NYT - On Food Labels, Calorie Miscounts

DeguelloTex wrote: »

gotolam wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

gotolam wrote: »

I think the real impact isn't about macros. I don't even think it's about dialing in your calories to meet this goal or that goal. The real issue here is that your body isn't metabolizing all the calories you are providing it.

If true, the idea of CICO becomes seriously flawed; and suddenly, it does matter what you eat.

No. If anything, it means that CI was measured incorrectly.

Not at all; and that's my point. 100 calories in is still 100 calories in.

IF you're willing to concede that not all types of calories are burned the same way once it goes inside your body, than why is it so oft-stated that "all calories are the same when it comes to weight loss?" Doesn't this mean that preaching "CICO is the only thing that matters" a little bit simplistic?

Lord knows I've read enough threads with flying gifs and piled-on derision for a person simply stating there may be more to weight loss than CICO.

No. 100 calories swallowed in an impermeable plastic bag isn't 100 calories as far as the body is concerned. The idea on this thread is, if true, a slightly more natural version of the same thing. Your body never had access to those calories. Nothing in the real world has changed, it's just that putting 75 calories on the label would match reality more than putting 100 on the label.

Not all types of calories are burned the same way -- TEF, for example -- but the differences are marginal and likely to be swamped by the acceptable variation in calorie calculations in the first place, let alone logging errors, in most cases. Eating even 100% protein isn't going to skew the results enough to be worth the caveats.

At most, it's a semantic distinction between labeling "Calories" and "Available Calories."

I think that's fair.

DeguelloTex wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

avskk wrote: »

You won't be getting any bonus weight loss. The almonds didn't change; your rate of loss eating 15g of almonds will always be the same. All that changed is our understanding of the almonds.

I would lose more than if I ate a supposedly equal amount of cake. If you target a specific number of calories, and most people who count calories do, then if you frequently eat things for which the calorie information is overestimated then you will lose more weight than predicted over time.

Not if you realize the the almonds really have only 75 calories, so you eat 33% more to get a real 100 calories, since you're targeting a specific number of calories, not necessarily targeting incorrect information.

If my priority is to lose more weight, I would not do that. In fact, I haven't done that, and have known about this for quite a while. Because that would not be supportive of my goal.

Then you are, right now, purposefully eating under your calorie goal rather than targeting a certain number of calories as in your premise. That's fine, but let's not pretend this is then about targeting a specific number of calories because that's not what you're doing, except to the extent your actual target is less than your nominal target.

And if the label is changed to read, say, 75 calories instead of 100, everyone who comes along targeting a specific number of calories looking to eat 100 calories will eat 33% more to get the 100 calories from the almonds, or whatever.

No, I am not purposely eating under my calorie goal. I am targeting a specific number (loose target...I am not rigid about it), but realize that in reality because I am eating certain foods with unavailable calories I am, in effect though not deliberately, eating less than targeted. How much less? Well, I really don't know and have no way to measure...which is the point.

That is just one reason I am not deliberately eating more. Also, I am not going to deliberately eat more when I am currently not hungry because that would...again...not be supportive of my goal. If nobody ate when not hungry, very few people would be overweight.

Besides, none of this is accurate. There is no way I believe that TDEE estimate mfp gave me is really accurate. All calorie information already ignores TEF. How many calories are absorbed also depends on how food is cooked...which I have no way of accounting for. I don't weigh anything, so my estimates are also inaccurate. This is just one more inaccuracy...however, this one seems to be much more significant than some of those others which is why labels should be changed.

At the end of the day, I don't really care how many calories I eat as long as I am 1) a healthy and visually appealing weight, and 2) not hungry.

And as I already stated, if the labels are changed I will just be more mindful than usual of my weight fluctuations to ensure I don't unknowingly eat more and gain. But I don't think that will be a problem. I buy one pound bags of almonds and count out either 6, 12, or 24 every time i eat them depending on how hungry I am and if I am having anything else with them. That will not change...only the calories logged (if I am still even logging, which I probably won't be) would change. Same thing with chicken or other protein sources...I decide how much chicken to eat based on how hungry I am...not how many calories in in the chicken. If I am still logging, and see a significant calorie change for foods I eat frequently, I will just adjust the target down. If I have stopped logging, nothing at all will change. I will be eating just as much as with the old labels.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Eudoxy wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Eudoxy wrote: »

It's not so much an issue for people who tend to eat the same things and know what to expect weight loss-wise based on real life results. An issue for these boards would be if people are being told "a calorie is a calorie" or "100 calories of cake = 100 calories of almonds (for weight loss purposes)" if that is wrong.

Well, for all intents and purposes, it is though. It's just that you might lose more weight with 100 calories of almonds. It's not as if you're eating MORE than you think if you eat the cake.

No one on the boards advocates a diet full of cake. That's sort of the strawman in the discussion. The idea is to eat the almonds, the protein, the veggies... then if you have 100 extra calories, sure, go ahead and have some cake.

I didn't see anybody in the discussion mention a diet of only cake. I agree with "sure, have a little cake". You can eat such things and still lose weight, all you need is a deficit (and that makes dieting more sustainable and enjoyable, etc..). But I imagine that there are people that eat enough processed carbs, that it could have a real impact (if this article is correct).

So people shouldn't be told "all calories are equal". <in terms of weight loss.> I have read that repeatedly here.

All calories are equal for weight loss purposes, but precisely how many calories some things have is hard to measure.

Again, my meat calories are estimates anyway, because if I get some cut of meat from a farm and have to guess what USDA cut it's most like there's tons of possible variation so I know the number of calories are probably going to be off a bit. That's life. I kind of hope that this favors me because the pastured animal is leaner, but in some cases (like pigs) it's probably the opposite. Eh.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/08/ajcn.114.100867.abstract

I don't think calories were held equal there. That's a comparison of reported diets by types of food consumed (as the Nurses Study things usually are). Since I agreed upthread that food choice matters for satiety and for people NOT counting calories greater satiety would tend to make weight gain less easy, satiety certainly matters for weight control, yes.

But it does not suggest that eating 2000 calories one way vs. another (assuming properly measured and counted) is going to have a meaningfully different effect on body weight--and that's all "calories are equal for weight loss" means.

It's also funny that "calories aren't equal" folks usually hate the Nurses Study, since it also suggests that eating tons of, say, sat fat isn't good for health. But I guess it counts when you like the results.

(I always find it interesting, but causation is always a problem, and it can't be used to say that 2000 calories of a low carb diet will be better for weight loss for any particular person than 2000 calories of a 60% carb diet, say.)

Actually one of those researchers stated in a press release that counting calories is not the most effective strategy for long-term weight management and that we should focus on the types of food that we’re eating in order to lose weight.
He would be lynched on here for such a statement

Mr_Knight wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

seska422 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.

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.

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.

You can...if you go by the calories on the labels...which is the only information people actually have available. Yes, that information is wrong...but based on it, you should absolutely choose protein over processed carbs if your goal is to maximize weight loss while logging a certain number of calories.

But my question is why would anyone care about that?

Because most people - even most dieters - are eating tons of carbs and not enough protein.

Not if they are following the MFP guidelines...I'm eating 40-30-30...

Yes, it is possible to only look at small minority of situations where there would be no meaningful change.

Me, I prefer to deal with the real world.

You make assumptions -- or gross generalizations -- about dieters.

Stepping back, I actually agree that eating more protein is great advice for a dieter who doesn't and who can do so without too much hardship and enjoy it (a miserable diet isn't sustainable, even if I'd enjoy what the person thinks is miserable). All I disagree about is that the fact protein calories are often overestimated is the reason why eating more protein is often helpful. IMO, it's often helpful because it's satiating to many and because getting enough protein helps maintain muscle assuming you are exercising. That would be true even if they fixed the calorie counts. (Like I said, I think it's easy to underestimate meat calories for other reasons, which may balance out the effect you are talking about for many.) IMO, if the issue is that you are eating too many calories, the obvious answer is to improve your logging or increase your deficit (and change macros/food choice if you need to be satisfied or get adequate nutrition, of course).

You seem to start with the assumption that people are too incompetent to log well, so need to come up with tricks so that they are eating less than they think in order to counterbalance their poor logging. Personally, I've found it more helpful to try and be precise, although I accept that in some areas it will have errors. Easy to deal with by reducing calories if I'm not losing, as I said.