Calorie Labels Inaccurate, Experts Say

mfpcopine
mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Not exactly news to me, although 50% in some cases is worse than I thought.

http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.html?cid=dlvr.it

Replies

  • KenosFeoh
    KenosFeoh Posts: 1,837 Member
    So are BMR calculators, TDEE calculators, and calorie burn estimates. We're dealing with approximations, and that has to be good enough.
  • joey2012cs
    joey2012cs Posts: 7
    While the article is accurate, the average reader will misread it and take it out of context.

    The labels have never been correct, because every individual's body is different and digests food slightly differently, but only in this sense. The article's main underlying point is that your body doesn't take in and digest everything that is on the label, which has been true all along!

    Otherwise, the nutrition facts are based on the averages of samples taken and tested, not actually what's in the container (or box, or bag). Their point is not to guarantee that the consumer will, in fact, get those exact amounts. i.e. Two snack bags of apple slices both have the same nutrition facts, however, one bag might have 7 slices, and another 10. Out of the 10 count bag, an individual may only benefit from a percentage equal to 5 of the slices, but on a different day, when an individual eats the 7 count bag, he/she may benefit from all 7.

    Good read though.
  • craigineson
    craigineson Posts: 88 Member
    People also assume that the macro-nutrients they take in, gram for gram, will all be used *entirely* for energy needs.

    This simply is not true. Different macro-nutrients have various roles in the body *not* related to energy. So even in calories were 100% accurate, in terms of energy needs you simply cannot say that all food you consume goes to the body's energy needs.

Categories