Energy is Good, Calories are Bad

Everybody knows that energy is good for you and calories are bad for you. What newagers, health nuts and alties seem to be completely ignorant of is that both words originate in physics and that they refer to the same thing.

Energy “is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force”. It can be measured in various units, in the context of food usually kilocalories. A Snickers bar contains about 150 kilocalories, which is equal to the energy content of about 20 ml of gasoline.

Both energy content estimates of course refer to the amount of chemical energy you get out of the stuff when using it to fuel the pertinent piece of machinery, viz a car engine for gasoline and a human body for Snickers bars. The atomic energy content is way, way greater, but we haven’t got the technology to run nuclear power plants on chocolate just yet.

Oh, and you know when newagers speak of “spiritual energy”? It’s a meaningless phrase.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Energy is Good, Calories are Bad

  1. I fully support the snickers reactor concept. The old 1950’s-era twinkie reactors have proven unsafe and uneconomical.

    No, seriously, my autofilter needs tweaking. Not sure how it assigned high correlation to nuclear energy for this post.

    I will bite my tongue and not comment on newagers and electrical energy.

    Like

  2. I’ve always been amazed by the use of physics, or phrases which sound scientific amongst the various new age types. I’ve been honest here before and I’ll be honest again: I believe in God. I realize I can’t prove his existence. I don’t believe in ghosts, nor do I believe in a controlling God. My point? Claiming to believe in energy fields, frequencies, etc, is nothing more than ghosts, telekinesis, ESP re-done with a few words of scientific jargon thrown into to give them greater credibility. I do believe in God. But, I’ve got the where with all to seperate my spirituality from my explainations of the physical world.

    Like

  3. Spiritual energy is an oxymoron. Spiritual by definition is non-physical. Ergo: spiritual “energy” would violate the principle of physical causal closure and the first law of thermodynamics.

    Like

  4. People often use “energy” to describe a mood – basically the opposite of lethargy and fatigue. Perhaps that’s imprecise, but it’s not superstitious. And it’s generally not in conflict with weight-loss motivated calorie limiting!

    Like

  5. I don’t see what’s so bad about people using “energy” to mean something different than what it means in science. What makes the scientific definition the only a most pure definition of a term? We often use words like “error” and “random” in science to denote the opposite of what we’d mean if we used the same words in a philosophy discussion.

    Like

  6. I have read that sleeping with your feet on the floor fills up your body with cosmic energy. Do you mean to say that this is not true? It would be a relief in a way because it is very uncomfortable but I would miss the energy. Could a Snickers bar compensate for this?

    Like

  7. I once read a letter in a climbing magazine asking for advice about “high energy, low calorie” foods… Clearly our education system isn’t working properly.

    Like

  8. I like your advice about sleeping with feet on a Snickers bar, Martin. That’s probably the best thing to do with Snickers bars. As for “spiritual energy,” that’s as meaningful as using the Chinese word “chi” untranslated, which is sometimes used for the same purpose. Or we could use the older English word “ghost.” Or my granny’s expression, “haint” (which is to say, the standard word “haunt” which meant the same thing as “ghost”). Whatever! We don’t believe in science in the U.S., Martin. We do believe in flying saucers, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, ESP, ghosts and haints that haunt cemeteries and attics, and assorted other imponderables that scientists can’t discover. Why? Because we can’t teach science in school here. Why? Because they have to teach Creationism instead. Why? Don’t ask so many questions!

    Like

  9. “Oh, and you know when newagers speak of ‘spiritual energy’? It’s a meaningless phrase.”

    That’s mighty Logical Positivist of you. 🙂

    It really isn’t a meaningless phrase – people clearly use it to communicate in various manners. It’s just that it doesn’t have a referent. You wouldn’t say that “unicorn” is a meaningless word, now would you?

    Like

  10. Haha, good point! What I meant is that we can speak of things that exist and whose characteristics we know (e.g. Snickers bars), fictional things whose characteristics we agree upon (e.g. unicorns), things that exist but which we don’t know much about, and finally fictional things whose characteristics we can’t agree upon. Spiritual energy, I argue, belongs to the latter category.

    Like

  11. Your typology has an uncanny similarity to the famous one of Donald Rumsfeld:

    As we know,
    There are known knowns.
    There are things we know we know.
    We also know
    There are known unknowns.
    That is to say
    We know there are some things
    We do not know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns,
    The ones we don’t know
    We don’t know.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s