Calories In Calories Out

Calorie labels don't work

The Washington Post reports:

Evidence is mounting that calorie labels — promoted by some nutritionists and the restaurant industry to help stem the obesity crisis — do not steer most people to lower-calorie foods. Eating habits rarely change, according to several studies. Perversely, some diners see the labels yet consume more calories than usual. People who use the labels often don’t need to. (Meaning: They are thin.)

Questions about the effectiveness of calorie disclosure come as the federal government is finalizing regulations to nationalize labeling in chain restaurants next year as part of a measure tucked into President Obama’s health-care law. 

Full article here.  I'm all for disclosure of what's in our food, but don't hold your breath that calorie labeling will work.  Not only does it require that people actually count calories, but it requires counting calories to be an effective method of weight management.  The last few decades of low fat hysteria was based, in part, upon the fact that a gram of fat contains more calories than a carbohydrate.

How did that work out?

Updated list of wild animals ignorant of calories

As many of you know, I am compiling a list of wild animals that do not know what a calorie is.  Thanks to all the readers who left additions in the comments.  I am embarrassed by some of my omissions (armadillo, duh).

A reader asks me whether only living species count, or could extinct species be on the list too.  Good question.  Since extinct species are extinct, we cannot say with certainty that they do not know what a calorie is.   It would be different if they had left behind a written record stating their ignorance of calories -- but we have yet to find that record.  So sorry, I cannot put Tiktaalik on the list.  That's called science, people, and unlike in sports, not everyone gets a trophy.
 
Here's the updated list (new animals in bold):
  • Aardvark
  • Armadillo
  • African buffalo
  • Hamadryas Baboon
  • European Beaver
  • Cormorant
  • Dragonfly
  • Fat-tailed Gerbil
  • Hawk
  • Hippopotamus
  • Hyena
  • Llama
  • Moose
  • Panda
  • Pangolin (!)
  • Peacock
  • Australian Pelican
  • Squid
  • Urchin
  • Walrus
 
Any others that I'm missing?
 
I think you enjoy being hard to categorize

List of animals that do not know what a calorie is

I am compiling a list of animals that do not know what a calorie is.  If you know of any other animals that should be on this list, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IN THE COMMENTS.  I would like to make it comprehensive as possible.  THANK YOU.
  • Aardvark
  • African buffalo
  • Hamadryas Baboon
  • European Beaver
  • Cormorant
  • Dragonfly
  • Fat-tailed Gerbil
  • Hawk
  • Llama
  • Australian Pelican
  • Walrus (a very sad case because they are so fat)

Any that I'm missing?

Don't be sad, Mr. Walrus

Why you should try to burn fewer calories, not more

Burning calories is a bankrupt concept.   And paying attention to how many calories you burn is as utterly bankrupt as trying to eat healthy by counting calories.

In the CBS piece about our barefoot running event, they suggested that a benefit of barefoot running is that it burns more calories.  Not only does this miss the entire point of natural running (a healthier stride, less injury), but it is factually wrong.  Research by Dan Lieberman up at Harvard (and others) have shown that barefoot running is more efficient -- i.e., you expend less energy for a given distance.  This is because, in part, you actually use your arch to store your momentum and release it in your next stride.  So if you run properly, the end result will be to burn fewer calories, not more.  And that's a good thing.

This is true for other movements too, not just running.  For any given exercise, you should seek to expend as few calories as possible.  Don't get me wrong, you want some big workouts where you burn through a bunch of calories.  That's why I say "for any given exercise".  But for that specific workout, you should seek to accomplish it as efficiently as possible.  That means good form.  No wasted movement.

Good form allows you to do more with less.  Athletes understand this.  Good form allows you to:
  • hit a golf ball further and more accurately with the same or fewer calories
  • hit a baseball out of the park with the same or fewer calories
  • throw a football further and harder with the same or fewer calories
Or say that you're in the wild on a persistence hunt.  You don't know how long the hunt will last -- 2 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles.  If you're successful, you'll have more work ahead of you to butcher the animal and possibly carry it some distance.  If you're not successful, then you still have some work ahead of you.  Due to the uncertainty of life in the wild, you want to accomplish your objectives while conserving as much energy as possible, husbanding your resources, and being more efficient.  For a given objective, you want to burn as few calories as possible. 
 
So the next time you hear someone say that an activity is a great way to burn calories, alarm bells should go off.  Remember that whenever there is an external goal -- like in sports or life in the wild -- there is a desire to expend fewer calories for a given motion.
 
It's not about counting calories.  It's about moving and exercising in the right ways.  It's about eating the right kinds of foods.  It's quality, not quantity.
Syndicate content