Calorie inaccuracies on labels

jbpretty
jbpretty Posts: 221 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Could this be part of the reason some people lose or don't lose with specific calorie restrictions? I knew there could be about a 20% margin of error with the caloric content of food and maybe this is why it can be different for each individual. Wrong numbers and different amounts being absorbed. What do you think?

http://www.businessinsider.com/calorie-counts-arent-accurate-2013-7

Replies

  • Meerataila
    Meerataila Posts: 1,885 Member
    Food scales are handy even with pre-portioned packaging, it can catch excesses. But what I really think is that I was a dummy for not learning to cook from scratch a long, long time ago.
  • Laurenloveswaffles
    Laurenloveswaffles Posts: 535 Member
    If they are off, the calorie difference is minimal. A person who isn't losing weight either has a medical condition making this harder, or they are eating a surplus of calories.
  • Sigmalongshot
    Sigmalongshot Posts: 24
    Calorie inaccuracies on labels for fresh food are strictly vetted in the UK, slightly less so with frozen. However, the margin of error increases significantly with fast food or takeaway calories - you're at the mercy of a haphazard, generous or stingy cook!

    As another poster said, weigh your fresh food - voila, most accurate you can possibly get in a world of averages.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    What do I think? I think the vast majority of labels are accurate and the vast majority of people over estimate their caloric burns and under estimate their intake. JMHO though :)
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    It could play a part in why some people don't lose when MFP says they are eating a deficit. Especially when they are working with a small deficit.
  • jbpretty
    jbpretty Posts: 221 Member
    Yes, I weigh everything I eat (and I'm losing) BUT I'm not sure it should always boil down to the calories in calories out philosophy.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    This always makes me giggity:

    Bell - Red Peppers, 1 cup chopped (149 g) 46 9 0 2 3 1
    Fresh - Veggie - Yellow Bell Pepper - Chopped, 1 cup 40 9 0 0 4 0
    Peppers - Sweet, green, raw, 1 cup, chopped 30 7 0 1 3 1

    No labels, just entries for raw peppers. Red 46 calories, yellow 40 calories, and green 30 calories. So, eat more green peppers since they have fewer calories ;)
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    This always makes me giggity:

    Bell - Red Peppers, 1 cup chopped (149 g) 46 9 0 2 3 1
    Fresh - Veggie - Yellow Bell Pepper - Chopped, 1 cup 40 9 0 0 4 0
    Peppers - Sweet, green, raw, 1 cup, chopped 30 7 0 1 3 1

    No labels, just entries for raw peppers. Red 46 calories, yellow 40 calories, and green 30 calories. So, eat more green peppers since they have fewer calories ;)

    This isn't really accurate, though, because several of those are user-added versus default database entries. User-added entries are far less accurate as a whole.

    Using default entries, based on USDA data:

    Peppers - sweet, red, raw
    100g, 26 calories

    Peppers - sweet, yellow, raw
    100g, 27 calories

    Peppers - sweet, green, raw
    100g, 20 calories

    This actually makes sense because red and yellow peppers contain more sugar than green. As a result, 100g of red and yellow peppers have 4.2g of sugar. Green has about half that.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    This always makes me giggity:

    Bell - Red Peppers, 1 cup chopped (149 g) 46 9 0 2 3 1
    Fresh - Veggie - Yellow Bell Pepper - Chopped, 1 cup 40 9 0 0 4 0
    Peppers - Sweet, green, raw, 1 cup, chopped 30 7 0 1 3 1

    No labels, just entries for raw peppers. Red 46 calories, yellow 40 calories, and green 30 calories. So, eat more green peppers since they have fewer calories ;)

    This isn't really accurate, though, because several of those are user-added versus default database entries. User-added entries are far less accurate as a whole.

    Using default entries, based on USDA data:

    Peppers - sweet, red, raw
    100g, 26 calories

    Peppers - sweet, yellow, raw
    100g, 27 calories

    Peppers - sweet, green, raw
    100g, 20 calories

    This actually makes sense because red and yellow peppers contain more sugar than green. As a result, 100g of red and yellow peppers have 4.2g of sugar. Green has about half that.

    I think you may have missed the point; simply there are many entries, and it is up to the user to determine what is accurate. Thanks for the updates, but, most items in the database have this type of variety. Best of luck.
  • jbpretty
    jbpretty Posts: 221 Member
    I guess between human error and inaccurate sources, calorie counting isn't as cut and dry as it seems.
  • astronomicals
    astronomicals Posts: 1,537 Member
    I guess between human error and inaccurate sources, calorie counting isn't as cut and dry as it seems.
    \
    which is why i advocate that people track consistently and adjust accordingly... regardless of the inaccuracies it should still work out.. if you stop losing weight you change your goal by 50-100... its wehn people start logging half their exercise and underestimating calories taht they make the system useless... adding more variables doesnt fix the problem... it complicates the data (actually makes it false and useless)


    people approaching it like its "cut and dry" are people with very little nutritional education. Or what they thought was education was BS mythical industry banter
  • astronomicals
    astronomicals Posts: 1,537 Member
    From a logical standpoint, all foods that make low calorie health claims are the foods that are most likely to be inaccurately labeled intentionally.

    IMO, the more low cal processed food you buy, the more likely it is that calorie margins will be lower than reality.
  • jbpretty
    jbpretty Posts: 221 Member
    Yes! I think that's exactly true. The more processed, the more room for error. Companies are in business to make money. I log everything, and may have been called anal about it.

Categories