Science Reveals why Calorie Counts are all wrong.
shannashannabobana
Posts: 625 Member
Fascinating article!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
The crux of it is that there is a lot more to it and the calorie counts we see are quite simplistic and probably off by even more than we think. From the article:
"Every calorie count on every food label you have ever seen is based on these estimates or on modest derivations thereof. Yet these approximations assume that the 19th-century laboratory experiments on which they are based accurately reflect how much energy different people with different bodies derive from many different kinds of food. New research has revealed that this assumption is, at best, far too simplistic. To accurately calculate the total calories that someone gets out of a given food, you would have to take into account a dizzying array of factors, including whether that food has evolved to survive digestion; how boiling, baking, microwaving or flambéing a food changes its structure and chemistry; how much energy the body expends to break down different kinds of food; and the extent to which the billions of bacteria in the gut aid human digestion and, conversely, steal some calories for themselves."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
The crux of it is that there is a lot more to it and the calorie counts we see are quite simplistic and probably off by even more than we think. From the article:
"Every calorie count on every food label you have ever seen is based on these estimates or on modest derivations thereof. Yet these approximations assume that the 19th-century laboratory experiments on which they are based accurately reflect how much energy different people with different bodies derive from many different kinds of food. New research has revealed that this assumption is, at best, far too simplistic. To accurately calculate the total calories that someone gets out of a given food, you would have to take into account a dizzying array of factors, including whether that food has evolved to survive digestion; how boiling, baking, microwaving or flambéing a food changes its structure and chemistry; how much energy the body expends to break down different kinds of food; and the extent to which the billions of bacteria in the gut aid human digestion and, conversely, steal some calories for themselves."
0
Replies
-
Nothing new here (but I've been reading these boards for a while), but it's still the best tool we have to measure portions and not overeat.0
-
There is another post about this same article so this is a re-post...
Of course calorie counts aren't "accurate" and most people don't measure their food intake correctly either. That in no way negates the fact that we still need to create a caloric deficit in order to lose weight.
If I did what this article suggests and just say what the hell...I'll just eat "whole" food and I'll be fine...I'd gain a hundred pounds. Why? Because I can pack away a hell of a lot of whole grain pasta tossed with veggies, olive oil, garlic and Parmesan cheese! And fruit? I can easily eat hundreds of calories in fruit. Let's not even talk about steak and bacon... All whole food. All natural.
Don't get me wrong. I'll all for eating nutrient dense food. That makes up 80% or more of my diet. But, I also have to have some way of measuring how much I'm eating. Maybe for some people, switching to " whole and raw foods" automatically makes them consume less, but that doesn't work for the vast majority of the population and it's a slippery slope for emotional eaters.0 -
Ah, didn't see the other thread.
Although I don't think the article is suggesting anybody stop counting or go to town on whole wheat pasta.0 -
(Face palm)
You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.
Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.
Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.0 -
Although, this does make me feel better about the mixed quality of the MFP DB! :drinker:0
-
Calories in, calories burned, weighing and measuring food and ourselves are all just estimates, really. Nothing is going to be 100% accurate... But, it at least makes us aware and cognizant of what we are doing and certainly a much better gage than eyeballing things or throwing all caution to the wind!0
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
(Face palm)
You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.
I think this is worth repeating.0 -
It may not be perfect... but it works well enough for my liking.
0 -
The article may not suggest to just stop monitoring your intake altogether, but honestly, what is the alternative to using the info on the label? As has been pointed out, even if everything you ate was whole and completely unprocessed, the calorie counts are going to be estimates, and if you fail to monitor your intake in some way, it is entirely possible to gain weight from eating such foods.
The title of the article is the main thing I take issue with because it's misleading. Calorie counts are not "all wrong." They are, indeed, estimates, but they are not so "wrong" that they aren't worth using.0 -
Fine. I'll just give up. Because I'm all about letting the search for the perfect preventing me from doing something that's good. At least I have a good book to read.
0 -
The estimates are good enough. They're balanced out by the hideous inaccuracies of everyone's HRM calorie burn logs.
Thousands of members here can attest to that.0 -
There is another post about this same article so this is a re-post...
Of course calorie counts aren't "accurate" and most people don't measure their food intake correctly either. That in no way negates the fact that we still need to create a caloric deficit in order to lose weight.
If I did what this article suggests and just say what the hell...I'll just eat "whole" food and I'll be fine...I'd gain a hundred pounds. Why? Because I can pack away a hell of a lot of whole grain pasta tossed with veggies, olive oil, garlic and Parmesan cheese! And fruit? I can easily eat hundreds of calories in fruit. Let's not even talk about steak and bacon... All whole food. All natural.
Don't get me wrong. I'll all for eating nutrient dense food. That makes up 80% or more of my diet. But, I also have to have some way of measuring how much I'm eating. Maybe for some people, switching to " whole and raw foods" automatically makes them consume less, but that doesn't work for the vast majority of the population and it's a slippery slope for emotional eaters.
I agree with you 100 % and must say that I find it perplexing that so many people confuse health ( which we derive from eating among other things healthful whole foods ) and weight loss that happens when we eat at a deficit no matter what it is.
I am one of those rare people who has eaten a natural diet all my life ( I can count the fast food hamburgers I ate in 50 years on the fingers of one hand and have never had a chain restaurant pizza, just as an example ).
However after being diagnosed with RA, losing my thyroid and having daily Cortisone treatment and taking several years before my thyroid hormones were adjusted,. I gained almost 40 kilos/80 pounds. I most likely gained 20-25 pounds because of medication ( if that much. Statistics say it's on average 16.8 pounds ) and the rest is all of self pity eating healthy whole food. Yes, I got fat from eating too much brown rice, barley, all kinds of potatoes , all kinds of whole wheat bread, whole wheat pasta, cream, butter, cheese and smoked fish and lots of olive oil on my salad.
It took me a while to realize that healthy eating and weight loss were not related. It took me a lot longer to accept that I needed to do something about it, because otherwise I would eat healthy, but still would not be healthy running the risk of obesity related diseases.
Now I eat 1200 calories of a wide variety of interesting food and make each calorie count in the nutritional as well as log-in way, Yes, it is extra work but due to my age ( 65), activity level and height ( 5 feet ) I cannot eat more and luckily very rarely feel that I need more.. If I do eat more, I gain or at least maintain, which right now is not an option for me, because due to health reasons I need to lose at least as much as I have already lost.
And btw: I have lost 33 pounds in the last four month......I don't know how accurate my regimen is, but since it works for me, I don't worry about it.0 -
I love articles that tell you how the system is flawed, but provide no solution to the problem. The fact is, as inaccurate as calorie counting is, it actually works really well. So, while science discusses and disputes the exactitude of counting calories, hundreds of thousands of people are losing weight and getting results by using this flawed system. So, whatevers.
This.
There is also no completely accurate way to estimate calories burned, but look at every single success thread. They exercised and counted calories as accurately as they could and tweaked both as the losses slowed.
Of course it's not exact, but it does work if you just do it.0 -
That's nice, but calorie counting works and there's nothing else that works.
My system is wrong? Oh well, I'll keep achieving exactly the results I want while you keep complaining about it.0 -
So...all these crazy estimates screwed me out of 50 pounds?
Bummer.0 -
No doubt there are many inaccuracies in food labels and also in the way individuals keep track of their consumed calories as well.
Case in point: Just yesterday, I was reading a label on some bread form a local bakery, and it said each slice was 25g in weight. Well, I weighed a slice with a known good scale, and it was 40g. There was no entry on MFP for this bread yet, so I created one. I decided to go by the stated calories on the label, but left out the weight per serving.
So, inaccuracies definitely exist.
However, this does not imply (in case anyone is wondering) that it's a waste of time to count calories. On the contrary, it's even more important, because it's a process of trial and error that allows each person to find their best ranges. As long as we're consistent in our approach, the inaccuracies don't come into play (other than the fact that the actual numbers are probably quite a bit off).0 -
And yet amazingly I am still able to control my weight very accurately, by counting calories.Fascinating article!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
The crux of it is that there is a lot more to it and the calorie counts we see are quite simplistic and probably off by even more than we think. From the article:
"Every calorie count on every food label you have ever seen is based on these estimates or on modest derivations thereof. Yet these approximations assume that the 19th-century laboratory experiments on which they are based accurately reflect how much energy different people with different bodies derive from many different kinds of food. New research has revealed that this assumption is, at best, far too simplistic. To accurately calculate the total calories that someone gets out of a given food, you would have to take into account a dizzying array of factors, including whether that food has evolved to survive digestion; how boiling, baking, microwaving or flambéing a food changes its structure and chemistry; how much energy the body expends to break down different kinds of food; and the extent to which the billions of bacteria in the gut aid human digestion and, conversely, steal some calories for themselves."
It works because, while it may be inaccurate in individual instances of a food item or meal or person, it tends to be consistent over larger samples for the same person. So even if the number on the package (or internet database) is not totally accurate, when you log for any significant length of time (unless you never eat the same thing twice) you can calibrate the amount of 'calories' you are eating to properly scale with the amount of energy your real body gets from it and the amount of energy you are using.0 -
Nothing new here (but I've been reading these boards for a while), but it's still the best tool we have to measure portions and not overeat.
I totally agree!0 -
So...all these crazy estimates screwed me out of 50 pounds?
Bummer.
I know, right? Screwed me out of 89 pounds. I feel so gullible believing in counting calories now!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
So...all these crazy estimates screwed me out of 50 pounds?
Bummer.
I know, right? Screwed me out of 89 pounds. I feel so gullible believing in counting calories now!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
BOOM! Love it.0 -
(Face palm)
You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.
Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.
Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.
Congrats to you, on being unable to read. Did she say anything related on what you are blabering about?? No, she didn't. She said "Fascinating article" that's it, so, congratulations on being unable to read and understand what you read.
---
It is fascinating, but it is the closest thing we have yet, I would love something more accurate than the labels, but at the moment is all we have 0 -
(Face palm)
You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.
Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.
Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.
Congrats to you, on being unable to read. Did she say anything related on what you are blabering about?? No, she didn't. She said "Fascinating article" that's it, so, congratulations on being unable to read and understand what you read.
---
It is fascinating, but it is the closest thing we have yet, I would love something more accurate than the labels, but at the moment is all we have
No, I am pretty sure I can read, and that my response fits the context of a larger and very popular debate.
Maybe, just maybe, I was addressing the author OF THE ARTICLE, which popped up in scientific American reader on my google currents a while back.
If I'm being sarcastic, it's an emotional response to all the time I wasted looking for "tricks" when counting calories is so simple and effective.0 -
I never expected this process to be 100% accurate... all I can say is that it worked and still works for me! I guess the estimates are close enough.0
-
What matters is that the numbers we have are accurate enough for the purpose. They might not be accurate to the last digit, or even the last two digits, but they're still close enough for me to get a calorie deficit.0
-
(Face palm)
You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.
Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.
Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.
Congrats to you, on being unable to read. Did she say anything related on what you are blabering about?? No, she didn't. She said "Fascinating article" that's it, so, congratulations on being unable to read and understand what you read.
---
It is fascinating, but it is the closest thing we have yet, I would love something more accurate than the labels, but at the moment is all we have
WHY ARE PEOPLE HERE SO MEAN?!?!0 -
(Face palm)
You can't really talk about accuracy without defining how accurate you need to be for your measurements to be relevant.
Counting calories works. If you want to get accurate, instead of just successful, just eat the same thing for every meal, and adjust quantities over time based on projected vs actual change in body mass. Also be as sedentary as possible and don't exercise, because that will change the energy balance and add more uncertainty. Congrats now, on being unable to see the forest for the trees.
Oh wait, what's that? Your goal is not measurement accuracy? You just want to lean out and become more fit? Than carry on counting calories.
Congrats to you, on being unable to read. Did she say anything related on what you are blabering about?? No, she didn't. She said "Fascinating article" that's it, so, congratulations on being unable to read and understand what you read.
Why so hostile? Aren't we all here for the same reason?0 -
What matters is that the numbers we have are accurate enough for the purpose. They might not be accurate to the last digit, or even the last two digits, but they're still close enough for me to get a calorie deficit.
This. If I gain at approximately 3000 and lose at approximately 2000 it doesn't matter if it was really 3254 and 2198.0 -
You mean it was all just a coincidence that my weight loss happened at the same time I began paying close attention to what I ate and started counting calories? I was duped!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions