[K2h]

kcal may still be a kcal when verified in a bomb calorimeter - I believe for food they do it the same way everyone else does it: Put it in pure oxygen atmosphere, and light that baby on fire, measure the increase in temperature in a controlled environment, and the 'heat' produced is expressed in kcal.

now, my body does not have an active flame, and I don't have a combustion engine in my stomach. I use a (mysterious to me) metabolic process to convert what I eat into energy that my body can use.

For me, an individuals metabolic rate may be roughly proportional to kcal intake, but it is not the same thing, and it is different for different food types, combinations, and for different people.

I liked the article - even though I am not a dietician, I do think there is something wrong about the Adkins diet.. not healthy.

[dnlhoust]

You are right that you have to adjust for metabolic rate; and while the content of your diet will have an effect on that rate (meaning getting an entirely accurate assessment of your expenditure is near impossible) the kcal value maintains;

I suppose it's my mentality that you adjust your eating habits based on your diet contents and its effect on metabolism, to match the kcal values, rather than viewing the kcal as an inconstant value.

Thank you, by the way. I enjoyed the opportunity to think though this

[K2h]

This dialog reminded me of a rumor I heard awhile ago about trying to measuring efficiency of Lance Armstrong (competitive cyclist). A brief search gave me [1], but I'm sure there are better articles out there. My big take away is that even with modern technology and understanding there is just so much we still don't fully understand - especially about the human body and processes.

[1] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-...