2000 Calories

[Steppenpig]

1.9 kg chicken

1.5 kg beef (1.2 ~1.7 kg)

0.9 kg salmon

2.7 kg cod

0.9 kg fish fingers

1.5 kg eggs (25 to 38 eggs)

0.5 kg cheddar

0.8 kg feta

0.6 kg brie

2.9 kg cottage cheese

0.3 kg peanuts

0.27 kg butter

225 ml oil

0.5 kg rice (uncooked)

0.6 kg pasta (uncooked)

0.8 kg bread

0.8 kg pizza

2.9 kg potatoes

6.7 kg carrots

2.5 kg bananas (40 small ~ 20 large)

5.6 kg oranges

1.0 kg ice cream (2 litres)

0.4 kg fancy biscuits, cake, chocolate

0.5 kg plain biscuits, cake

3.0 l milk

3.9 l semi skimmed

4.5 l skimmed

4.2 l orange juice

1.0 l vodka

0.9 l liqueur

0.6 l baileys

2.9 l wine

4.8 l beer

[Steppenpig]

I know, I'm getting a bit desparate. I don't think I can be bothered with calorie counting, but thought it might be useful to see how much I would need to eat to get my daily requirement. (leaving a bit of room to spare)

Surprising that bread is just as bad as pizza. I can put away a 300g baguette in a single session. i might as well eat a pizza every meal

Peanuts look dangerous (old figures, as mentioned elsewhere previously, calories in peanuts probably exaggerated, but definitely dangerous). Also salmon. And cheese.

Ice cream probably surprisingly undangerous. And eggs.

[MrPin]

I had a giant extra-whopper meal at a service station recently! It proudly proclaimed over 2000 calories! I couldn't finish it all!

[happy_renting]

1.9 kg chicken

1.5 kg beef (1.2 ~1.7 kg)

0.9 kg salmon

2.7 kg cod

0.9 kg fish fingers

1.5 kg eggs (25 to 38 eggs)

0.5 kg cheddar

0.8 kg feta

0.6 kg brie

2.9 kg cottage cheese

0.3 kg peanuts

0.27 kg butter

225 ml oil

0.5 kg rice (uncooked)

0.6 kg pasta (uncooked)

0.8 kg bread

0.8 kg pizza

2.9 kg potatoes

6.7 kg carrots

2.5 kg bananas (40 small ~ 20 large)

5.6 kg oranges

1.0 kg ice cream (2 litres)

0.4 kg fancy biscuits, cake, chocolate

0.5 kg plain biscuits, cake

3.0 l milk

3.9 l semi skimmed

4.5 l skimmed

4.2 l orange juice

1.0 l vodka

0.9 l liqueur

0.6 l baileys

2.9 l wine

4.8 l beer

That's one hell of a recipe.

[Steppenpig]

I had a giant extra-whopper meal

I limited my list to "food".

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

That's one hell of a recipe.

If that's just breakfast, I can't wait till lunch.

[Steppenpig]

I can't wait till lunch.

142 kg celery

[erat_forte]

Is this calories measured in a calorimeter or actual bio-available calories when eaten?

[oracle]

That's one hell of a recipe.

the last bit will make one kick-ass trifle

just add 1 packet of sponge fingers and some raspberry jelly

(fwiw i prefer the sponge fingers soaked in DECENT liquer,maybe brandy,-remy martin will suffice, or cointreau for a proper dessert!).with oodles of whipped cream.

remy martin for the full on fruit trifle.

cointreau for the summer barbecue with orange/lemon party sliced sugary things and some canned fruit salad thrown in with the jelly.(citrus falvour best)

if you are going the cheapskate route cherry brandy work with the winter friuts/berries.

I did a "mulled wine" trifle at christmas for afters instead of pudding.....it was f***ing ace!!

[GinAndPlatonic]

1.5 kg eggs (25 to 38 eggs)

cool hand luke would have no problem with them

[Wurzel Of Highbridge]

cointreau for the summer barbecue with orange/lemon party sliced sugary things and some canned fruit salad thrown in with the jelly.(citrus falvour best)

I like Cointreau in my coffee, but not for breakfast. First drank that in Portugal last summer.

[anonguest]

Is this calories measured in a calorimeter or actual bio-available calories when eaten?

I've actually wondered about this in the past. My understanding has been that the calories shown on packets of food are measured by literally burning the stuff and accurately measuring the heat produced, etc. Or does it?

Obviously there will be some stuff in the food that our bodies cannot digest/extract the theoretical energy from. So do those calories quoted on a packet of food make adjustment for the type of food (i.e some foods contain higher proportion of stuff from which our bodies can extract the energy contained in it) ? or are they really just the values for the total 'burn' energy value? If the latter than I wonder if there is some reasonably universal 'adjustment factor' one can apply to the calorie content values quoted. For example would the true amount of actual calories extracted by the average healthy adult be, say, 90% of the amount quoted on the labels.

[Neptune]

I've actually wondered about this in the past. My understanding has been that the calories shown on packets of food are measured by literally burning the stuff and accurately measuring the heat produced, etc. Or does it?

Obviously there will be some stuff in the food that our bodies cannot digest/extract the theoretical energy from. So do those calories quoted on a packet of food make adjustment for the type of food (i.e some foods contain higher proportion of stuff from which our bodies can extract the energy contained in it) ? or are they really just the values for the total 'burn' energy value? If the latter than I wonder if there is some reasonably universal 'adjustment factor' one can apply to the calorie content values quoted. For example would the true amount of actual calories extracted by the average healthy adult be, say, 90% of the amount quoted on the labels.

Havent they recently had to start including fibre as part of the calorific total in foods. F%ck you Kellogs you grain peddler, Special K what a con.

But I am sure the results of calorie absorption would vary a lot between individuals as well as different foods and even the other foods they are mixed with.

[Executive Sadman]

What about the glycemic stuff. I can get drunk every night for a fortnight and not put on a bit of weight...bit of bread the opposite.

[Steppenpig]

Is this calories measured in a calorimeter or actual bio-available calories when eaten?

What it says on the packet, or from various internet sites. I guess it's the theoretical maximum that the human body could extract, but it seems to be generally accepted by nutritionists that the two are equivalent, apart from forementioned peanuts, which are apparrently being reassessed.

By the way, if anyone's eaten it all already, then you have to go without for a month. The plan is, to pick one item and eat that and nothing but for the day. However, I think some things would be almost impossible to eat on their own, so I will accept slight deviations. I'm going to try and eat half a kilo (dry weight) haricot beans with a tin of tomatoes and an onion, and tomorrow half a kilo rice with cucumber and a few pickles. Or maybe even 600g bread plus 100g marmelade plus 25 g butter. (Amazingly, bread has as muany if not more calories than marmelade per g)

[frozen_out]

I've actually wondered about this in the past. My understanding has been that the calories shown on packets of food are measured by literally burning the stuff and accurately measuring the heat produced, etc. Or does it?

Obviously there will be some stuff in the food that our bodies cannot digest/extract the theoretical energy from. So do those calories quoted on a packet of food make adjustment for the type of food (i.e some foods contain higher proportion of stuff from which our bodies can extract the energy contained in it) ? or are they really just the values for the total 'burn' energy value? If the latter than I wonder if there is some reasonably universal 'adjustment factor' one can apply to the calorie content values quoted. For example would the true amount of actual calories extracted by the average healthy adult be, say, 90% of the amount quoted on the labels.

I mentioned this on the fat thread, the answer is no, digestible calories aren't measured. It;s a study that needs to be done, essentially by measuring the calories contained in excrement.

As it happens there are numerous studies on digestible calories in animal feed.

[oracle]

I mentioned this on the fat thread, the answer is no, digestible calories aren't measured. It;s a study that needs to be done, essentially by measuring the calories contained in excrement.

As it happens there are numerous studies on digestible calories in animal feed.

so you are saying in order to go green we need not worry too much about windmills,and have a recycling "dump-point" at tesco where everyone can take a crap and get cashback for the calorific content of their doo-doo which can be used to power the facility

makes a bit of a change from clubcard points, but I think the concept's got legs!!

welcome to futurejustice.gov.(reg 2022/03)

crimes are now being depicted and sentence in terms of energy, or separation thereof..it was determined that on a personal basis the accused,accusers and also jury were expending more energy than is prudent worrying about the emotional complexities of the crime, than the pure scientific fact that it is energy that is being transferred to another state that in our present habitat is not useful to us, so we must legislate for crimes that deny society of the energy mass which would otherwise have been applied within,and contributed to that societal framework,both present and future.

you been convicted of benefit fraud..seeing as you're so fat I sentence you to 200KW energy repletion on the treadmill!!

(at 300 w/h average capacity for a decent workout that;s sort of 700 hrs consistent community service on a rowing machine hooked up to a dynamo!)

you have 6 months to complete the sentence,before penalty clauses take effect.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

But I am sure the results of calorie absorption would vary a lot between individuals as well as different foods and even the other foods they are mixed with.

As already mentioned in one of the earlier big fat fat threads, not only is there a 'mechanical' issue, think peanuts (and, of course, sweet corn) but different food types; fat, protein, carbs, consume different amounts of energy in the digestion process. It's also going to vary depending on if and how they're cooked.

e.g. Science Reveals Why Calorie Counts Are All Wrong

To accurately calculate the total calories that someone gets out of a given food, you would have to take into account a dizzying array of factors, including whether that food has evolved to survive digestion; how boiling, baking, microwaving or flambéing a food changes its structure and chemistry; how much energy the body expends to break down different kinds of food; and the extent to which the billions of bacteria in the gut aid human digestion and, conversely, steal some calories for themselves.

Edit: as a result of mention of the role of gut bacteria in one of the earlier threads, I recently scored some 'mother vinegar' off a relative and have two tubs of surplus homebrew festering away. I doubt the product is going to make me thinner or extend my span but I do enjoy the festering.