Slashdot Mirror
Calorie Burning Coke Coming Soon
The Fun Guy writes "Coca-Cola and Nestle are getting together to introduce a new beverage "proven to burn calories". Enviga will be in the U.S. Northeast in November, nationwide in January 2007. How does it burn calories? With green tea extracts, calcium, and caffeine. No word on how many milligrams caffeine per can. "
If it is ice cold then your body must burn calories to warm it up to 98.2 F / or 36.8 C (the REAL average human body temperature - 98.6 is what you get when you round 36.8C upto 37C then convert Farenhiet).
One calorie (phyics) will raise one gram of water one degree. 454 grams = 16 ounces. So to raise 16 ounces of ice cold water from 0.8 C to 36.8 takes 36*454= 16,344 calories. But please note when talking about food, what we call a calorie is actually what a physicist calls a KILOcalorie, so we do the conversion and:
Drinking one nearly ice cold water 16 ounce bottle of water will burn about 16 calories.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Every month in wired there's an "found: artifacts from the future" picture. a few months ago it featured a soft drink product with negative calories.
Also there is a food already available that for all intents and purposes contains negative calories: Celery
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
Diet Pepsi Slurpees have been out for about three years now. A 32-ounce drink has essentially zero calories, and since it's mostly ice, it should take about 100 calories to drink one:
900 grams of Slurpee * 80 cal/g (to melt the ice to 0 celsius) = 72000
900 grams of Slurpee * 1 cal/g/degree * 37 degrees (to raise the fluid to body heat) = 33596
total 105596 calories or 105 Kcal (the food calorie)
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Drinking coke is associated with lower bone density in women. So if you don't like the prosprect of brittle bones in old age (osteoporosis), you may want to drink something else.
I'm pretty sure the negative calories comes from the energy required to break it down so you can metabolize what energy it DOES contain. Squeezing all the juice out kind of defeats the purpose.
...post-graduate work?
Two post-docs and a current appointment as a research assistant professor. Is that good enough for you?
First off, your sentence is broken because you inserted "obtained" recklessly.
Typo, so sue me. This is Slashdot after all.... But the sentiment of the statement and overall construction stands.
Secondly, your position disagrees with Snopes.
And Snopes is the end all be all? Seriously though, there are other things like celery that we *could* eat, that will be indigestible and will cause you some effort to pass. Think dirt. To be fair, you get this though from your point on Metamucil.
Thirdly, your use of the thermic effect of food is a bit wonky. 10% is, first off, an average estimate.
Thus my utilization of "*might*" in the original post. One always wonders how much effort to put into a post on Slashdot for fear of going beyond many readers.
Even drinking cold water causes you to burn calories. Your body ends up doing the work to bring the water up to body temperature. How would digesting a highly fibrous water-stalk not take effort?
Who is saying that it is not possible to alter basic metabolism? If you cause a system to perform work without putting energy back into it, there will be a net loss, but the original point of the Coca Cola beverage being touted as "burning calories" is pretty easy to get through the system. There is no fiber to digest, right?
Yes, celery has a few digestible kcals per stalk, but you more than outstrip that in digestion. Will those extra burned calories make a marked difference? God no, but you're still on the wrong side of the argument.
You appear to be arguing with somebody else here as again, there is no fiber or cellulose in Energia to digest. What they are claiming is that their drink upregulates metabolism and causes one to burn more calories because you consume Energia.
I certainly hope I never need any of your work.
I hope that you do not either as I study the effects of retinal degenerations and how to intervene to save vision loss. If you needed my primary work, then you'd be in trouble. That said, we are developing technologies in the metabolomic space that can be applied to many other applications from cancer research to heart disease, drug development, agaronomics and defense, so perhaps you *might* need them someday? You would likely not know it, but you very well may benefit from our work.
To be considered right in an argument, it helps to actually be right.
Don't be an ass. You have said nothing here that is really of substance other than arguing loose points that appear to be aimed at other people statements.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.