The surprising problem with calorie counting _ issaquah fitness

Most people who count calories for weight loss or weight management assume it’s an exact science. Data recovery prices It’s not. Database sharding Here we outline 5 reasons calorie counting (i.e. Database keys with example logging your food to calculate intake) is fundamentally flawed.

However, counting calories as a way to try to know, and control, your energy intake is fundamentally — sometimes hopelessly — flawed. Data recovery xfs For starters, you can’t really trust that the calorie (and macronutrient) numbers you see on food packages are accurate. Database management systems 3rd edition You see, the way they’re calculated — if they’re calculated at all — is surprisingly imprecise.


Database engineer salary Plus, even if food package numbers were precise, once the food is cooked, or chopped, or blended, the amount of energy available for digestion and absorption changes. Jstor database Then there’s what happens once that food enters your body… In the end, even something that seems as simple as knowing how many calories you’re taking in (and absorbing) can be influenced by dozens of unexpected factors. E m database That’s why, today, we share the 5 biggest (and surprising) problems with calorie counting as it relates to the “calories in” side of the energy balance equation.

For the scientists among our readership: Throughout the introduction and infographic, ‘calories’ — lowercase ‘c’, refers to kilocalories — or ‘Calories’. Data recovery richmond va Over time, popular language has lost the big C/little c distinction. Data recovery software Section 1: “Calorie counts are imprecise.”

In 1896, Wilbur O. Data recovery advisor Atwater, the father of food calories, sampled hundreds specimens of food products collected at the World’s Fair. Database host name Atwater calculated the caloric value of each food using bomb calorimetry, a very accurate and precise method for measuring total energy in any object. Database performance Interestingly, a wide range of total caloric values was found, even for single food types (i.e. Data recovery broken hard drive apples) bred, picked, and stored identically. Database xe As a result, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations said in a statement: “Foods, being biological materials, exhibit variations in composition; therefore a database cannot accurately predict the composition of any given single sample of food.” Even more interesting: Atwater’s total caloric ranges were used to produce the kcal averages still in use on labels and in databases today. Database yml mysql (They’re over 100 years old!) For a given food these values could be up to 50% off, as outlined in the infographic.

Bottom line: The trust many of us feel that calorie labels and nutrient databases are exact (or even accurate and reliable) may be misguided. 5 database is locked Section 2: “Calorie counts that reflect only what we’ll absorb.”

The averages of 4 kcals per gram of protein, 9 kcals per gram of fat, and 4 kcals per gram of carbohydrates — meant to reflect how much energy we actually absorb from food since these values are lower than the energy measured in the food — are Atwater general correction factors developed in 1897 and still in use today.

Subsequently, it’s been discovered that carbohydrates high in fiber have different correction factors, depending on the type of fiber (and even your gut bacteria / microbiota). Database fundamentals It’s also been discovered that energy absorption from protein varies. Database concepts Typical absorption from animal protein is higher than the general Atwater factor — for example, 4.36 kcals per gram of protein in eggs — and lower from most vegetables — generally 2.44 kcals per gram of protein. Database icon The revised absorption averages are called Atwater specific correction factors. Database versioning Calories on food labels usually use the general factors while the USDA database uses the specific factors. Database 2013 Further complicating the question of absorption, a new correction factor was developed to take into account the energy burned through digestion of various macronutrients.

Bottom line: The idea that a gram of any protein yields 4 kcal, a gram of any fat yields 9 kcal, and a gram of any carbohydrate yields 4 kcal is a gross oversimplification that could have significant implications when trying to control and balance calorie intake. Database cursor Section 5: “People aren’t great at eyeballing portion sizes.”

Research shows the people are generally terrible at estimating caloric intake. Database list Even trained nutritionists underestimate calories in meals by an average of 30 percent. Database queries must be We often get the portion sizes wrong too. Database journal When trying to serve ourselves 1 tablespoon of, say, peanut butter, we often end up getting much more than an actual tablespoon. Data recovery boston And it doesn’t just happen once in awhile… it happens most of the time.

banner