Hot food = more energy for your body?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Body Energy Food Hot
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around whether heating food increases its nutritional value and energy for the body compared to consuming the same food at a lower temperature. Participants explore various aspects of digestion, energy transfer, and the effects of food temperature on the body.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that heated food may provide more energy due to the larger potential energy stored in the bonds of the food that has been heated.
  • Others argue that by the time food is digested, it has cooled to body temperature, making the initial temperature less significant for energy extraction.
  • One participant suggests that extremely cold or hot food could damage the digestive tract, leading to energy expenditure for repair and temperature regulation.
  • Another viewpoint is that heating food can induce chemical changes that may reduce its nutritional value, as some nutrients may decompose or become less accessible.
  • Some participants mention that the temperature of food could affect calorie expenditure in different climates, with warm food potentially reducing energy needed for body temperature maintenance in cold environments.
  • There is a discussion about the analogy of fossil fuels and the energy from gravitational pressure, with some participants questioning the validity of this analogy in relation to food energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the impact of food temperature on energy absorption and nutritional value, with no consensus reached on the overall question. Multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about digestion processes and the effects of temperature on chemical reactions, which are not fully resolved within the discussion.

  • #31
Reshma said:
Umm...I have read cooking certain food stuffs like carrots and tomatoes actually increases their vitamin content. :smile:

This is most certainly true.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
@pivoxa15

Andrew Mason said:
Not a very scientific approach. Since humans don't work as well when drinking gasoline does that mean that gasoline contains less energy than milk?

Is it that there is more energy in fossil fuel or is it that the energy is more accessible?

AM


Interesting question.

Since fossil fuels are simple Hydrocarbons they are all carbon backbones with Hydrogen atoms attached. For example, the simplest fossil fuel is Methane (C1H4), which is one Carbon surrounded by four Hydrogens. The next simplest is Ethane (C2H6), then Propane (C3H8), Butane, Pentance, Hexane, Heptane, Octance, etc...

To give you more perspective on the word Fossil Fuels, it includes all of these:

- Natural gas (C1-C4)
- Straight-run gasoline (C5-C11)
- Kerosene (C11-C14)
- Gas oil (C14-C25)

With this in mind, to answer your question, live plants have their Hydrocarbon content locked into complex molecules that they use for biological function, so that the hydrocarbons are not found isolated in any part of the plant. For example, a live plant may have compounds in it that have the basic hydrocarbon backbone structure to them, but they are also attached to atoms like Phosphorus, Nitrogen, Oxygen, etc. Whereas, dead plants which have been buried under heavy pressure for millions of years, have two factors that contribute to their liberation of their hydrocarbons; namely Decay, and Heat/Pressure. Both of these factors combined, over sufficient time, help to break the atomic bonds of a plant's hydrocarbon compounds and break off any undesirable residues like the atoms mentioned above, so that a purer, more combustable hydrocarbon emerges.


As a side note, the best fuels have high octane numbers (100 = best, 0 = worst). Octane number is determined prinipally by how 'branced' a hydrocarbon is. For example, Heptane (C7-H16) is a straight line of carbons that looks like this C-C-C-C-C-C-C and has an awful octane number of 0. While, 2,2,4-Tirmethylpentane (C8-H18) has three branches and has a perfect octane number of 100. For this reason, unbranched hydrocarbons are 'catalytically cracked' into smaller pieces and then recombined into larger branched hydrocarbons that are more useful as fuel.

Hope this helps.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
984
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K