I have an illustration of why we need to remember that tracking calories is not an exact thing, and we are working with estimates.
I have a favorite brand of granola that I've eaten for years. The Nutrition panel on the bag says 1/3 cup = 140 calories. Well, recently I noticed the package had been updated. Now the serving size is 1/4 cup, = 130 calories. WTF?
It's a local company, so I sent an email to the president. I asked why they had changed the formula. The carbohydrates, in particular, seemed to have gone up. I got an email back--the president said that the formula had not changed. It is made exactly the same way with the same ingredients as always.
OK... Then, I guess the nutrition information was off on the older packages, and now they have revised it with updated analysis.
That means all this time, I've been eating 173 calories per serving instead of 140. I ate it probably 5 times a week, so I was getting 165 extra calories per week that I didn't know were there. Just from this one product.
So--the point isn't that "they lied," it's that nutrition is not an exact science. We aim for a target number of calories, but we need to remember that it's only as good as the data we have. Variation exists--and therefore it's not worthwhile to get too precise or hung up on whether one has an "extra" hundred calories available or has gone over by that.
Didn't seem to ruin my weight loss, by the way. I guess consistency paid off.
You are right it is good to recognize that our calorie counting is an estimate. Any way you look at it, my estimate of 1500 calories a day is better than the estimate of 3,000 calories a day that I think I consumed before starting calorie counting.
Yes, indeed. That is one reason that I prefer to weigh rather than measure my food. An apple can vary by 100 or more calories depending upon its size. Foods like granola, are really hard because - what really is a 1/4 cup? It is a level cup, is it a heaping cup, it is a tapped cup (so the granola settles and I can add more )?
But, even with weighing foods, the number of calories I log will be imprecise. But, I will still be a lot closer to the truth than if I just eyeball and guess
Just because they recalculated doesn't mean that the old number was wrong or that the new number is any more accurate. The truth may lie somewhere in the middle.
Although it's also very possible that while the recipe hasn't changed, the ingredients have. Fruits have been bred and selected for sweetness, and have been getting sweeter each generation (each generation of fruit, not human generation). Ounce for ounce, many contain more calories than earlier counterparts.
I use an exchange plan, which is less precise than calorie counting, but still calorie controlled. When I get closer to goal, I may have to be more precise, or an exchange plan may still be fine. I'll let the scale tell me (I do weigh my food though, so I can be fairly confident that I'm not underestimating the calorie count - because an exchange system is still based on calorie counting. A fruit serving is supposed to be between 50 and 60 calories, so if I knowingly choose 80 calories of fruit I'm "fudging" the numbers, which right now may not be a big deal, but will be at goal weight, so I try not to get in the habit).
I tend to weigh a fair percentage of what I eat. It's become a habit, one I don't mind. Since I smoke my own lunch meats I divide them by weight before freezing. I admit that I don't buy much in the way of packaged foods, but the ones I do have serving sizes in grams.
Now that fruit season is here I most definitely weigh it. I could easily eat a pound of cherries without thinking about it, so I take a planned portion using the scale. The one thing I'm very specific about measuring are oils/butters etc. Last night we had first of the season corn and I made a point to measure out 10 grams of butter (which I didn't end up using all of anyway). It let me enjoy the corn without worrying that I was overdoing it on the butter - something I almost certainly did in the past.
Do we even know that the calorie labels are determined by weight and then converted to volume, instead of vice versa? Because assuming that weighing (instead of measuring by volume) your food gets you closer to the labelled calories depends on that assumption.
Do we even know that the calorie labels are determined by weight and then converted to volume, instead of vice versa? Because assuming that weighing (instead of measuring by volume) your food gets you closer to the labelled calories depends on that assumption.
On food labels, most often I've seen a weight listed along with the volume (in paranthesis). For example most cereals are calculated for a one ounce or 28g portion (except granolas). When a weight is listed, I think it's safe to assume it's the portion used in the calculations. Most labs are going to measure by weight, because of the variablility of volume. Liquids may be an exception, but most liquids have a fairly consistent volume (evaporation of liquids in beverages is not nearly the problem that settling is in foods).
On food labels, most often I've seen a weight listed along with the volume (in paranthesis). For example most cereals are calculated for a one ounce or 28g portion (except granolas). When a weight is listed, I think it's safe to assume it's the portion used in the calculations. Most labs are going to measure by weight, because of the variablility of volume. Liquids may be an exception, but most liquids have a fairly consistent volume (evaporation of liquids in beverages is not nearly the problem that settling is in foods).
That is exactly my point. I want to do something besides "safely assume."
For the reasons mentioned, I use calorie counting more for the accountability for myself than for a sense of accuracy. When I write down what I eat I am more successful simply because the act of writing it down helps me eat less. When I am tracking my calories and get near the magic number of calories I have set myself for the day I am much less likely to have that evening snack than when I am not tracking. When I am not tracking it is too easy to either 'forget' something I ate or to simply not care.
Actually, Kaplods, I just looked at the new label on my granola and it says serving size: 1 ounce (28 g, approx. 1/4 cup). So maybe they are trying to get into line with that as a standard. Before it was 1/3 cup (33 g).
That is exactly my point. I want to do something besides "safely assume."
If you want to be that precise, I think your only recourse then is to contact the company and ask for the name of the laboratory that does their testing and contact the lab to make sure that they tested by gram weight, not by volume. I would lay money down that the lab will have used weight (or more precisely mass, but as long as the calculation is done on Earth we can use the terms interchangeably).
To do this on each food would be rather insane, so maybe you could just check a few of the labs that do the calculations and ask whether they calculate by weight or volume.
Because of the tendency for scientists to use scientific methods, I believe it truly is safe to assume that weight is used, because it would be poor scientific method to use an inconsistent measure. For most dry packaged foods the calorie content per volume is going to increase in calories as the product settles - meaning the lowest calorie per cup is going to be at the factory and is going to be greatest in the home. While the calories per gram is going to remain constant.
You could weigh AND measure and take the worst case calorie count calculation for each (I think you'll almost always find the weight measure is somewhat smaller than the stated volume, because of settling).
___________________
This illustrated though why I personally chose an exchange plan rather than counting calories. When I only count calories, I tend to have almost OCD issues with precision. It drove me nuts, because I'd obsess over the accuracy of my math, sometimes redoing my math over and over, and not only weighing my food, but measuring it as well and calculating "worst case" calorie scenarios. I also would lose sight of where the calories were coming from. An oreo was "better" than an apple, because it had fewer calories.
Using an exchange plan freed me up a bit from the obsession. It works just as well (when I am not losing I can generally trace it to not following my plan, not to the fact that my exchange plan is less precise than counting calories discretely), without driving me crazy. I know alot of calorie counters do much the same thing by using daily plate and trying to keep their overall diet balanced as well as calorie controlled.
Why We Cannot Track Precisely
)?
