"Why the Calorie is Broken" - Ars Technica

Options
echmain
echmain Posts: 103 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-the-calorie-is-broken/

The main point seems to be inaccuracies in calories on food labels and are how our bodies process them is hugely variable. So much so, that a perceived deficit could actually be a surplus.
«1

Replies

  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    Calories are hugely variable but it doesn't matter. Eating less -- no matter how you go about doing it -- always works.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Calories are not processed so differently. That's just not how we evolved.
  • sssscary
    sssscary Posts: 6 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    It just shows know matter how accurately you think you are logging, if you aren't seeing results, you need to eat less.
    Good article though.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    Calorie in estimate < calorie out estimate plus real life feedback over time
  • strong_curves
    strong_curves Posts: 2,229 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Calorie in estimate < calorie out estimate plus real life feedback over time

    Werd! B)
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    I flew over the article and got hung up on one sentence:
    "There’s evidence to back up this idea: in one study, Roberts and colleagues found..." one study is nothing. Especially if it's older it usually means others were not able to reproduce the results, which makes it the opposite of evidence for something. Then it talks about Ludwig (eyesroll) who apparently found that eating omelette for breakfast instead of oats made teens eat 650 calories less for lunch.
    I don't believe that for one second. 650 is a whole meal worth of calories. You trying to tell me that they ate double the amount because of some "not as filling" property of oatmeal?
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    strong_curves wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Calorie in estimate < calorie out estimate plus real life feedback over time

    Werd! B)

    I only read the OP...was I wrong :)
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Interesting. Thanks for posting.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    That is a really interesting article. Thanks!
  • soulofgrace
    soulofgrace Posts: 175 Member
    Options
    It's articles like these that make people believe they will never lose weight. There is nothing wrong with the calorie. It's not broken nor is it "nebulus" (LOL) as the article purports. Don't even get me started on the concept of the "right" food combinations. Ugh. The only thing that needs to be fixed is our weighing, measuring, and reporting. 9 times out of ten, therein lies the problem. There is no quick fix. It takes dedication, and trial and error to lose weight. And, it takes not shifting the blame to the "broken" calorie, or the "wrong" calorie. All along, it was me, from my hand to my mouth. I own that now, and I have lost 30+ lbs since June 2015.
  • strong_curves
    strong_curves Posts: 2,229 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    strong_curves wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Calorie in estimate < calorie out estimate plus real life feedback over time

    Werd! B)

    I only read the OP...was I wrong :)

    You are right, I read it and it hasn't convinced me that calorie counting PLUA real life feedback over time (your words and I like them so I may use it again!) doesn't work. lol
  • nordlead2005
    nordlead2005 Posts: 1,303 Member
    Options
    How much weight he gains or loses seems to depend less on the total number of calories and more on where the calories come from and how he consumes them. The unit, he says, has a “nebulous quality to it."

    I often find that snorting my food leads to lower calorie absorption too!!
  • starwhisperer6
    starwhisperer6 Posts: 402 Member
    Options
    I am sure there is much truth to that, but like it or not what we have to work with is the calorie so until the scientific community comes up with better alternatives it's what we can use. What they are wanting, in essence, is just a more accurate CICO.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    I flew over the article and got hung up on one sentence:
    "There’s evidence to back up this idea: in one study, Roberts and colleagues found..." one study is nothing. Especially if it's older it usually means others were not able to reproduce the results, which makes it the opposite of evidence for something. Then it talks about Ludwig (eyesroll) who apparently found that eating omelette for breakfast instead of oats made teens eat 650 calories less for lunch.
    I don't believe that for one second. 650 is a whole meal worth of calories. You trying to tell me that they ate double the amount because of some "not as filling" property of oatmeal?

    I was skeptical of that too, in part because I occasionally replace my usual vegetable omelet with oatmeal and it makes zero difference in what I eat for lunch.

    I found the actual study, which is somewhat different than claimed: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/103/3/e26.full.pdf
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    soulofgrace wrote: »
    It's articles like these that make people believe they will never lose weight. There is nothing wrong with the calorie. It's not broken nor is it "nebulus" (LOL) as the article purports. Don't even get me started on the concept of the "right" food combinations. Ugh. The only thing that needs to be fixed is our weighing, measuring, and reporting. 9 times out of ten, therein lies the problem. There is no quick fix. It takes dedication, and trial and error to lose weight. And, it takes not shifting the blame to the "broken" calorie, or the "wrong" calorie. All along, it was me, from my hand to my mouth. I own that now, and I have lost 30+ lbs since June 2015.

    I've lost 30 lbs without weighing, measuring or reporting. Does that make all your points wrong?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    I particularly found the part about nuts interesting as I have noticed a similar experience.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    My takeaway from this is: You may need even FEWER calories than you think you do to maintain your weight. Little differences add up over time. So watch the scale. And eat less if you are gaining, or move more. The end.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    sssscary wrote: »
    It just shows know matter how accurately you think you are logging, if you aren't seeing results, you need to eat less.
    Good article though.

    That's my take on it.

    My husband actually sent me that link earlier. I mean, it might not be 100% accurate, but it's the best we got... and if you're not losing, just eat less, but at least you have a reference of how much you're eating exactly, so it's easier to 'eat less'.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    I particularly found the part about nuts interesting as I have noticed a similar experience.

    Me too!
  • RedBeardBruce
    RedBeardBruce Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    Actually just read this article before I came here. While I don't think they were exactly wrong on most points, the article did seem to be very misleading.

    Basically:
    - measuring calories is an estimation (yes)
    - eating out at restaurants is not as precise as eating at home and measuring your own calories (duh)
    - Not all calories in all food are fully absorbable (yep)
    - Each person is slightly different in how they absorb and burn calories (of course)

    BUT, I don't understand the criticism of the calorie as a unit of measure. It's by far the most accurate way we have at measuring the energy in food. If the listed calories on food labels are not correct, it's not the fault of the unit of measure, but a problem with the accuracy of the measurement itself, i.e. we just need better measurements rather than a new until of measure.

    The article also didn't mention that everyone who count calories should be measuring/counting as accurately as possible, and continually updating their estimation of calories burned per day. Calories burned/day is *half of the equation*!

    If the people in article are accurately counting their calories and not losing weight, then they just need to adjust their daily calories burned because they are not using accurate numbers. This simple adjustment accounts for most all of the *problems* with calorie counting that the article mentioned as a basic "fudge factor" for each person's individual metabolism and activity level.

    TLDR; More excuses and rationalizations that diets don't work and people can't help being overweight.

Categories