Can Food Industry Calorie Listings Be Trusted? Maybe not, but does the answer really matter? by Robert S. Wieder Via Calorielab It may be premature or simply dead wrong to call it an argument, so let’s just say that a “discussion” has begun among health and nutrition experts regarding the calorie amounts listed on food labels. On the one hand there is a school of thought which contends that, “There are a number of reasons to question the accuracy, and even the usefulness, of those numbers.” To which the pro-calorie crowd responds, more or less, “So?” Here are those positions in greater detail. First, the calorie skeptics. The calorie amounts listed are usually less than the actual calorie content. One New York Times reporter found that four out of five take-out items were off by as much as 200 calories. The old Atwater system we use to measure calories in food items hasn’t been seriously updated in 100 years. For example, it assigns proteins and carbohydrates with the same number of calories per gram, although we now know that the body metabolizes the two forms of food in different ways and with different net energy results. The calorie counts on processed foods are determined by adding up the calorie counts of the individual raw ingredients, but the very nature of processing is to make those ingredients more easily digested and their calories more efficiently absorbed by the consumer than in their natural form. Now, a word from the other side. The Times reporter’s “research” was based on just five items, a preposterously tiny sample size, and they included a banana nut muffin and a Starbucks Frappuccino, two items that anyone interested in calorie limitation wouldn’t go near to begin with. This principle holds for fast food restaurants as well: Calorie-conscious persons who do patronize them are savvy enough to automatically add 10 or 20 percent to the posted counts when considering their order. The body does metabolize different food items differently, and each body metabolizes any given food item somewhat differently from other bodies, but how much hair-splitting do you want to get bogged down with, here? Yes, there are discrepancies, but they aren’t so great as to render the stated amount irrelevant. They give the consumer at least a rough idea of the calories involved. Pi isn’t exactly 3.14 either, but it’s close enough for most practical purposes. When all is said and done, calorie counts on menus and product labels are far better than nothing, and at present, we don’t have a handy alternative. Even if items A, B and C each understate their calories by ten percent or so, we’re still provided with a fairly accurate measure of how they compare with one another. If you have to choose between them, that information is valuable. I hope that I’ve stated each side’s position fairly and accurately, but in case I haven’t, there’s always a fail-safe option for persons concerned about calorie intake: avoid situations where you have to rely on the accuracy of calorie counts on menus or labels by preparing your own meals and snacks. When it comes to the food you eat, ultimately you are the only source you can absolutely trust.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:42:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015