More Reason to Not Count Calories
by Vin Miller
Like most people, you’re probably conscientious of the amount of calories that you eat. Perhaps you even count how many you consume each day. If so, what would you do if you discovered that the calorie data you’ve been using is unreliable?
Researchers from Tufts University analyzed the calorie content of a variety of supermarket and restaurant foods and found themselves asking the same question. In many cases, the actual calorie content of the food varied considerably from number of calories listed by the manufacturer or restaurant. This has significant implications for people who count calories to lose or maintain weight.
The entire basis of calorie counting is dependent on accurately assessing and adjusting one’s daily caloric intake based on their caloric needs. People looking to maintain their weight will generally consume about the same amount of calories that they need for the day, and those who want to lose weight will typically try to eat slightly less. Inaccurate calorie data could easily cause someone to consume more calories than intended and result in them gaining weight instead of losing or maintaining it.
A Rough Guesstimate at Best
The 29 restaurant meals and side dishes evaluated by the Tufts researchers were found to contain an average of 18% more calories than stated, and the 10 frozen meals from supermarkets were found to contain an average of 8% more. When applied to the typical 2,000 calorie per day diet, a caloric excess of just 5% can cause 10 pounds of weight gain in a single year. What’s even more alarming is that some of the foods evaluated had more than twice as many calories as stated.
You might wonder how restaurants and food manufacturers can get away with these discrepancies, but such a thought assumes that there are strict standards in place. There aren’t. The FDA only requires that the calorie content of packaged foods doesn’t exceed the stated amount by more than 20%. For restaurant foods, there’s no limit at all.
Some Surprising Examples
Some of the calories in food aren’t digested or assimilated. Although these calories are excluded from the calorie amounts listed on food labels and menus, laboratory methods used to measure calorie content includes them. To eliminate this discrepancy, total calorie amounts were calculated for each food based on its stated amount of macronutrients. As such, the stated amount of calories mentioned for each food is slightly higher than what you’d see on a label or menu.
A Denny’s veggie-cheese omelette with egg beaters contains 394 total calories for a 340 gram serving. The actual sample was found to be a 270 gram serving that contained 419 calories. Although this is only an excess of 25 calories, the serving size of the actual sample was considerably less than the stated serving size. If the actual serving size had been closer to the stated value, the calorie content would have likely been much higher.
A piece of toast from Denny’s is stated to have a 28 gram serving size and contain 97 total calories. The actual sample of toast was a 72 gram serving that contained 283 calories which is almost three times the stated amount. Denny’s grits are supposed to have a 113 gram serving size and contain 86 calories, but the actual sample was a 262 gram serving containing 253 calories. Like the toast, this is almost three times the stated amount. In addition to these inaccuracies, the total calorie content of the omelette meal is nearly doubled when combined with either of these two side dishes. Since the price of a meal typically includes a side dish, it’s very likely for most people to order one.
Another surprising example is P.F. Chang’s Sichuan style asparagus meal which is stated to have a 348 gram serving size and contain 260 total calories. The actual sample was exactly the same serving size, but contained 558 calories which is more than twice the stated amount. No need for a side dish to double the calories here!
To be fair, some of the foods evaluated contained fewer calories than stated. For example, a piece of toast at Ruby Tuesday’s is stated to be a 27 gram serving size containing 171 gross calories. The actual sample was the same serving size and contained 110 calories. Although this may seem more desirable than the previous examples, it’s important to realize that it could potentially create too much of a calorie deficit which can be just as bad as a caloric excess.
Packaged Foods are Slightly More Reliable
Like the restaurant foods, the packaged supermarket foods varied from the stated values in both directions. Lean Cuisine’s shrimp and angel hair pasta meal is stated to have a serving size of 283 grams and contain 250 total calories. The actual sample was a 345 gram serving that contained 319 calories. Weight Watcher’s lemon herb chicken piccata meal is stated to have a 255 gram serving size and contain 252 gross calories, but the actual sample was a 318 gram serving that contained 306 calories. Ironically, these same brands are specifically marketed to people who are concerned about calories.
What to Make of This
Like some of the ridiculous claims made on food labels, it appears that you can’t always trust nutritional data either, at least not for anything more than a rough estimate. It also seems that the nutritional information provided by restaurants, if it’s even made available, is considerably less accurate than that for packaged supermarket foods. However, it’s also important to consider that this is based on a relatively small sampling of 39 items.
In my opinion, the most important conclusion to draw from this study is that there’s little value in counting calories. While some might argue that more regulation is needed from the FDA to improve the accuracy of nutritional data, I think it’s more important to realize that calorie counting is a flawed practice to begin with and that increasing the accuracy of this data probably wouldn’t make much of a difference. Besides, the FDA is so heavily influenced by industry that such a change is unlikely to happen anyway.
The Flawed Thinking Behind Calorie Counting
On occasion, counting the number of calories consumed per day can provide useful information. This is especially the case if the counting is broken down by macronutrient. However, trying to limit yourself to a specific number of calories each day can not only be frustrating and ineffective, but it also promotes a misguided perspective on healthy eating that emphasizes quantity over quality.
Although appetite is a somewhat subjective matter that’s difficult to define, it’s clearly a complex subject and is influenced by a number of factors. The body’s ability to sense which nutrients it needs is very likely to be one of the most significant. As such, nutritional quality should be given more consideration than quantity. Many people who eat according to this perspective find that they can achieve and maintain an ideal weight without counting calories. In contrast, those who fail to realize that not all calories are created equal typically tend to continue eating lesser quality foods and try to compensate by resisting their body’s craving for nutrition. Such an approach tends to become more a battle of will than the pursuit of optimal health that it should be.
A More Simple and Satisfying Approach
Most people who choose to follow a truly healthy diet consisting mostly of natural whole foods such as meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, and nuts find that they satisfy their appetite more easily and rarely have to deal with food cravings, all while losing or maintaining weight. This has been the case for me as well. In fact, I find it very satisfying to know that I’m providing my body with good nutrition while also enjoying what I eat and not having to resist my appetite. It’s a much more pleasurable approach to weight loss and healthy eating.
For more information on the study done by Tufts researchers, you can read the abstract or purchase the full text here. For more information on a sensible and pleasurable approach to weight loss, I highly recommend reading The Slow Down Diet by Marc David.
Post this on Twitter
Post this on Facebook
Support this on StumbleUpon
Email this to friends
Leave a comment
It’s a great point you make here. You’re right, of course. I makes sense, too. Food preparation isn’t done in a vacuum, or with “constant” ingredients. At a restaurant, you likely have some teenager slopping butter on a slice of bread, not measuring it out on a food scale before spreading it. That’s just one example.
But, I do find value in using those numbers as a rough guide. Before I started looking at caloric values, I truly had no idea how much energy I was consuming. So, there’s value in looking at those numbers, so long as you realize they’re an approximation.
My 2-cents.
Hi Greg, thanks for your 2 cents.
The butter is a great example (and I’m certainly not discouraging the use of it). I agree that we shouldn’t expect nutritional information to be precise, but that it’s still useful for purposes other than obsessing about calorie consumption.
Seems to make as much sense as calculating calories burned in a workout.
Great point, Amy!
Calculating the calories burned in a workout is an indication that the workout is being done only for weight loss purposes and may very well be a compensation for poor eating habits. In my opinion, when done in excess, this is an unnecessary burden to the body and can sacrifice health for appearance. Weight loss is mostly about diet, and exercise should be done to improve and maintain health, fitness, and physical function. The fact that exercise burns calories should be viewed as a bonus for weight loss rather than it’s primary purpose.
Do you think the WeightWatchers method is any better? Instead of relying on specific calorie amounts, using a generalized point system. Similar idea, restricting intake by amounts, but their is less reliance on potentially skewed calorie benchmarks.
Hi Dave,
I appreciate the fact that some people like Weight Watchers and have found success with it, I’m not a fan of it. I don’t think Weight Watchers is much better than calorie counting, especially since its point system is partially based on calories. According to their point system, it’s better to have a 12 ounce can of beer than a tiny 4 ounce steak. That’s ridiculous and says it all.
As I always say, weight loss should be a natural byproduct of pursuing optimal health, and in my opinion, Weight Watchers is promoting something different, particularly since they promote the politically correct low fat diet. My article about skim milk will explain some of the reasons why I’m not a fan of this type of diet.
This is a great article Vin! I can’t wait to send it to several clients. It has become a daily battle trying to reprogram people away from calorie counting. Truly understanding your individual metabolic needs and controlling the hormonal response that foods create is so much more important than calorie consumption. Well done!
Thanks, Terry! It’s never easy going against popular mainstream beliefs. It’s kind of like having to relearn exercise technique. It takes many more repetitions to eliminate poor technique than it does to learn proper technique from the start.
Do you leave the fat on the meat? I ask the butcher to leave it on these days. I fill up with fat, I don’t eat chocolatey-type snacks or too many carbs in general and I find I’m not hungry and I don’t put on weight. I think myself everyone has a starvation mode/squander mode inside them and switching between them is triggered by their intake of carbs. I’m a thyroid boy so I’ve had to go into this at some depth. I’ve managed to get to where I’m not hungry to any extent and I’m not putting on weight keeping myself that way, a considerable achievement for me. Next stop; skinny
BB
Hi BB,
I absolutely do leave fat on meat. It’s my favorite part and is also nutritious. However, keep in mind that toxins are stored in fat and conventionally raised animals are likely to be exposed to a much larger amount of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other chemicals. If you’re going to eat fatty meat, it’s best to make sure that you get it from a quality source.
The more I learn, the more I come to the conclusion that counting calories is useless and basically dodges all of the more important issues. I meet far too many people whose health began to suffer after they began calculating calories-in/calories-out. Reducing human beings to numbers and equations will never work because there are simply too many variables. Plus, calories-in/calories-out tend to make people doubt the body’s amazing ability to self-regulate if given the proper fuel (real food).
Hi Elizabeth, thanks for your comment! I think you made a number of great points, all of which emphasize the fact that there’s a lot more to metabolism than the number of calories consumed.
Not taking into account how each macronutrient is used and metabolized differently by the body is like ignoring air resistance in every physics calculations. Ignoring to make a part of the calculation can have bad consequences if it is needed.
Calories don’t need to be mathematical modeling in a real-life situation. That sounds out of tune, isn’t it?
Hi ægil,
That’s an interesting analogy. It’s certainly important to consider the ratio of macronutrients that we eat, but it doesn’t have to complicated. A rough approximation is generally enough. For example, I know from personal experience that a meal consisting of about two thirds foods that are good sources of protein and fat is best for my metabolism and I generally don’t need to be any more specific than that. If you know your own metabolism and know how to satisfy your appetite, then calorie counting shouldn’t need to be a concern.
Like you Vin, I’m not a fan of fixed calorie intakes; we don’t have fixed calorie expenditure, so why would we fix our calorie intake? General calorie reduction for people who need to lose fat – good. Fixed low-cal diets – not good (with a few medical-based exceptions). Take an objective, un-emotional look at how many people actually create life-long (yep, that means forever) results using a low-calorie, fixed-calorie diet as their starting point… and you’ll find – very few! I’m talking about permanent physical change – not some short term weight-loss or momentary phase. Of course the fixed, low-cal advocates don’t want me to write this because they want you on their program or buying their products.
Hi Craig, thanks for your comment!
You made a great point about the volatility of calorie expenditure. Between this and the inaccuracy of nutrition data, strict calorie counting is like chasing a moving target. However, as you mentioned, a much bigger problem is the fact that it’s very difficult to maintain as a lifelong habit. Even if it weren’t, it can compromise health rather than promoting it, and health should always be the primary motivation behind dietary decisions.
Hi Vin, there is one phrase in your article that says all that needs to be said in my opinion – “not all calories are created equal”.
Hi Stephen, thanks for your comment! I agree, it’s an important sentence to understand!