Interesting read about calories in food
Discussion
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/01/why-the-c...
Thought this was an interesting read. About how they work out how many calories are in food and how they've, over the years, determined calorie burns based on peoples height and weight.
Very interesting points made about how many calories we actually derive from what we eat. Apparently cooking rice in coconut oil can halve the amount of actual calories the body takes from that rice. Likewise eating a well done steak means you actually get more calories than from the same steak cooked rare. Essentially the cooking process unlocks more of the calories of the food eaten because cooking it makes it easier to break down.
I think it throws up some good questions to those who boil the diet and exercise thing to calories in - calories out. I do believe it is that simple on the base of it, but it sounds like there are far far too many variables to contend with to know that:
1) The calories you logged are actually the calories you ate and further to that what % of those calories your body actually used.
2) The calories calculated during exercise are actually right .
Many foods are supposedly labelled with this in mind; i.e. some guy burned loads of food types to get the calorific values, then burned poo of people who'd eaten these foods to find how much to knock off the calorific values to get the actual calories....but it doesn't seem all that accurate and of course the food manufacturers play games. So how do you know for sure that Dr Oetker pizza really is 200 calories a slice?
There are studies showing time of day can affect how many calories you derive from food. The list seems endless!
I think I can see why, for some people, it really isn't as simple as doing a MFP diary and making sure you exercise enough to get a deficit. For a whole host of reasons the diary could be wildly inaccurate and the exercise calories likewise. Sounds like a crap shoot that works like a charm for some and not for others just by laws of statistics.
They do say however that its definitely not genetics.... people are not fat because its in their genes. But their solution doesn't seem like a straight calories in - calories out answer.
I did have a chuckle at the comment by the researcher who said they caught someone, doing a food trial, had snuck in a bag of M&M's and they only caught them because they spilled them all over the floor!
Thought this was an interesting read. About how they work out how many calories are in food and how they've, over the years, determined calorie burns based on peoples height and weight.
Very interesting points made about how many calories we actually derive from what we eat. Apparently cooking rice in coconut oil can halve the amount of actual calories the body takes from that rice. Likewise eating a well done steak means you actually get more calories than from the same steak cooked rare. Essentially the cooking process unlocks more of the calories of the food eaten because cooking it makes it easier to break down.
I think it throws up some good questions to those who boil the diet and exercise thing to calories in - calories out. I do believe it is that simple on the base of it, but it sounds like there are far far too many variables to contend with to know that:
1) The calories you logged are actually the calories you ate and further to that what % of those calories your body actually used.
2) The calories calculated during exercise are actually right .
Many foods are supposedly labelled with this in mind; i.e. some guy burned loads of food types to get the calorific values, then burned poo of people who'd eaten these foods to find how much to knock off the calorific values to get the actual calories....but it doesn't seem all that accurate and of course the food manufacturers play games. So how do you know for sure that Dr Oetker pizza really is 200 calories a slice?
There are studies showing time of day can affect how many calories you derive from food. The list seems endless!
I think I can see why, for some people, it really isn't as simple as doing a MFP diary and making sure you exercise enough to get a deficit. For a whole host of reasons the diary could be wildly inaccurate and the exercise calories likewise. Sounds like a crap shoot that works like a charm for some and not for others just by laws of statistics.
They do say however that its definitely not genetics.... people are not fat because its in their genes. But their solution doesn't seem like a straight calories in - calories out answer.
I did have a chuckle at the comment by the researcher who said they caught someone, doing a food trial, had snuck in a bag of M&M's and they only caught them because they spilled them all over the floor!
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 28th January 17:43
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 28th January 17:43
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff