FDA gives a 20% leeway for accuracy on nutrition labels.

neandermagnon

But I guess you don't have to worry about this too much if you eat mostly non-commercial foods? Or more natural foods?
For example, things like fruit and vegetables should always have a similar amount of calories, right? And maybe things like rice, pasta, meat, etc.?

Actually, it's just as bad or worse for natural foods. The nutrition facts represent an average for that food based on certain (often unstated) assumptions about the food items.

When it comes down to it, every measurement is an estimate.

if you weigh food, instead of counting it, e.g. logging the numger of grams you ate, rather than logging it as e.g. "1 apple, large" then it's pretty accurate.

It may not be entirely accurate as the amount of calories in an apple will vary a little, but it's not going to be that far off.

The issue of restaurants is because they don't weigh everything that goes onto the plate, the kitchen staff put the food on the play paying attention to presentation and getting the dish right - they're not going to cut every steak to the exact same size, or weigh the exact same number of french fries onto the plate... but if you're making your own food at home, you can weigh the steak and the fries and log the exact number of grams - so even if you account for individual variation between one steak and another, it's still more accurate than the way the portion foods in the restaurant.

Also, when cutting, I weigh foods and whatever level of inaccuracy still exists due to small variations in one piece of food compared to another piece of the same type of food is clearly not enough to make any significant impact in my deficit

As for packaged food - I usually weigh these as well, and find that the exact number of grams is slightly different to what it says on the packet, but not by much. And it's just as often slightly under. When you consider that shops will lose revenue if they're selling overweight portion sizes, that's not surprising. If they make enough for a batch of 1000 items, but then make the portion sizes too big, then they'll end up with only 950 items... the unit price will be the same so they'll make less profit. Having the weight on the package was made a legal requirement long before people were concerned about calories - they were concerned about companies selling them underweight portion sizes to make more money. Calories are only a recent concern because so many people get fat from being sedentary nowadays.

FIT_Goat

I agree its helpful to KNOW there is a margin of error. However, to put a number on it that is not entirely accurate could cause someone to decrease their caloric intake to dangerous levels. I am 5"0' so 1200 isn't necessary unhealthy for me BUT if I was 5"0' and was told my calories are inflated by 20%, I may cut down to the dangerously low 1000 just to account for that inflation.

BTW I am not at 1200, my body doesn't like it and it's not right for me. I'm closer to 1430 and while I know there is some room for error, its certainly better than the 3000-4000 cal (estimated) I was consuming every day.

That person would be misunderstanding the numbers. The calories can be as much as 20% higher or lower. The could just as well justify increasing their intake so as not to fall below 1,200 as they could justify decreasing it because they don't want to be over it. Understanding the margin of error isn't a reason to change anything. It's helpful when considering why you may not be getting exactly the results that "calories-in minus calories-out" suggests you should.

It is also worth noting that the 20% is essentially a wash. If one product is 15% higher, another 13% lower, one 4% higher, the next 6% lower... etc... the error margin dramatically reduces rapidly. Even more than a daily error of 20%, we should be considering all products with a 20% error. If you eat 6 different 200 calories foods (keeping with the 1200 calories / day number), you don't get an error of +/- 240 calories at the end of the day. The error is actually +/- 98 calories (around 8%). The more measurements made, the smaller the percentage of the cumulative error becomes. I tend to consider the daily total when calculating error ranges, only because it simplifies the calculations. The error ranges I get are actually much larger than the real error ranges would be. My long term averages (assuming I measure and log accurately) can be assumed to very reasonably approximate the actual values.

Knowing the error is useful only for deeper analysis. It can't be used to drive decisions because you have no way of knowing the magnitude nor direction of the error for every item you consume. You just have to base your decisions on the values you have to work with, and accept that approximation is the way of life.

Branstin

Many of the nutrition labels are based on diet amounts of 2000 or 2500 calories. If you are not consuming these amounts then your numbers are going to be off anyway.

The calories contained in an item do not change based on the consumer's caloric needs.

If this is the case then why even place any specific amounts on the label?

simplydelish2

Wow...so many FDA experts on today!

Thanks OP for the heads up - I'm sure some of us needed the reminder that in the calorie world it is not always as it appears!

Jess__I__Can

I agree its helpful to KNOW there is a margin of error. However, to put a number on it that is not entirely accurate could cause someone to decrease their caloric intake to dangerous levels. I am 5"0' so 1200 isn't necessary unhealthy for me BUT if I was 5"0' and was told my calories are inflated by 20%, I may cut down to the dangerously low 1000 just to account for that inflation.

BTW I am not at 1200, my body doesn't like it and it's not right for me. I'm closer to 1430 and while I know there is some room for error, its certainly better than the 3000-4000 cal (estimated) I was consuming every day.

That person would be misunderstanding the numbers. The calories can be as much as 20% higher or lower. The could just as well justify increasing their intake so as not to fall below 1,200 as they could justify decreasing it because they don't want to be over it. Understanding the margin of error isn't a reason to change anything. It's helpful when considering why you may not be getting exactly the results that "calories-in minus calories-out" suggests you should.

It is also worth noting that the 20% is essentially a wash. If one product is 15% higher, another 13% lower, one 4% higher, the next 6% lower... etc... the error margin dramatically reduces rapidly. Even more than a daily error of 20%, we should be considering all products with a 20% error. If you eat 6 different 200 calories foods (keeping with the 1200 calories / day number), you don't get an error of +/- 240 calories at the end of the day. The error is actually +/- 98 calories (around 8%). The more measurements made, the smaller the percentage of the cumulative error becomes. I tend to consider the daily total when calculating error ranges, only because it simplifies the calculations. The error ranges I get are actually much larger than the real error ranges would be. My long term averages (assuming I measure and log accurately) can be assumed to very reasonably approximate the actual values.

Knowing the error is useful only for deeper analysis. It can't be used to drive decisions because you have no way of knowing the magnitude nor direction of the error for every item you consume. You just have to base your decisions on the values you have to work with, and accept that approximation is the way of life.

I am comfortable with your explanation at this level. Thank you.

ETA: I know the person would be misunderstanding the numbers. Your explanation should clear up that misunderstanding.

Jess__I__Can

Many of the nutrition labels are based on diet amounts of 2000 or 2500 calories. If you are not consuming these amounts then your numbers are going to be off anyway.

The calories contained in an item do not change based on the consumer's caloric needs.

If this is the case then why even place any specific amounts on the label?

You are talking about the % of daily value (vitamins, minerals, fat, carb, etc.), which is based on a 2000 calorie diet. The calories in an item don't care who is eating them.

AllOutof_Bubblegum

This is old news.

FIT_Goat

if you weigh food, instead of counting it, e.g. logging the numger of grams you ate, rather than logging it as e.g. "1 apple, large" then it's pretty accurate.

It may not be entirely accurate as the amount of calories in an apple will vary a little, but it's not going to be that far off.

It can be off by more than you suspect. I've read one study that found differences as large as two orders of magnitude when ripeness was taken into account. Those were not typical, and most fruit fell within a range where the max value was 1.65 times the min value. So, assuming that is typical (for this fruit), that means most fruit will have an error of as much as 25%. That's a pretty large error. Granted, if the same error holds for an apple, 100g of apple would have an error of about +/- 13 calories. The more ripe a fruit is, for example, the more calories you get from it. And that's just one factor. There are many more to take into account.

When it comes to meat, the amount of fat is highly variable, hard to measure, and can have a big impact on total calories. So, 20% isn't unreasonable for an error range there either.

Also, when cutting, I weigh foods and whatever level of inaccuracy still exists due to small variations in one piece of food compared to another piece of the same type of food is clearly not enough to make any significant impact in my deficit

This is the right way to view it. It doesn't really matter because the items that are more calorie dense than you account for will be compensated for by those that are less calorie dense. You just can't be sure. So, you have to accept the averages and live with the fact that you don't know if that 100g of apple has more or less than the average apple would.

leggup

Calorie counts at chipotle are off? You mean the lady scooping my rice isn't weighing it, or even leveling it? (sounds of dripping sarcasm). At chains like subway and chipotle where they make it while you watch, you can ask for "heavy" or "light" on any ingredient. For example, I always say, "a little rice" because I don't want my veggie bowl to be mostly rice.

Learn how much is about a portion, weigh it as best as you can when you can, and modify your daily intake of regular foods based on how your weight changes over time if nothing else is changing.

PumpkinTwerker

Holy ****. The (prepackaged) tofu sandwich had almost DOUBLE the calories. That's bonkers. How is this allowed!?

ArtGeek22

All the more reason to eat whole plant based foods! So you know what is actually in them and what the nutrition is :laugh:

FIT_Goat

All the more reason to eat whole plant based foods! So you know what is actually in them and what the nutrition is :laugh:

You don't read well do you? The variation in whole plant foods in equally high even when the scale weights are held constant. Even more, the nutrient density of natural foods is highly variable (age, ripeness when picked, handling, storage temps, method of preparation, etc.) all impact how much of eat nutrient remains and is bio-available. You are suffering from at least as much uncertainly as everyone else.

tquill

Holy ****. The (prepackaged) tofu sandwich had almost DOUBLE the calories. That's bonkers. How is this allowed!?

Probably because the costs of accuracy are more than the average customer is willing to pay.

Meerataila

All the more reason to eat whole plant based foods! So you know what is actually in them and what the nutrition is :laugh:

You don't read well do you? The variation in whole plant foods in equally high even when the scale weights are held constant. Even more, the nutrient density of natural foods is highly variable (age, ripeness when picked, handling, storage temps, method of preparation, etc.) all impact how much of eat nutrient remains and is bio-available. You are suffering from at least as much uncertainly as everyone else.

I doubt very much the calorie variation in two equal weight vegetables differs a fraction as much as two hamburger patties that are %20 different. In fact, I'm quite sure of it. That said, nutrients come from soil and soil quality varies, so it's probably hit or miss when it comes to vitamins and minerals.

cwolfman13

I'm not scared....

cwolfman13

Holy ****. The (prepackaged) tofu sandwich had almost DOUBLE the calories. That's bonkers. How is this allowed!?

Do you have any idea how much **** would cost if every little thing was checked to 100% accuracy? Do you even understand the manpower that would be involved in such an endeavor? Do you really want to pay $100 for a sandwich?

lemurcat12

It can be off by more than you suspect. I've read one study that found differences as large as two orders of magnitude when ripeness was taken into account. Those were not typical, and most fruit fell within a range where the max value was 1.65 times the min value. So, assuming that is typical (for this fruit), that means most fruit will have an error of as much as 25%. That's a pretty large error. Granted, if the same error holds for an apple, 100g of apple would have an error of about +/- 13 calories. The more ripe a fruit is, for example, the more calories you get from it. And that's just one factor. There are many more to take into account.

When it comes to meat, the amount of fat is highly variable, hard to measure, and can have a big impact on total calories. So, 20% isn't unreasonable for an error range there either.

Yes, I was going to add the point about meat too. And even the non-asterisk entry at MFP acknowledges that the tomato calories are an average throughout the year. Given the difference in taste between a very ripe fruit and a slightly underripe one, I don't think it's all that surprising that there would be variability. I imagine there is between varietals of apples, strawberries, etc. too, and I certainly don't bother to try to log those difference. And I buy eggs from a farm and they vary in size quite a bit more than the eggs in a carton from the store seem to. I weigh them often enough that I have a good sense of the differences, but this idea that whole foods are somehow more precise in their counts seems odd to me.

lemurcat12

I doubt very much the calorie variation in two equal weight vegetables differs a fraction as much as two hamburger patties that are %20 different.

Complaining about differences in meat is, in fact, complaining about differences in whole foods. I sometimes get ground meat from the farm I buy from, and I know the fat percentage is probably less precise than anything I'd buy from the store. The differences between two vegetables won't be as much, in part because they don't have that many calories to start with, but that's not because they are whole foods and meat isn't.

Also, buying or going by premade patties is just weird, IMO. Even most supermarket ground beef is sold without being made into patties. If you want to ***** about patty size being imprecise, that probably applies just as much to those vegetarian fake burgers that some people eat.

Edit to add: In fact, the article linked in the first post (not about supermarket labeling, as others have pointed out) supports the idea that there's not some superiority to counting up to calories from whole foods (although that's what I mostly do and it works fine, since super precision is not actually necessary):

Starbucks and Chipotle both explained that, since their products are made by hand at their shops, there are often small variations in calories. Neither Starbucks nor Chipotle measures calories in a lab, like I did. Instead, they do it on paper — adding up the calories of each ingredient. Dr. Russell Rising from the obesity research lab told me that this process can be especially inaccurate as the calorie values for each ingredient are often outdated.

Meerataila

I doubt very much the calorie variation in two equal weight vegetables differs a fraction as much as two hamburger patties that are %20 different.

Complaining about differences in meat is, in fact, complaining about differences in whole foods. I sometimes get ground meat from the farm I buy from, and I know the fat percentage is probably less precise than anything I'd buy from the store. The differences between two vegetables won't be as much, in part because they don't have that many calories to start with, but that's not because they are whole foods and meat isn't.

Also, buying or going by premade patties is just weird, IMO. Even most supermarket ground beef is sold without being made into patties. If you want to ***** about patty size being imprecise, that probably applies just as much to those vegetarian fake burgers that some people eat.

Edit to add: In fact, the article linked in the first post (not about supermarket labeling, as others have pointed out) supports the idea that there's not some superiority to counting up to calories from whole foods (although that's what I mostly do and it works fine, since super precision is not actually necessary):

Starbucks and Chipotle both explained that, since their products are made by hand at their shops, there are often small variations in calories. Neither Starbucks nor Chipotle measures calories in a lab, like I did. Instead, they do it on paper — adding up the calories of each ingredient. Dr. Russell Rising from the obesity research lab told me that this process can be especially inaccurate as the calorie values for each ingredient are often outdated.

Pasta in a restaurant might have been a better example, though I'd be more worried about packaged foods in stores, which, last I checked, also have a great deal of leeway. It was packaged foods I'd thought they were going to tighten up the variation on. I hope they do. It's not nearly as excusable to get it that wrong on packaged foods from a plant as restaurant foods.

FIT_Goat

I doubt very much the calorie variation in two equal weight vegetables differs a fraction as much as two hamburger patties that are %20 different. In fact, I'm quite sure of it. That said, nutrients come from soil and soil quality varies, so it's probably hit or miss when it comes to vitamins and minerals.

Your doubt doesn't qualify as fact. You may wish to look into it. I posted the results of a research paper above which had a fruit where the calorie content of a typical fruit would be +/- 25% the calories of the average fruit. And, the total range of variation in calorie content spanned two orders of magnitude (the highest calories by g was almost 100 times the lowest calories by g -- although those values were outliers).

So... if two patties have a 20% difference in calories, a fruit or vegetable with a 25% difference from the average could easily outstrip it. If you're trying to back out of your words by saying 100g of apple that have 13 more calories as expected is a smaller error than 100g of ground beef that has 40 calories more than the label says, you're only partially correct. Because of nutrient density, a smaller error in ground beef results in a larger amount of calories. If you hold the calories constant, the error for the apples would be larger. Apples: +/- 25 calories per 100 calories, Ground Beef: +/- 20 calories per 100 calories (using your 20% difference figure).

And, yeah, the vitamins and minerals is hugely variable. It's not just the soil. It is related to dozens of factors on top of that.