I always wondered how exact calorie counts were... According to this article, not very!
"A study of meals from 10 restaurant chains including Ruby Tuesday and Wendy's found calorie counts averaging 18 percent more than the values listed by the restaurants.
Diet meals made by Lean Cuisine, Weight Watchers, Healthy Choice and others averaged 8 percent higher than the numbers on the label."
Some fluctuations can't be avoided...even comparing two apples of the same weight, you'd find calorie variations due to sugar content, water content, etc...more sunlight, less sunlight, older vs. younger tree...those apples are not identical in terms of calorie or nutrient composition. Every naturally grown food has that variation, so no calorie count, for a restaurant meal or a packaged meal or for a whole food, is going to be 100% accurate.
In restaurants, it's so easy to see how this happens...a little oil on the flat top from the Big Mac drifts over to your grilled chicken, or the frying temperature isn't just right, or maybe that piece of chicken isn't the exact weight you need to match the recipe your stats are based on.
With packaged goods, they're labeled by weight, and manufacturers have to meet that weight on the package...some overshoot just to make sure they fall on the right side of the weight listed. Again, that means a small calorie difference for the consumer.
I use calories as an estimate, since really, there's no way to get more accurate than that anyway using either packaged or whole foods.
I've always assumed they were way off.. It just wouldn't make sense for some values.
When I make a meal using the lowest calorie option for everything my counts would still be higher than some restaurants.
But I just try to take it with a grain of salt. If I have to go to a restaurant I can only choose the healthiest option and hope for the best
Lets say I discover through trial and error that week in week out I need to eat about 1500 calories to lose weight.
So now we find that in reality that 1500 I think I am eating is "really" 1650 calories. Except that the whole time I was trying to find where I can be satisfied, still lose weight and maintain this eating pattern for life, I was really eating 1650, not 1500. So either way I am getting what I need, even if the number isnt accurate.
We don't know exactly how many cals we need a day or burn off for each activity throughout the day. It's all an educated guess.
Sometimes you set yourself up for failure when you expect perfection.
Although I will say if the foods consistantly contain higher cals than what's listed, then there needs to be some sort of action to make things more accurate.
I don't care how far off they are, I've only been counting for a few weeks and I've already lost 7 pounds!!!
And that, my friend, is probably the most important thing. Being aware of what you are eating in relation to your body's needs. How many people really do this? I didn't until I started recording what I ate. One can look at my ticker to see how very effective it has been as you yourself has discovered.
Article: Food Calorie Counts Are Often Off
