NYT - On Food Labels, Calorie Miscounts
foodiscomplicated
Posts: 85 Member
This story (by Philip J. Hilts) was published today, (04/28/15), in the New York Times.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=0
I suspect that many here will be interested in these findings.
The method most commonly used to assess the number of calories in foods is flawed, overestimating the energy provided to the body by proteins, nuts and foods high in fiber by as much as 25 percent, some nutrition experts say.
“The amount of calories a person gets from protein and fiber are overstated,” said Geoffrey Livesey, the head of Independent Nutrition Logic, a nutrition consulting company in Britain, and a nutrition consultant to the United Nations. “This is especially misleading for those on a high-protein, high-fiber diet, or for diabetics” who must limit their intake of carbohydrates.
An adult aiming to take in 2,000 calories a day on a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet may actually be consuming several hundred calories less, he and other experts said. Calorie estimates for junk foods, particularly processed carbohydrates, are more accurate.
The current calorie-counting system was created in the late 1800s by Wilbur Atwater, a scientist at the Department of Agriculture, and has been modified somewhat over the past 100 years. Researchers place a portion of food in a device called a calorimeter and burn it to see how much energy it contains. The heat is absorbed by water; one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.
DESCRIPTION
Well Quiz
The New Logic of Calorie-Counting
Can you determine which of these foods provide fewer calories than originally counted?
When experts talk about calories, however, they usually mean kilocalories; one kilocalorie equals 1,000 calories. Those are the amounts you see on food labels.
The system is most accurate when the foods are easily digested and all of their energy is made available to the body — as they are when consuming highly processed carbohydrates. But in the past few decades, scientists have begun to understand that a substantial number of calories are lost in the effort to digest food. For example, meat and nuts are harder to break down, and so the body expends energy trying to digest them.
In the end, some foods are also not fully digested: significant portions are excreted, and so those calories should not be counted, either. Nuts are among the hardest to digest, and estimates of the calories they contain by the old method are the furthest off — the counts are about 25 percent too high, according to recent research by David Baer, a nutrition scientist at the Department of Agriculture.
Photo
Wilbur Atwater created a calorie-measuring system in the late 1800s that is still in use today.
Wilbur Atwater created a calorie-measuring system in the late 1800s that is still in use today.Credit United States Department of Agriculture
Almonds are routinely listed as having about 160 calories a serving, when the real figure is about 120 calories, said Karen Lapsley, the chief scientist at the California Almond Board. Some manufacturers are considering making the change on their labels.
While the case for almond overcounting is clear, she said, some nutritionists are concerned that lowering the calorie estimates across the board might send the wrong message — that consumers can eat more — at time when Americans should be eating less.
An alternate and more accurate system of counting calories has been devised by Mr. Livesey and has been presented to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which provides recommendations to member nations. The new method has been discussed but not officially adopted.
It counts not just how much energy (or calories) are available in a food, but what the body can actually use of that energy. Additional calculations are made to consider the energy expended by the body in digestion and the degree to which the food is processed.
“People ask me, ‘if we know what is wrong, why hasn’t it been changed?’ ” said Rachel Carmody, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. “Because the old system is in place in most developed countries, and it would be a massive administrative and political undertaking to coordinate changes.”
“What you do not want to do is cause a crisis of confidence for consumers,” she added. “Paying attention to the food label is far better than not paying attention to the food label, even if the label is not precise.”
It may not be necessary to change the calorie counts broadly, said David Klurfeld, program director for human nutrition at the Department of Agriculture. To give consumers a better idea of how much they are eating, it may be more effective to revise the counts on a few specific foods rather than scrap the older approach all at once.
“On average, the system is right, but on individual foods, it’s not right,” he said. “It’s not possible to test every single food, or combination of foods, but if you test individual foods, you could get more precise.”
Dr. David Ludwig, who runs an obesity clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital, said that although there may be scientific value in having more precise calorie counts for all foods, changes in the system may not make much practical difference in the real world.
The body resists weight loss by increasing hunger, he said. In his clinic, patients are not expected to count calories, but instead learn how to choose types and quantities of food that will reduce hunger and promote weight loss without calorie restriction.
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for the calorie labeling on most foods, but the task of making the actual calculation is delegated to the manufacturers, Theresa Eisenman, an agency spokeswoman, said. The companies are responsible for the accuracy of the estimates. If changes come, she said, it will be because food companies have decided to revise their labels.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=0
I suspect that many here will be interested in these findings.
The method most commonly used to assess the number of calories in foods is flawed, overestimating the energy provided to the body by proteins, nuts and foods high in fiber by as much as 25 percent, some nutrition experts say.
“The amount of calories a person gets from protein and fiber are overstated,” said Geoffrey Livesey, the head of Independent Nutrition Logic, a nutrition consulting company in Britain, and a nutrition consultant to the United Nations. “This is especially misleading for those on a high-protein, high-fiber diet, or for diabetics” who must limit their intake of carbohydrates.
An adult aiming to take in 2,000 calories a day on a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet may actually be consuming several hundred calories less, he and other experts said. Calorie estimates for junk foods, particularly processed carbohydrates, are more accurate.
The current calorie-counting system was created in the late 1800s by Wilbur Atwater, a scientist at the Department of Agriculture, and has been modified somewhat over the past 100 years. Researchers place a portion of food in a device called a calorimeter and burn it to see how much energy it contains. The heat is absorbed by water; one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.
DESCRIPTION
Well Quiz
The New Logic of Calorie-Counting
Can you determine which of these foods provide fewer calories than originally counted?
When experts talk about calories, however, they usually mean kilocalories; one kilocalorie equals 1,000 calories. Those are the amounts you see on food labels.
The system is most accurate when the foods are easily digested and all of their energy is made available to the body — as they are when consuming highly processed carbohydrates. But in the past few decades, scientists have begun to understand that a substantial number of calories are lost in the effort to digest food. For example, meat and nuts are harder to break down, and so the body expends energy trying to digest them.
In the end, some foods are also not fully digested: significant portions are excreted, and so those calories should not be counted, either. Nuts are among the hardest to digest, and estimates of the calories they contain by the old method are the furthest off — the counts are about 25 percent too high, according to recent research by David Baer, a nutrition scientist at the Department of Agriculture.
Photo
Wilbur Atwater created a calorie-measuring system in the late 1800s that is still in use today.
Wilbur Atwater created a calorie-measuring system in the late 1800s that is still in use today.Credit United States Department of Agriculture
Almonds are routinely listed as having about 160 calories a serving, when the real figure is about 120 calories, said Karen Lapsley, the chief scientist at the California Almond Board. Some manufacturers are considering making the change on their labels.
While the case for almond overcounting is clear, she said, some nutritionists are concerned that lowering the calorie estimates across the board might send the wrong message — that consumers can eat more — at time when Americans should be eating less.
An alternate and more accurate system of counting calories has been devised by Mr. Livesey and has been presented to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which provides recommendations to member nations. The new method has been discussed but not officially adopted.
It counts not just how much energy (or calories) are available in a food, but what the body can actually use of that energy. Additional calculations are made to consider the energy expended by the body in digestion and the degree to which the food is processed.
“People ask me, ‘if we know what is wrong, why hasn’t it been changed?’ ” said Rachel Carmody, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. “Because the old system is in place in most developed countries, and it would be a massive administrative and political undertaking to coordinate changes.”
“What you do not want to do is cause a crisis of confidence for consumers,” she added. “Paying attention to the food label is far better than not paying attention to the food label, even if the label is not precise.”
It may not be necessary to change the calorie counts broadly, said David Klurfeld, program director for human nutrition at the Department of Agriculture. To give consumers a better idea of how much they are eating, it may be more effective to revise the counts on a few specific foods rather than scrap the older approach all at once.
“On average, the system is right, but on individual foods, it’s not right,” he said. “It’s not possible to test every single food, or combination of foods, but if you test individual foods, you could get more precise.”
Dr. David Ludwig, who runs an obesity clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital, said that although there may be scientific value in having more precise calorie counts for all foods, changes in the system may not make much practical difference in the real world.
The body resists weight loss by increasing hunger, he said. In his clinic, patients are not expected to count calories, but instead learn how to choose types and quantities of food that will reduce hunger and promote weight loss without calorie restriction.
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for the calorie labeling on most foods, but the task of making the actual calculation is delegated to the manufacturers, Theresa Eisenman, an agency spokeswoman, said. The companies are responsible for the accuracy of the estimates. If changes come, she said, it will be because food companies have decided to revise their labels.
0
Replies
-
I don't think it matters that much, like they say on the labels. The calorie counts are slightly inaccurate, but all the formulas to estimate the calories in portion of CICO are based on the "old" / current method, too. So it all comes out in the wash.0
-
Sounds like they're referring to net carbs, which most diabetics and low carb people already know about. What they really need to do is make the nutrition labels in the US match those in the rest of the world, where the undigestable portion of food isn't lumped in as carbs.0
-
Free bonus deficit? Sweet.0
-
So, TEF.0
-
Didn't a similar article to this already make the rounds? Until they actually revamp the calorie counting symptom, it's pretty much just a matter of ...PeachyPlum wrote: »Free bonus deficit? Sweet.
0 -
well i wouldn't mind having a bonus deficit
0 -
I grabbed a Lean Cuisine out of the freezer a couple weeks ago and it felt heavier to me than that flavor usually felt. I hadn't been weighing frozen dinners but I was curious.
The package said 255 grams and the thing actually weighted 325 grams!
I've been paying attention since then and it seems that the dinners with rice in them are the worst culprits. They just pile in extra rice because it's cheap and I guess they want to make sure they aren't underweight for the package.0 -
Eh. It just means my real TDEE might be lower than I think, but it's not a huge deal... but I can see how it would be a problem for people who don't eat a lot of protein and nuts though and why people who eat more carbs might not lose as fast as others.
And thisI don't think it matters that much, like they say on the labels. The calorie counts are slightly inaccurate, but all the formulas to estimate the calories in portion of CICO are based on the "old" / current method, too. So it all comes out in the wash.
0 -
I can see an argument for changing the system. Currently, given a choice between a handful of nuts and a piece of chocolate cake, someone might choose the cake, thinking that they are getting no more calories than they would get from the handful of nuts. Even though they would've been better off with the nuts.
It should be noted, however, that food companies don't use a calorimeter to determine the energy content of food. Instead, they break down the content into their macro nutrients and calculate the calories from that.0 -
Except that it's often case, more than could be explained by rounding, that the total calories don't add up to the sum of the macros.TimothyFish wrote: »
It should be noted, however, that food companies don't use a calorimeter to determine the energy content of food. Instead, they break down the content into their macro nutrients and calculate the calories from that.
0 -
This is very interesting, if these discrepancies are truly systematic then it could account for differences in outcomes on various macro ratios.0
-
It is really interesting. I am a person who eats all of her exercise calories (plus extra sometimes) and is still losing a pound a week when set up with a 1/2 pound weight loss goal. I tend to eat fewer processed foods and more of the foods that are listed as having too many calories on their packages. It makes me wonder how much I am eating.0
-
Yeah. At most, it might mean that I get a little more deficit from exercise than I thought and a little less input from all that chicken than I thought. I don't know how much real world impact it would really have on me unless they started labeling everything with net macros and calories, but that's probably an even bigger can of worms.Eh. It just means my real TDEE might be lower than I think, but it's not a huge deal...
0 -
I grabbed a Lean Cuisine out of the freezer a couple weeks ago and it felt heavier to me than that flavor usually felt. I hadn't been weighing frozen dinners but I was curious.
The package said 255 grams and the thing actually weighted 325 grams!
I've been paying attention since then and it seems that the dinners with rice in them are the worst culprits. They just pile in extra rice because it's cheap and I guess they want to make sure they aren't underweight for the package.
Just out of curiosity - did you weigh the tray, along with the food? And if so, did you eat the food, then weigh the empty tray?
0 -
I grabbed a Lean Cuisine out of the freezer a couple weeks ago and it felt heavier to me than that flavor usually felt. I hadn't been weighing frozen dinners but I was curious.
The package said 255 grams and the thing actually weighted 325 grams!
I've been paying attention since then and it seems that the dinners with rice in them are the worst culprits. They just pile in extra rice because it's cheap and I guess they want to make sure they aren't underweight for the package.
Just out of curiosity - did you weigh the tray, along with the food? And if so, did you eat the food, then weigh the empty tray?
or maybe it has something to do with frozen/unfrozen weight, or the packaging. The machines are very well calibrated - they are unlikely to have over-filled by 30%.
0 -
0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »So, TEF.
Nope, this is more about absorption than TEF.
It amazes me that this article isn't more hotly debated. If I am reading this correctly, the article (not me) is postulating that absorption/digestive rates of certain types of calories can vary significantly. That variation can throw a rather large wrench in the a calorie is a calorie argument.0 -
I get to eat more almonds! Score!0
-
Meaning, essentially, net calories, in the way that TEF addresses net calories or in the way exercise calories should be net and exclude the BMR/RMR calories you were going to burn whether you were exercising or not. Along the lines of what I said later in this thread when I used more words.DeguelloTex wrote: »So, TEF.
Nope, this is more about absorption than TEF.
0 -
I weighed the whole thing before I ate and then weighed the tray after I ate and subtracted that. The total weight for just the meal was 325 grams. That's about 27% more than the box stated.
Just out of curiosity - did you weigh the tray, along with the food? And if so, did you eat the food, then weigh the empty tray?I grabbed a Lean Cuisine out of the freezer a couple weeks ago and it felt heavier to me than that flavor usually felt. I hadn't been weighing frozen dinners but I was curious.
The package said 255 grams and the thing actually weighted 325 grams!
I've been paying attention since then and it seems that the dinners with rice in them are the worst culprits. They just pile in extra rice because it's cheap and I guess they want to make sure they aren't underweight for the package.
As I said, it felt unusually heavy compared to the weight that I was used to that meal having when I grabbed it to eat. Since I've been checking, most aren't that far off the stated weight but the meals with rice tend to be further off than the rest.
Lean Cuisine seems to be in the process of changing things around (their packaging is changing) and that may be part of the reason why some meals aren't lining up with the stated weight. Companies can get in trouble if their package doesn't have at least 99% of the stated weight so they tend to err higher rather than lower.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meaning, essentially, net calories, in the way that TEF addresses net calories or in the way exercise calories should be net and exclude the BMR/RMR calories you were going to burn whether you were exercising or not. Along the lines of what I said later in this thread when I used more words.DeguelloTex wrote: »So, TEF.
Nope, this is more about absorption than TEF.
I suppose TEF and absorption issues are analagous. But they're distinct entities. TEF isn't that significant unless you're eating a really high protein diet. Whereas the amount of calories we can absorb from foods can vary significantly from Atwater calculations.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I can see an argument for changing the system. Currently, given a choice between a handful of nuts and a piece of chocolate cake, someone might choose the cake, thinking that they are getting no more calories than they would get from the handful of nuts. Even though they would've been better off with the nuts.
In fact, if they came on MFP and stated they were choosing the nuts over the cake because the cake was more processed, they would be buried under an avalanche of posts stating "all calories are equal" and "stop demonizing food".
0 -
foodiscomplicated wrote: »....overestimating the energy provided to the body by proteins, nuts and foods high in fiber by as much as 25 percent...a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet may actually be consuming several hundred calories less...
"Several hundred calories" is a pretty significant claim and - if correct - not really ignorable. Is there an example of a use case where this actually happens?0 -
Just quickie numbers...
SAD is 50% carb (mostly processed, negligible fibre), 35% fat, 15% protein (round numbers). At 2000 calories, if protein is 25% overstated, the real calories are...roughly 4% of 2000 or 80 calories less than expected. That's in the noise.
A high-fibre, protein-rich diet might be 30% carbs (20% simple, 10% fibre), 30% fat, 40% protein. At the same 2000 calories you're looking at 200 fewer from protein and 200 fewer from carbs, for a "real" difference of 400 calories.
Have I understood the article's claims correctly?
400 calories out of 2000 would certainly not be ignorable...0 -
A 25% overestimation of calories for protein and high fiber foods is huge. I keep reading more and more about this. The almond issue has already been written about quite a bit. There have also been a lot of articles referring to resistant starch. The more we learn it really does seem that all "calories"are not created equal.0
-
All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.0 -
All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.
Well, that's the point - the body CAN'T get all of the calories out of protein or high fiber foods. It CAN get all the calories out of cookies and other highly processed things. The public has no way of calculating exactly what the net calorie number is. All we have is the calorie information on the package...and we know it overestimates protein calories.
So...if you have a maximum of 300 calories left to eat for an evening snack, and you are looking at a label that says 300 calories on cookies/ice cream or other processed carbs, and a label that says 300 calories on protein or almonds...they are NOT actually equal. You will lose more weight, or gain less weight, if you pick the supposedly 300 calorie portion of almonds or protein.0 -
Eh. It just means my real TDEE might be lower than I think, but it's not a huge deal... but I can see how it would be a problem for people who don't eat a lot of protein and nuts though and why people who eat more carbs might not lose as fast as others.
This.
Another issue I see is that my own estimates for protein feel terribly off anyway. Maybe it's because of how I source my meat, but I always feel like I'm guessing precisely what cut it lines up with, which amount of fat is consistent with the various USDA entry options, so on.
So, if anything, maybe it's making up for me underestimating the calories in my cuts to begin with.
Or like you said, my TDEE is lower than I thought, oh, joy.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.
Well, that's the point - the body CAN'T get all of the calories out of protein or high fiber foods. It CAN get all the calories out of cookies and other highly processed things. The public has no way of calculating exactly what the net calorie number is. All we have is the calorie information on the package...and we know it overestimates protein calories.
So...if you have a maximum of 300 calories left to eat for an evening snack, and you are looking at a label that says 300 calories on cookies/ice cream or other processed carbs, and a label that says 300 calories on protein or almonds...they are NOT actually equal. You will lose more weight, or gain less weight, if you pick the supposedly 300 calorie portion of almonds or protein.
Or you should pick a smaller portion of the cake for it to be comparable or a bigger portion of the almonds.
I wish I fully believed the thing about the almonds--it seems too good to be true.0 -
It appears the claim of "several hundred calories" difference is supportable. 48 times a day there's people telling noobs that its crucial to log and eat back all 74 calories burned walking a few hundred yards...but a difference of "several hundred calories" is waved off with a....meh?
If someone eating 1200 calories switches from high carb, high sugar to high protein without upping their calories, it's fine, even though they'll now net quite a bit below 1200? So 900 is fine if it's protein-heavy?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions