How do companies determine how many calories are in food? What method is used? Are the calories listed in a bag of popcorn accurate for dieting purposes or just an estimate? It seems like I am eating a lot more than 275 calories. Maybe because of the fiber in popcorn.
Long answer to a simple question....
A calorie is a unit of energy: specifically the amount of energy it takes to heat one gram of water by one degree Celsius. It has nothing to do with the volume of food, it is simply how much work your body can do with the resulting product of digesting that food. Each macronutrient (fat, protein, and carbohydrates) contains a certain amount of calories per gram. 1g of carbs is equal to 4 calories, 1g of protein is equal to 4 calories, and 1g of fat is equal to 9 calories.
Fiber cannot be digested by your body. Even though it does have the ability to become energy, it can't when it's in your stomach (though it is useful for other things, don't stop eating it!). So when you have something very high fiber, like plain popcorn, or celery, you get a lot of volume without a lot of digestible, usable energy.
Companies determine how many calories are in their food by how much energy is released when it's broken down in a lab. :) And yes, it's usually pretty accurate. Everything in a healthy lifestyle, especially your diet (not to be confused with 'dieting') is an estimation.
Sorry I don't have any direct sources to quote right now. Hope this helps!
Thank you very much for the information and taking the time to write all that out. I will trust the numbers on the box with more confidence now.
An article in the New Scientist says that the way caloric values have been calculated may result in underestimated counts by as much as 25% This is because our foods today have changed so much since the caloric value system was invented in the 19th century by chemist Wilbur Atwater.
Scientists believe the calorie calculations for some processed foods are so far out that they are actually rethinking our current calorie labelling system.
Original Post by floss117:
An article in the New Scientist says that the way caloric values have been calculated may result in underestimated counts by as much as 25% This is because our foods today have changed so much since the caloric value system was invented in the 19th century by chemist Wilbur Atwater.
Scientists believe the calorie calculations for some processed foods are so far out that they are actually rethinking our current calorie labelling system.
Interesting, I seem to remember in older books the calories were higher in all three macro nutrients but I can't be sure any more. The problem in our current labeling system is probably the way they round servings etc. Do you have a link to the exact article? I'm not too familiar with the web site but I'd love to see the reasoning behind it.
"An article in the New Scientist says that the way caloric values have been calculated may result in underestimated counts by as much as 25% This is because our foods today have changed so much since the caloric value system was invented in the 19th century by chemist Wilbur Atwater.
Scientists believe the calorie calculations for some processed foods are so far out that they are actually rethinking our current calorie labelling system. "
That's not the kind of news I wanted to hear. But it doesn't surprise me either. I am the kind of person who has to have accuracy in my numbers since I am currently trying to lose 15 pounds. Plus I am an accountant so accuracy is my nature. LOL 25% is a lot to be off on high calorie foods.
I’m sorry I can’t give the exact link because I need a subscription to New Scientist to get the original article. Anyway, here is an article that discussed this subject in the Daily Mail.
Also sorry to Mike for the not so good news. I too like to be accurate with numbers!
It’s not all bad though. They also believe that some calorie values may go down. This is due to ‘net metabolisable energy’ (NME). This is taking into account the energy it takes to eat and digest the food as well as its gross caloric content.
E.g. steak may have less cals than previously thought as the meat requires a certain number of calories to be used when breaking it down and digesting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-120 0993/Why-calorie-counting-makes-fat.html
Thanks floss, another piece of the puzzle and makes clean food dieting look even better.
On another note, if you think labeling is wrong check out this show: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/calorie_confide ntial/ It shows how easy it is to get over 2500 KCals in a single restaurant meal and how bad people really are at estimating food values.
Hi everyone,
I have just joined the website caloriecount. I'm french I leave in england. On wesdnesday evening I was watching a documentary on BB3 called : Who Made Me Fat? She was talking about the fact that sugar is everywhere. They just added it in all kind of food. In the labelling the added together the refind sugar (60g) with the sugar coming from fruit (30g). So they write that it's 30% of your daily amounts when is in reality half. They also explained that most of the deals in any supermarket. They will always use the chocolat buy one get one free... But the fruit and veg are always full price.
This documentary made me realise that I was eating too much sugar. Yesterday I was calculating my sugar intake. I ate 120g of pure sugar. I was horrified.
Everyday I was calculating my calories. I was always trying not going other 1700Kcal. You know just to keep healthy.
So do you mind doing the same explerience as me. And have a look at your sugar intake a day.
Sadly sugar is in every thing milk apple pasta...
Speak to you soon
PS: your massages are really interesting. I looked at the video but I couldn't get the sound.
Will I lose weight if I eat the same food over and over?
You can lose weight despite eating the same food day-after-day as long as you eat fewer calories than you burn. In fact, eating the... Read more