An Inaccurate Definition of Energy

We’re at a stage on our worldly timeline where we have explanations for almost everything.

A conundrum turns into a scientific paper, peer-reviewed by other fellow researchers to ensure its validity. Many of these topics do come with a sense of logic; others tend to be ripe for the dust bin after it is shredded into confetti.

Determining the electrostatic load, how much you can predict the path of a hurricane on its path of potential destruction, or how deep an ostrich can put his head in the ground after being chased through the Aussie outback.

We have estimates on many of Mother Nature’s ways of saying what’s naturally possible. From the outside, we dig deeper (no pun intended in connection with the ostrich) to unveil the truth so we have something to show to the world.

A full tank of gasoline gives us x amount of, hopefully, safe kilometres. We predict this based on how on average we allow the pedal to the metal or cruising down the street with the windows down. The engine and how we manipulate the throttle, the brakes, the gears, and the state of the engine determines the maximum reach.

We have some control over it, however what the manual states and the slick car salesman claims, we never hit that sweet spot.?

We externally ‘guess’ what internally sets the tone for maximum performance.

And I am not even talking about loading your 4-wheeled friend with premium or something that comes out of a former Coca Cola bottle. The latter is a common sight in the rural parts of Asia.

The same goes for what we know and define as a calorie. Hyped up as the unit to measure the energy we chew and swallow, we still firmly believe that what the label says is the truth. Our final straw on the road to dieting successfully and getting ample calories in our tummy before that much-promised fat churning commences.?

We often forget that a calorie is the creation of mankind. Agree, through science and the use of a bucketload of machines and laboratories, we can determine fairly accurately what an exact measure of 189 grams of broccoli with cheese sauce produces. The factors are fine-tuned to the millimetre, all aspects of its environment and test subjects have been rigorously put through the motions.?

No stone left unturned to get that caloric result.

But we live in a world where we are not able to measure calories accurately. We estimate it based on what models are used when eating and drinking outside the confines of university laboratories. The elements of sleep, stress, sickness, night or day, exercise or not, or being engulfed in social engagements with laughs and cries are omitted in those laboratory tests.

What you think you eat or drink, your body has simply no idea what a calorie is.?

We externally ‘guess’ what internally sets the tone for maximum performance.

How loaded this calorie is with macro- and micronutrients to come to this indication on your jar of spaghetti sauce always misses the caloric number printed on the side. That 350 calories is not a certainty because it is defined by what we believe is an estimate of what you may cook up and serve for dinner. You’re probably off between 20% to 50%, depending on the state of your internal engine (mind and body).

In the end, it is your GI tract that sets the tone for what it will do.

Not a food label.

If calories are the Holy Grail for you, and the diet you are following, just think about if you feel that 300 calories of chicken breast delivers the same nutritional qualities as 300 calories of strawberry cheesecake.

A calorie may give you an estimate, but it is not the Valhalla of what you really will metabolise to the last drop and use to get you lean or bulking up.?

Because a calorie is not a calorie.

?Life is just too short to count calories forever! | Debi Mazar