Different calorie counts from different databases??

jrochest
jrochest Posts: 119 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
This is from Dr Yoni Freedhoff's blog, Weighty Matters -- he's a obesity specialist based in Ottawa, who wrote "The Diet Fix" a few years ago. He's very sensible; a nice, sane and logical guy with a very reasonable approach to weight loss, which is why I'm finding this so alarming.

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2018/05/how-many-calories-your-meal-has-may.html

In short, different calorie counting databases give very different numbers for the same foods: as much as 40% different, which kind of futzes over any precision. I'm not sure why and how this works -- and the blog entry is pretty sparse, and there's no comments section to ask him how and why it works -- but it's worrisome, if true.

Replies

  • serindipte
    serindipte Posts: 1,557 Member
    edited May 2018
    And this is why one of the first things asked when someone comes in saying they aren't losing is "are you verifying your entries are correct" (after asking if they are using a food scale)

  • jrochest
    jrochest Posts: 119 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    I interpret the article as saying that the actual act of logging, even when not entirely accurate, makes people more calorie aware and can be helpful even if the calories aren't spot-on.

    Even with the most accurate and up-to-date nutrition information, calories in and calories out are approximate. Luckily, good enough will get you there.

    Yes, that's his point -- and it's more or less the core of his approach, too. And because I'm still comparatively fat there's no personal problem for me at the moment. But it's still unnerving, especially knowing that my margins will be very small as I lose (I'm little and I'm 57; I gain on comparatively little food).

    One quick note: I assume that the RA did her homework and checked the calories against the USDA or otherwise made sure the calories came from a valid source. The third database may use a Canadian source rather than the USDA and that may account for the difference. I don't think it's sloppy crowdsourced data -- I think it's that estimating calories, in general, can get pretty fuzzy.

    And, of course, packages aren't always that accurate either...I have three packets of English Muffins, all of which weigh about the same amount (50 grams per muffin, more or less) and all have more or less the same ingredients list. One brand has the calories per muffin at 130 calories; one has it at 150 calories; one has it at 180. Either they're using a weird amount of oil in the last one, or someone is tweaking the numbers.



  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited May 2018
    jrochest wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    I interpret the article as saying that the actual act of logging, even when not entirely accurate, makes people more calorie aware and can be helpful even if the calories aren't spot-on.

    Even with the most accurate and up-to-date nutrition information, calories in and calories out are approximate. Luckily, good enough will get you there.

    Yes, that's his point -- and it's more or less the core of his approach, too. And because I'm still comparatively fat there's no personal problem for me at the moment. But it's still unnerving, especially knowing that my margins will be very small as I lose (I'm little and I'm 57; I gain on comparatively little food).

    One quick note: I assume that the RA did her homework and checked the calories against the USDA or otherwise made sure the calories came from a valid source. The third database may use a Canadian source rather than the USDA and that may account for the difference. I don't think it's sloppy crowdsourced data -- I think it's that estimating calories, in general, can get pretty fuzzy.

    And, of course, packages aren't always that accurate either...I have three packets of English Muffins, all of which weigh about the same amount (50 grams per muffin, more or less) and all have more or less the same ingredients list. One brand has the calories per muffin at 130 calories; one has it at 150 calories; one has it at 180. Either they're using a weird amount of oil in the last one, or someone is tweaking the numbers.
    Don't get unnerved about it. Through practice and experience, you can dial in on logging accuracy and overall calorie intake/output from your personal weight response to the foods you eat over time. One thing that I do that may help you is that I enter the food I use into My Foods (without sharing with the database) so that I know it's as accurate as I can make it and no one but me can edit it.

    I would assume that the testers used the databases as-is if they had that much of a discrepancy. Since they didn't elaborate, we can't know.

    As for the English Muffins, that's not really much of a spread considering they are from different companies and likely used different recipes. That's an example of why it's important to track specifically (by brand) rather than generally (by type of food) whenever you can. Use separate entries for separate brands.

    Do everything that you can to be accurate to make up for when there's no way to be accurate. Weigh all solids and any liquids for which you have a weight on a food scale whenever possible. Keep an eye on the entries you use to make sure they still match the current nutritional info. Log before you eat so that you don't forget to log things.
  • fr33sia12
    fr33sia12 Posts: 1,258 Member
    This is why I don't use the database, I enter all the foods manually and don't share. This way at least I know everything I enter is correct to the packaging etc rather than a database with many different entries.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,252 Member
    If you choose MFP database entries carefully (especially until your frequent/recent lists are solid), log using the consistent entries over time, and monitor your actual weight loss rate and adjust calories sensibly based on actual real-world results, you'll be fine.

    * Your calorie goal is an estimate.
    * Your food log choices are calorie estimates.
    * Your exercise calorie expenditure is an estimate.
    * You move different amounts every day in your non-exercise life, so you never burn the same calories from one day to the next.

    It's all estimates. They can all be wrong. But if you rule out the sources of variation you can (like using good database entries), and monitor your results, you can use all these estimates to get the results you want. Some numbers will be over, some will be under, it will tend to even out. When you watch your own weight loss results and adjust based on that, you correct for any systematic errors in your estimates.

    Nothing here worth stressing about, really. ;)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories