Are we being lied to??
Options
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
0 -
People who weigh their portions don't do that, though, and that's the advice given here.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
0 -
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
0 -
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
0 -
Well, look at it this way: your BMR, TDEE and exercise expenditure calculations aren't entirely accurate either. Nor is your bathroom scale. But it usually balances out in the end.0
-
C'mon, man, just admit you mistakenly applied the motivation not to underweight a package which causes erroneous results to skew in one direction to concluding that nutritional information per serving would also skew in that same direction, and move on. Stop digging.
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I watched a show the other night where they had a bunch of different foods. Some were 10% over while others were 10% under.
There is no such thing as 100% accurate in this game, not exercise calories or food calories etc etc even the TDEE calculators aren't spot on.
Was it random or did some foods tend to go over or under more often?
They were more over than under unfortunately. And it was totally random. No rhyme or reason.
They showed a food factory where they make the frozen meals. The lady adding the pasta simply picked up a handful of and tossed it in every packet. No weighing.
It was "the truth about calories " show.
Haha, oh man, MFP nightmares, all around
Ok yeah, that makes sense. (I thought that meat products might tend to go over more often for some reason, but ok.)
Will check out that show!
There was actually something in the news awhile ago about how calories tend to be overstated for foods that are higher in protein and fiber. I found it interesting because a lot of people who go low carb tend to up their protein. When they start to lose weight more quickly they assume it is the lower carbs. The increased weight loss may be due, at least in part, to eating at a lower calorie level without knowing it. Here's an article about it:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?_r=0
Thank you for the link, that's neat. I think I've seen this idea, that we may not be getting all the calories in the fibrous foods we're eating, because the fiber may be less available for digestion. I do agree with some of the cited experts that we should probably act as if that's not the case, though
Interesting argument, seems like it could have some validity to it, for sure.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
C'mon, man, just admit you mistakenly applied the motivation not to underweight a package which causes erroneous results to skew in one direction to concluding that nutritional information per serving would also skew in that same direction, and move on.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
Dude, I'm an MFP 1%er when it comes to logging diligence and even I wouldn't weight that.Stop digging.
And there goes the irony meter again...
0 -
Even if no one weighs Skittles, that doesn't affect the nutritional value per serving. Right? Because that was your claim.DeguelloTex wrote: »
C'mon, man, just admit you mistakenly applied the motivation not to underweight a package which causes erroneous results to skew in one direction to concluding that nutritional information per serving would also skew in that same direction, and move on.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
Dude, I'm an MFP 1%er when it comes to logging diligence and even I wouldn't weight that.Stop digging.
And there goes the irony meter again...
The motivation for a manufacturer to overfill rather than underfill a package simply doesn't force the nutritional value per serving to be systematically higher as well. Right?
0 -
I've been told that it's very difficult to get 100% accuracy and that's the reason that things can be off. They just can't promise that the numbers are exact.
I've never personally spoken to anyone who does the measuring, though. I got it from someone who talked to a weight loss expert who had talked to people who do it and seen this stuff done.
I'd love to ask them myself. Or see how they do it. Or both.
I don't think they're lying. They just can't be all that sure.
If you actually want to read about the technical side of food data collection, analysis, sampling, and error margins, I have a link at the bottom to the actual guidelines. Interestingly, the error margin regulation is uni-directional, as the confidence intervals required are one sided, with the side determined by the type of nutrient.
Class I nutrients (added nutrients) must be present at 100% or more of stated values
Class II nutrients (naturally occurring), like protein, fibre and most micronutrients, must be present at 80% or more of the stated values
Third group nutrients like calories, fat, sodium and sugars must be present at 120% or less of the stated values.
I believe small businesses can use 3rd party "recipe" databases which calculate nutritional information based on the previously established nutritional information of each of the ingredients.
Here are the actual calculations used:
Nutrients Equations
Class I (added) predicted value = (mean - t (0.95;df) composite size/k + 1/n)1/2 (s))
Class II (naturally occurring) predicted value = (mean - t (0.95;df) (composite size/k + 1/n)1/2 (s))(5/4)
Third Group predicted value = (mean + t (0.95;df) (composite size/k + 1/n)1/2 (s)) (5/6)
where mean = the sample mean
t (0.95;df) = the one-tailed 95th percentile of the t-distribution with
df = the degrees of freedom, which is usually defined as n - 1
n = the number of samples analyzed
k = the number of future samples to be analyzed for the future mean (12 is recommended)
composite size = the number of units making up each composite in the data base used to compute the mean and s (12 is recommended)
The ratio of the composite size to k (composite size / k) reduces to 1 with 12 / 12
s = the standard deviation
The factors 5/4 or 5/6 represent, from the compliance viewpoint, the 20% margin of allowance in labeled values for class II nutrients or for the third group of nutrients, respectively.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm0 -
Also, there are motivations both ways--potential penalties vs. wasting money and giving away more than you need to. Granted, the cost of measuring more precisely than you need to likely outweighs the cost of some error.
If one is worried about it, measuring packaged stuff is worth doing, just to see the variation. I don't eat much single serving size stuff, so I do weigh just about everything--maybe that's weird? I dunno. I buy lunch often enough that there's major uncertainty there, but when I was careful about logging otherwise it seemed to even out (or else I had enough leeway that it didn't matter).
The key thing is to adjust calories based on results anyway.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Even if no one weighs Skittles, that doesn't affect the nutritional value per serving. Right? Because that was your claim.DeguelloTex wrote: »
C'mon, man, just admit you mistakenly applied the motivation not to underweight a package which causes erroneous results to skew in one direction to concluding that nutritional information per serving would also skew in that same direction, and move on.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
Dude, I'm an MFP 1%er when it comes to logging diligence and even I wouldn't weight that.Stop digging.
And there goes the irony meter again...
The motivation for a manufacturer to overfill rather than underfill a package simply doesn't force the nutritional value per serving to be systematically higher as well. Right?
It does when the serving says one package.
0 -
Start off going by the estimates you're given, and if it doesn't work, adjust your calorie goal. It's not nearly as complicated as you think.0
-
What would you say the proportion of the average person's diet that consists of single serving packages that also don't give a weight for a serving is? Do you have some examples of those?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Even if no one weighs Skittles, that doesn't affect the nutritional value per serving. Right? Because that was your claim.DeguelloTex wrote: »
C'mon, man, just admit you mistakenly applied the motivation not to underweight a package which causes erroneous results to skew in one direction to concluding that nutritional information per serving would also skew in that same direction, and move on.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That has nothing to do with the nutritional content per serving. It only affects how much is in the package.As long as it's a margin of error as in plus and minus then it should even out over the course of a day shouldn't it.
There are penalties for putting less in a package than is claimed on the package. There aren't penalties for giving the consumer more than claimed.
So, no, I don't expect these things even out, I expect the distribution of errors skews towards under-estimating.
It does in the real world, where a package is one or two servings and people just divide up the contents accordingly.
Well, here in MFP-Land, we weigh our food on a digital scale!
Of course. Everybody on MFP who picks up a single-serving bag of Skittles actually weights them out and ditches the extra.
Yeah.
That happens.
Dude, I'm an MFP 1%er when it comes to logging diligence and even I wouldn't weight that.Stop digging.
And there goes the irony meter again...
The motivation for a manufacturer to overfill rather than underfill a package simply doesn't force the nutritional value per serving to be systematically higher as well. Right?
It does when the serving says one package.
ETA: Here's a typical example:
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I watched a show the other night where they had a bunch of different foods. Some were 10% over while others were 10% under.
There is no such thing as 100% accurate in this game, not exercise calories or food calories etc etc even the TDEE calculators aren't spot on.
Was it random or did some foods tend to go over or under more often?
They were more over than under unfortunately. And it was totally random. No rhyme or reason.
They showed a food factory where they make the frozen meals. The lady adding the pasta simply picked up a handful of and tossed it in every packet. No weighing.
It was "the truth about calories " show.
Haha, oh man, MFP nightmares, all around
Ok yeah, that makes sense. (I thought that meat products might tend to go over more often for some reason, but ok.)
Will check out that show!
There was actually something in the news awhile ago about how calories tend to be overstated for foods that are higher in protein and fiber. I found it interesting because a lot of people who go low carb tend to up their protein. When they start to lose weight more quickly they assume it is the lower carbs. The increased weight loss may be due, at least in part, to eating at a lower calorie level without knowing it. Here's an article about it:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?_r=0
Thank you for the link, that's neat. I think I've seen this idea, that we may not be getting all the calories in the fibrous foods we're eating, because the fiber may be less available for digestion. I do agree with some of the cited experts that we should probably act as if that's not the case, though
Interesting argument, seems like it could have some validity to it, for sure.
It's not just fiber, it's protein as well. Your body absorbs less of the calories in protein than it does in processed carbs. Also, how you cook something impacts how many calories it has...for example, if you cook steak until well done your body will absorb more of the calories than if you have it medium rare. Also, if you liquify food (like in smoothies, etc.) it is easier for your body to absorb more of the calories.
It is difficult or impossible for the average person to calculate these things with anything approaching accuracy so there is no point worrying about it. Although it might be worth considering when setting macros and looking at your big picture food choices. However, I also think that means it is silly to drive yourself crazy measuring how many seconds you spray your almost zero calorie cooking spray, or weighing a slice of bread in case it is 0.01 gram more than the label says a slice is.
If you're happy with your weight or your rate of loss, you are eating the right amount. If not, just eat a little less of everything.
0 -
This is why many experts discount calorie counting due to the degree of error inherent in the calculations.0
-
OP, I've lost 69 pounds while logging as best I can. You're going to have inaccuracies in both inputs and outputs.
What worked for me:
1. Log every bite
2. Round down exercise
3. Just because housework and yardwork are in the database doesn't mean you need to use the entries--but do a little more of it anyway
4. Increase daily activity overall, but don't bother logging meandering walks or squats at the kitchen counter while your coffee drips
0 -
The other thing to keep in mind is that you don't actually know with accuracy how many calories you burn either; any numbers you get will just be estimates (even the testing only measures a single time period and there are many factors that can affect the results)
Even if you could count intake with 100% accuracy, without knowing your exact output, it still comes down to trial and error for weight control. Take your MFP requirement (estimate) and eat that much (approximately), and adjust up or down based on your results.0 -
Experts in what? Not statistics, that's for sure.This is why many experts discount calorie counting due to the degree of error inherent in the calculations.
Maybe all the successful counters on here are just lucky when they pick packages off the shelf. What do you think the odds of that are?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Experts in what? Not statistics, that's for sure.This is why many experts discount calorie counting due to the degree of error inherent in the calculations.
Maybe all the successful counters on here are just lucky when they pick packages off the shelf. What do you think the odds of that are?
When I say experts I mean policy makers and influencers looking at this from an epidemiological perspective. Funny as many of them have the MPH behind their names, which "should" suggest advanced knowledge of stats.
I disagree with this and you certainly cannot argue with the results when over 90% of the population successfully losing more than 30 lbs and keeping it off reported using logging as one of the key elements in their strategy.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions