Are We Missing The Caloric Forest For the Trees?

J72FIT
J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
http://www.leighpeele.com/missing-the-caloric-forest-for-the-trees

I liked this article. Added some valuable perspective for me...

Replies

  • OldHobo
    OldHobo Posts: 647 Member
    Nothing new here in my opinion.

    The FDA allows a 20% margin of error on nutrition labels.
    No stats to prove this but I'm sure plant nutrition varies with, among other things, soil nutrients, weather variances, and length of time and conditions between harvest and grocery retail purchase.

    So what to do. In my opinion, nothing. My plan is to continue measuring and tracking as best I can and not get real involved in arguments about whether I, let alone you, should weigh or measure the morning buckwheat groats.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    Nothing new, I agree - but a good analysis and relevant to MFP and calorie counting in general.

    It says what I have always said - Don't worry about being exactly accurate - track and log well enough to make progress and if you are acheiving your goals, your logging is accurate enough..

    That neither means calorie counting is useless nor that it is the only method nor that it must be done perfectly to work.

    Dont make perfection the enemy of progress - which I think some people do by making calorie counting, logging, tracking harder than it should be.

    people getting in all sorts of angst over what to do if they cant weigh one strawberry and should it be estimated as medium or large or saved to eat at home???

    heck, a large one only has 6 calories, just put whatever you like (or nothing in this case) and move on......

    (there seriously was such a thread in my early days on MFP)

    ^^^^ 100%