NYT - On Food Labels, Calorie Miscounts
Options
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meaning, essentially, net calories, in the way that TEF addresses net calories or in the way exercise calories should be net and exclude the BMR/RMR calories you were going to burn whether you were exercising or not. Along the lines of what I said later in this thread when I used more words.DeguelloTex wrote: »So, TEF.
Nope, this is more about absorption than TEF.
I suppose TEF and absorption issues are analagous. But they're distinct entities. TEF isn't that significant unless you're eating a really high protein diet. Whereas the amount of calories we can absorb from foods can vary significantly from Atwater calculations.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I can see an argument for changing the system. Currently, given a choice between a handful of nuts and a piece of chocolate cake, someone might choose the cake, thinking that they are getting no more calories than they would get from the handful of nuts. Even though they would've been better off with the nuts.
In fact, if they came on MFP and stated they were choosing the nuts over the cake because the cake was more processed, they would be buried under an avalanche of posts stating "all calories are equal" and "stop demonizing food".
0 -
foodiscomplicated wrote: »....overestimating the energy provided to the body by proteins, nuts and foods high in fiber by as much as 25 percent...a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet may actually be consuming several hundred calories less...
"Several hundred calories" is a pretty significant claim and - if correct - not really ignorable. Is there an example of a use case where this actually happens?0 -
Just quickie numbers...
SAD is 50% carb (mostly processed, negligible fibre), 35% fat, 15% protein (round numbers). At 2000 calories, if protein is 25% overstated, the real calories are...roughly 4% of 2000 or 80 calories less than expected. That's in the noise.
A high-fibre, protein-rich diet might be 30% carbs (20% simple, 10% fibre), 30% fat, 40% protein. At the same 2000 calories you're looking at 200 fewer from protein and 200 fewer from carbs, for a "real" difference of 400 calories.
Have I understood the article's claims correctly?
400 calories out of 2000 would certainly not be ignorable...0 -
A 25% overestimation of calories for protein and high fiber foods is huge. I keep reading more and more about this. The almond issue has already been written about quite a bit. There have also been a lot of articles referring to resistant starch. The more we learn it really does seem that all "calories"are not created equal.0
-
All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.0 -
All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.
Well, that's the point - the body CAN'T get all of the calories out of protein or high fiber foods. It CAN get all the calories out of cookies and other highly processed things. The public has no way of calculating exactly what the net calorie number is. All we have is the calorie information on the package...and we know it overestimates protein calories.
So...if you have a maximum of 300 calories left to eat for an evening snack, and you are looking at a label that says 300 calories on cookies/ice cream or other processed carbs, and a label that says 300 calories on protein or almonds...they are NOT actually equal. You will lose more weight, or gain less weight, if you pick the supposedly 300 calorie portion of almonds or protein.0 -
Eh. It just means my real TDEE might be lower than I think, but it's not a huge deal... but I can see how it would be a problem for people who don't eat a lot of protein and nuts though and why people who eat more carbs might not lose as fast as others.
This.
Another issue I see is that my own estimates for protein feel terribly off anyway. Maybe it's because of how I source my meat, but I always feel like I'm guessing precisely what cut it lines up with, which amount of fat is consistent with the various USDA entry options, so on.
So, if anything, maybe it's making up for me underestimating the calories in my cuts to begin with.
Or like you said, my TDEE is lower than I thought, oh, joy.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.
Well, that's the point - the body CAN'T get all of the calories out of protein or high fiber foods. It CAN get all the calories out of cookies and other highly processed things. The public has no way of calculating exactly what the net calorie number is. All we have is the calorie information on the package...and we know it overestimates protein calories.
So...if you have a maximum of 300 calories left to eat for an evening snack, and you are looking at a label that says 300 calories on cookies/ice cream or other processed carbs, and a label that says 300 calories on protein or almonds...they are NOT actually equal. You will lose more weight, or gain less weight, if you pick the supposedly 300 calorie portion of almonds or protein.
Or you should pick a smaller portion of the cake for it to be comparable or a bigger portion of the almonds.
I wish I fully believed the thing about the almonds--it seems too good to be true.0 -
It appears the claim of "several hundred calories" difference is supportable. 48 times a day there's people telling noobs that its crucial to log and eat back all 74 calories burned walking a few hundred yards...but a difference of "several hundred calories" is waved off with a....meh?
If someone eating 1200 calories switches from high carb, high sugar to high protein without upping their calories, it's fine, even though they'll now net quite a bit below 1200? So 900 is fine if it's protein-heavy?
0 -
The animated gifs are notably missing from this post.0
-
Hmm. Following up on the last point, it sounds like some of you are arguing that because calorie counts from protein are off (for example), that the percentage of one's diet from protein should be higher, if one were acting logically. I guess to a limited extent that's true--if you have a harder time digesting the protein in meat than we thought, does that mean you need more grams to get the grams you thought you were?
But beyond that, I doubt it would much influence my judgment such that I'd decide that the already somewhat high protein I get 30% or 131 grams at 125 lb just isn't enough, because I could eat relatively more (but not really) if I reduced my carbs or fat and increased protein still more. It just seems kind of senseless--like buying something on sale because it's on sale, and not because you especially want or need it.
To put this another way, if the total calories are what fill you up (I don't think that's the biggest factor for me, personally), presumably it doesn't matter whether they are made up of one package vs. another. So what's the benefit? If I've been undercounting calories, that doesn't give me the ability to eat more calories and not gain/lose less.
If instead the mix of foods or volume is what fill you up (as for me), then the specific number of calories don't really matter. Like let's say I find potatoes really satiating and almonds not. Increasing my almond and decreasing my potatoes because the almonds have fewer calories than I thought doesn't really do much for me, does it? I mean, for me it's nice to be able to eat more almonds because I like them and nuts have seemed to have a crazy amount of calories, but I just can't see how this affects my dietary choices significantly. Eat huge massive amounts of protein because more burn per calorie does not make sense. The question is whether it also satisfies you disproportionately.
So what am I missing here?0 -
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.
Well, that's the point - the body CAN'T get all of the calories out of protein or high fiber foods. It CAN get all the calories out of cookies and other highly processed things. The public has no way of calculating exactly what the net calorie number is. All we have is the calorie information on the package...and we know it overestimates protein calories.
So...if you have a maximum of 300 calories left to eat for an evening snack, and you are looking at a label that says 300 calories on cookies/ice cream or other processed carbs, and a label that says 300 calories on protein or almonds...they are NOT actually equal. You will lose more weight, or gain less weight, if you pick the supposedly 300 calorie portion of almonds or protein.
Or you should pick a smaller portion of the cake for it to be comparable or a bigger portion of the almonds.
I wish I fully believed the thing about the almonds--it seems too good to be true.
Personally, I frequently eat almonds. However, since reading the almond information I haven't started eating extra almonds. I just view it as enabling me to achieve a little "bonus" weight loss. Things like this could partially explain why I have consistently lost more than mfp has predicted. Of course, I realize their estimate of my TDEE could be too low. Or I could also be overestimating how much I eat (though I constantly hear that most people do the opposite). It's hard to know for sure...but since I do eat low carb and very low processed carbs and high protein this might be at least part of it.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
So what am I missing here?
The usual shenanigans that generally come with stating that not all foods are created equally.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Hmm. Following up on the last point, it sounds like some of you are arguing that because calorie counts from protein are off (for example), that the percentage of one's diet from protein should be higher, if one were acting logically. I guess to a limited extent that's true--if you have a harder time digesting the protein in meat than we thought, does that mean you need more grams to get the grams you thought you were?
But beyond that, I doubt it would much influence my judgment such that I'd decide that the already somewhat high protein I get 30% or 131 grams at 125 lb just isn't enough, because I could eat relatively more (but not really) if I reduced my carbs or fat and increased protein still more. It just seems kind of senseless--like buying something on sale because it's on sale, and not because you especially want or need it.
To put this another way, if the total calories are what fill you up (I don't think that's the biggest factor for me, personally), presumably it doesn't matter whether they are made up of one package vs. another. So what's the benefit? If I've been undercounting calories, that doesn't give me the ability to eat more calories and not gain/lose less.
If instead the mix of foods or volume is what fill you up (as for me), then the specific number of calories don't really matter. Like let's say I find potatoes really satiating and almonds not. Increasing my almond and decreasing my potatoes because the almonds have fewer calories than I thought doesn't really do much for me, does it? I mean, for me it's nice to be able to eat more almonds because I like them and nuts have seemed to have a crazy amount of calories, but I just can't see how this affects my dietary choices significantly. Eat huge massive amounts of protein because more burn per calorie does not make sense. The question is whether it also satisfies you disproportionately.
So what am I missing here?
First, everybody's goal is not to eat more food. Yes, some people on very low calorie diets might like to actually eat a bit more. But if someone is already satisfied and not hungry, I doubt they would add more just because they can. Well, some probably would, but certainly not all.
You are already eating a relatively high proportion of protein...at least compared to the standard mfp recommendations. Reducing processed carbs and adding slightly more protein probably won't make a dramatic difference in your case. And in general, if a person is eating high protein, my guess would be that most of the carbs they do eat aren't the highly processed carbs that are so easily available to the body...unless they are bulking. They probably already limit those, so the amount they have to play with is relatively small to begin with.
However, somebody eating the standard 15% protein, 50% or more carb diet could have a huge benefit if they made some changes to those macros.
Or, somebody struggling to lose or frustrated because they are losing very slowly and already eating very low calories could get a huge benefit if they replace a few hundred calories of carbs, especially highly processes carbs, with an equal amount of protein...or replaced the sugary snack with a supposedly equal calorie amount of almonds. They could quite possibly see an increase in weight loss that makes a big difference for them.
I won't change anything because of this mainly because I already mostly eat that way. But for people who don't, it is good information to have. They can decide whether it is worth it or not for them to make changes.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
True. Which then means that you can actually eat more calories if you choose certain foods over others. So it isn't simply how much you eat...what you eat can matter as well. There are several ways to look at this.lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.
Well, that's the point - the body CAN'T get all of the calories out of protein or high fiber foods. It CAN get all the calories out of cookies and other highly processed things. The public has no way of calculating exactly what the net calorie number is. All we have is the calorie information on the package...and we know it overestimates protein calories.
So...if you have a maximum of 300 calories left to eat for an evening snack, and you are looking at a label that says 300 calories on cookies/ice cream or other processed carbs, and a label that says 300 calories on protein or almonds...they are NOT actually equal. You will lose more weight, or gain less weight, if you pick the supposedly 300 calorie portion of almonds or protein.
Or you should pick a smaller portion of the cake for it to be comparable or a bigger portion of the almonds.
I wish I fully believed the thing about the almonds--it seems too good to be true.
But you can't really. As I understand it, the idea is that there are fewer calories (or useable calories, which is the same thing) in almonds or chicken breast than we thought, right? So it's not that I (or someone who eats lots of processed carbs and fat--since I think fat has a super low TEF also) can now eat 2000 instead of 1800 if we choose to eat differently, its that we may have thought we were eating, say, 2000 when really eating 1800 (assuming we've been eating lots of almonds and fiber and protein).
So like you said, maybe I outperformed MFP's predictions at various points not because I exercised super hard or walked a lot or had a better than average RMR for my size, but because I actually ate fewer calories than I thought. Oh, well.0 -
All calories are created equal, it's just that the human digestive system isn't 100% efficient. It's a matter of gross calories vs. net calories that can be obtained.
As long as the body can get that calorie out of the food, that calorie is equal to every other calorie.
Well now you're just arguing semantics. When we talk about the calories in food, we're generally referring to how they are labelled.
Since some foods have significantly less "available" calories then what the labels show, a "calorie is a calorie" is not necessarily true.
0 -
Yeah, that's fair. My diet was > 50% protein for quite a while. I guess I should have lost a lot more than I did.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meaning, essentially, net calories, in the way that TEF addresses net calories or in the way exercise calories should be net and exclude the BMR/RMR calories you were going to burn whether you were exercising or not. Along the lines of what I said later in this thread when I used more words.DeguelloTex wrote: »So, TEF.
Nope, this is more about absorption than TEF.
I suppose TEF and absorption issues are analagous. But they're distinct entities. TEF isn't that significant unless you're eating a really high protein diet. Whereas the amount of calories we can absorb from foods can vary significantly from Atwater calculations.
0 -
I know European guidelines say the packaging can have a 10% margin of error when it comes to calories. Other macros I'm not sure about.0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »A 25% overestimation of calories for protein and high fiber foods is huge. I keep reading more and more about this. The almond issue has already been written about quite a bit. There have also been a lot of articles referring to resistant starch. The more we learn it really does seem that all "calories"are not created equal.
In this particular article, the almond issue was referencing work done by the California Almond Board, hardly an impartial source - just something to keep in mind.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions