NYT - On Food Labels, Calorie Miscounts
Replies
-
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.
Well, there's usually a "but for nutrition..." added to the end of that.
I would imagine more work needs to be done with the actual numbers before we can definitively state what the differences actually are calorie to calorie when it comes to weight loss, though.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Well, there's usually a "but for nutrition..." added to the end of that.
I would imagine more work needs to be done with the actual numbers before we can definitively state what the differences actually are calorie to calorie when it comes to weight loss, though.
It would be nice if they would correct the calorie info if they know these things. Maybe too complicated or they're not too sure (or no one wants to bother, lol).0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
And this is my point.
You all are trying to make what is in essence a labeling error into a virtue. At some point, if the reports are correct, the USDA information on almonds will be corrected. So do almonds then become not as good for weight loss? Of course not--they remain identical.
It's just a bit of noise, like TEF in general, to be aware of.
If someone eats a normal balanced diet, the overall effect is probably not that great (although I'm kind of assuming 50% of your calories from protein or meat or some such is not necessarily great simply because the calories are maybe understated).0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
If my priority is to lose more weight, I would not do that. In fact, I haven't done that, and have known about this for quite a while. Because that would not be supportive of my goal.
But even if I for some reason decided to just eat more...I am never sure exactly how much the label overestimates the true calories. And in terms of the protein, it is even more difficult. Lacking the correct information on the nutrition data, most people simply cannot make such adjustments even if they wanted to. The best you can do is take that into account when deciding what to eat.
Now, if they update the labels to reflect this I would be very conscious of this going forward. Not because I wanted to eat more or less, but to try to make sure I didn't start to unknowingly eat more than previously and slowly start to gain weight.
But they should change it. If you are going to put nutrition information on food it should be as accurate as possible. The people who actually read it deserve to have the right information to make informed choices.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.
All calories are equal for weight loss purposes, but precisely how many calories some things have is hard to measure.
Again, my meat calories are estimates anyway, because if I get some cut of meat from a farm and have to guess what USDA cut it's most like there's tons of possible variation so I know the number of calories are probably going to be off a bit. That's life. I kind of hope that this favors me because the pastured animal is leaner, but in some cases (like pigs) it's probably the opposite. Eh.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
All calories are equal for weight loss purposes, but precisely how many calories some things have is hard to measure.
.
No, that's not what this article is saying at all. It is saying that all calories ARE NOT equal for weight loss. If it is correct, and I don't necessarily know one way or the other; but if it is correct, it's saying your body doesn't process calories the same depending on food. You can eat 100 calories of a twinkie and your body will use all 100 calories. If you eat 100 calories of almonds, it won't due to excretion, absorption, etc. That is a HUGE difference. Because what is commonly referred on MFP as woo, may not be.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
All calories are equal for weight loss purposes, but precisely how many calories some things have is hard to measure.
.
No, that's not what this article is saying at all. It is saying that all calories ARE NOT equal for weight loss. If it is correct, and I don't necessarily know one way or the other; but if it is correct, it's saying your body doesn't process calories the same depending on food. You can eat 100 calories of a twinkie and your body will use all 100 calories. If you eat 100 calories of almonds, it won't due to excretion, absorption, etc. That is a HUGE difference. Because what is commonly referred on MFP as woo, may not be.
"Calories in" refer to what we actually take in from the food. Everyone has always acknowledged that there's a difference, specifically TEF, depending on the type of food. What this is saying that for some foods we take in less than we realized. The calories listed on the package or in the USDA information refer to the calories available to us from the foods--I mean think about it, who would care about the number of calories (which refers to the energy from the food) if it was not available to us. Thus, if this turns out to be right, they will correct the information about calories provided.
In essence, if we thought we got 100 calories from a particular serving of almonds and it turns out to be 80, then the calories in the almonds (the energy available to us from the almonds) would be revised to 80.
It's a measurement error, related to how our body is able to digest and use certain foods.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
All calories are equal for weight loss purposes, but precisely how many calories some things have is hard to measure.
Again, my meat calories are estimates anyway, because if I get some cut of meat from a farm and have to guess what USDA cut it's most like there's tons of possible variation so I know the number of calories are probably going to be off a bit. That's life. I kind of hope that this favors me because the pastured animal is leaner, but in some cases (like pigs) it's probably the opposite. Eh.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/08/ajcn.114.100867.abstract0 -
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?
Because most people - even most dieters - are eating tons of carbs and not enough protein. By switching out carbs for protein, all those people can accelerate weight loss and preserve additional lean body mass without changing their formal calorie targets.
Why such an outcome might matter on a dieting board I leave as an exercise for the imagination.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
All calories are equal for weight loss purposes, but precisely how many calories some things have is hard to measure.
Again, my meat calories are estimates anyway, because if I get some cut of meat from a farm and have to guess what USDA cut it's most like there's tons of possible variation so I know the number of calories are probably going to be off a bit. That's life. I kind of hope that this favors me because the pastured animal is leaner, but in some cases (like pigs) it's probably the opposite. Eh.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/08/ajcn.114.100867.abstract
I don't think calories were held equal there. That's a comparison of reported diets by types of food consumed (as the Nurses Study things usually are). Since I agreed upthread that food choice matters for satiety and for people NOT counting calories greater satiety would tend to make weight gain less easy, satiety certainly matters for weight control, yes.
But it does not suggest that eating 2000 calories one way vs. another (assuming properly measured and counted) is going to have a meaningfully different effect on body weight--and that's all "calories are equal for weight loss" means.
It's also funny that "calories aren't equal" folks usually hate the Nurses Study, since it also suggests that eating tons of, say, sat fat isn't good for health. But I guess it counts when you like the results.
(I always find it interesting, but causation is always a problem, and it can't be used to say that 2000 calories of a low carb diet will be better for weight loss for any particular person than 2000 calories of a 60% carb diet, say.)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?
Because most people - even most dieters - are eating tons of carbs and not enough protein.
Not if they are following the MFP guidelines, and if you go by people active in the forums it seems like 40-30-30 (my own preferred macros) are more common than even the default. (That breakdown for me is an enjoyable way to eat, but it's really a ridiculous amount of protein for my size, and would horrify the vegan types who think the main problem with the US diet is we eat too much protein.)
I agree that FOR dieting, at least, people often should get more protein than the default (depending on how low their calories are) and that lots of people are low. But they are low because for whatever reason they find it difficult to eat enough protein, not because they aren't aware they should.
For non dieters, the macro ratio of the SAD just isn't the problem. It's not out of the mainstream, including mainstream healthy diets. Other things about the SAD (including the lack of fiber) are problems, IMO.By switching out carbs for protein, all those people can accelerate weight loss and preserve additional lean body mass without changing their formal calorie targets.
Why such an outcome might matter on a dieting board I leave as an exercise for the imagination.
What you are in reality saying is that by lowering their calorie target they can accelerate weight loss. Obviously, although that doesn't mean that it's always the correct approach. What we are discussing is the claim that it's somehow better or easier to do this by changing foods to ones that have fewer calories but overreported calories so that actual logged calories did not change. That's what I think is illusory about all this.
I think changing macro mix can help satiety, but if someone isn't losing they shouldn't try to pick foods that will overreport calories (if so, might as well just tell them to round up when logging)--they should just be honest and reduce their target. If they aren't losing at, say, 1200, the issue isn't that they are really eating 1200 and not 1000. They issue is far more likely to be that they aren't really eating 1200 for one reason or another (poor logging or hunger that causes them to eat unlogged things or have crazy "cheat" days or who knows).
And, of course, if they are struggling to make a target because of hunger, then they should try a different mix of foods.
But lets not pretend that its some benefit that foods are mislabeled or magically makes those foods better for weight loss. Again, the benefit of eating protein and high fiber foods (which seem to be systematically mislabeled or misreported due to how the testing works) AND also to eating more fat (which generally has a low TEF, so would not be mislabeled) are both the effect, on average, on satiety. Which is something I've always said, but this doesn't affect anything.
Again: I'm eating 40-30-30 and sure would like to lose more than I have been. So should I do something goofy like increase my protein to 50% (218 grams or about 1.75x my bodyweight in lb, which is ridiculous)? Or should I do what I did--decrease my calories and figure out how I can comply with them?0 -
It doesn't matter though because it all averages out in the long run - sometimes I wonder why people get this bogged down in the minutae .. I don't mean OP, there's a guy who constantly posts about it all being a conspiracy and we can't lose weight because he's read this or that article, not because he's eating too much
and it's not like taking a net calorie figure is the reason you're not losing weight
if you're not losing weight you're eating too much... stop that ...0 -
Then you are, right now, purposefully eating under your calorie goal rather than targeting a certain number of calories as in your premise. That's fine, but let's not pretend this is then about targeting a specific number of calories because that's not what you're doing, except to the extent your actual target is less than your nominal target.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
If my priority is to lose more weight, I would not do that. In fact, I haven't done that, and have known about this for quite a while. Because that would not be supportive of my goal.
And if the label is changed to read, say, 75 calories instead of 100, everyone who comes along targeting a specific number of calories looking to eat 100 calories will eat 33% more to get the 100 calories from the almonds, or whatever.
0 -
I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.
If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.0 -
I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.
If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.
Again, no. It is a measurement error, not a concept error.
0 -
No. If anything, it means that CI was measured incorrectly.I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.
If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.
0 -
It doesn't matter though because it all averages out in the long run - sometimes I wonder why people get this bogged down in the minutae .. I don't mean OP, there's a guy who constantly posts about it all being a conspiracy and we can't lose weight because he's read this or that article, not because he's eating too much
and it's not like taking a net calorie figure is the reason you're not losing weight
if you're not losing weight you're eating too much... stop that ...
To some extent. To another you could look at it as maximizing your rate of loss by food choices if that would make you happier to get to your goal more quickly.
Me? I'd rather just eat in way that's sustainable for the long haul, and just eat at deficit and not major in the minors and over worry like you said about minutiae.
I'm losing weight. It's not a race to a finish line for me.
0 -
I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.
If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.
No, we've always known that your body doesn't metabolize some portion of the calories (TEF). If you are on a really narrow deficit, you perhaps take that into account in figuring out your goal.
Ideally, the reported calories would take this into account, which is what the article was talking about.
This does not mean that you can eat unlimited chicken and not gain weight (which would be the conceptual problem and is the kind of thing some people claim). It means that what's listed as 200 calories of chicken might really be 170 calories.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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?
Because most people - even most dieters - are eating tons of carbs and not enough protein.
Not if they are following the MFP guidelines...I'm eating 40-30-30...
Yes, it is possible to only look at small minority of situations where there would be no meaningful change.
Me, I prefer to deal with the real world.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. If anything, it means that CI was measured incorrectly.I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.
If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.
Not at all; and that's my point. 100 calories in is still 100 calories in.
IF you're willing to concede that not all types of calories are burned the same way once it goes inside your body, than why is it so oft-stated that "all calories are the same when it comes to weight loss?" Doesn't this mean that preaching "CICO is the only thing that matters" a little bit simplistic?
Lord knows I've read enough threads with flying gifs and piled-on derision for a person simply stating there may be more to weight loss than CICO.0 -
No. 100 calories swallowed in an impermeable plastic bag isn't 100 calories as far as the body is concerned. The idea on this thread is, if true, a slightly more natural version of the same thing. Your body never had access to those calories. Nothing in the real world has changed, it's just that putting 75 calories on the label would match reality more than putting 100 on the label.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. If anything, it means that CI was measured incorrectly.I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.
If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.
Not at all; and that's my point. 100 calories in is still 100 calories in.
IF you're willing to concede that not all types of calories are burned the same way once it goes inside your body, than why is it so oft-stated that "all calories are the same when it comes to weight loss?" Doesn't this mean that preaching "CICO is the only thing that matters" a little bit simplistic?
Lord knows I've read enough threads with flying gifs and piled-on derision for a person simply stating there may be more to weight loss than CICO.
Not all types of calories are burned the same way -- TEF, for example -- but the differences are marginal and likely to be swamped by the acceptable variation in calorie calculations in the first place, let alone logging errors, in most cases. Eating even 100% protein isn't going to skew the results enough to be worth the caveats.
At most, it's a semantic distinction between labeling "Calories" and "Available Calories."
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. 100 calories swallowed in an impermeable plastic bag isn't 100 calories as far as the body is concerned. The idea on this thread is, if true, a slightly more natural version of the same thing. Your body never had access to those calories. Nothing in the real world has changed, it's just that putting 75 calories on the label would match reality more than putting 100 on the label.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. If anything, it means that CI was measured incorrectly.I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.
If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.
Not at all; and that's my point. 100 calories in is still 100 calories in.
IF you're willing to concede that not all types of calories are burned the same way once it goes inside your body, than why is it so oft-stated that "all calories are the same when it comes to weight loss?" Doesn't this mean that preaching "CICO is the only thing that matters" a little bit simplistic?
Lord knows I've read enough threads with flying gifs and piled-on derision for a person simply stating there may be more to weight loss than CICO.
Not all types of calories are burned the same way -- TEF, for example -- but the differences are marginal and likely to be swamped by the acceptable variation in calorie calculations in the first place, let alone logging errors, in most cases. Eating even 100% protein isn't going to skew the results enough to be worth the caveats.
At most, it's a semantic distinction between labeling "Calories" and "Available Calories."
I think that's fair.
0 -
I don't think we're allowed to agree. I'm not sure what to do from here.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. 100 calories swallowed in an impermeable plastic bag isn't 100 calories as far as the body is concerned. The idea on this thread is, if true, a slightly more natural version of the same thing. Your body never had access to those calories. Nothing in the real world has changed, it's just that putting 75 calories on the label would match reality more than putting 100 on the label.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No. If anything, it means that CI was measured incorrectly.I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.
If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.
Not at all; and that's my point. 100 calories in is still 100 calories in.
IF you're willing to concede that not all types of calories are burned the same way once it goes inside your body, than why is it so oft-stated that "all calories are the same when it comes to weight loss?" Doesn't this mean that preaching "CICO is the only thing that matters" a little bit simplistic?
Lord knows I've read enough threads with flying gifs and piled-on derision for a person simply stating there may be more to weight loss than CICO.
Not all types of calories are burned the same way -- TEF, for example -- but the differences are marginal and likely to be swamped by the acceptable variation in calorie calculations in the first place, let alone logging errors, in most cases. Eating even 100% protein isn't going to skew the results enough to be worth the caveats.
At most, it's a semantic distinction between labeling "Calories" and "Available Calories."
I think that's fair.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then you are, right now, purposefully eating under your calorie goal rather than targeting a certain number of calories as in your premise. That's fine, but let's not pretend this is then about targeting a specific number of calories because that's not what you're doing, except to the extent your actual target is less than your nominal target.MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
If my priority is to lose more weight, I would not do that. In fact, I haven't done that, and have known about this for quite a while. Because that would not be supportive of my goal.
And if the label is changed to read, say, 75 calories instead of 100, everyone who comes along targeting a specific number of calories looking to eat 100 calories will eat 33% more to get the 100 calories from the almonds, or whatever.
No, I am not purposely eating under my calorie goal. I am targeting a specific number (loose target...I am not rigid about it), but realize that in reality because I am eating certain foods with unavailable calories I am, in effect though not deliberately, eating less than targeted. How much less? Well, I really don't know and have no way to measure...which is the point.
That is just one reason I am not deliberately eating more. Also, I am not going to deliberately eat more when I am currently not hungry because that would...again...not be supportive of my goal. If nobody ate when not hungry, very few people would be overweight.
Besides, none of this is accurate. There is no way I believe that TDEE estimate mfp gave me is really accurate. All calorie information already ignores TEF. How many calories are absorbed also depends on how food is cooked...which I have no way of accounting for. I don't weigh anything, so my estimates are also inaccurate. This is just one more inaccuracy...however, this one seems to be much more significant than some of those others which is why labels should be changed.
At the end of the day, I don't really care how many calories I eat as long as I am 1) a healthy and visually appealing weight, and 2) not hungry.
And as I already stated, if the labels are changed I will just be more mindful than usual of my weight fluctuations to ensure I don't unknowingly eat more and gain. But I don't think that will be a problem. I buy one pound bags of almonds and count out either 6, 12, or 24 every time i eat them depending on how hungry I am and if I am having anything else with them. That will not change...only the calories logged (if I am still even logging, which I probably won't be) would change. Same thing with chicken or other protein sources...I decide how much chicken to eat based on how hungry I am...not how many calories in in the chicken. If I am still logging, and see a significant calorie change for foods I eat frequently, I will just adjust the target down. If I have stopped logging, nothing at all will change. I will be eating just as much as with the old labels.0 -
The current system simply counts a unit of energy as a calorie. So, since they're not adjusting for how certain foods are digested affecting how many calories are utilized, a calorie is a calorie is the "accounting error". I guess until they change the system we can just say some calories are more equal than others.;)0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
All calories are equal for weight loss purposes, but precisely how many calories some things have is hard to measure.
Again, my meat calories are estimates anyway, because if I get some cut of meat from a farm and have to guess what USDA cut it's most like there's tons of possible variation so I know the number of calories are probably going to be off a bit. That's life. I kind of hope that this favors me because the pastured animal is leaner, but in some cases (like pigs) it's probably the opposite. Eh.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/08/ajcn.114.100867.abstract
I don't think calories were held equal there. That's a comparison of reported diets by types of food consumed (as the Nurses Study things usually are). Since I agreed upthread that food choice matters for satiety and for people NOT counting calories greater satiety would tend to make weight gain less easy, satiety certainly matters for weight control, yes.
But it does not suggest that eating 2000 calories one way vs. another (assuming properly measured and counted) is going to have a meaningfully different effect on body weight--and that's all "calories are equal for weight loss" means.
It's also funny that "calories aren't equal" folks usually hate the Nurses Study, since it also suggests that eating tons of, say, sat fat isn't good for health. But I guess it counts when you like the results.
(I always find it interesting, but causation is always a problem, and it can't be used to say that 2000 calories of a low carb diet will be better for weight loss for any particular person than 2000 calories of a 60% carb diet, say.)
Actually one of those researchers stated in a press release that counting calories is not the most effective strategy for long-term weight management and that we should focus on the types of food that we’re eating in order to lose weight.
He would be lynched on here for such a statement
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
All calories are equal for weight loss purposes, but precisely how many calories some things have is hard to measure.
Again, my meat calories are estimates anyway, because if I get some cut of meat from a farm and have to guess what USDA cut it's most like there's tons of possible variation so I know the number of calories are probably going to be off a bit. That's life. I kind of hope that this favors me because the pastured animal is leaner, but in some cases (like pigs) it's probably the opposite. Eh.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/08/ajcn.114.100867.abstract
I don't think calories were held equal there. That's a comparison of reported diets by types of food consumed (as the Nurses Study things usually are). Since I agreed upthread that food choice matters for satiety and for people NOT counting calories greater satiety would tend to make weight gain less easy, satiety certainly matters for weight control, yes.
But it does not suggest that eating 2000 calories one way vs. another (assuming properly measured and counted) is going to have a meaningfully different effect on body weight--and that's all "calories are equal for weight loss" means.
It's also funny that "calories aren't equal" folks usually hate the Nurses Study, since it also suggests that eating tons of, say, sat fat isn't good for health. But I guess it counts when you like the results.
(I always find it interesting, but causation is always a problem, and it can't be used to say that 2000 calories of a low carb diet will be better for weight loss for any particular person than 2000 calories of a 60% carb diet, say.)
Actually one of those researchers stated in a press release that counting calories is not the most effective strategy for long-term weight management and that we should focus on the types of food that we’re eating in order to lose weight.
He would be lynched on here for such a statement
Considering that most things fail for long-term weight management, it's a silly thing to be saying.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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?
Because most people - even most dieters - are eating tons of carbs and not enough protein.
Not if they are following the MFP guidelines...I'm eating 40-30-30...
Yes, it is possible to only look at small minority of situations where there would be no meaningful change.
Me, I prefer to deal with the real world.
You make assumptions -- or gross generalizations -- about dieters.
Stepping back, I actually agree that eating more protein is great advice for a dieter who doesn't and who can do so without too much hardship and enjoy it (a miserable diet isn't sustainable, even if I'd enjoy what the person thinks is miserable). All I disagree about is that the fact protein calories are often overestimated is the reason why eating more protein is often helpful. IMO, it's often helpful because it's satiating to many and because getting enough protein helps maintain muscle assuming you are exercising. That would be true even if they fixed the calorie counts. (Like I said, I think it's easy to underestimate meat calories for other reasons, which may balance out the effect you are talking about for many.) IMO, if the issue is that you are eating too many calories, the obvious answer is to improve your logging or increase your deficit (and change macros/food choice if you need to be satisfied or get adequate nutrition, of course).
You seem to start with the assumption that people are too incompetent to log well, so need to come up with tricks so that they are eating less than they think in order to counterbalance their poor logging. Personally, I've found it more helpful to try and be precise, although I accept that in some areas it will have errors. Easy to deal with by reducing calories if I'm not losing, as I said.0 -
I posted these links a while back. Thought I'd give 'em another shot as there was little interest at the time.
http://nutritionovereasy.com/2011/04/can-you-trust-the-nutrition-facts/
http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/calorie-counts-arent-accurate-2013-70
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