When a calorie isn`t a calorie

[Cookie]

For the UK guys have a look in this months "new scientist" magazine...just read at newsagents ....all about calories.............

[Cookie]

So no one has a newsagents that they could pop along to have a look at this months issue

I will save your poor feet the journey...........

They were calling into the question the use of food labelling & the Atwater system used to calculate calories & how many calories are contained within a certain food source or product. Pointing out that the way a food is cooked, combined & chewed would alter the total calories you would obtain from said product/source.

[jamesy101]

So again the "science" used on food packaging is challenged by a reputable source. It's a shame the vast majority of people look at "X calories and 0 fat" and assume that makes it healthy.

[Cookie]

So again the "science" used on food packaging is challenged by a reputable source. It's a shame the vast majority of people look at "X calories and 0 fat" and assume that makes it healthy.

TBH I think I will buy this edition just so that I can reread the article & digest (no pun intended) the information better.

Had a couple good article from that magazine so it is one worth looking at when I go do the weekly shop.

[jamesy101]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... wrong.html

There you go. It makes for a good read, it sounds like the method for estimating calories is basically what we did in school science lessons.

[Cookie]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.200-the-calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are-wrong.html

There you go. It makes for a good read, it sounds like the method for estimating calories is basically what we did in school science lessons.

Cheers matey

[jamesy101]

You're welcome, may as well save people money. Anyway, it's worth a read although I would imagine small calorie margins aren't likely to have huge long-term impacts on active people.

[tomato]

i think that the ammount of calories a person needs is very individualised, using an estimate of 2000/2500 cals per day is just a rough idea and many people will vary depending on their physiology and activity levels etc

with this is mind a persons diet should be individualised also, if a person is overweight they should eat less, and if a person is underweight they should eat more (of the right foods of course) using their current calorific intake as a baseline individual to them

and just beacuse a person chhoses the lower calorie option doesnt mean they are going to be healthy, if their eating too much of it, or it is crap in the first plce??

im not saying a more accurate measure isnt needed, as all good science is based on accurate information
but with their being so many different variable to account for the system is not consistant to start with,

i fink i explained that right anyway lol

[fits]

How long does it take for these people to catch on?

[Cookie]

How long does it take for these people to catch on?

Which people?

[fits]

How long does it take for these people to catch on?

Which people?

Govenment people, scientist, media.

[Cookie]

Government people, scientist, media.

Usually when there are either votes, publicity or money to be made from bringing the information forwards.