"Why the Calorie is Broken" - Ars Technica
echmain
Posts: 103 Member
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.
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.
0
Replies
-
Calories are hugely variable but it doesn't matter. Eating less -- no matter how you go about doing it -- always works.0
-
Calories are not processed so differently. That's just not how we evolved.0
-
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.0 -
Calorie in estimate < calorie out estimate plus real life feedback over time0
-
-
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?0 -
0
-
Interesting. Thanks for posting.0
-
That is a really interesting article. Thanks!0
-
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 2015.0
-
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. lol0 -
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!!0 -
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.0
-
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.pdf0 -
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?0 -
I particularly found the part about nuts interesting as I have noticed a similar experience.0
-
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.0
-
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'.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I particularly found the part about nuts interesting as I have noticed a similar experience.
Me too!0 -
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.0 -
RedBeardBruce wrote: »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.
Very well said, Bruce. I'm not so eloquent, but my thoughts exactly. Thanks.0 -
Calorie in estimate < calorie out estimate plus real life feedback over time
Yep.You trying to tell me that they ate double the amount because of some "not as filling" property of oatmeal?
Personally find this interesting because if *I* have oatmeal for breakfast I feel starved all day long. Protein, and I'm good. The number cut does seem high, but I know that a lot of schools serve(d) pretty high calorie food out to the cafeteria. We had a plate lunch line, a snack bar, and a grill, which had most of the same stuff as the snack bar, but more of it. Burgers, fries, fried burritos, chicken nuggets, tater tots, shakes...high fat pretty much across the board. And the jocks in particular would have loaded up trays. That was back in the '80s though, so maybe schools are a lot better now.0 -
RedBeardBruce wrote: »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.
Hmm, I may need to re-read the article. Did it criticize calorie as a unit of measure? I thought it said it was the best we had right now, but criticized it being touted as the best method tracking food for weight loss. That is very different.0 -
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.
I agree. And am paying attention to my scale to increase/decrease my calorie consumption as necessary.
0 -
Calorie in estimate < calorie out estimate plus real life feedback over time
Yep.You trying to tell me that they ate double the amount because of some "not as filling" property of oatmeal?
Personally find this interesting because if *I* have oatmeal for breakfast I feel starved all day long. Protein, and I'm good. The number cut does seem high, but I know that a lot of schools serve(d) pretty high calorie food out to the cafeteria. We had a plate lunch line, a snack bar, and a grill, which had most of the same stuff as the snack bar, but more of it. Burgers, fries, fried burritos, chicken nuggets, tater tots, shakes...high fat pretty much across the board. And the jocks in particular would have loaded up trays. That was back in the '80s though, so maybe schools are a lot better now.
It's an inaccurate description of the study.
The participants (obese teenage boys) were divided up into 3 groups. One got low glycemic foods for breakfast and lunch (instant oats with sugar), one got medium GI foods (steel cut oats, no sugar), and one got low GI foods (omelet). They were regularly asked how hungry they were and if they said they were very hungry they were provided with a tray of snacks and allowed to eat until not hungry. The boys eating the low GI meals ended up eating a lot less than the boys eating the high GI meals, although I didn't see a specific calorie number (80% more for the high GI boys, 50% more for the medium GI boys).
I can see some obvious shortcomings with this study, which was intended to focus on GI.0 -
But if there's a better measure to be invented, let's invent it. There were other, less useful standards before the calorie was invented.RedBeardBruce wrote: »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.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
But if there's a better measure to be invented, let's invent it. There were other, less useful standards before the calorie was invented.RedBeardBruce wrote: »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.
How do you create a unit of measure that can be easily tracked outside a lab for what we absorb from food when that amount is so variable from person to person? Each of us would need a measure of our own body's internal function. Something that not only is variable from person to person, but will likely be variable at the individual level over time. What we need is something other than a unit of measure for calories, which is what I believe the article was trying to say.0 -
Who knows, there may be a better general measure possible, or there may be some person-specific measure possible someday, that combines with another measure.
Each strawberry is different, too, even across its own shelf life its calories vary, but it doesn't mean we can't estimate and generalize with data about it, like we do for calories now.
I basically was saying what you were-- that an alternative to calories would be good to develop some day.0 -
Calorie in estimate < calorie out estimate plus real life feedback over time
Yep.You trying to tell me that they ate double the amount because of some "not as filling" property of oatmeal?
Personally find this interesting because if *I* have oatmeal for breakfast I feel starved all day long. Protein, and I'm good. The number cut does seem high, but I know that a lot of schools serve(d) pretty high calorie food out to the cafeteria. We had a plate lunch line, a snack bar, and a grill, which had most of the same stuff as the snack bar, but more of it. Burgers, fries, fried burritos, chicken nuggets, tater tots, shakes...high fat pretty much across the board. And the jocks in particular would have loaded up trays. That was back in the '80s though, so maybe schools are a lot better now.
Graduated in 2007. Sorry to report we had all that stuff then. Maybe they're better now? Do we have any 18 year olds to confirm?0 -
I just recently stopped teaching high school. They are still eating the same crap here in NC.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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