2 
Our friend Casey Neistat made a wonderful documentary for the New York Times, he went and compared the actual calories of food to what’s listed on the nutrition facts. And guess what? More times than not, food had more calories than what was advertised.
It’s a fascinating study because though calories can rule our figure obsessed (or shape obese, depending on your perspective) society, they’re kind of doing it with an invisible hand. How many people really know how to scientifically count calories? How many people take what’s listed on the nutrition facts as gospel? What if we’re being lied to all this time!
Casey Neistat took five items: a muffin, a tofu sandwich, a Subway sandwich, a Starbucks Frappuccino and a Chipotle burrito and brought it to food scientists at the New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center to test each food’s caloric content. In total, four out of the five foods he tested had more calories than what the labels said (a Tofu sandwich had more than double the calories listed, only Subway came in at under the Nutrition Facts. Go Jared!). Those unaccounted calories added up to an extra 550 calories! People obsessed with counting calories would never know about this fuzzy math. People who don’t care about calories are eating even more than they should be. And the crazy thing? No one verifies the accuracy of these calories. Companies can list whatever the hell they want!
Watch the short video on calories here to find out what each company’s excuse for having more calories is. If you can’t believe it, don’t eat it. [NY Times]
What 200 Calories Actually Looks Like in Food
What 2,000 Calories of Food Actually Looks Like
Crazy Fact: Ripping CDs is Illegal
Not going to watch that video, but I’m guessing its because a lot of those things are hand made right in front of you, and last time I got a sub, the worker didn’t whip out the scales and start measuring everything…
The UK is more strict with this kind of thing than the US so its no supprise lol
but i agree the subway can not be 100% because even on the adverts they say a certain sandwich is under 300 cals BUT who ever makes you the sandwich may actually put a bit more meat/veg/cheese on it
its not going to be the same amounts of stuff going on each sandwich
same with the drink as well, they dont always fill your cup or glass etc to the same level lol
when i get a coffee from costa or starbucks they always put different amounts of coffee in each time same with the milk so its never ever going to be the same cals
even if you go 50 times i bet it will be different each time
I did watch and the article above is incorrect in that it doesn’t show the companys excuses, it shows the process the journalist used; the responses from the companys is shown at the bottom of the article BUT your guess is correct
As an aside, nothing in that really looked like ‘dinner’, you know, meat and a few veg, mostly snacky type food (in the video the journalist says of the type he might eat through the day) and his assumed calorie count was already 2773 (reality showed 3321), if he’s a typical American I think I’ve solved the mysterious obesity crisis in America
Calorie counts also don’t relate to the actual uptake in your body (also influenced by such factors as how you chew) meaning that the crock of shot figures are only out compared to other crock of shit figures…
What? How you chew? Could you clarify … ?
i’m guessing that if you chew more the food is broken down more and it effects absorption. also, perhaps you burn more calories chewing and the more you chew the fuller you feel. the net effect of this? i don’t have a clue!
Perhaps – all I know is how you chew your food has such a negligible effect on using up calories (unless you spend all days chewing) it’s not even worth mentioning – or else we’d all be chewing gum all day and be super lean!
No you’re missing the point. If you don’t chew your food properly you will use more energy digesting it, so effectively you don’t absorb as much energy from the food.
That is totally new to me. There is the concept of TEF (Thermogenic effect of feeding) which is the amount of energy expenditure due to the cost of processing food for use and storage.
Different types of food require different amounts of energy to process. Fats have a thermic effect of about 3 percent. If you consume 100 fat calories, only 3 calories will be spent digesting the fat. Fibrous vegetables and fruit have a thermic effect of about 20 percent, while proteins have a thermic effect of about 30 percent. If you eat 300 protein calories, you’ll burn off 90 calories digesting the protein.
The size of the food has nothing to do with it or else we’d all be swallowing large chunks of everything.
Basic physics applies to food digested so it is then a given that the smaller the particles of food, the faster (and easier)they will be digested. Carbonated drinks are also absorbed at a faster rate.
And its not only different types of food on a fat/protein/fiber basis either. e.g. Raw or rare meat is harder to digest than fully cooked meat.
The calorie system is pretty much redundant simplified science – the WHO concurred with this years ago but decided to stick with the calorie system on the basis that it’s relatively easy to understand.
It’s worth noting that both Slimming World and Weight watchers have moved away from a basic calorie model now.
The WHO? Deems the calorie system as redundant yet still uses BMI to determine obesity levels! Classic. The WHO are about as effective as the UN
Chewing is extremely important for digestion. The size of the food has everything to do with it.
As hummingmachinery said, food also become more nutritious after you have cooked it.
There was an article in New Scientist a couple of years back, I think this one http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.200-the-calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are-wrong.html but I’m no longer subscribed.
General gist is that when foods are tested they’re burned, which gives you an idea of the total maximum potential energy in your food. But your body isn’t perfect when it comes to accessing that energy (for instance, it can’t access the energy in fibrous food that’s not digested, or some food comes out whole cf. corn). Even the way you eat a particular item has an effect on your calorie uptake.
Also, cooking food can affect the calorific content.
This article appears to have some info, though I’ve never looked at the source before: http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.html?cid=dlvr.it
mmm Subway
I didn’t watch the video but I’m going to go ahead and assume the mistake here is not accounting for MEI, metabolizable energy intake, often approximated by taking about 85% of the energy in the food.
And surprise surprise, the declared 2773 calories is 83.5% less than the measured 3321.8 calories.
Of course I may wrong about assuming the MEI hasn’t been accounted for.