"Why the Calorie is Broken" - Ars Technica
Options
Replies
-
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
-
It's always been an estimate, with overall diet composition on many levels, as well as food timing and other factors, having influence. But really it all comes down to the energy balance and feedback loops. I think the changes to really "fool" anyone would have to be going to extremes of diet and eating habits, something most of us don't do often.
If it was exacting, weight loss would be linear. Even if we could keep the calories and balanced exact, we would have no exacting info on hormone balances, the out part of the CICO equation, or for that matter even water weight and glycogen stores.
I don't want to live in a pod that measures all those things, so for now the scale is king. Adjust from there.0 -
I can't get myself to believe in this. Energy as a unit can't just appear or disappear, and calories are a unit of energy. Sure not the standard unit (joules) but a unit all the same. Each calorie contains the same amount of energy. Fact.
Now I'm not sure how this could possibly mean certain ones are 'good' or 'bad' for weight loss. Sure there are calorie-dense foods and nutrient-dense foods, and vice-versa. Gettning a lot of nutrients for your calories is clearly a good thing health-wise, but still is the same amount of energy as something of equal calories but without the nutrients...
Sorry, I have a tendancy to make sense of stuff in a science-y way in my head to understand it. But I can't get how this article is telling any proper truth. Also I'll be honest I don't *want* it to be true because it's just another excuse for not being able to lose weight. I want to be able to lose weight if I follow the simple rules about energy in/out...0 -
I can't get myself to believe in this. Energy as a unit can't just appear or disappear, and calories are a unit of energy. Sure not the standard unit (joules) but a unit all the same. Each calorie contains the same amount of energy. Fact.
Now I'm not sure how this could possibly mean certain ones are 'good' or 'bad' for weight loss. Sure there are calorie-dense foods and nutrient-dense foods, and vice-versa. Gettning a lot of nutrients for your calories is clearly a good thing health-wise, but still is the same amount of energy as something of equal calories but without the nutrients...
Sorry, I have a tendancy to make sense of stuff in a science-y way in my head to understand it. But I can't get how this article is telling any proper truth. Also I'll be honest I don't *want* it to be true because it's just another excuse for not being able to lose weight. I want to be able to lose weight if I follow the simple rules about energy in/out...
It's true. A human body is not a bomb calorimeter. Not to say that the differences are so large to prevent people from losing weight, but enough that various differences in the diets can affect exactly how much of the substances are absorbed, and how much pass through the body. As such, the energy doesn't disappear, it simply is not used and passes through the body at greater levels at times.
If you Google the Atwater Factors it explains how they came up with the standards used on labels and such, though now some things are changing. But even if we used meat proteins, things as small as how well you chew the meat before swallowing, how much fiber you ate with that meal, etc can all make for small changes. Energy balance always exists, it just exists in a more complex state than it seems.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions