• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Death of the Calorie - The Economist

CyberPanda

Banned
As a general rule it is true that if you eat vastly fewer calories than you burn, you’ll get slimmer (and if you consume far more, you’ll get fatter). But the myriad faddy diets flogged to us each year belie the simplicity of the formula that Camacho was given. The calorie as a scientific measurement is not in dispute. But calculating the exact calorific content of food is far harder than the confidently precise numbers displayed on food packets suggest. Two items of food with identical calorific values may be digested in very different ways. Each body processes calories differently. Even for a single individual, the time of day that you eat matters. The more we probe, the more we realise that tallying calories will do little to help us control our weight or even maintain a healthy diet: the beguiling simplicity of counting calories in and calories out is dangerously flawed.

Susan Roberts, a nutritionist at Tufts University in Boston, has found that labels on American packaged foods miss their true calorie counts by an average of 18%. American government regulations allow such labels to understate calories by up to 20% (to ensure that consumers are not short-changed in terms of how much nutrition they receive). The information on some processed frozen foods misstates their calorific content by as much as 70%.

That isn’t the only problem. Calorie counts are based on how much heat a foodstuff gives off when it burns in an oven. But the human body is far more complex than an oven. When food is burned in a laboratory it surrenders its calories within seconds. By contrast, the real-life journey from dinner plate to toilet bowl takes on average about a day, but can range from eight to 80 hours depending on the person. A calorie of carbohydrate and a calorie of protein both have the same amount of stored energy, so they perform identically in an oven. But put those calories into real bodies and they behave quite differently. And we are still learning new insights: American researchers discovered last year that, for more than a century, we’ve been exaggerating by about 20% the number of calories we absorb from almonds.

The process of storing fat – the “weight” many people seek to lose – is influenced by dozens of other factors. Apart from calories, our genes, the trillions of bacteria that live in our gut, food preparation and sleep affect how we process food. Academic discussions of food and nutrition are littered with references to huge bodies of research that still need to be conducted. “No other field of science or medicine sees such a lack of rigorous studies,” says Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at Kings College in London. “We can create synthetic DNA and clone animals but we still know incredibly little about the stuff that keeps us alive.”

Research published this year showed that a certain set of genes is found more often in overweight people than in skinny ones, suggesting that some people have to work harder than others to stay thin (a fact that many of us already felt intuitively to be true). Differences in gut microbiomes can alter how people process food. A study of 800 Israelis in 2015 found that the rise in their blood-sugar levels varied by a factor of four in response to identical food.

Some people’s intestines are 50% longer than others: those with shorter ones absorb fewer calories, which means that they excrete more of the energy in food, putting on less weight.

The message from many public authorities and food producers, especially fast-food companies that sponsor sports events, is that even the unhealthiest foods will not make you fat if you do your part by taking plenty of exercise. Exercise does, of course, have clear health benefits. But unless you’re a professional athlete, it plays a smaller part in weight control than most people believe. As much as 75% of the average person’s daily energy expenditure comes not through exercise but from ordinary daily activities and from keeping your body functioning by digesting food, powering organs and maintaining a regular body temperature. Even drinking iced water – which delivers no energy – forces the body to burn calories to maintain its preferred temperature, making it the only known case of consuming something with “negative” calories. A popular expression in English tells us not to “compare apples and oranges” and assume them to be the same: yet calories put pizzas and oranges, or apples and ice cream, on the same scale, and deems them equal.

The scientific and health establishment knows that the current system is flawed. A senior adviser to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation warned in 2002 that the Atwater “factors” of 4-4-9 at the heart of the calorie-counting system were “a gross oversimplification” and so inaccurate that they could mislead consumers into choosing unhealthy products because they understate the calories in some carbohydrates. The organisation said it would give “further consideration” to overhauling the system but 17 years later there is little momentum for change. It even rejected the idea of harmonising the many methods that are used in different countries – a label in Australia can give a different count from one in America for the same product.

The calorie system, says Camacho, lets food producers off the hook: “They can say, ‘We’re not responsible for the unhealthy products we sell, we just have to list the calories and leave it to you to manage your own weight’.” Camacho and other calorie dissidents argue that sugar and highly processed carbohydrates play havoc with people’s hormonal systems. Higher insulin levels mean more energy is converted into fat tissues leaving less available to fuel the rest of the body. That in turn drives hunger and overeating. In other words the constant hunger and fatigue suffered by Camacho and other dieters may be symptoms of being overweight, rather than the cause of the problem. Yet much of the food industry defends the status quo too. To change how we assess the energy and health values of food would undermine the business model of many companies.

https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie
 

betrayal

Banned
That's nothing new. The serious nutrition science always try to raise awareness, that the calories printed on a box are just very rough values.

What i personally don't like is that people and even science tend to blame the food producers for this, which doesn't make any sense. You only need common sense to stay healthy and don't get fat. Just try to eat unprocessed food as often as possible and stay active. That's really all it takes. No science or calorie counting can replace common sense. People need to stop being so lazy and take responsibility. If you are fat, you are the problem, not the industry. There are more healthy food choices out there than ever before in human history.

PS: Some facts like "... people’s intestines are 50% longer than others: those with shorter ones absorb fewer calories..." are not trough, though. Normally the food stays is in your (large) intestine for 24 - 48 hours. It's not the length that's important. A shorter small intestine just means, that you maybe absorb fewer nutrients, which has nothing to do with total energy intake, as long as you still have your large intestine.
 
Last edited:
I'm a skinny dude and quite tall. I need to keep eating as my metabolism is fast. My concern is the vanishing calories of today's food. Here in the UK, prices have gone up quite significantly for food yet a large amount of the calorific value of the food has gone. I was eating a pack of crisps (potato chips) the other day and I looked at the packet and the calories in the pack was 40!! So you'd have to eat about 3 to have enough energy for an hour or so. Even if the calorie amount is 18% inaccurate, that is a pitiful amount of calories for the cost, which was about £1-1.50.
 
Last edited:
This might all be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that counting calories and setting a deficit actually works when you want to lose or maintain your weight. It works.! So what if the labels are inaccurate? It will even out in the end. They are accurate enough. I’ve been tracking every calory I ate for almost a year now, along with my approximated ”usage” of calories. It’s shocking how accurate it’s been in terms of expected weight loss and actual weight loss.

I understand that the issue is complicated, and there are many factors, but I’m afraid that articles like this are just a justification for people to live in denial and not track how much they eat. ”Calories are inaccurate, might as well eat intuitively”, and most of these people will get fat and remain fat because of this. Or they will do another fad diet and wreck havoc on their body.

Tracking calories is very simple nowadays using apps like myfitnesspal. It literally takes a minute. I understand it’s still not suited for everyone, but it definitely works.
 
I'm a skinny dude and quite tall. I need to keep eating as my metabolism is fast. My concern is the vanishing calories of today's food. Here in the UK, prices have gone up quite significantly for food yet a large amount of the calorific value of the food has gone. I was eating a pack of crisps (potato chips) the other day and I looked at the packet and the calories in the pack was 40!! So you'd have to eat about 3 to have enough energy for an hour or so. Even if the calorie amount is 18% inaccurate, that is a pitiful amount of calories for the cost, which was about £1-1.50.

What are you talking about? 100 grams of potato chips are typically over 500 calories. 40 calories are in what, like 8 grams. You have been reading the labels wrong.

Calories are in abundance, that’s why people are fatter than ever. Nutrients on the other hand...
 

betrayal

Banned
I'm a skinny dude and quite tall. I need to keep eating as my metabolism is fast. My concern is the vanishing calories of today's food. Here in the UK, prices have gone up quite significantly for food yet a large amount of the calorific value of the food has gone. I was eating a pack of crisps (potato chips) the other day and I looked at the packet and the calories in the pack was 40!! So you'd have to eat about 3 to have enough energy for an hour or so. Even if the calorie amount is 18% inaccurate, that is a pitiful amount of calories for the cost, which was about £1-1.50.

So you ate 7-8g of potato chips and wonder how to get you calories in?
You probably meant the calories for "one portion" and not for the whole package. One bag of chips typically contain 100g and therefore 500-600 calories. If you have problems putting on weight, than it's even easier compared to losing weight.

If you're skinny and think it's hard to eat enough than you have to learn it because it is quite likely that your eating habits are flawed. Like everything else, you can learn how to eat (enough).
 
So you ate 7-8g of potato chips and wonder how to get you calories in?
You probably meant the calories for "one portion" and not for the whole package. One bag of chips typically contain 100g and therefore 500-600 calories. If you have problems putting on weight, than it's even easier compared to losing weight.

If you're skinny and think it's hard to eat enough than you have to learn it because it is quite likely that your eating habits are flawed. Like everything else, you can learn how to eat (enough).

No in England you get these smaller brand healthy crisps that literally have 40 calories in them, that's it. They're small packets about the size of your hand. They sell them in coffee shops mostly. But they're expensive.

The same thing is happening with chocolate bars - they're so small now that they're approaching the size of the chocolates in those Celebrations packets, like the size of your thumb, but cost more than they used to.

I would like my Big Macs to have 1200 calories so I don't have to eat another one in a few hours.
 
What are you talking about? 100 grams of potato chips are typically over 500 calories. 40 calories are in what, like 8 grams. You have been reading the labels wrong.

Calories are in abundance, that’s why people are fatter than ever. Nutrients on the other hand...

No it's different here than in the US. I spent 1 month in Michigan and I put on about 1 stone as the food is so abundant and cheap, portions are fucking huge (no wonder you have an obsity epidemic you greedy basts). In the UK food portions are much smaller, food is comparatively much more expensive. You get little healthy potato chips (sometimes made from other veggies) that have 40 calories in them.
 

betrayal

Banned
No in England you get these smaller brand healthy crisps that literally have 40 calories in them, that's it. They're small packets about the size of your hand. They sell them in coffee shops mostly. But they're expensive.

The same thing is happening with chocolate bars - they're so small now that they're approaching the size of the chocolates in those Celebrations packets, like the size of your thumb, but cost more than they used to.

"Healthy" crisps have nothing in common with potato chips. What you mean are probably protein chips or something like that. Of course they have lower calories because they're tailored for "healthier" lifestyles.


I would like my Big Macs to have 1200 calories so I don't have to eat another one in a few hours.

Big Macs never had 1200 calories. I really don't understand where you're coming from. You list food which is low or at least not high enough in calories for you and then you complain about it?

I suggest you head straight into the next supermarket and learn a thing or two about nutrition and foods with a high caloric density. It really is not that hard. There are literally thousands foods with a very high caloric density that will help you on your journey to put on some weight.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom