?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
27 January 2016 @ 07:05 am
Numbering  
Food calories are a sloppy approximation.

Thanx to andrewducker
Tags:
 
 
Xiphias Gladiusxiphias on January 27th, 2016 12:52 pm (UTC)
For what it's worth: a couple months back, Weight Watchers changed their food calculation so that the "points value" of a food INCLUDES looking at calories, but also DOES take into account that protein, fats, simple carbohydrates, and complex carbohydrates are different. And that blending things changes things.

It doesn't go into the raw-vs-cooked thing, though, which is huge.

But yeah.

If calories consumed is greater than calories expended, you gain weight; if calories consumed is less than calories expended, you lose weight. Which sounds really simple, until you realize what they're saying: that two people consuming the same food in the same way might be consuming different amount of calories, or that the same person consuming the same food in different ways might be consuming different amounts of calories.

And the other side of the equation, too -- two people doing the same amount of activity will be burning different numbers of calories; the same person doing the same activity under different circumstances may be burning different numbers of calories.

I guess weight loss is one of those human problems that H. L. Mencken talks about, one with a well-known solution that is neat, plausible, and wrong.