Are we being lied to??
Replies
-
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 -
Well, I'm not sure that most of those experts discount calorie counting because of the inherent fluctuations in nutritional information. The ones who do dismiss it, or the ones about which I've read, dismiss it for other reasons -- logging accuracy, potential non-feasibility long term, and the fact that plenty of people who count end up failing to lose and maintain.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.
Basically, calorie counting isn't magic, but when it fails, it's not because nutritional info skews systematically lower than actual nutritional content, thus leading people systematically to understate their intake.
Every chicken breast, steak, potato, or tomato won't be identical to every other one, or to the supposed "ideal" item in the USDA database. But there's no reason at all to suspect that they all differ consistently. Even if people don't weight their Skittles.
0 -
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.
That may be true for package weight, but we are discussing calorie count which is a different thing. Yes, weight does affect calories, but also the amount of water, sugar, fat, etc. in the particular food-type ingredients used. As someone mentioned, you can have two dishes of peeled and cored apples that weigh exactly the same, but one will have more sugar than the other so it has more calories. The one with more water than the other will have fewer calories. There is no way to know for sure, so the best we can do is rely on averages. This is why the USDA database numbers are the best for agricultural products: they do extensive testing of a particular item and they come up with an average from hundreds of tests.
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
Some of that is because there are two different types of fiber, soluble and insoluble (we need both BTW but only digest and absorb calories from soluble) and the tests for them are different, depending on the source. This is where the whole "Quest bars overstate their fiber" lawsuit came from. The independent lab that did the testing did not use the proper test for the fiber source used in the bars. When proper testing was done, the labels were proven to be accurate and the lawsuit was thrown out.
0 -
ItalianChick90 wrote: »I recently heard that labeling laws allow a 20% margin of error on the nutrition facts of foods. Is this true? How will we be able to track calories properly?
I recently listened to a weight loss expert say that we are really good at measuring calorie expenditure through activity, but we're terrible at measuring the calories in food. But his claim was that people are either going to burn more calories because they are overweight or because they are exercising, and yet they eat about the same amount of food. We need to have a rough idea of how much we are eating, but if we are exercising, that rough idea is probably good enough.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.
I would, I'd just log the extras too...sheermomentum wrote: »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.
Yeah. If you're not losing, eat less. Just adjust...0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, I'm not sure that most of those experts discount calorie counting because of the inherent fluctuations in nutritional information. The ones who do dismiss it, or the ones about which I've read, dismiss it for other reasons -- logging accuracy, potential non-feasibility long term, and the fact that plenty of people who count end up failing to lose and maintain.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.
Basically, calorie counting isn't magic, but when it fails, it's not because nutritional info skews systematically lower than actual nutritional content, thus leading people systematically to understate their intake.
Every chicken breast, steak, potato, or tomato won't be identical to every other one, or to the supposed "ideal" item in the USDA database. But there's no reason at all to suspect that they all differ consistently. Even if people don't weight their Skittles.
We are in agreement on this one and I think of this every time I see another "Why can't I lose" thread. As in most cases it's operator error. Knowing there is error, if one is not losing, simply err on the side of caution and overestimate caloric intake by 10%, 20% - whatever is necessary to maintain a deficit.0 -
Yeah, exactly. The scale does what the scale does. Adjust your intake to get the results you want.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, I'm not sure that most of those experts discount calorie counting because of the inherent fluctuations in nutritional information. The ones who do dismiss it, or the ones about which I've read, dismiss it for other reasons -- logging accuracy, potential non-feasibility long term, and the fact that plenty of people who count end up failing to lose and maintain.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.
Basically, calorie counting isn't magic, but when it fails, it's not because nutritional info skews systematically lower than actual nutritional content, thus leading people systematically to understate their intake.
Every chicken breast, steak, potato, or tomato won't be identical to every other one, or to the supposed "ideal" item in the USDA database. But there's no reason at all to suspect that they all differ consistently. Even if people don't weight their Skittles.
We are in agreement on this one and I think of this every time I see another "Why can't I lose" thread. As in most cases it's operator error. Knowing there is error, if one is not losing, simply err on the side of caution and overestimate caloric intake by 10%, 20% - whatever is necessary to maintain a deficit.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions