NYT - On Food Labels, Calorie Miscounts
Replies
-
The animated gifs are notably missing from this post.0
-
Hmm. Following up on the last point, it sounds like some of you are arguing that because calorie counts from protein are off (for example), that the percentage of one's diet from protein should be higher, if one were acting logically. I guess to a limited extent that's true--if you have a harder time digesting the protein in meat than we thought, does that mean you need more grams to get the grams you thought you were?
But beyond that, I doubt it would much influence my judgment such that I'd decide that the already somewhat high protein I get 30% or 131 grams at 125 lb just isn't enough, because I could eat relatively more (but not really) if I reduced my carbs or fat and increased protein still more. It just seems kind of senseless--like buying something on sale because it's on sale, and not because you especially want or need it.
To put this another way, if the total calories are what fill you up (I don't think that's the biggest factor for me, personally), presumably it doesn't matter whether they are made up of one package vs. another. So what's the benefit? If I've been undercounting calories, that doesn't give me the ability to eat more calories and not gain/lose less.
If instead the mix of foods or volume is what fill you up (as for me), then the specific number of calories don't really matter. Like let's say I find potatoes really satiating and almonds not. Increasing my almond and decreasing my potatoes because the almonds have fewer calories than I thought doesn't really do much for me, does it? I mean, for me it's nice to be able to eat more almonds because I like them and nuts have seemed to have a crazy amount of calories, but I just can't see how this affects my dietary choices significantly. Eat huge massive amounts of protein because more burn per calorie does not make sense. The question is whether it also satisfies you disproportionately.
So what am I missing here?0 -
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Personally, I frequently eat almonds. However, since reading the almond information I haven't started eating extra almonds. I just view it as enabling me to achieve a little "bonus" weight loss. Things like this could partially explain why I have consistently lost more than mfp has predicted. Of course, I realize their estimate of my TDEE could be too low. Or I could also be overestimating how much I eat (though I constantly hear that most people do the opposite). It's hard to know for sure...but since I do eat low carb and very low processed carbs and high protein this might be at least part of it.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
So what am I missing here?
The usual shenanigans that generally come with stating that not all foods are created equally.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Hmm. Following up on the last point, it sounds like some of you are arguing that because calorie counts from protein are off (for example), that the percentage of one's diet from protein should be higher, if one were acting logically. I guess to a limited extent that's true--if you have a harder time digesting the protein in meat than we thought, does that mean you need more grams to get the grams you thought you were?
But beyond that, I doubt it would much influence my judgment such that I'd decide that the already somewhat high protein I get 30% or 131 grams at 125 lb just isn't enough, because I could eat relatively more (but not really) if I reduced my carbs or fat and increased protein still more. It just seems kind of senseless--like buying something on sale because it's on sale, and not because you especially want or need it.
To put this another way, if the total calories are what fill you up (I don't think that's the biggest factor for me, personally), presumably it doesn't matter whether they are made up of one package vs. another. So what's the benefit? If I've been undercounting calories, that doesn't give me the ability to eat more calories and not gain/lose less.
If instead the mix of foods or volume is what fill you up (as for me), then the specific number of calories don't really matter. Like let's say I find potatoes really satiating and almonds not. Increasing my almond and decreasing my potatoes because the almonds have fewer calories than I thought doesn't really do much for me, does it? I mean, for me it's nice to be able to eat more almonds because I like them and nuts have seemed to have a crazy amount of calories, but I just can't see how this affects my dietary choices significantly. Eat huge massive amounts of protein because more burn per calorie does not make sense. The question is whether it also satisfies you disproportionately.
So what am I missing here?
First, everybody's goal is not to eat more food. Yes, some people on very low calorie diets might like to actually eat a bit more. But if someone is already satisfied and not hungry, I doubt they would add more just because they can. Well, some probably would, but certainly not all.
You are already eating a relatively high proportion of protein...at least compared to the standard mfp recommendations. Reducing processed carbs and adding slightly more protein probably won't make a dramatic difference in your case. And in general, if a person is eating high protein, my guess would be that most of the carbs they do eat aren't the highly processed carbs that are so easily available to the body...unless they are bulking. They probably already limit those, so the amount they have to play with is relatively small to begin with.
However, somebody eating the standard 15% protein, 50% or more carb diet could have a huge benefit if they made some changes to those macros.
Or, somebody struggling to lose or frustrated because they are losing very slowly and already eating very low calories could get a huge benefit if they replace a few hundred calories of carbs, especially highly processes carbs, with an equal amount of protein...or replaced the sugary snack with a supposedly equal calorie amount of almonds. They could quite possibly see an increase in weight loss that makes a big difference for them.
I won't change anything because of this mainly because I already mostly eat that way. But for people who don't, it is good information to have. They can decide whether it is worth it or not for them to make changes.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
But you can't really. As I understand it, the idea is that there are fewer calories (or useable calories, which is the same thing) in almonds or chicken breast than we thought, right? So it's not that I (or someone who eats lots of processed carbs and fat--since I think fat has a super low TEF also) can now eat 2000 instead of 1800 if we choose to eat differently, its that we may have thought we were eating, say, 2000 when really eating 1800 (assuming we've been eating lots of almonds and fiber and protein).
So like you said, maybe I outperformed MFP's predictions at various points not because I exercised super hard or walked a lot or had a better than average RMR for my size, but because I actually ate fewer calories than I thought. Oh, well.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 now you're just arguing semantics. When we talk about the calories in food, we're generally referring to how they are labelled.
Since some foods have significantly less "available" calories then what the labels show, a "calorie is a calorie" is not necessarily true.
0 -
Yeah, that's fair. My diet was > 50% protein for quite a while. I guess I should have lost a lot more than I did.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 -
I know European guidelines say the packaging can have a 10% margin of error when it comes to calories. Other macros I'm not sure about.0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »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.
In this particular article, the almond issue was referencing work done by the California Almond Board, hardly an impartial source - just something to keep in mind.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
But you can't really. As I understand it, the idea is that there are fewer calories (or useable calories, which is the same thing) in almonds or chicken breast than we thought, right? So it's not that I (or someone who eats lots of processed carbs and fat--since I think fat has a super low TEF also) can now eat 2000 instead of 1800 if we choose to eat differently, its that we may have thought we were eating, say, 2000 when really eating 1800 (assuming we've been eating lots of almonds and fiber and protein).
So like you said, maybe I outperformed MFP's predictions at various points not because I exercised super hard or walked a lot or had a better than average RMR for my size, but because I actually ate fewer calories than I thought. Oh, well.
You can...if you go by the calories on the labels...which is the only information people actually have available. Yes, that information is wrong...but based on it, you should absolutely choose protein over processed carbs if your goal is to maximize weight loss while logging a certain number of calories.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »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.
In this particular article, the almond issue was referencing work done by the California Almond Board, hardly an impartial source - just something to keep in mind.
I have seen previous studies on the almonds done by the US Department of Agriculture. This news has been out there for a few years. The almond board is now just capitalizing on it.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
But you can't really. As I understand it, the idea is that there are fewer calories (or useable calories, which is the same thing) in almonds or chicken breast than we thought, right? So it's not that I (or someone who eats lots of processed carbs and fat--since I think fat has a super low TEF also) can now eat 2000 instead of 1800 if we choose to eat differently, its that we may have thought we were eating, say, 2000 when really eating 1800 (assuming we've been eating lots of almonds and fiber and protein).
So like you said, maybe I outperformed MFP's predictions at various points not because I exercised super hard or walked a lot or had a better than average RMR for my size, but because I actually ate fewer calories than I thought. Oh, well.
You can...if you go by the calories on the labels...which is the only information people actually have available. Yes, that information is wrong...but based on it, you should absolutely choose protein over processed carbs if your goal is to maximize weight loss while logging a certain number of calories.
But my question is why would anyone care about that?
If they fix the labels (or information, since I don't get most of my calorie information from labels, of course), maybe what I'm eating now gets logged as 1700 instead of 1850, say. But that has no bearing on what I can actually eat to achieve my goals. If I'm at maintenance at 2000 and it turns out it's really only 1800, I don't get to eat 200 more calories. I just get to revise my understanding of my TDEE.
I guess I'm assuming people act somewhat rationally and go by actual results.
You seem to be assuming that there's some perceived benefit to me (or any random logger) of being able to log and eat more listed calories--i.e., that it's more satisfying to be able to log 2000 and maintain than log 1800 and maintain--and that's where I think you are losing me. If the "2000" is just an illusion and not the calories your body actually obtains, why would it be beneficial to have the higher (but incorrect) number?
The underlying question, of course, is whether it is more satisfying to eat 1800 calories of some combination vs. 2000 calories of some other combination, and I suspect we all think it is, but that's not going to have anything much to do with whether the calories are listed wrong. It has to do with some foods being filling (to many of us) but low calorie (i.e., veggies, to me), and others being calorie dense and not filling (i.e., bread, to me).
The idea that it's somehow going to be more satisfying to greatly increase high fiber foods (as in that silly thing about modifying rice to make it have fewer calories) or meat seems to be limited in its benefits. I eat a lot of meat already (more than I probably should, but a lot of it is fish at least), and there are competing reasons the amount I ended up at--what's enjoyable/satisfying to me, my concerns about health and not going overboard on protein, my liking for other foods and increased satisfaction from a more varied diet.
I guess I think approaching food as "ooh, this has extra calories that don't count, bonus!" as opposed to the simpler, less "hack" focused idea of eating foods that you happen to find satiating and tasty that also constitute an overall nutrition-rich diet to be a little weird or missing the forest for the trees.
Now, personally, I'd recommend anyone on a calorie deficit (other than an endurance athlete with a huge calorie allowance anyway) to get more than 15% protein (and often even more than the MFP default), but that's not because not all the calories count, but because I think it's a more satisfying way to eat and will help preserve muscle mass. Similarly, I'd recommend getting adequate fiber and not going nuts on low nutrient foods, many of which are processed carbs, but again for broader satisfaction and nutrition reasons, not because you can have an illusion of logging more calories. I just don't know why someone would care about doing that.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
But you can't really. As I understand it, the idea is that there are fewer calories (or useable calories, which is the same thing) in almonds or chicken breast than we thought, right? So it's not that I (or someone who eats lots of processed carbs and fat--since I think fat has a super low TEF also) can now eat 2000 instead of 1800 if we choose to eat differently, its that we may have thought we were eating, say, 2000 when really eating 1800 (assuming we've been eating lots of almonds and fiber and protein).
So like you said, maybe I outperformed MFP's predictions at various points not because I exercised super hard or walked a lot or had a better than average RMR for my size, but because I actually ate fewer calories than I thought. Oh, well.
You can...if you go by the calories on the labels...which is the only information people actually have available. Yes, that information is wrong...but based on it, you should absolutely choose protein over processed carbs if your goal is to maximize weight loss while logging a certain number of calories.
But my question is why would anyone care about that?
If they fix the labels (or information, since I don't get most of my calorie information from labels, of course), maybe what I'm eating now gets logged as 1700 instead of 1850, say. But that has no bearing on what I can actually eat to achieve my goals. If I'm at maintenance at 2000 and it turns out it's really only 1800, I don't get to eat 200 more calories. I just get to revise my understanding of my TDEE.
I guess I'm assuming people act somewhat rationally and go by actual results.
You seem to be assuming that there's some perceived benefit to me (or any random logger) of being able to log and eat more listed calories--i.e., that it's more satisfying to be able to log 2000 and maintain than log 1800 and maintain--and that's where I think you are losing me. If the "2000" is just an illusion and not the calories your body actually obtains, why would it be beneficial to have the higher (but incorrect) number?
The underlying question, of course, is whether it is more satisfying to eat 1800 calories of some combination vs. 2000 calories of some other combination, and I suspect we all think it is, but that's not going to have anything much to do with whether the calories are listed wrong. It has to do with some foods being filling (to many of us) but low calorie (i.e., veggies, to me), and others being calorie dense and not filling (i.e., bread, to me).
The idea that it's somehow going to be more satisfying to greatly increase high fiber foods (as in that silly thing about modifying rice to make it have fewer calories) or meat seems to be limited in its benefits. I eat a lot of meat already (more than I probably should, but a lot of it is fish at least), and there are competing reasons the amount I ended up at--what's enjoyable/satisfying to me, my concerns about health and not going overboard on protein, my liking for other foods and increased satisfaction from a more varied diet.
I guess I think approaching food as "ooh, this has extra calories that don't count, bonus!" as opposed to the simpler, less "hack" focused idea of eating foods that you happen to find satiating and tasty that also constitute an overall nutrition-rich diet to be a little weird or missing the forest for the trees.
Now, personally, I'd recommend anyone on a calorie deficit (other than an endurance athlete with a huge calorie allowance anyway) to get more than 15% protein (and often even more than the MFP default), but that's not because not all the calories count, but because I think it's a more satisfying way to eat and will help preserve muscle mass. Similarly, I'd recommend getting adequate fiber and not going nuts on low nutrient foods, many of which are processed carbs, but again for broader satisfaction and nutrition reasons, not because you can have an illusion of logging more calories. I just don't know why someone would care about doing that.
Why would anyone care about that? Well, probably because their goal is to lose more weight! That seems like a very good reason for most people to care!!!But my question is why would anyone care about that?
If you told someone they could lose more weight eating a big handful of almonds for an evening snack instead of a piece of chocolate cake, I think at least some people would switch to the almonds...at least some of the time.If they fix the labels (or information, since I don't get most of my calorie information from labels, of course), maybe what I'm eating now gets logged as 1700 instead of 1850, say. But that has no bearing on what I can actually eat to achieve my goals. If I'm at maintenance at 2000 and it turns out it's really only 1800, I don't get to eat 200 more calories. I just get to revise my understanding of my TDEE.
You're missing the point entirely. YOU are already choosing the protein in this example and therefore only eating 1700 instead of the 1850 you thought you were. You have no further changes to make. Somebody else, who actually IS eating 1850 might decide it makes sense to switch to the protein...they eat 150 calories less, lose MORE weight, but are still just as full because they aren't eating less food, and might actually be more full because protein and fiber generally keep you fuller longer than highly processed foods...their body is just absorbing less of the calories because they made better choices.
What you eat does matter, not just how much.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
But you can't really. As I understand it, the idea is that there are fewer calories (or useable calories, which is the same thing) in almonds or chicken breast than we thought, right? So it's not that I (or someone who eats lots of processed carbs and fat--since I think fat has a super low TEF also) can now eat 2000 instead of 1800 if we choose to eat differently, its that we may have thought we were eating, say, 2000 when really eating 1800 (assuming we've been eating lots of almonds and fiber and protein).
So like you said, maybe I outperformed MFP's predictions at various points not because I exercised super hard or walked a lot or had a better than average RMR for my size, but because I actually ate fewer calories than I thought. Oh, well.
You can...if you go by the calories on the labels...which is the only information people actually have available. Yes, that information is wrong...but based on it, you should absolutely choose protein over processed carbs if your goal is to maximize weight loss while logging a certain number of calories.
But my question is why would anyone care about that?
If they fix the labels (or information, since I don't get most of my calorie information from labels, of course), maybe what I'm eating now gets logged as 1700 instead of 1850, say. But that has no bearing on what I can actually eat to achieve my goals. If I'm at maintenance at 2000 and it turns out it's really only 1800, I don't get to eat 200 more calories. I just get to revise my understanding of my TDEE.
I guess I'm assuming people act somewhat rationally and go by actual results.
You seem to be assuming that there's some perceived benefit to me (or any random logger) of being able to log and eat more listed calories--i.e., that it's more satisfying to be able to log 2000 and maintain than log 1800 and maintain--and that's where I think you are losing me. If the "2000" is just an illusion and not the calories your body actually obtains, why would it be beneficial to have the higher (but incorrect) number?
The underlying question, of course, is whether it is more satisfying to eat 1800 calories of some combination vs. 2000 calories of some other combination, and I suspect we all think it is, but that's not going to have anything much to do with whether the calories are listed wrong. It has to do with some foods being filling (to many of us) but low calorie (i.e., veggies, to me), and others being calorie dense and not filling (i.e., bread, to me).
The idea that it's somehow going to be more satisfying to greatly increase high fiber foods (as in that silly thing about modifying rice to make it have fewer calories) or meat seems to be limited in its benefits. I eat a lot of meat already (more than I probably should, but a lot of it is fish at least), and there are competing reasons the amount I ended up at--what's enjoyable/satisfying to me, my concerns about health and not going overboard on protein, my liking for other foods and increased satisfaction from a more varied diet.
I guess I think approaching food as "ooh, this has extra calories that don't count, bonus!" as opposed to the simpler, less "hack" focused idea of eating foods that you happen to find satiating and tasty that also constitute an overall nutrition-rich diet to be a little weird or missing the forest for the trees.
Now, personally, I'd recommend anyone on a calorie deficit (other than an endurance athlete with a huge calorie allowance anyway) to get more than 15% protein (and often even more than the MFP default), but that's not because not all the calories count, but because I think it's a more satisfying way to eat and will help preserve muscle mass. Similarly, I'd recommend getting adequate fiber and not going nuts on low nutrient foods, many of which are processed carbs, but again for broader satisfaction and nutrition reasons, not because you can have an illusion of logging more calories. I just don't know why someone would care about doing that.
I would care to the point that I would need to get used to the new numbers. It wouldn't be a huge deal since I still check labels even when I've eaten the food dozens of times in the past. But if I didn't do that or if I used an old entry from MFP or if I decided to try not logging calories, it could cause problems in the short term until I figured out that I was gaining weight and why.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Why would anyone care about that? Well, probably because their goal is to lose more weight! That seems like a very good reason for most people to care!!!
How does it allow them to lose more weight?
Like I said, if I'm eating 2000 calories and maintaining, learning that the foods I eat have fewer calories than I thought doesn't magically make me lose more weight. What makes you lose more weight is to see what's happening and then adjust to actual results.If you told someone they could lose more weight eating a big handful of almonds for an evening snack instead of a piece of chocolate cake, I think at least some people would switch to the almonds...at least some of the time.
But that wouldn't be an accurate claim. You are assuming if they choose 300 calories of cake over 300 calories of almonds, that learning that the almonds are really only 200 calories would be a game changer. Why would that matter? They always had the option to eat less than they are (including the portion of almonds they thought was 200 calories).You're missing the point entirely. YOU are already choosing the protein in this example and therefore only eating 1700 instead of the 1850 you thought you were. You have no further changes to make. Somebody else, who actually IS eating 1850 might decide it makes sense to switch to the protein...they eat 150 calories less, lose MORE weight, but are still just as full because they aren't eating less food, and might actually be more full because protein and fiber generally keep you fuller longer than highly processed foods...their body is just absorbing less of the calories because they made better choices.
Right--you are assuming that they are more full on fewer (real) calories if they switch to the protein. But that was already a strong possibility and yet they didn't--either because unlike you and me they don't find protein more satiating or because unlike me they just don't like protein-filled foods all that much (a common complaint around here, second only to complaints about not liking veggies).What you eat does matter, not just how much.
Never claimed otherwise. But this doesn't change the calculus as to what a particular person may find satiating. You seem to assume that because we thought a piece of chicken breast was 200 calories but it's really 175 calories, say, that it automatically becomes more satiating than other 175 calorie options. But the calorie thing here is really a red herring. The reason to increase protein and fiber-rich foods (and veggies and fat) IMO already was that they tend to be more satiating for many (not all). Doesn't help if you don't like them (which seems to be the biggest reason people don't eat them). A good counterexample here, in fact, IS fat. Fat (other than in nuts, I guess), like processed carbs, has a really low TEF, so your argument here would seem to suggest that you should replace many fatty foods with protein. But for me adding a little fat almost always makes a high fiber and high protein meal much more filling. What is satiating is more complicated than how many calories are listed.
Anyway, I hope they correct the calorie listings at some point if this turns out to be true.
0 -
I don't know if you just really don't understand this, or if you are just being argumentative. But it's very simple.lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Why would anyone care about that? Well, probably because their goal is to lose more weight! That seems like a very good reason for most people to care!!!
How does it allow them to lose more weight?
Like I said, if I'm eating 2000 calories and maintaining, learning that the foods I eat have fewer calories than I thought doesn't magically make me lose more weight. What makes you lose more weight is to see what's happening and then adjust to actual results.If you told someone they could lose more weight eating a big handful of almonds for an evening snack instead of a piece of chocolate cake, I think at least some people would switch to the almonds...at least some of the time.
But that wouldn't be an accurate claim. You are assuming if they choose 300 calories of cake over 300 calories of almonds, that learning that the almonds are really only 200 calories would be a game changer. Why would that matter? They always had the option to eat less than they are (including the portion of almonds they thought was 200 calories).You're missing the point entirely. YOU are already choosing the protein in this example and therefore only eating 1700 instead of the 1850 you thought you were. You have no further changes to make. Somebody else, who actually IS eating 1850 might decide it makes sense to switch to the protein...they eat 150 calories less, lose MORE weight, but are still just as full because they aren't eating less food, and might actually be more full because protein and fiber generally keep you fuller longer than highly processed foods...their body is just absorbing less of the calories because they made better choices.
Right--you are assuming that they are more full on fewer (real) calories if they switch to the protein. But that was already a strong possibility and yet they didn't--either because unlike you and me they don't find protein more satiating or because unlike me they just don't like protein-filled foods all that much (a common complaint around here, second only to complaints about not liking veggies).What you eat does matter, not just how much.
Never claimed otherwise. But this doesn't change the calculus as to what a particular person may find satiating. You seem to assume that because we thought a piece of chicken breast was 200 calories but it's really 175 calories, say, that it automatically becomes more satiating than other 175 calorie options. But the calorie thing here is really a red herring. The reason to increase protein and fiber-rich foods (and veggies and fat) IMO already was that they tend to be more satiating for many (not all). Doesn't help if you don't like them (which seems to be the biggest reason people don't eat them). A good counterexample here, in fact, IS fat. Fat (other than in nuts, I guess), like processed carbs, has a really low TEF, so your argument here would seem to suggest that you should replace many fatty foods with protein. But for me adding a little fat almost always makes a high fiber and high protein meal much more filling. What is satiating is more complicated than how many calories are listed.
Anyway, I hope they correct the calorie listings at some point if this turns out to be true.
If:
1) certain foods have a significant number of calories that are not available to the body when eaten, and
2) you are choosing between an equal amount of STATED calories of each...which is really the only way you can possibly do it with the current labeling system...then
3) those foods with non available calories...protein, almonds, high fiber foods...are the better choice to make if your primary goal is weight loss.
Now, you may decide to ignore that if you just really want the more absorbed thus, in reality, more truly calorific alternative, but if you are deciding based on weight loss then almonds will always be better than cake.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I don't know if you just really don't understand this, or if you are just being argumentative. But it's very simple.
If:
1) certain foods have a significant number of calories that are not available to the body when eaten, and
2) you are choosing between an equal amount of STATED calories of each...which is really the only way you can possibly do it with the current labeling system...then
3) those foods with non available calories...protein, almonds, high fiber foods...are the better choice to make if your primary goal is weight loss.
The first point here that I am not following is why anyone would be choosing between equal amounts of STATED calories once you knew the foods had calories that were overstated. If you know that and believe it enough for it to somehow effect your choice, then you probably start thinking you can eat a little more of it (assuming your concern is--as in your assumption here--that the person is motivated to eat more).
The second point is why you would be comparing foods based on which has more actual calories vs. what you want to eat. For example, if I'm deciding what to have for dinner and would normally have chicken, potatoes, and Brussels sprouts, I would never ever think "hmm, I was going to have my normal serving of chicken plus maybe 100 grams of potatoes, but if I ditch the potatoes and have extra chicken in the SAME stated calorie amount, I'll actually eat less." I just can't imagine anyone following such a thought process. It's not a benefit to me that a food has fewer calories in reality than I'm logging. If having fewer calories was a benefit/needed at the time, I'd just sub in a food that had fewer calories or a smaller serving size. Or, you know, lower my calorie goal.
You seem to be imagining that 200 calories of chicken and 200 calories of potatoes (or 300 calories of cake vs. 300 calories of almonds) are equally filling/satisfying but the chicken (or almonds) is really fewer calories, so you get full for fewer calories. Like I said before, I agree that food choice matters as to whether you can get full on fewer calories, if that's an issue, but that's independent of the accuracy in food labeling issue.
As for almonds vs. cake, the almonds are only better for weight loss if you eat a smaller (in reality) calorie portion of the almonds. (I guess this assumes you feel compelled to eat to your calorie limit and yet not to lower it if you aren't losing well?)0 -
I'm following you perfectly, @lemurcat12. If you're already eating X calories and losing Y pounds, suddenly finding out that you were actually absorbing X-25% calories doesn't change anything. You cannot then begin to eat X+25% and continue losing the same Y pounds, because changing your knowledge of calories in doesn't change their reality.
If I eat 50g of chicken logged as 60 calories every night to lose 1 pound a week, finding out that 50g chicken is actually 45 calories doesn't really matter. I was losing 1 pound per week eating that amount of chicken, which means that it was the appropriate number of calories to sustain that weight loss. I cannot up it to 65g chicken for the new value of 60 calories and expect to keep losing at the same rate.0 -
Yes, exactly! I feel like I've gotten tangled up somehow and yet it seems so clear to me, so I'm glad someone is following! ;-) And you put it much better than I've managed to.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?
Are you sure that it's a few hundred calories at that low an intake?
I'm seriously asking because this may be relevant to my interests. My protein intake is about 98 grams in a 1200 calorie moderate carb diet, where the carbs are mostly dairy, veggies, and fruit.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Personally, I frequently eat almonds. However, since reading the almond information I haven't started eating extra almonds. I just view it as enabling me to achieve a little "bonus" weight loss. Things like this could partially explain why I have consistently lost more than mfp has predicted. Of course, I realize their estimate of my TDEE could be too low. Or I could also be overestimating how much I eat (though I constantly hear that most people do the opposite). It's hard to know for sure...but since I do eat low carb and very low processed carbs and high protein this might be at least part of it.
Agreed on the bonus weight loss. I usually eat around 15 grams of almonds a day. Until they come up with definitive numbers, I won't be banking on any calorie savings.
0 -
You won't be getting any bonus weight loss. The almonds didn't change; your rate of loss eating 15g of almonds will always be the same. All that changed is our understanding of the almonds.0
-
I'm following you perfectly, @lemurcat12. If you're already eating X calories and losing Y pounds, suddenly finding out that you were actually absorbing X-25% calories doesn't change anything. You cannot then begin to eat X+25% and continue losing the same Y pounds, because changing your knowledge of calories in doesn't change their reality.
If I eat 50g of chicken logged as 60 calories every night to lose 1 pound a week, finding out that 50g chicken is actually 45 calories doesn't really matter. I was losing 1 pound per week eating that amount of chicken, which means that it was the appropriate number of calories to sustain that weight loss. I cannot up it to 65g chicken for the new value of 60 calories and expect to keep losing at the same rate.
I was following you. And that's sort of my thinking. My rate of loss hasn't always gone as predicted, it's been a bit faster, so I'm going to assume it's due in part to this effect.
I'm happy with what I'm eating, and I'm happy with my rate of loss. I don't think I'd try to eat more, maybe another gram of almonds, but that's about it.
0 -
It's not so much an issue for people who tend to eat the same things and know what to expect weight loss-wise based on real life results. An issue for these boards would be if people are being told "a calorie is a calorie" or "100 calories of cake = 100 calories of almonds (for weight loss purposes)" if that is wrong.0
-
It's not so much an issue for people who tend to eat the same things and know what to expect weight loss-wise based on real life results. An issue for these boards would be if people are being told "a calorie is a calorie" or "100 calories of cake = 100 calories of almonds (for weight loss purposes)" if that is wrong.
That is my point.0 -
You won't be getting any bonus weight loss. The almonds didn't change; your rate of loss eating 15g of almonds will always be the same. All that changed is our understanding of the almonds.
I would lose more than if I ate a supposedly equal amount of cake. If you target a specific number of calories, and most people who count calories do, then if you frequently eat things for which the calorie information is overestimated then you will lose more weight than predicted over time.0 -
It's not so much an issue for people who tend to eat the same things and know what to expect weight loss-wise based on real life results. An issue for these boards would be if people are being told "a calorie is a calorie" or "100 calories of cake = 100 calories of almonds (for weight loss purposes)" if that is wrong.
Well, for all intents and purposes, it is though. It's just that you might lose more weight with 100 calories of almonds. It's not as if you're eating MORE than you think if you eat the cake.
No one on the boards advocates a diet full of cake. That's sort of the strawman in the discussion. The idea is to eat the almonds, the protein, the veggies... then if you have 100 extra calories, sure, go ahead and have some cake.
0 -
Not if you realize the the almonds really have only 75 calories, so you eat 33% more to get a real 100 calories, since you're targeting a specific number of calories, not necessarily targeting incorrect information.MoiAussi93 wrote: »You won't be getting any bonus weight loss. The almonds didn't change; your rate of loss eating 15g of almonds will always be the same. All that changed is our understanding of the almonds.
I would lose more than if I ate a supposedly equal amount of cake. If you target a specific number of calories, and most people who count calories do, then if you frequently eat things for which the calorie information is overestimated then you will lose more weight than predicted over time.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »It's not so much an issue for people who tend to eat the same things and know what to expect weight loss-wise based on real life results. An issue for these boards would be if people are being told "a calorie is a calorie" or "100 calories of cake = 100 calories of almonds (for weight loss purposes)" if that is wrong.
Well, for all intents and purposes, it is though. It's just that you might lose more weight with 100 calories of almonds. It's not as if you're eating MORE than you think if you eat the cake.
No one on the boards advocates a diet full of cake. That's sort of the strawman in the discussion. The idea is to eat the almonds, the protein, the veggies... then if you have 100 extra calories, sure, go ahead and have some cake.
I didn't see anybody in the discussion mention a diet of only cake. I agree with "sure, have a little cake". You can eat such things and still lose weight, all you need is a deficit (and that makes dieting more sustainable and enjoyable, etc..). But I imagine that there are people that eat enough processed carbs, that it could have a real impact (if this article is correct).
So people shouldn't be told "all calories are equal". <in terms of weight loss.> I have read that repeatedly here.
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
- 427 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