Why Nutrition Label Inaccuracies Probably Don't Matter

TR0berts

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/

cmriverside

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?

...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

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."

h1udd

exercise calories = inaccurate
Calorie content = inaccurate
cup measurement = inaccurate
Clothes sizes = inaccurate
nutrition labels = inaccurate
BRM/TDEE guesstimates = inacurate
BMI = inaccurate

Accuracy is not so much important though compared to consistency and, if you consistantly log these things, it isnt long until you can apply a coefficient (ie eating back 75% of exercise calories or modifying TDEE) and you can get the required output

That said ... I am still not at my goal, so what do I know

pinuplove

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

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

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

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

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

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.