and the Calorie itself, weren't regularly used for food until the late 1800s.

As cool as it is (and it is extremely cool) exploding food in a bomb calorimeter isn't the most common practice today.

Frankly, it's usually not necessary when you can estimate nutritional values in other ways. More common today is the Atwater System, which estimates calories based on the nutritional breakdown of a food item as such:

  • Four kcals (calories) for one gram of protein
  • Four kcals for one gram of carbohydrates
  • Nine kcals for one gram of fat
  • Seven kcals for one gram of alcohol
All of these elements can be tested and measured in different, fascinating ways. Protein is counted by measuring the nitrogen released from food after putting it through some an artificial digestive process. Fats are measured by weighing the food, then stripping the fats away with ether, and weighing it again.

Carbs are the most complicated and thus are often measured by subtracting the percentage of proteins and fats. The remainders, by definition, should be carbohydrates.

 food, nutrition, calories, healthy eating, protein, fats, carbs, vitamins, minerals, eating, science, food science This food is on FIRE!  Giphy  

And, of course, bomb calorimeters have lots of different uses besides determining the calories in the newest line of flavored Doritos. They can be used to test the energy potential of alternative fuels, find more efficient animal feeds, and analyze samples of oil or coal for their potency.

Understanding this process kind of changes the way I look at food. You can't really see the energy in a bag of chips, let's say, but maybe you can imagine the way it might heat a pot of water if it exploded! It makes the numbers on the back of a nutritional label a little more tangible and real, and can maybe lead to more mindful and intuitive eating practices.

Ultimately, though, there is so much more to food than the calories it contains. There are the nutrients, like the proteins, carbs, and fats — the micronutrients like vitamins and minerals that our bodies need. Some people like to know as little as possible about the inner workings of our food and focus purely on their enjoyment of the making, eating, and sharing. But if you're like me, you like to know the science behind food production, and how and why food powers our bodies the way it does. That's all part of the fun.

Celebrity

Benedict Cumberbatch reads Kurt Vonnegut's ultra-timely letter to people living in 2088

Cumberbatch's delivery and Vonnegut's words are a match made in literary heaven.

Kurt Vonnegut by Bernard Gotfryd (1965)/Wikipedia, UKinUSA/Wikipedia

Kurt Vonnegut (left), Benedict Cumberbatch right)

Back in 1988, writer Kurt Vonnegut was tasked with writing a letter to the planetary citizens of Earth in 2088 as part of Volkswagen’s TIME magazine ad campaign. And that he did, using his signature blend of dark humor, simple, conversational tone, and a poignant, enduring wisdom that’s almost medicinal—difficult to swallow, but oh so necessary.

In the letter, after quoting Shakespeare, St. John the Divine, and the well known Serenity prayer used in Alcoholic Anonymous groups, Vonnegut then dived into more somber matters—how “violent and heartless nature can be.” He argued that “Nature was no conservationist. It needed no help from us in taking the planet apart and putting it back together some different way, not necessarily improving it from the viewpoint of living things.” Therefore, it is ultimately humanity’s responsibility to ensure our well being remains preserved.

To work with “Nature’s stern but reasonable surrender terms,” Vonnegut advised the following:

1. Reduce and stabilize your population.

2. Stop poisoning the air, the water, and the topsoil.

3. Stop preparing for war and start dealing with your real problems.

4. Teach your kids, and yourselves, too, while you’re at it, how to inhabit a small planet without helping to kill it.

5. Stop thinking science can fix anything if you give it a trillion dollars.

6. Stop thinking your grandchildren will be OK no matter how wasteful or destructive you may be, since they can go to a nice new planet on a spaceship. That is really mean, and stupid.

7. And so on. Or else.

Vonnegut concluded with an eerily accurate depiction not of life 2088, but as we are experiencing it now. “Nobody will have to leave home to go to work or school, or even stop watching television. Everybody will sit around all day punching the keys of computer terminals connected to everything there is.”

If these words feel impactful (not to mention utterly relevant) just reading them now, wait til you hear them delivered by actor Benedict Cumberbatch, who even went the extra mile using an American accent, below:

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

This video was part of the Letters Live series, which often has actors doing live staged reading of interesting, funny, or dramatic letters excavated from libraries, museums and other archives. Cumberbatch, one of the co-producers of Letters Live, is also a regular reader. But there’s about the combo between Vonnegut’s timeless words and Cumberbatch’s impeccable delivery that makes this one particularly special.

Down in the comments, viewers expressed similar sentiments.

“KV’s letter should be broadcast on every corporate media available. His truth holds. Thank you Benedict Cumberbatch for your flawless reading!”

“Kurt Vonnegut, always having the right of it. Benedict Cumberbatch, always reiterating the message perfectly.”

“Touche' very appropriate timing for this much needed reflection! My dear Mr. Cumberbatch, you are an eloquent speaker.”

“Well said, and well read.”

“Wow that completely blew my mind and totally relevant today more than ever!!!! CHEERS!”

“Ok, at the end that got frighteningly accurate.”

Vonnegut always had a gift for biting satire and sharp insight into the darker aspects of humanity. And clearly, considering we are living out so many of his predictions much earlier than 2088, his words bear repeating.

This is a prime example of "tariff engineering."

If you’ve ever thrown on a pair of fresh Converse Chuck Taylor sneakers, you might have noticed an unusual feature—felt soles. While Converse might want you to think this odd layer of fabric is for things like “shape retention” and “quieter usage,” the real reason behind it all comes down to exploiting legal loopholes for the bottom line.

Converse is part of Nike, which imports its products into the U.S. from China. Back in 2018, the Trump administration imposed large new tariffs on a wide range of US imports from China, but some items had heftier price tags than others. As Nicholas Mortimer of the Strategic Sourceror explained, sneaker imports are subject to a 37.5% tariff.

Slippers, on the other hand, have a measly 3% tariff. And lucky enough for Nike, the legal requirement for a shoe to be considered a slipper is having a fuzzy sole. Meaning that by slapping enough felt to the bottom—which eventually deteriorates with a few wears—the company was able to save a ton of money on import taxes.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the images associated with the Converse Chuck Taylor patent, they look a lot more slipper-esque than the sneakers you’ll see on their website.

converse, trump tariffsA sneaker in slipper's clothing. patentimages.storage.googleapis.com

This also kind of explains how Converse can boast of the slip resistance of their shoes, when anyone who’s worn a new pair of Chuck Taylors in the rain—and proceeded to bust their ass—can tell you that is definitely not true. For that issue, GearPatrol suggests using sandpaper to slough off “the hairy bits.”

The whole fuzzy sole loophole is a prime example of “tariff engineering,” which, unlike, say, tax evasion, is a legal way of avoiding higher import rates, usually by redesigning a product—like tweaking the materials or structure, or breaking it into smaller values to qualify for a tariff exemption.

An even stranger example of tariff engineering is brought to you by Disney. As explained in Slash Film, the company, which owns Marvel, had its X-Men action figures classified as toys representing “non-human characters,” since apparently human “dolls” are taxed at a higher rate. A bit of an odd move, considering the entire overarching theme of X-Men. But probably not Disney’s most egregious sin committed in order to make more money.

As Donald Trump’s second term approaches, tariff talk, and its potential consequences, has been all a flutter. The President-elect has said the goal would be to impose a 25% tariff on all items imported from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China, possibly affecting electronics, clothing, household appliances, furniture, footwear and travel goods.

Considering that Jonathan Gold, Vice President for supply chains and customs policy at the National Retail Federation, mentioned tariffs for toys specifically would be going from a "practically 0% tariff rate” to upwards of 36% to 56%, it seems that the X-Men are going to feel a much bigger blow than any sneakers will. Although, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Disney and various other companies finding more clever ways of skirting the system as to not upset their profits. Cause after all, isn’t that what capitalism’s all about?