Scientific American: Why Calorie Counts Are All Wrong
DesdemonaRose
Posts: 190
I subscribe to the above magazine and found the article pretty interesting. There is a teaser for it here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
I was wondering if anyone else had seen the article or had thoughts on it. For the most part food labels work well enough for me, as long as I don't eat all of my fitbit calories, but I know people who swear they have followed everything, religiously, and still can't loose weight. Aside from any health related issues I wonder if this explains why what works for many doesn't work for all. Maybe they just digest food better than the rest and get more calories than the package claims. The article does give an example of a study down with Russian people verse Polish (if I remember right... I'm at work and the magazine is at home) people. Russians had a much longer intestine than the citizens of the other country and would gain more calories from their food. Cooking less and eating raw (when it's safe) can also lower your calorie consumption because your body has to work harder to break down the food. Same with whole grains verse processed grains.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
I was wondering if anyone else had seen the article or had thoughts on it. For the most part food labels work well enough for me, as long as I don't eat all of my fitbit calories, but I know people who swear they have followed everything, religiously, and still can't loose weight. Aside from any health related issues I wonder if this explains why what works for many doesn't work for all. Maybe they just digest food better than the rest and get more calories than the package claims. The article does give an example of a study down with Russian people verse Polish (if I remember right... I'm at work and the magazine is at home) people. Russians had a much longer intestine than the citizens of the other country and would gain more calories from their food. Cooking less and eating raw (when it's safe) can also lower your calorie consumption because your body has to work harder to break down the food. Same with whole grains verse processed grains.
0
Replies
-
I subscribe to the above magazine and found the article pretty interesting. There is a teaser for it here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
I was wondering if anyone else had seen the article or had thoughts on it. For the most part food labels work well enough for me, as long as I don't eat all of my fitbit calories, but I know people who swear they have followed everything, religiously, and still can't loose weight. Aside from any health related issues I wonder if this explains why what works for many doesn't work for all. Maybe they just digest food better than the rest and get more calories than the package claims. The article does give an example of a study down with Russian people verse Polish (if I remember right... I'm at work and the magazine is at home) people. Russians had a much longer intestine than the citizens of the other country and would gain more calories from their food. Cooking less and eating raw (when it's safe) can also lower your calorie consumption because your body has to work harder to break down the food. Same with whole grains verse processed grains.
I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts0 -
Wrong. It's about how your body processes different foods.I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts
"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"
(BTW, you could actually read the whole article when I posted this last week, although it unfortunately looks like you can't anymore.)
And just in case people want to fill this thread with the same stuff the other thread was filled with, yes, calories work to a certain extent, even though they are inaccurate. But wouldn't it be nice to have a more accurate measurement? I am glad people are doing more work in this field.0 -
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".0
-
People differ immensely as well in what scientists have come to regard as an extra organ of the human body—the community of bacteria living in the intestines. In humans, two phyla of bacteria, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, dominate the gut. Researchers have found that obese people have more Firmicutes in their intestines and have proposed that some people are obese, in part, because the extra bacteria make them more efficient at metabolizing food: so instead of being lost as waste, more nutrients make their way into the circulation and, if they go unused, get stored as fat. Other microbes turn up only in specific peoples. Some Japanese individuals, for example, have a microbe in their intestines that is particularly good at breaking down seaweed. It turns out this intestinal bacterium stole the seaweed-digesting genes from a marine bacterium that lingered on raw seaweed salads.
Even if we entirely revamped calorie counts, however, they would never be precisely accurate because the amount of calories we extract from food depends on such a complex interaction between food and the human body and its many microbes. In the end, we all want to know how to make the smartest choices at the supermarket. Merely counting calories based on food labels is an overly simplistic approach to eating a healthy diet—one that does not necessarily improve our health, even if it helps us lose weight. Instead we should think more carefully about the energy we get from our food in the context of human biology. Processed foods are so easily digested in the stomach and intestines that they give us a lot of energy for very little work. In contrast, veggies, nuts and whole grains make us sweat for our calories, generally offer far more vitamins and nutrients than processed items, and keep our gut bacteria happy. So it would be logical for people who want to eat healthier and cut calories to favor whole and raw foods over highly processed foods. You might call it the way of the emu.0 -
I subscribe to the above magazine and found the article pretty interesting. There is a teaser for it here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
I was wondering if anyone else had seen the article or had thoughts on it. For the most part food labels work well enough for me, as long as I don't eat all of my fitbit calories, but I know people who swear they have followed everything, religiously, and still can't loose weight. Aside from any health related issues I wonder if this explains why what works for many doesn't work for all. Maybe they just digest food better than the rest and get more calories than the package claims. The article does give an example of a study down with Russian people verse Polish (if I remember right... I'm at work and the magazine is at home) people. Russians had a much longer intestine than the citizens of the other country and would gain more calories from their food. Cooking less and eating raw (when it's safe) can also lower your calorie consumption because your body has to work harder to break down the food. Same with whole grains verse processed grains.
I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts
Ha, like using a TBSP (measuring spoon) versus a TBSP (eating spoon) to measure? Or measuring with how much can fit into their palm versus a food scale? LOL0 -
Wrong. It's about how your body processes different foods.I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts
"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"
(BTW, you could actually read the whole article when I posted this last week, although it unfortunately looks like you can't anymore.)
And just in case people want to fill this thread with the same stuff the other thread was filled with, yes, calories work to a certain extent, even though they are inaccurate. But wouldn't it be nice to have a more accurate measurement? I am glad people are doing more work in this field.
<CAT GIF that says "Rawwr">0 -
Wrong. It's about how your body processes different foods.I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts
"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"
(BTW, you could actually read the whole article when I posted this last week, although it unfortunately looks like you can't anymore.)
And just in case people want to fill this thread with the same stuff the other thread was filled with, yes, calories work to a certain extent, even though they are inaccurate. But wouldn't it be nice to have a more accurate measurement? I am glad people are doing more work in this field.
<CAT GIF that says "Rawwr">
HA! I just read the rest of the responses to my last thread, most of which were of the 'i guess that 50lbs I lost had nothing to do with calorie counting oh snap' variety. (my entire comment related to the article was 'fascinating article'. So sorry if my comment was terse
I actually happen to find the science behind it interesting and agree with the person who stated that this is a good reason not to freak out about the inaccuracy of the DB, it's all pretty inaccurate. We are majorly ballparking everything.0 -
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.0 -
One reason for people who don't loss weight is beacause of medications their taken that work against losing weight. I suggest that these people talk to their doctor about if it could be meds. I've manage to lose weight but on a 1200 calories diet with my Docs. ok and I'm a diabetic and bipolar and take meds for my heart and my primary doctor told me that several of my meds work against losing weight. But this dosn't mean you can't lose weight it's just harder. I've managed to lose 57 lbs. since April of 2012.0
-
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
and the amount of inaccuracy with calculating your activity factor (or exercise calories if you prefer that method) is far greater than any issues with whether your body's absorbing more or less of the calories from the food you eat than average. If you're doing it right then you' adjust your calorie goal based on real world results anyway. Doing that will compensate for any inaccuracies due to how efficiently (or otherwise) your body absorbs the food you eat, along with the inevitable miscalculation in your activity factor, and any individual differences that result in your BMR estimate being off.0 -
I woud also add that I have changed my whole diet since being diagnosed with diabetes. I weigh and measure my food and eat more fruites and veggies and cut back on high carb foods like breads, pasta, potaoes, and white rice.0
-
This is one of those things where you have to actually find a practical application for the science, and what the science says is your practical application may not work for anyone else but you.
Yes, I know that both my HRM and calorie counts on food labels may be off. That's where trail and error come in. Find something that works nutritionally till it doesn't, and then guess what, you've got to make some tweeks. In general, calorie counting is supposed to make us think about our food and energy expedinture; as opposed to mindlessly polishing off a bag of chips for a snack, and THEN eating dinner.0 -
I think that this field of research is really interesting, but largely irrelevant for what we do here. If my absorption is different from the packaging I'll notice that I'm losing weight too quickly or not quickly enough and adjust accordingly. Just because calorie counting isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean that it isn't effective. I eat the same foods and recipes over and over, so as long as I'm consistent with my own tracking I'm good.0
-
Logging/adherence/consistency = results.0
-
there is some truth to this.
Not all food will contain the same amount of calories universally. This will go with meat and what not.
1 apple may be 5 calories per square inch. another may be 5.2
In regards to processed products and meats it is much harder to tell.
process because they can easily lie to you
or meats due to the fact it is very different from cow to cow, fish to fish, etc.
HOWEVER the difference is little to none and should not be focused on.
Counting calories is pretty much on the same basis as counting macros.
All of the people who properly log show that it is still effective and any misinformation on nutrition labels should not be taken too extremely.0 -
If we're speaking "scientifically", everything the most of us on here is doing is based on estimates unless they are being fed by lab people who have diligently weighed, checked density of food, etc. for complete accuracy and calorie count and that we're hooked up to a Sables System FC-1, an infrared spectrometry and a spirometer to collect info for respiratory gas measurements.
If not, then just eat a calorie deficit.............even if the calorie counts are off a little.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
People are different. Labels are off by a certain amount. Restaurant menus are off by quite a bit most of the time! I usually add a fudge factor to my journal, which works for me.
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. All we can do is estimate the best possible and instead of complaining when those estimates don't work, just change the way you estimate till it works.0 -
People are different. Labels are off by a certain amount. Restaurant menus are off by quite a bit most of the time! I usually add a fudge factor to my journal, which works for me.
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. All we can do is estimate the best possible and instead of complaining when those estimates don't work, just change the way you estimate till it works.
This. Worrying too much about slight variance in true calorie count is like worrying about adjusting your TDEE because you spent your day sitting through a meeting rather than at the office where you tend to get up an wander about from time to time. Neither side of the equation can ever be 100% accounted for.0 -
Wrong. It's about how your body processes different foods.I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts
"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"
(BTW, you could actually read the whole article when I posted this last week, although it unfortunately looks like you can't anymore.)
And just in case people want to fill this thread with the same stuff the other thread was filled with, yes, calories work to a certain extent, even though they are inaccurate. But wouldn't it be nice to have a more accurate measurement? I am glad people are doing more work in this field.
Right totally incorrect in response to the OP. What exactly was wrong about my statement?
"but I know people who swear they have followed everything, religiously, and still can't loose weight. Aside from any health related issues I wonder if this explains why what works for many doesn't work for all. Maybe they just digest food better than the rest and get more calories than the package claims. The article does give an example of a study down with Russian people verse Polish (if I remember right... I'm at work and the magazine is at home) people. Russians had a much longer intestine than the citizens of the other country and would gain more calories from their food. Cooking less and eating raw (when it's safe) can also lower your calorie consumption because your body has to work harder to break down the food. Same with whole grains verse processed grains."0 -
Thank you, OP, for an interesting article. To me, it underlines the importance of all the tracking we do. So we can see what works FOR US individually, and adjust as we go accordingly.0
-
This. The number of calories a particular person gets from eating a particular quantity of milk, or cheese, or a pop tart, etc, is going to be for all practical purposes the same every time.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
and the amount of inaccuracy with calculating your activity factor (or exercise calories if you prefer that method) is far greater than any issues with whether your body's absorbing more or less of the calories from the food you eat than average. If you're doing it right then you' adjust your calorie goal based on real world results anyway. Doing that will compensate for any inaccuracies due to how efficiently (or otherwise) your body absorbs the food you eat, along with the inevitable miscalculation in your activity factor, and any individual differences that result in your BMR estimate being off.
There's a verb, "calibrate," and it seems that people need to learn this concept.0 -
I wouldn't get too excited about this. Unless you are eating say an all-protein diet or an all-nuts diet, you probably aren't going to see the calorie advantage you might hope for. You see we tend to eat varied diets, where some calories are absorbed efficiently and some less so. In the end it probably evens out. I think you're better off trying to just reduce your intake by making better food choices which means higher satiety foods and try to reduce or avoid foods that you tend to have problems controlling.0
-
I subscribe to the above magazine and found the article pretty interesting. There is a teaser for it here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
I was wondering if anyone else had seen the article or had thoughts on it. For the most part food labels work well enough for me, as long as I don't eat all of my fitbit calories, but I know people who swear they have followed everything, religiously, and still can't loose weight. Aside from any health related issues I wonder if this explains why what works for many doesn't work for all. Maybe they just digest food better than the rest and get more calories than the package claims. The article does give an example of a study down with Russian people verse Polish (if I remember right... I'm at work and the magazine is at home) people. Russians had a much longer intestine than the citizens of the other country and would gain more calories from their food. Cooking less and eating raw (when it's safe) can also lower your calorie consumption because your body has to work harder to break down the food. Same with whole grains verse processed grains.
I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts
This0 -
I subscribe to the above magazine and found the article pretty interesting. There is a teaser for it here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong
I was wondering if anyone else had seen the article or had thoughts on it. For the most part food labels work well enough for me, as long as I don't eat all of my fitbit calories, but I know people who swear they have followed everything, religiously, and still can't loose weight. Aside from any health related issues I wonder if this explains why what works for many doesn't work for all. Maybe they just digest food better than the rest and get more calories than the package claims. The article does give an example of a study down with Russian people verse Polish (if I remember right... I'm at work and the magazine is at home) people. Russians had a much longer intestine than the citizens of the other country and would gain more calories from their food. Cooking less and eating raw (when it's safe) can also lower your calorie consumption because your body has to work harder to break down the food. Same with whole grains verse processed grains.
I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts
Ha, like using a TBSP (measuring spoon) versus a TBSP (eating spoon) to measure? Or measuring with how much can fit into their palm versus a food scale? LOL
Long ago my boss did the three-day diet. It called for one hot dog. He used a brat instead. So I see what you are talking about on those measures.0 -
I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with people not weighing portions and instead using some inaccurate means of portioning food vs inaccurate cal counts
QFT. Portion control is a huge issue for almost everyone I've met. Also- over counting calories burned is a huge issue as well.0 -
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".
I TOTALLY AGREE! Why post this on a calorie counting website? The ones it works for ignore it, the ones it doesn't work for use it as an excuse... js
You don't have anything else to go on...so USE the calories listed, underestimate your calories burned, drink your water, get the sleep your body needs, and reduce the stress= losing weight...PERIOD!!0 -
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.
Hilarious!0 -
I know, right?! It's so simple. Measure, evaluate, adjust, repeat. PROFIT.This is one of those things where you have to actually find a practical application for the science, and what the science says is your practical application may not work for anyone else but you.
Yes, I know that both my HRM and calorie counts on food labels may be off. That's where trail and error come in. Find something that works nutritionally till it doesn't, and then guess what, you've got to make some tweeks. In general, calorie counting is supposed to make us think about our food and energy expedinture; as opposed to mindlessly polishing off a bag of chips for a snack, and THEN eating dinner.0 -
People differ immensely as well in what scientists have come to regard as an extra organ of the human body—the community of bacteria living in the intestines. In humans, two phyla of bacteria, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, dominate the gut. Researchers have found that obese people have more Firmicutes in their intestines and have proposed that some people are obese, in part, because the extra bacteria make them more efficient at metabolizing food: so instead of being lost as waste, more nutrients make their way into the circulation and, if they go unused, get stored as fat. Other microbes turn up only in specific peoples. Some Japanese individuals, for example, have a microbe in their intestines that is particularly good at breaking down seaweed. It turns out this intestinal bacterium stole the seaweed-digesting genes from a marine bacterium that lingered on raw seaweed salads.
Even if we entirely revamped calorie counts, however, they would never be precisely accurate because the amount of calories we extract from food depends on such a complex interaction between food and the human body and its many microbes. In the end, we all want to know how to make the smartest choices at the supermarket. Merely counting calories based on food labels is an overly simplistic approach to eating a healthy diet—one that does not necessarily improve our health, even if it helps us lose weight. Instead we should think more carefully about the energy we get from our food in the context of human biology. Processed foods are so easily digested in the stomach and intestines that they give us a lot of energy for very little work. In contrast, veggies, nuts and whole grains make us sweat for our calories, generally offer far more vitamins and nutrients than processed items, and keep our gut bacteria happy. So it would be logical for people who want to eat healthier and cut calories to favor whole and raw foods over highly processed foods. You might call it the way of the emu.
Yeah... Except if the fuel isn't there in the first place, gut flora can't do anything about it. It's also very unclear how gut flora populations react to changes in diet, although it is very clear that they do. In other words, chicken and egg story.
Weight loss first and foremost, because its your biggest risk factor. Then choose your maintenance diet with these other concerns in mind. And eat your kimchi.
And btw, you left out archea!
ETA: fecal transplants...0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions