Undergrad Uncovering the Mystery of Calorie Constants

  • Thread starter Thread starter barryj
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constants Mystery
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the calculation of calorie constants for carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, which are commonly accepted as 4 cal/gram, 4 cal/gram, and 9 cal/gram, respectively. An experiment was conducted using soup, peanut butter, and a protein mix, leading to unexpected results of 3.65, 10.391, and 5.85 for the calorie constants. The discrepancy arose from using incorrect total calorie values in the matrix equations. Adjusting the total calories to 78, 195, and 116 yielded expected results, illustrating the sensitivity of the solution to input values.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic nutrition and calorie content in food.
  • Familiarity with matrix equations and linear algebra.
  • Knowledge of geometric interpretation of equations in three-dimensional space.
  • Ability to perform calculations involving calories and macronutrient ratios.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore linear algebra concepts, specifically matrix solving techniques.
  • Investigate the nutritional composition of various food items using accurate labeling.
  • Learn about the implications of measurement errors in nutritional science.
  • Study the geometric interpretation of systems of equations in three dimensions.
USEFUL FOR

Nutritional scientists, dietitians, food technologists, and anyone interested in the accuracy of calorie calculations in food labeling.

barryj
Messages
856
Reaction score
51
When calculating calories of a food..
It is sort of well known that carbs have 4 cal/gram, protein has 4 cal/gram and fat has 9 cal/gram. I wanted to do an experiment to determine these constants 4,4,and 9

I looked at soup, peanut butter, and a protein mix to get the values from the labels per serving and the data is...

soup carb 13, prot 2, fat 2, calories 80 (78)
p butter carb 8, prot 7, fat 15, calories 190 (195)
mix carb 18, prot 2, fat 4, calories 110 (116)

Note: numbers in ( ) are calculated from the 4,4,9 values. These numbers are reasonably close to what was listed on the label

so I set up a matrix where a= cal/gram for carb, b = cal/gram for prot, and c = cal/gram for fat
The matrix is..

13a + 2b + 2c = 80
8a +7b +15c = 190
18a + 2b + 4c = 110

Solving I got a = 3.65, b = 10.391 really?, and c = 5.85 ?really.

My calculated values are not even close to what I expected, around 4,4,9

Does anybody know why this is?? I am really puzzled.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
barryj said:
so I set up a matrix where a= cal/gram for carb, b = cal/gram for prot, and c = cal/gram for fat
The matrix is..

13a + 2b + 2c = 80
8a +7b +15c = 190
18a + 2b + 4c = 110

Solving I got a = 3.65, b = 10.391 really?, and c = 5.85 ?really.

My calculated values are not even close to what I expected, around 4,4,9
In your matrix calculation, if you use the numbers you showed in parentheses (78, 195, 116), it comes out exactly as you would expect. This shouldn't be a surprise, as you used the values 4, 4, and 9 for the cal/g for carbs, protein, and fats. The seemingly relatively small change from (80, 190, 110) to (78, 195, 116) makes a fairly significant change in the solution, most notably on the value of your b variable (cal/g for protein).
Geometrically, you are working with three planes in space, and determining the point they have in common. By changing all three equations, even relatively slightly, you are changing the intersection point.