Declared vs. real calories: imperfections in the calorie system | Steroids4U.eu

Declared vs. real calories: imperfections in the calorie system

For many of us, nutrition tables on food packaging are an important source of information about the content of individual ingredients, but also about the caloric and nutritional value of a given food. But have you ever wondered how such a table is made and how accurate it is? Is it possible to rely on the above figures?

Generally, the energy content of foods (their calorific value) is calculated by multiplying each one component that corresponds to the energy coefficients. The energy contained in the food can also be measured directly by means of a bomb calorimeter. This machine is able to measure the amount of energy released by the complete combustion of a food sample that fits into the machine. For example, researchers found that as much as 94% of meals from mainstream restaurants and 72% of fast food meals contain at least 600 calories per serving.

In reality, it works a little more complicated. Since man is not a machine, we are not as effective at burning food calories as the super machine in the picture. Due to incomplete digestion and thus imperfect absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, not all of the energy contained in a given food will enter the system to be used as energy. And here the first differences arise.

Before discussing the issue, we will clarify one important term that I will continue to use (often). These are called. Atwater factor / system. What is it? It is basically a system that every fitclan fan is sure to know. It is a general caloric expression of individual nutrients (macronutrients). For repetition, the energy values ​​are 4 kcal / g for protein, 9 kcal / g for fat, 4 kcal / g for carbohydrate and 7 kcal / g for alcohol. These figures are based on the production of food heat, literally when they are burned. Wilbur Olin Atwater, according to which this factor / system is named, also took into account the energy loss in feces in the energy expression. In other words, the energy that our body can actually “metabolize” (actually receive) is already reflected in these figures, albeit in the typical mixed diet of its time (that is, in the 20th century).

Later, Atwater was added. For example, carbohydrates in the form of monosaccharides = 3.75 kcal / g (i.e., 16 kJ / g) (Note 1 at the end of the article). Furthermore, energy values ​​for fiber of 2.0 kcal / g, organic acids of 3.0 kcal / g and polyols of 2.4 kcal / g were included. Finally, Merrill and Watt attempted to improve the system by refining the energy expression of the various types of nutrients (Note 2). For example, from 2.44 kcal / g for some plant proteins, or 3.46 kcal / g for flakes, to 4.36 kcal / g for egg protein. For vegetable fats from 8.37 kcal / g (eg from cereals, legumes, fruits or nuts) to 9.02 kcal / g for fats contained in eggs, meat. Furthermore, for carbohydrates in cocoa chocolate from 1.33 kcal / g to 4.16 kcal / g in white rice. In their book, they brought many concrete figures. But in the end we ended up on average with the common values ​​of 4/4/9 - Kcal / g.

As I have already outlined, the basic Atwater system does not take into account how absorption differs depending on the type of food and its processing or the person consuming it (which may otherwise absorb some specific ingredients). It also does not take into account the effect of food thermal effects (TEF) or energy expenditure (TEA). I have picked a few concrete examples to demonstrate the differences in calories, but before we look at the system that applies in our region.

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 1169/2011 of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, we operate on the extended Atwater system. However, it does not distinguish between monosaccharides and polysaccharides (page 45), so their energy expression is identical. Data on caloric content of foods can be obtained in triplicate. By analyzing the food, calculating from known or actual average values ​​of the ingredients used (how many fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.), or taking data from relevant sources (eg national food databases). As a result, the same food may have three different values.

In addition, the Directive introduced an obligation to include nutrition information on the packaging of food (with certain exceptions). In the Slovak Republic this obligation is valid from 13.12.2016. The amount of fat, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins and salt must be labeled. At the same time, it is only up to the manufacturer of the product to indicate on the packaging, for example, fiber or alcohol sugars (polyols), etc. This can lead to inaccuracies in foods with higher fiber content (alcohol sugars). In the caloric table, the carbohydrate content (under which these ingredients are included) is misrepresented, so the real calories are lower than those declared in the table. If the manufacturer uses a conversion based on the content of individual nutrients, he may round them to whole grams (eg 1,6 g = 2 g). It should be added, however, that although these are not some relevant numbers from the perspective of a single food, a number may already deviate.

However, there are also some guidelines for tolerances for nutrition labeling purposes. This means that, for each nutrient, a certain degree of inaccuracy is permitted for each nutrient, depending on its quantity in the food. Of course, this is logical because it is impossible for food to always contain exactly the same levels of nutrients. However, the content of these nutrients in food should not deviate significantly from the declared values ​​so that we (consumers) are not misled. For example, with a carbohydrate content of up to 10 g per 100 g of food, a tolerance of ± 2 g is permitted. Fats may have a deviation of up to 1.5 g for products up to 10 g per 100 g of product, with a content of from 10 g to 40 g / 100 g of product being already permitted 20% upwards. What does this mean in practice? A food product with a declared sugar content of 8,5 g shall be within the tolerances when checked, if the controllers measure a sugar content between 6,5 g and 11 g / 100 g.

Even for these inaccuracies, the calculation of energy values ​​should rather be considered as an alternative to direct measurement, but reality will not let go. We cannot ask that each food be individually tested in a bomb calorimeter for calorie content. Similarly, we cannot idealize the values ​​on the food packaging.

And now back to specific food categories. First we look at the nuts. According to commonly used calorie mathematics, a 28 g portion of walnuts has 185 calories, but the actually metabolizable energy at this amount is 146 calories. This is 21% less than the Atwater factor predicts. Almonds ended similarly. Their actual metabolisable energy content is 32% lower than the table data. For pistachios, this difference is 5% and for cashews 16%. In other words, the amount of nut energy available to the body for use or storage is lower than generally indicated on packaging. The following order applies: Almonds> Walnuts> Cashews> Pistachios. However, we are talking about raw nuts. Nuts processed in the form of butter, oil or flour lead to less excretion of fat in the stool than unprocessed nuts. This suggests that the intact structure of nuts inhibits the digestion and absorption of macronutrients therefrom (Note 1).

Interestingly, even a low-fat, high-fiber diet will have up to 11% less metabolizable energy. We are talking mainly about fruits, vegetables and cereals with high fiber content. Researchers from Korea looked at the differences between selected foods, using animals to test. They found that the differences can be significant. Korean dishes, consisting mainly of rice or pasta, had lower real values ​​than typical Western dishes. Pizza, hamburger and spaghetti had 8.8%, 2.4% and 10.9% higher metabolic energy, respectively, while the Korean ones - composed mostly of different types of barley, rice and pasta - moved from 4-17 % below the table values. Food processing can significantly alter the structure and composition of food, thereby affecting the digestion of macronutrients. Also, fermented foods are more available for absorption and therefore may be more caloric than their non-fermented counterparts.

Above you can see graphics showing three kinds of diets. It is a typical western diet, predominantly composed of processed and calorically concentrated foods. Mediterranean diet (see note 4) and vegan diet. We compare the three diets according to the following criteria:

General = Atwater calculation system how it works in the Czech Republic (EU)

Specific = Atwater system supplemented by Merrilla and Watt recommendations. It is therefore based on the digestibility coefficients of category-specific macrorutrients (eg 1 g of nut fat has 8.37 Kcal, but 1 g of egg fat has 9.02 Kcal, ie it has no fixed values ​​for macronutrients)

Modified = improved system that uses food specific macronutrient digestibility coefficients published in the scientific literature

It can be seen that the smallest deviations occurred in the western style of eating and the largest in the vegan style. What does it mean? Within a varied and balanced diet, caloric differences (real vs. declared) represent only a marginal problem. Myfitnesspal can tell us the truth. However, for individuals who adhere to a specific style of diet (vegans, carnivore), we may see more relevant deviations. This is true for a diet with a very high intake of fiber, whole grains or seeds, i. for meals based primarily on plants, which retain most of their natural intact structure (they are minimally processed). In such cases, it can be estimated that the actual metabolisable energy may be from 10-30% lower than the tabular (myfitnesspal) values. And vice versa. If you eat predominantly junkfood and various high-processed versions of meals, you will probably receive a little more calories than declared on the package and in calorie tables.

The final word

Today you could read that calories are not perfect. Uh, their energy expression for specific types of foods and nutrients is not perfect. But must it be? You might even have to worry about, oh, calories aren't like calories! It is, but it is not. Manufacturers make inaccuracies, we write inaccurately, there are individual differences between us. However, their relevance is on average low. The main point of getting an overview of your daily energy intake is not 100% knowledge of exact numbers. In addition, with a balanced diet, these inaccuracies are lost (averaged) in the daily total. Above all, we need to manage our calorie budget as a whole. To avoid eating much more / less than we need to achieve our goals. This is the main reason why everyone should have a more detailed overview of their calories for at least a certain period. It's like money, you have to learn their value first, then you can handle it economically.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale