Do you trust nutritional information ?

JustDoIt987 wrote: »

Psychgrrl wrote: »

JustDoIt987 wrote: »

Do you guys actually trust nutritional labels on packets etc? Or do you listen to your body and just stop eating when you are full? Asking this because sometimes companies change the nutritional values of their products . So Can we really be accurate with counting calories?

I honestly don't understand what one--trusting nutritional information on food labels, has to do with the other--eating intuitively.

Because you have to trust nutritional info on food labels to lose weight by counting calories. And i was asking if you'd rather do so , than learn how to eat intuitively and trust your body instead of counting calories and trusting labels. Sorry if I was unclear.

And what others are saying is that it's not an either-or issue. One can learn to eat intuitively while also still being aware of what's in their food.

Case in point: I'm a type 1 diabetic who calculates insulin dosages off of the carbs in food (protip, for those who think it's all the same diabetes: I make no insulin through no fault of anything I've eaten or not eaten, or weighed or not weighed. Nothing will cure this). I'm also in recovery from an eating disorder. So I'm trying to learn how to eat intuitively, because if given my way, I'd not bother with food until the point where I'm about ready to eat someone's arm off, and even then I'd feel awful about it. But because I need to take medication based on what I eat, I need to know the labels for the carbs.

Counting helps me control and visualize my portion sizes so I can eventually GET to a point where I can successfully intuitively eat. But I learned not to micromanage my numbers because those labels are off anyway. I could have an 1800 count day and have consumed 2000 or 1600 cals depending on how far off the labels are. I think the big takeaway from calorie counting on MFP is being more cognizant of portion sizes, overall nutrition, and empty calories.

SCoil123 wrote: »

Most of the foods I eat are meat, vegetables, fruit, and rice. I don't have to look to a nutrition label for those. I can find pretty consistent information regarding their nutritional value online and in how I feel eating them.

This is a good point. I get most of my calorie info from the USDA website as I eat a lot of foods like this.

I think it was extremely helpful for me to learn about the calories in foods, what has what nutrients, so on (whether from labels, which I generally trust and read carefully when I eat packaged food, or the USDA, which is a great source others have already mentioned, and helps with most of what I eat, which does not have a label).

I don't usually log anymore, but I couldn't have eaten just by "how do I feel" and lost at the beginning, and even now I think that's a pointless and (for me) impossible goal that I no longer aim for. Using my head, my idea of what makes sense works better than trying to make my body only want the right amount of calories, no matter what foods I choose to eat, what's around me, what else is going on in my life, what terrible (for me) habits I might have been cultivating, so on.

Easy example, one of the foods I used to overeat was pasta. I'd go by eye, always overestimate how much I wanted (I'm terrible at realizing how much it expands), make a tasty sauce (using too much olive oil and probably adding in a bit more cheese or pinenuts than I really needed), and because of the screw up with making too much pasta have a bit more than I needed anyway. But I'd eat it all, because once I started eating it was tasty and on my plate.

When I started logging I measured a serving of pasta (which seemed like the right calories) or even .75 of a serving, would be much more careful with the oil and cheese and pinenuts (and tried cutting how much I needed), stuff like that. I could end up with a meal half or even a third of what I'd sometimes eaten in the past, but didn't notice much of a decline in taste or how filling it was.

I think the first set of mistakes wasn't that I hadn't learned to intuitively eat (although I'm not convinced humans have any reason to be natural intuitive eaters, given the environments we evolved in). It was that I failed to use my head.

So no, if you are someone who has gotten overweight, I think there's usually more to it than just "I'll listen to my body and not overeat." But if you can do that, great.

JustDoIt987 wrote: »

Psychgrrl wrote: »

JustDoIt987 wrote: »

Do you guys actually trust nutritional labels on packets etc? Or do you listen to your body and just stop eating when you are full? Asking this because sometimes companies change the nutritional values of their products . So Can we really be accurate with counting calories?

I honestly don't understand what one--trusting nutritional information on food labels, has to do with the other--eating intuitively.

Because you have to trust nutritional info on food labels to lose weight by counting calories. And i was asking if you'd rather do so , than learn how to eat intuitively and trust your body instead of counting calories and trusting labels. Sorry if I was unclear.

I'm actually pretty great at eating intuitively. Unfortunately, I like sweet things that have a lot of kilojoules and I'm pretty sedentary. If I cut out most the sweet things I would loose weight easily (I've done it before) but it's not sustainable for me so therefor I need to count kilojoules.

Your question would only make sense if the calorie satiation level was the same for every food.. which is definitely not the case.

When in doubt, use a food scale.

No, you can't accurately calorie count.

In the US calories on labels are allowed a margin of error. If I remember correctly it's 20%. So that 200 calorie item could be anywhere from 180 - 200 calories. Expand that to a 1500 calorie diet and your looking at actually eating 1200 - 1800.

And with whole foods that don't have a label the margin of error is likely to be just as great. If you took 12 apples of the same weight and type from different areas the calories, sugar and fiber content would vary.

Throw in the margin of error on your food scale and you have a very fuzzy number at best. But it may be a lot closer than you what you would guess without the tools.

Or not, depending on how much you already know about calories and portions.

fbchick51 wrote: »

I trust them to be what they are, an estimated count of the average calorie per serving size. But no, I don't trust them to be accurate because they aren't. Though I expect the highs and lows to work themselves out in the long haul and my weightloss shows it works.

As far as intuitive eating? Nah. My body craves sugar. Sugar (in any form) offers a HIGH calorie count for a small size of food. So while my 3oo cal breakfast of eggs, veggies and whole wheat toast makes me feel satisfied, that 300 calorie candy bar does not.

Rather, I rely on forming good eating habits. I learned to listen to my entire body (not hunger cues) to figure out what type of meals and when work best for making me feel good and energized so I can be active all day long without eating too many calories.

I'm not sure you understand what intuitive eating is. It is not eating everything you crave.

And sugar does not offer "a HIGH calorie count for a small size of food". It has exactly the same calories per weight as protein and less than 1/2 that of fat. You are talking satiety not calories.