Why the calorie is broken
Options
LowCarbInScotland
Posts: 1,027 Member
I loved this article published on BBC Future today, take a peek when you have a free 10-20 mins.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160201-why-the-calorie-is-broken
I'm a calorie counter still, I hope to get to the point eventually where it's not so important to me, but I have a long way to go before my stomach can be the sole barometer of how much food I consume. Whilst the calorie may be broken, it still remains a measuring stick for me to use as a control mechanism while my body and mind heal from a lifelong abusive relationship with food.
Some notable points in the article worth highlighting:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160201-why-the-calorie-is-broken
I'm a calorie counter still, I hope to get to the point eventually where it's not so important to me, but I have a long way to go before my stomach can be the sole barometer of how much food I consume. Whilst the calorie may be broken, it still remains a measuring stick for me to use as a control mechanism while my body and mind heal from a lifelong abusive relationship with food.
Some notable points in the article worth highlighting:
- Cooking food potentially increases it's calorie count because the body doesn't have to work so hard to process it
- The cooking process breaks down parts of some food that we may have otherwise simply expelled
- Steak tartare has less calories than a cooked steak, so order your steak rare and save yourself some calories
- Some of the calorie data we use today is based on research from the 1800's and we all know how unreliable science can sometimes be, for goodness sake, doctors thought lobotomies were a good idea just 65 years ago
0
Replies
-
I am a vocal advocate of abandoning calorie counting and restriction. Interesting enough, I prefer my meat rare or even raw. Perhaps that plays a role in my "over estimated TDEE" consumption, while maintaining or even losing. Of course, that wouldn't apply for vegetables, as I don't eat any.0
-
The body isn't a calorimeter, so calories are a rough estimate. We do have the technology to create a better model, and you can even play with it here:
https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/
It's based on a mathematical model (by Kevin Hall's group) that was derived from metabolic chamber experiments, so it's a lot more accurate than MFP's simple model.
0 -
The body isn't a calorimeter, so calories are a rough estimate. We do have the technology to create a better model, and you can even play with it here:
https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/
It's based on a mathematical model (by Kevin Hall's group) that was derived from metabolic chamber experiments, so it's a lot more accurate than MFP's simple model.
Interesting. This site gives me a pretty accurate number for maintaining.
0 -
If you haven't already, try it in "expert mode." It's smart enough to understand how carb restriction works.
0 -
What is really interesting is that, at a year out, it gives me a +/- 8 kg range -- assuming that I stick to the calorie and exercise goals given. That's a freaking HUGE range. It's a 35 pound window, after a year!0
-
It would be easier to model humans if we were all the same.
It's still a simplified model -- 9 input parameters, I think. But not as simple as MFP's model.
Edit: with advanced controls on, you can reduce the uncertainty. If you don't like uncertainty. 0 -
This estimates that I can reach my goal weight in 252 days.
That's.... interesting. 0 -
That calculator is pretty spot on for me.0
-
Interesting! Thanks for posting!0
-
The body isn't a calorimeter, so calories are a rough estimate. We do have the technology to create a better model, and you can even play with it here:
https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/
It's based on a mathematical model (by Kevin Hall's group) that was derived from metabolic chamber experiments, so it's a lot more accurate than MFP's simple model.
Interesting. This site gives me a pretty accurate number for maintaining.
It seems to really overestimate mine. It also didn't change at all when I adjusted my carbs from 60% down to 10%.0 -
I tried it from my start weight of about 190 and set it for 155 in 120 days since that was about what I did in the first 4 months. It suggested 1200 kcal per day which is about 300 less than I was eating.
Maintenance seems right. I have been eating around 2000 kcal or more and am not changing anymore.
I'm going to play with it some more. thanks 0 -
Interesting. I need to go into the expert mode an play around a bit more.0
-
Yikes! My goal now is to eat less than 1,300 calories daily and this says I need to eat 1,099 calories to lose 45 lbs in 6 months (less than 2 lbs/wk) and I am tall and have a LOT of weight to lose. Looks like the biggest variable in how it decides how much you can eat is the physical activity level, which surprises me considering the fact that current science says it's diet, not exercise that plays the biggest role in weight loss. I think I'll stay where I'm at calorie-wise.0
-
The calculator is just a bit smarter about the effects of calories on weight gain and loss, but it's still a CICO model. I.e., it doesn't consider hunger effects. Increased hunger usually comes with increased exercise. And decreased hunger usually comes with decreased carb intake. I'm not aware of any mathematical model that includes those factors.0
This discussion has been closed.