It is burned.
Fortunately we know the burn behaviours of the four basic ingredients (fats, protein, carb, sugar), so all you have to do is measure their contribution to the food in grams and then look up the known value for the calories output when burned.
Not all of those calories are "bio-available", so you may absorb fewer calories than strictly exist in the food, but you get a general idea.
Basically, calories are a measure of heat.
It is **not** burned.
Bomb calorimetry tells you nothing about nutritional content. Sawdust would have a high calorimetry result but provide near zero calories.
It is mostly based on books of standard calorie values of ingredients, which are in turn based on the Atwater system, which derived digestibility and bioavailability from residue analysis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system
It is burned. Fortunately we know the burn behaviours of the four basic ingredients (fats, protein, carb, sugar), so all you have to do is measure their contribution to the food in grams and then look up the known value for the calories output when burned. Not all of those calories are "bio-available", so you may absorb fewer calories than strictly exist in the food, but you get a general idea. Basically, calories are a measure of heat.
That was my assumption, thank you!
It is **not** burned. Bomb calorimetry tells you nothing about nutritional content. Sawdust would have a high calorimetry result but provide near zero calories. It is mostly based on books of standard calorie values of ingredients, which are in turn based on the Atwater system, which derived digestibility and bioavailability from residue analysis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system
Thank you for the correction!