Are Calories 'Real'?
Why the calorie is a reductionistic fiction & how it suffocates our conception of energy.
If you asked anyone on the street how to lose weight, their first response would likely be to reduce caloric intake. This is almost always coupled with the idea of exercising more to ‘burn’ calories. It seems logical—if calorie intake exceeds usage, the surplus must be stored.
But what even is a calorie?
We've collectively accepted it as a foundational unit of energy in the body. Food labels highlight caloric content, treadmills display calories burned, and marketers create low-calorie foods with synthetic sweeteners.
Yet, two fundamental questions in the caloric paradigm remain largely unexamined:
- What is a calorie?
- Does the human body regulate weight by a linear counting method?
What is a calorie?
To critique the caloric paradigm, we must first understand its origins. The concept of a calorie was first theorized in the early 19th century by French chemist Nicholas Clément. It was essential for thermodynamics and steam engines at the time. A calorie is defined as the energy required to raise 1 kg of water by 1°C. Later, physiologists like Max Rubner and Wilbur Atwater applied the idea to human metabolism.
But does this definition apply to human physiology? Bluntly, it does not! Even Rubner himself doubted that all calories had equal metabolic consequences. Yet, the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" persists, morphing into the widely accepted CICO (Calories In, Calories Out) model.
Food caloric content is measured using a bomb calorimeter—a device that burns food and measures the temperature change in surrounding water.
“A sample of food is placed in an insulated, oxygen-filled chamber surrounded by water. This chamber is called a bomb calorimeter. The sample is burned completely, and the heat generated raises the water’s temperature, determining the calorie content.”
This method makes sense in thermodynamics, but it hardly applies to the human body—a vastly complex system. If people knew how calories were actually measured, they might question the idea that weight is determined by ‘caloric balance.’ Yet, culturally, we have accepted the outdated notion that the body is merely a biological abacus, regulating adiposity in the most linear way possible. Even the phrase ‘burning calories’ is a relic of steam engine thermodynamics.
Calories as a unit of measurement are ‘real’ because we define them as such. However, they cannot be applied beyond the reductionist framework in which they were conceived. At best, the calorie is a useful fiction—a rough estimate of energy intake. But nutrition may be better off abandoning the term entirely, as it obscures the complexity of human metabolism. Calories do not ‘exist’ outside of our conceptualization of them.
“The idea that nature is governed by simple, knowable laws seemed to be a perfect example of anthropocentric foolishness.”
— Ilya Prigogine on Joseph Needham's Science and Society
Does the body regulate weight by calorie counting?
Adiposity, weight distribution, and bioenergetics are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, not just food intake. The obesity epidemic is not solely due to excessive calorie consumption. Processed foods have concentrated refined fats and carbohydrates, making it appear as though calories are the problem.
Even if calories were ‘real,’ the body does not function in a linear manner. Weight regulation is influenced by factors like light exposure, sleep quality, nutritional status, electromagnetic environment, psychological state, and more. The "eat less, exercise more" mantra ignores this complexity.
“The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be: Seek simplicity—and distrust it.”
— Alfred North Whitehead
The calorie paradigm ignores nutrient density and food quality. It promotes the false notion that all calories are equal, contradicting Rubner’s own research. No one would claim that 100 calories from candy has the same metabolic effect as 100 calories from vegetables, yet that is the implicit assumption of calorie-based nutrition.
Moreover, calorie counting can be harmful. It fosters unhealthy relationships with food, contributing to disordered eating. Food should be enjoyed and cherished, not feared.
The body does not regulate fat storage based on a centuries-old unit of heat. Many people overconsume calories without gaining fat, while others eat little but struggle to lose weight due to poor environmental conditions. This is often attributed to ‘fast’ or ‘slow’ metabolisms, which have some scientific basis.
Consider migratory birds—they travel vast distances without refueling. This challenges conventional notions of energy balance.
Why PureClean Performance Stands Apart
We understand that health isn’t about obsessively counting calories—it’s about giving your body the right kind of fuel. Calories reduce food to a number, but real nutrition is about quality, not just quantity. That’s why our formulas, created by Dr. Cohen, are built on real, whole-food ingredients that nourish your body at a deeper level.
PureClean Performance isn’t about cutting corners or restricting numbers—it’s about optimizing how your body actually works. When you fuel yourself with the right nutrients, you don’t need to micromanage calories. Our science-backed approach supports energy, recovery, and performance without the suffocating limits of outdated calorie-based thinking.
Summary
- Calories are widely used in discussions on weight management, yet most people don’t actually understand what they are.
- A calorie is a thermodynamic unit from the 19th century, defined as the energy needed to heat 1 kg of water by 1°C. It is relevant to steam engines, not human metabolism.
- Calories do not ‘exist’ as a fundamental property of food. They are a conceptual tool derived from non-living systems.
- Weight regulation is not determined solely by caloric balance but by a constellation of environmental and physiological factors.
- The calorie-centric model parasitized public thinking, reducing the body to a biological abacus and stalling research into critical determinants of metabolic health like light exposure, sleep, and environmental stressors.
- Calorie counting is oversimplistic and reductionist, potentially causing harm by obscuring the true complexity of human physiology.
A Wonderful Guest Post, Content Inspired by Cameron Borg