Why Nutrition Label Inaccuracies Probably Don't Matter

TR0berts
TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Greg Nuckols put out another outstanding article yesterday. It addresses why any inaccuracies in nutrition labeling - which may be up to 20% off - likely won't matter for the vast majority of people. It also reinforces the idea of using real-world data - vs. whatever a Calorie estimator/calculator says - in making adjustments to how much you consume to lose/maintain/gain weight.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/nutrition-labels/

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    Well, that's pretty much what we all do anyway, right? I mean anyone with any success doesn't just use one tracking point, they use many. Some people do well with meticulous tracking and some find it obsessive and burdensome.

    ::shrug:: To each their own, right?

    :lol: ...and the author admits he only eats lean cheeseburger and Quest bars. So I'm guessing he's one of those who likes to instruct but doesn't follow his own advice.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Greg Nuckols put out another outstanding article yesterday. It addresses why any inaccuracies in nutrition labeling - which may be up to 20% off - likely won't matter for the vast majority of people. It also reinforces the idea of using real-world data - vs. whatever a Calorie estimator/calculator says - in making adjustments to how much you consume to lose/maintain/gain weight.

    https://www.strongerbyscience.com/nutrition-labels/

    I get the feeling this whole article could be summed up as "The Law of Large Numbers exists. Go look it up."
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    I know there is no way my logging is or will ever be 100% accurate, but as long as the ups balance out the downs I'm happy. I keep an eye on my 30-day trend (week-to-week doesn't work so well for a cycling female) to make sure I'm more or less on target.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    I read this - or skimmed it and he kind of lost me at "why bother"

    because it's a starting point. nothing is going to be perfectly accurate- but it gives you a place to start. I think if you keep life in perspective along with the fact that labels are likely to be inaccurate and work from there- you have sort of a good jumping point.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    JoRocka wrote: »
    I read this - or skimmed it and he kind of lost me at "why bother"

    because it's a starting point. nothing is going to be perfectly accurate- but it gives you a place to start. I think if you keep life in perspective along with the fact that labels are likely to be inaccurate and work from there- you have sort of a good jumping point.



    :huh:

    Greg isn't the one saying why bother. That's the article he's responding to. What your 2nd paragraph says is pretty much the point of Greg's response.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Greg Nuckols put out another outstanding article yesterday. It addresses why any inaccuracies in nutrition labeling - which may be up to 20% off - likely won't matter for the vast majority of people. It also reinforces the idea of using real-world data - vs. whatever a Calorie estimator/calculator says - in making adjustments to how much you consume to lose/maintain/gain weight.

    https://www.strongerbyscience.com/nutrition-labels/

    I get the feeling this whole article could be summed up as "The Law of Large Numbers exists. Go look it up."


    True.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    I read this - or skimmed it and he kind of lost me at "why bother"

    because it's a starting point. nothing is going to be perfectly accurate- but it gives you a place to start. I think if you keep life in perspective along with the fact that labels are likely to be inaccurate and work from there- you have sort of a good jumping point.



    :huh:

    Greg isn't the one saying why bother. That's the article he's responding to. What your 2nd paragraph says is pretty much the point of Greg's response.

    herm- I really did skim it then- it definitely looked like "why bother"- I'll have to go back- usually his articles are pretty good. (which is why I get them- but also- attention span of a gnat.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    I know there is no way my logging is or will ever be 100% accurate, but as long as the ups balance out the downs I'm happy. I keep an eye on my 30-day trend (week-to-week doesn't work so well for a cycling female) to make sure I'm more or less on target.

    Mine will never be 100% accurate either. As long as I'm close enough and my weight is where I want it, then i'm being accurate enough.

Categories