Scientific American: Why Calorie Counts Are All Wrong

ahamm002

I hate articles like this. Sensible people read it as "I guess that means I should diligently track things and adjust for my specific circumstances". Others conclude "I'm a special snowflake who does everything right but unicorn hormones are causing me to gain weight".

^this!

pcastagner

This really is not news. It is well known that calculating both "calories in" and "calories out" are very inexact sciences. That's why anyone who's counting calories needs to be ready to make adjustments depending on their results.

Blasphemy! Next you a going to tell me there are online calculators for making such determinations.


Freaking heretics abound here.

waldo56

If the calorie counts in food are wrong, it doesn't matter.....

All of the formulas for TDEE, BMR, and whatnot are based off the incorrect calorie counts.

When you adjust your goals to fit how you are actually losing, then not only are your goals based off of inaccurate numbers in food, they are also based off the quirks and inaccuracies of the way you count. Even if you count inaccurately and have inaccurate calorie in/out data, if you have the right goals fix these issues (comes by adjusting goals ot match results), you can end up gaining/losing extremely accurately, as if everything was done to lab precision.

DesdemonaRose

Also.. are you dressed as haku from naruto?

(Haven't read the rest of the responses yet).

Yes!! You are the first person on here to ask I love Haku, made the Cosplay myself, though I did buy the mask and that wig as Haku pieces. I've since switched to a better wig that I styled myself though.

DesdemonaRose

OK, first I will vent, if you don't want to read it skip this next paragraph (this vent also comes from years of reading misunderstandings regarding psychology studies):

Just because something is simple and works great for group A doesn't meant that it will blanket effect and work great for everyone. There are people, for real, who do follow "all of the rules" and it doesn't work for them. I am in a career field (military) where weight matters so I've seen it happen plenty of times. People hire dietians, work out, count calories, everything and still hold onto weight. For people who honestly have something it can be relavant. Especially if they've seen a Dr. and drugs, thyroid, and all of the other usual factors are ruled out. Science is never irrelevant. Just because you don't care it doesn't meant it shouldn't be sought out. This is the food and nutrition forum and the article is about food and nutrition. Some of us like to know all of the details. I missed the previous posting of this though, otherwise I would have just commited on it. This world isn't black and white, don't make it that way. I mostly thought it was relavant because there always seem to be people who answer the, "why won't I lose weight," posts with, "haha, you are obviously not doing something right." How do YOU know they are not doing something right? Maybe there really is another factor. The majority do well with calories in/out based on labels and HRM (or whatever you use for calorie counting) but not 100% of the population. To read this and say, "woo, I don't need to count calories it's a waste," would also be taking a black and white approach to this. Knowledge is power if you use it right.

Less Ranty reply:

I think it's good that it is studied, knowledge is power (yea I'm keeping that line). If calories in/out works for you then by all means use it! I still am. I also like knowing that my calories might be too low if I don't digest something well (which is obvious if it shows up in my poop) or high if it's something that is quickly digested.. ie sugar. I can plan better diets that might work better knowing more about how the body treats calories. It also might explain why half of my family can eat like horses and not gain a lb while the other half can smell food and gain weight. Maybe one digests things better (my body follows the weight gainers side). Maybe, if I do digest stuff better I can eat lower calories, lose weight, and not become malnurished because I'm obviously abosorbing calories well enough otherwise I wouldn't gain weight. Of course healthier food choices will help in terms of malnurishment vs. not, but you don't have to fear lower calories since there is a little bit of, "OMG, starvation mode!" stiff going around.

dbmata

I hate articles like this. Sensible people read it as "I guess that means I should diligently track things and adjust for my specific circumstances". Others conclude "I'm a special snowflake who does everything right but unicorn hormones are causing me to gain weight".

Yup.

pcastagner

OK, first I will vent, if you don't want to read it skip this next paragraph (this vent also comes from years of reading misunderstandings regarding psychology studies):

Just because something is simple and works great for group A doesn't meant that it will blanket effect and work great for everyone. There are people, for real, who do follow "all of the rules" and it doesn't work for them. I am in a career field (military) where weight matters so I've seen it happen plenty of times. People hire dietians, work out, count calories, everything and still hold onto weight. For people who honestly have something it can be relavant. Especially if they've seen a Dr. and drugs, thyroid, and all of the other usual factors are ruled out. Science is never irrelevant. Just because you don't care it doesn't meant it shouldn't be sought out. This is the food and nutrition forum and the article is about food and nutrition. Some of us like to know all of the details. I missed the previous posting of this though, otherwise I would have just commited on it. This world isn't black and white, don't make it that way. I mostly thought it was relavant because there always seem to be people who answer the, "why won't I lose weight," posts with, "haha, you are obviously not doing something right." How do YOU know they are not doing something right? Maybe there really is another factor. The majority do well with calories in/out based on labels and HRM (or whatever you use for calorie counting) but not 100% of the population. To read this and say, "woo, I don't need to count calories it's a waste," would also be taking a black and white approach to this. Knowledge is power if you use it right.

Less Ranty reply:

I think it's good that it is studied, knowledge is power (yea I'm keeping that line). If calories in/out works for you then by all means use it! I still am. I also like knowing that my calories might be too low if I don't digest something well (which is obvious if it shows up in my poop) or high if it's something that is quickly digested.. ie sugar. I can plan better diets that might work better knowing more about how the body treats calories. It also might explain why half of my family can eat like horses and not gain a lb while the other half can smell food and gain weight. Maybe one digests things better (my body follows the weight gainers side). Maybe, if I do digest stuff better I can eat lower calories, lose weight, and not become malnurished because I'm obviously abosorbing calories well enough otherwise I wouldn't gain weight. Of course healthier food choices will help in terms of malnurishment vs. not, but you don't have to fear lower calories since there is a little bit of, "OMG, starvation mode!" stiff going around.

Not sure if you are reading carefully what's being said?

You adjust your inputs based on results. Nobody who follows that rule simply "follows the rules".

elephant_in_the_room

But there also is increasing evidence that calorie counts for various foods are "off" because calorimeters are used to figure the calories. Calorimeter burn off all the calories in the food. Humans don't. That's why they found that almonds, for example, have about 20% fewer calories when digested by humans than they do when burned off by calorimeters.

What does a calorimeter say when you run it on nutshells? Or coal?

elephant_in_the_room

"Digestion is far too messy a process to accurately convey in neat numbers. The counts on food labels can differ wildly from the calories you actually extract, for many reasons"

I hope that the MFP powers that be one day will use this Big Data database where they collect all our data to figure out and tell us what people are actually eating, and what effect that actually has on their weight, with what variation.

andreavrmln

I don't really care that counting calories isn't perfectly accurate. For me it is all about being more aware of what I am eating, making (some) better choices, and trying for some portion control. It doesn't matter if that calorie count for a a slice of the Cheesecake Factory's Ultimate Red Velvet Cheese Cake (1250 calories) is off by 50-150 calories one way or the other. The fact is, I am going to look at that 1250 calories and say to myself, "Holy ****! I had no idea it had that many calories in it, perhaps I should have a bowl of strawberries or find someone else (or 6) to share this behemoth!" My concern is that overall I am eating less than I used to.

pcastagner

But there also is increasing evidence that calorie counts for various foods are "off" because calorimeters are used to figure the calories. Calorimeter burn off all the calories in the food. Humans don't. That's why they found that almonds, for example, have about 20% fewer calories when digested by humans than they do when burned off by calorimeters.

What does a calorimeter say when you run it on nutshells? Or coal?

It tells you potentially how many calories of energy an organism capable of eating them can release by doing so. Just like it does with people food.

And just as with people food, it's only part of the whole picture. The thing is, AS LONG AS YOU ADJUST BASED ON RESULTS, it's accurate enough for successfully changing your body composition. Which explains all the body recompositions around here...

Why are these kinds of articles with old news so popular? Maybe because the idea of losing weight without trying or dieting is really, really attractive? I've got so many friends who would argue until blue in the face that you don't have to feel hungry if you eat this or that, and you can lose weight without dieting. They are all still fat, and I'm polishing up my six pack.

sympha01

I hate articles like this. Sensible people read it as "I guess that means I should diligently track things and adjust for my specific circumstances". Others conclude "I'm a special snowflake who does everything right but unicorn hormones are causing me to gain weight".

Finally... someone who understands my unicorn hormone problem!!! I find that eating magic beans really helps.

Actually, the optimal diet for unicorns is skittles and ecstasy.

DragonSquatter

This really is not news. It is well known that calculating both "calories in" and "calories out" are very inexact sciences. That's why anyone who's counting calories needs to be ready to make adjustments depending on their results.

THIS.

DesdemonaRose

The article in no way promotes losing weight without trying. Why do people always exagerate things? *sigh*

pcastagner

The article in no way promotes losing weight without trying. Why do people always exagerate things? *sigh*

The editors, on the other hand, are a different story, and they chose their headline wisely. Let's not try to pretend this isn't published in the context of and referring to an ongoing debate.

Also, lets not pretend that caloric value still and irrefutably presents the maximum energy yield of a given material. One cannot create energy out of nothing.

rwstoneman1

'Why Calorie Counts Are All Wrong' - this sounds like a title made up by someone who only want's to sell. Fair enough calorie counts are 'are based on a system of averages' but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone is different, and as such it is to be expected that each individual will digest their food with varying efficiency - and therefore it is not unreasonable to think that one person may be able to extract more calories from a food than someone else, which would be an interesting topic for an article to discuss.

However, I would say that this is not a reason for the author of the article to attack calorie counts and to imply that they are entirely unhelpful! As many have already said, perhaps people struggling with calorie counting for weight loss (or gain I suppose) are weighing out their food inaccurately (introducing an even larger error into what is already a 'flawed' calorific value), or maybe they are one of the unfortunate people who are able to digest their food more (or less) fully - if it truly is all based upon averages then it stands to reason that there will be people who exist at either end of the digestive spectrum!

Also - it was an interesting decision to post this sort of article to a calorie counting website...