Imbalance in energy values of meat

[Sly]

I have noticed some issues in the gameplay that inaccurately simulate some aspects.

Here they are:

2. There are obvious imbalance issues in energetic values of the food.

What is wrong: the energy count per 100 g of cooked meat varies from about 109 kcal (Grilled Fish), 158 kcal (deer meat) to 173 kcal (wild rabbit meat), so apparently there is wrong count when 1 kg of deer meat is worth just 800 kcal (it is very low, even if counting "net kcalories" in some way); then there is imbalance between different sorts of meat: in the game 1 kg of rabbit meat worth 460 kcal or somewhat like that, 1 kg of deer meat - 800 kcal (which is barely reflects situation observed in real life as concerning the numbers as the relation between them - i do not think that geomagnetic disaster makes such changes).

Source of information about kcalories count is USDA, proof-links are below.

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutri ... nt=100.000

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/

deer-meat-(cooked-roasted)?portionid=61315&portionamount=100.000

http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/

wild-rabbit-meat-(cooked-stewed)?portionid=61331&portionamount=100.000

Suggestions:

- to adjust energy values of meat according to information available and easy accessible in different web sites such as http://www.caloriecount.com, http://www.fatsecret.com/ or http://www.nutritiondata.self.com;

- make the difference between raw/cold and cooked/heated food (e.g. now there is no difference between cold canned beans and cooked canned beans - so what is the point to cook them? - but if to make cooked beans to have more "net calories" - and the reason appears*

*Lets assume that we heated the can of food from 0 to 75 Celsius (75 C is not too hot to eat, isn`t it?). Knowing that 1 kal is energy that is needed to raise the temperature of 1 g of water by 1 degree Celsius. Lets assume that can of beans (500 g) is equal about 500 g of water. Therefore 500*75=37 500 cal = 37.5 kcal. It is too small amount, lets make it 50?

For example, can of "Beans, baked, canned, with beef" are about 500 g * 120 kcal = 600 kcal. So lets them be worth 550 "net kcal" in cold condition and 600 "net kcal" in heated state.

Sorry form my bad English but i hope, i made my thoughts straight.

How do you like it?

[Hesha]

I do agree that the kcal values for meat are off. Quite a bit in fact.

Heating food, however, does not increase the foods caloric value. The way the calories in food is measured is to extract the water from the food and burn what's left. This would be the same, whether you start with warm or cold food. In one instance you might be right, though. In order to digest food that is cold (let's say 4°C), the body needs to expend energy to heat the food to an appropriate temperature (I guess somewhere in the upper 30s). This makes food less efficient, energy wise.

I think you might have misread the increase in the caloric value when cooking meat. Cooking meat, in addition to heating up the meat and making it easier to digest, removes water from the meat, thus making the meat lighter. 1kg of raw meat turns into 600-800g of cooked meat, depending on how you cooked it, how fatty the meat was and whether it was soaked in (salt)water like retailers like to do. Therefore the caloric value per 100g naturally goes up as water doesn't have any calories. When fat is used in cooking (frying, deep-frying, etc.) that might increase the caloric value further.

75°C is definitely too hot. I'd say a person who drank a can of 75°C warm tomato soup might die...

tl;dr: Yes, caloric values for most foods should be increased. But so should the amount of meat on various animals, etc.

[Sly]

Heating food, however, does not increase the foods caloric value. The way the calories in food is measured is to extract the water from the food and burn what's left. This would be the same, whether you start with warm or cold food. In one instance you might be right, though. In order to digest food that is cold (let's say 4°C), the body needs to expend energy to heat the food to an appropriate temperature (I guess somewhere in the upper 30s). This makes food less efficient, energy wise.

Yes, heating food does not increase the caloric value. Saying "net calories" i had that in my mind, how you have mentioned "body needs to expend energy to heat the food to an appropriate temperature"

I think you might have misread the increase in the caloric value when cooking meat. Cooking meat, in addition to heating up the meat and making it easier to digest, removes water from the meat, thus making the meat lighter. 1kg of raw meat turns into 600-800g of cooked meat, depending on how you cooked it, how fatty the meat was and whether it was soaked in (salt)water like retailers like to do. Therefore the caloric value per 100g naturally goes up as water doesn't have any calories. When fat is used in cooking (frying, deep-frying, etc.) that might increase the caloric value further.

Mostly agree with you on that.

The thing is that "laboratory" caloric value is measured after analyzing of consistency of proteins, fats, carbohydrates in the sample, then caloric value of each component (witch is known as 4 kcal for 1 g of protein and carbohydrate and 9 kcal for 1 g of fat.

Theoretically, one could measure food energy in different ways, using (say) the Gibbs free energy of combustion, or the amount of ATP generated by metabolizing the food. However, the convention is to use the heat of the oxidation reaction, with the water substance produced being in the liquid phase. Conventional food energy is based on heats of combustion in a bomb calorimeter and corrections that take into consideration the efficiency of digestion and absorption and the production of urea and other substances in the urine. The American chemist Wilbur Atwater worked these out in the late 19th century.

Each food item has a specific metabolizable energy intake (MEI). This value can be approximated by multiplying the total amount of energy associated with a food item by 85%, which is the typical amount of energy actually obtained by a human after respiration has been completed.

75°C is definitely too hot. I'd say a person who drank a can of 75°C warm tomato soup might die...

About too hot you may be wright.

But i strongly disagree about consequences of 75°C liquid.

At first - there are defense reflexes that preserve of drinking large amount of hot liquids or hot food intake. Even despite the reflexes, maximum damage may be some burns of thong, mouth and the throat, not lethal.

I am not certain about my next sentence, however drinking 0.5 liters of 100°C liquid probably may cause wide and partly deep internal burns, including the esophagus, and may even cause death because complications. But i have never saw such severe thermal burns for my over 6 years of practice in ICU. Chemical burns because of acid or alkali intake are much more common.

Update

...So Islami's team checked data from more than 48,000 local people who were served tea and indicated their preferred tea temperature, which was checked by a digital thermometer.

The findings: 39% drank their tea at temperatures less than 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit), 39% drank their tea at 60-64 degrees Celsius (140-147 degrees Fahrenheit), and 22% drank their tea at 65 degrees Celsius (149 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher.

Hot beverages such as tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are frequently served at temperatures between 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C).

The preferred drinking temperature of coffee is specified in the literature as 140+/-15 degrees F (60+/-8.3 degrees C) for a population of 300 subjects. A linear (with respect to temperature) figure of merit merged the two effects to identify an optimal drinking temperature of approximately 136 degrees F (57.8 degrees C). The analysis points to a reduction in the presently recommended serving temperature of coffee to achieve the combined result of reducing the scald burn hazard and improving customer satisfaction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454

It has been argued that the temperature of hot foods and drinks may fall rapidly in the mouth and oropharynx so that it cannot cause thermal injury to the esophageal mucosa.2 To test this hypothesis, De Jong and colleagues measured intraesophageal temperature after consuming hot drinks. The results of their study showed that drinking hot beverages could substantially increase the intra-esophageal temperature and this increase was a function of the initial drinking temperature and more importantly, the size of the sip.3 For example, drinking 65 °C coffee increased the intra-esophageal temperature by 6–12 °C, depending on the sip size.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773211/

And

Hot Water Causes Third Degree Burns…

…in 1 second at 156º = 69

…in 2 seconds at 149º = 65C

…in 5 seconds at 140º = 60C

…in 15 seconds at 133º = 56C.

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/ ... fm?c=1&a=3

So i must accept, that i underestimated the danger of 75ºC, and now i agree that a person who drank a can of 75°C warm tomato soup really might die...

[Hesha]

Wow, you are very thourough! My reasoning was that the burns caused by drinking a whole can of 75°C warm soup would make your throat swell up and suffocate you... but there might be different causes.