Welcome to the AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler! Please read The Newbie Guide To Absolute Write

Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: caloric value vs calorie value

  1. #1
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953

    caloric value vs calorie value

    Is there anything wrong with the calorie value of a meal?

    Caloric value of a meal is used 10 times more often than calorie value, according to Google site:gov search.

  2. #2
    God of the Oceans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Oceans
    Posts
    2,843
    Yes, there is a problem using "calorie" there. "Calorie" is a noun; "caloric" is the appropriate adjective.

  3. #3
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953
    Is this OK?

    Caloric value of a meal
    Caloric density of a meal
    Calorie content of a meal

  4. #4
    God of the Oceans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Oceans
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    Is this OK?

    Calorie value of a meal
    Calorie density of a meal
    Caloric content of a meal
    The first two should also be "caloric", because they are adjectives modifying "value" and "density".

    I most prefer the third, referring to the calories in a meal as the content. But caloric value is sometimes used. I have never before seen "caloric density".

  5. #5
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953
    I've just changed my post during your posting; it was my mistake. I believe my examples are now correct.

    All three terms can be synonyms; I'm not asking which one to use, but is it "e" or "c" on the end of each one.
    Last edited by boron; 02-07-2013 at 11:22 PM.

  6. #6
    Benefactor Member Roxxsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost in space. And meaning.
    Posts
    8,207
    Also, when referring to food calories (i.e. you are discussing how many Calories a cookie has), you should capitalize the C.

    This is because a small" calorie is the amount of heat it takes to raise 1 ml of water 1 degree kelvin (about 4.2 joules), while a Calorie ("food Calorie, or kilocalorie), is the amount of heat it takes to raise k l (1000ml) of water 1 degree kelvin.

    Food packaging gives caloric values in Calories, (which are really kilocalories).

    The adjectives (caloric) would not be capitalized.

    I think it would be more correct to say "caloric value" than "Calorie value," as "Calorie" is a noun.
    Please excuse me, I was raised by wolves.

    My twitter - My FB - My blog

  7. #7
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953
    Yes, caloric value and calorie content are expressed in kilocalories or Calories and I still haven't decided which one to use, because in more technical writing they are usually kilocalories...I'm just worried someone could be confused.

    Caloric density is expressed in kilocalories per unit of volume or weight.
    Last edited by boron; 02-08-2013 at 12:14 AM.

  8. #8
    A bit of a wallflower absitinvidia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Earth-that-was
    Posts
    1,013
    move along, nothing to see here . . .
    Last edited by absitinvidia; 02-08-2013 at 01:02 AM. Reason: thought better of it

  9. #9
    God of the Oceans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Oceans
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    I've just changed my post during your posting; it was my mistake. I believe my examples are now correct.

    All three terms can be synonyms; I'm not asking which one to use, but is it "e" or "c" on the end of each one.
    The expressions are more or less equivalent, but I think that "caloric content" is the easiest to understand, but "caloric value" isn't bad. "Caloric density" seems clumsy to me. In all three cases it should end with a "c", because they are adjectives.

  10. #10
    Benefactor Member Roxxsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost in space. And meaning.
    Posts
    8,207
    Quote Originally Posted by King Neptune View Post
    The expressions are more or less equivalent, but I think that "caloric content" is the easiest to understand, but "caloric value" isn't bad. "Caloric density" seems clumsy to me. In all three cases it should end with a "c", because they are adjectives.
    I think caloric density would properly refer to the number of calories per gram, as opposed to the total number of calories in something. For instance, butter has greater caloric density than sugar. Not sure how commonly it's used in nutrition literature though.
    Please excuse me, I was raised by wolves.

    My twitter - My FB - My blog

  11. #11
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953
    Caloric density is a proper technical term. For example, foods with high caloric density (calories/gram) pass through the stomach slower than foods with low caloric density.
    Last edited by boron; 02-08-2013 at 02:04 PM.

  12. #12
    God of the Oceans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Oceans
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    Caloric density is a proper technical term. For example, foods with high caloric density (calories/gram) pass through the stomach slower than foods with low caloric density.
    I have never seen the phrase before, but I will admit that I am not a nutritionist.

  13. #13
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953
    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses both "calorie content" and "caloric content." Could it be that both uses are right? When you say "house windows", the "house" is adjective, isn't it? So why couldn't be the "calorie" in "calorie content" also an adjective?
    Last edited by boron; 02-09-2013 at 01:28 PM.

  14. #14
    Benefactor Member Roxxsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost in space. And meaning.
    Posts
    8,207
    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    Caloric density is a proper technical term. For example, foods with high caloric density (calories/gram) pass through the stomach slower than foods with low caloric density.
    Good to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses both "calorie content" and "caloric content" in their articles. Could it be that both uses are right? When you say "house windows", the "house" is adjective, isn't it? So why couldn't be the "calorie" in "calorie content" also an adjective?
    I'd guess that's exactly what this means. Could be that different nutrition and physiology focused journals have different "in house" rules for use as well.
    Please excuse me, I was raised by wolves.

    My twitter - My FB - My blog

  15. #15
    It's a doggy dog world benbradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Transcending Canines
    Posts
    20,311
    Quote Originally Posted by King Neptune View Post
    I have never seen the phrase before, but I will admit that I am not a nutritionist.
    I've heard caloric density in relation to caloric restriction (and CRON, Caloric Restriction with Optimim Nutrition).

    Actually, this page uses both "caloric restriction" and "calorie restriction:"
    http://www.crsociety.org/science/nia_monkey_study
    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses both "calorie content" and "caloric content" in their articles. Could it be that both uses are right? When you say "house windows", the "house" is adjective, isn't it? So why couldn't be the "calorie" in "calorie content" also an adjective?
    It seems to me either could be correct, but I'm thinking caloric would preferred, as it's specifically an adjective word made for the purpose. OTOH if you're writing for a general audience (as in Reader's Digest) rather than those with some knowledgeable in the health field, maybe calorie would be preferable.
    Ello.
    NaNoWriMo 2014: Unknown.
    Tweets daily or so.

  16. #16
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953
    Now, I think it's this:

    Caloric content = adjective + noun.
    Calorie content = two nouns.

    It seems to me that it also works with
    Caloric density and
    Calorie density

    but only with
    Caloric value and not
    Calorie value (because this would mean "value of calories," which is a nonsense, and not "value of a meal," as intended)

    The above logic doesn't seem to work with
    Energetic value, which is much more rarly used than
    Energy value, which is common.
    Last edited by boron; 02-09-2013 at 02:20 PM.

  17. #17
    God of the Oceans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Oceans
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    Now, I think it's this:

    Caloric content = adjective + noun.
    Calorie content = two nouns.

    It seems to me that it also works with
    Caloric density and
    Calorie density

    but only with
    Caloric value and not
    Calorie value (because this would mean "value of calories," which is a nonsense, and not "value of a meal," as intended)

    The above logic doesn't seem to work with
    Energetic value, which is much more rarly used than
    Energy value, which is common.
    I agree with your perspective here, and it agrees with what I wrote earlier, that it should be "caloric" for the simple reason that adjectives, not nouns, are used to modify nouns.

  18. #18
    A bit of a wallflower absitinvidia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Earth-that-was
    Posts
    1,013
    Quote Originally Posted by King Neptune View Post
    I agree with your perspective here, and it agrees with what I wrote earlier, that it should be "caloric" for the simple reason that adjectives, not nouns, are used to modify nouns.

    I think this is an overly strict interpretation. For example, you'd say protein content (not proteinaceous), sugar content (not sugary), salt content (not salty), etc.

  19. #19
    God of the Oceans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Oceans
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by absitinvidia View Post
    I think this is an overly strict interpretation. For example, you'd say protein content (not proteinaceous), sugar content (not sugary), salt content (not salty), etc.
    It would depend on the exact usage. I do not believe that I have ever said or written protein content or proteinaceous content, nor am I likely to, because that isn't something that people often communicate about, except perhaps nutritionists. Nor have I said either sugar content of sugary content, but I probably have asked, "How much sugar is in that crap?" I would have treated salt in a similar fashion. But I believe that I have said something along the lines of this has xxx calories in a serving according to the label. Perhaps we should have led Boron down the path of calories per serving; it is certainly more common information than caloric density at least in the U.S.

  20. #20
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953
    Again, my question is not which term (calorie content, value or density) to use, but is it grammatically correct to use caloric or calorie in examples provided.

    Caloric and calorie density are used in food studies and not in public health writing so, please, no worries about that.

    Content often goes with a noun, as absitinvidia above pointed out (sugar content and salt content), so I'm happy to go with calorie content.

    But I believe only caloric value, and not calorie value, is correct.

  21. #21
    God of the Oceans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Oceans
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    Again, my question is not which term (calorie content, value or density) to use, but is it grammatically correct to use caloric or calorie in examples provided.

    Caloric and calorie density are used in food studies and not in public health writing so, please, no worries about that.

    Content often goes with a noun, as absitinvidia above pointed out (sugar content and salt content), so I'm happy to go with calorie content.

    But I believe only caloric value, and not calorie value, is correct.
    Technical terms in many fields are not grammatical, so I try to avoid technical terms. I had this argument about terms in nutrition; we found a dictionary that cleared things up and demonstrated to him that he was trying to apply a technical term to general English.

  22. #22
    Health writer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by King Neptune View Post
    Technical terms in many fields are not grammatical
    Well, that would certainly explain the whole problem.

  23. #23
    God of the Oceans
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Oceans
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by boron View Post
    Well, that would certainly explain the whole problem.
    It sure does, especially when specialists in a field refuse to even try to translate into the general language.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Custom Search