We've been counting calories all wrong?

jenerek_md

Worth the read. I would love to hear some of your thoughts on this article. I so far have been living and breathing calories in-calories out and have lost 25lbs in 2.5 months with the goal to loose 50 total. No doubt it's going to start to get harder as I get closer to my goal.

"Changing how we measure our food can transform our relationship with it for the better"

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/weve-been-counting-calories-all-wrong?utm_source=mbfbcaads&utm_campaign=global

JeromeBarry1

I read until is described a calorie as the energy to raise 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius. I was taught in high school that it was 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

MissusMoon

It's getting harder as you get closer to goal because you're smaller. That's how it works. This got discussed in a thread or two in the debate section. I can't do another CICO argument today, I just can't.

MakePeasNotWar

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

I read until is described a calorie as the energy to raise 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius. I was taught in high school that it was 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

That's because the "calories" we talk about normally are actually kilocalories.

JeromeBarry1

I got down to where it started talking about satiety. Other than the likely mis-cite of the definition of a calorie, it's a well-written piece of journalism attempting to elucidate recently gained understandings of the influence of chewing and cooking at altering the digestive availability of energy in the foods we eat. It does not suggest that a calorie is not a calorie. Rather, it explains that the 5 different methods allowed to Big Industrial Food for measuring their calories are capable of producing statistically significantly different values for the same food. It also explains that local chefs impart so much variability on restaurant servings as to render web-site nutrition values meaningless. This is good and useful information to know.

goldthistime

This "disturbingly large margin of error" is still close enough for me. Maybe it's because I eat almonds almost daily . As to satiety, I automatically look to keep adequate protein and lots of fibre/veggies in my diet. Perhaps if someone spends no time on these forums they might benefit from a satiety based diet.

STEVE142142

I take all scientific studies with a grain of salt. A lot of these studies are done for special interest groups that are looking for a certain result.

For me it's been a simple matter of calories in vs. Calories out. I read most of the article but it got a little too blah blah blah blah. A couple points I noticed;

exercise calories. That can be a variable depending on the intensity of your workout and the conditions you're working out in.

There's no way you can estimate calories as far as eating out, you're not in control of portions. As someone who worked in the restaurant industry meals vary from person to person making them

Yes genetics can play a factor as far as how your body processes food and calories. This is where you have to educate yourself. You have to figure out how your body works and how your body process calories. everybody's different.

When I see the word diet I cringe. As someone who's been on diets and miserably failed on them I don't look at what I'm doing now as a diet. For this succeed it has to be a lifestyle change. As part of being a lifestyle change you need to take personal responsibility and educate yourself as far as food how you're eating it portion size calories. Too many people are looking for an easy out.

dykask

The amount of calories derived from food is just an estimate. If you use a fitness tracker to see how many calories you burn that is also an estimate. That is why we need to watch and make adjustments. The article just gives a lot of background on how the estimates have been determined. Interesting reading but nothing game changing.

Zipp237

Things will change as they learn more, but for now, calories is what we've all agreed to use and it's the best thing we have. No matter how much they figure out about weight loss, it all points to what everyone has said forever: Eat right and exercise. That is unlikely to change.

pebble4321

That was an interesting read, thanks for sharing.

The takeaway for me, though it's not actually anything new, is that when we count calories we are working with estimates. Estimates of calories in and estimates of calories out. And that satiety is important in helping us to keep the CI part of the equation under control

I don't think it means that we are "counting calories wrong" or that we may as well just throw the whole idea of calories out the window because it is fatally flawed. It does mean that each of us has to use our common sense. Be aware that we are working with estimates and be prepared to adjust cals in or out depending on our own individual response to the numbers we use. Find the foods that give us most satiety and enjoyment and work our food plan around those.

And the gut microbiome stuff is fascinating, I think we are going to hear more and more about this as time goes by.

Right now though, MFP's approach clearly works very well for lots of people... so I'm going to keep on counting calories!

lemurcat12

I thought the article was pretty silly. Yes, it's not possible to know exactly how many calories we take in or burn outside the lab and there are a variety of factors that make a difference (like restaurant counts being off). But none of that matters to the ability to lose weight -- you don't need an exact number to be able to adjust and eat less or burn more. As for satiety, that's just common sense. People who claim it's not workable as is and "we need something better" like the people interviewed supposedly did sound kind of pathetic and whiny, like they are blaming scientists for the fact that they find losing weight hard.

SezxyStef

FFS another article touting not all calories are created equal...yes they are.

SMH...

ogtmama

No, it was just saying that when something is difficult to digest, like beans or rare meat not all the calories are absorbed.

Seffell

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

I read until is described a calorie as the energy to raise 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius. I was taught in high school that it was 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

The calories given on food labels are "kcal" which are defined as 1 kilogram per degree Celsius.
The ones you studied in school are not used.

californiagirl2012

It does not matter. All that matters is that you estimate the food energy put into your body, it doesn't matter what they are called; portions, meal plans, carbons, calories, points, calories, kcals, who cares what they are called. When you look at the amount of food, pay attention to how you feel, and watch your body change, it works. I don't care what they call it, I lost 85 pounds doing it, kept it off for 5 years, and no one can tell me it's wrong because it worked.