Sometimes I see inconsistencies between different Food Authorities
about the exact calorie count of a specific food.
I don’t think there is a way to really know which one of them is the most accurate.

It is always important to remember that Calorie Counts are ALL estimates,
even when they are written in books, online, or on menus and food labels.

I don't think it makes much difference which calorie counting source one uses.
Unless the calories are listed on the labels of the foods I use,

I ordinarily use the calorie counts listed in my software food journal, DietPower,
The source of which is a National Base. If it isn't in DietPower,
and I have no food label, there then I look at Calorie King,
or some other online source for a similar type of food.

I am doing the best I can to maintain my current weight,
or lose a few pounds. The idea of calorie counting
is just to do one's best to keep track of one’s food intake.
It is impossible to be totally accurate for a great many reasons.

First, my food measurements might not always be totally accurate,
for example, when I measure out 1/4 cup of dry oatmeal,
I fill a 1/4 cup as full as it goes.
The Oatmeal label says 1/4 cup equals x calories,
but it also says 1/4 cup is x grams...
Weighing out the grams shows that 1/4 cup is Less than full.
It is a very small difference, but these things can make quite a difference over time.

Another thing to be aware of is that the FDA only requires
food labels to be up to 20% accurate.
The reason those weights and measures laws exist
is to make certain the consumer isn’t shortchanged...
that is to make certain he/she gets at least that minimum amount of food.
Almost always, an inaccuracy is going to result in the consumer
getting MORE food ….which means a HIGHER calorie count that the label says.

Furthermore, labels aren't regulated very closely,
and there is a difference in accuracy between companies.
The very large food companies tend to be no more than 20% inaccurate,
but the smaller, mom and pop companies, can easily have up to a 50% error rate.

As a further example, fruit is now bred to be both larger and sweeter
than it used to be, but the calorie counts for fruits haven’t been increased.

What this means is,
no matter how closely one watches one's calories,
one is not going to be PERFECTLY accurate.
However, careful weighing and measuring food, and keeping track
in my food journal gives me the best chance of knowing my calorie number.

Those BMR or RMR numbers given by the charts showing the number of calories
that each of us burns, are based on either the Harris-Benedict or the Mifflin formulas.
These formulas were created from Averages, and are not necessarily accurate
for any one particular individual.

No matter what the Charts say my body's calorie burn rate should be,
if, over time, I gain weight on a specific calorie number,
I have to work to eat less than that calorie number.

Maybe I'm taking in more calories than I know,
Maybe I'm burning less calories than I know,
Bottom line, if...over time... I am gaining weight,
I have to...EAT LESS and move around a bit more.

                      
Here is a picture of the men who were in "Starvation mode
during the famous 1940s Minnesota Starvation Research project of Dr. Ancel Keys.

People online tend to throw around the term "starvation mode" quite a bit. I've done a great deal of research on this issue,and as a result of my study,  I agree with the Experts who say that "starvation mode"...as it is commonly defined...is a Dieting Myth. Starvation mode doesn't happen until one is actually starving.

Bottom line, unless you are genetically like one of those Zucker rats that Gary Taubes talks about in "Why We Get Fat And What To Do About It"if you have more body fat than the picture above, you aren't in "starvation mode".

I very much like this quote from Brad Pilon, author of Eat Stop Eat, on the Metabolism issue:

"Unless you have a degree in human biology…and in many cases even if you do…you do not understand what ‘metabolism’ means.

Eating Less Calories isn't Dangerous for your Metabolism,

This word gets thrown around the fitness and diet media and is used to scare people into thinking there is a dangerous level of calories that will destroy their metabolism. This of course is a false premise considering your ‘metabolism’ isn’t a thing that can be destroyed or sped up or slowed down (not without drugs).

“Metabolism’ is just the sum of the processes of your body on a cellular/systemic level...that’s it…that’s all it’s ever been…nothing more. So what…who cares. Why do fitness marketers keep talking about it?!  I’ll never know.

And there is virtually nothing you can do to change this. Eating at or below your actual BMR isn’t going to ‘damage’ your metabolism any more than eating above it. And speaking of which, why don’t marketers suggest that there could be ‘metabolic damage’ when people overeat!?…anyone…anyone?

Right, just what I thought, this lie doesn’t lead to lucrative weight loss products.

The following claims are false, and are your best way to know that a person is clueless about biology and physiology and nutrition if they say:

"Eating too few calories is going to ’slow’ your metabolism" (unless they’re referring to people who are starving to death…and are in fact about to die)

"That there are foods that can ‘damage’ your metabolism"

That you can speed up or slow down your metabolism (without drugs…and that this would be a good thing in either direction)

That a slow metabolism is responsible for weight gain

That a fast metabolism is responsible for weight loss

That you have any control whatsoever over your metabolic rate

That your meal timing or exercise timing can affect your metabolic rate

…and any other garbage claim you hear from any fitness marketer with the word “metabolism” in it…

If you see any of the above claims, you can be assured that the person who said them is sorely lacking in their understanding of how the body works.

If you want to lose weight…EAT LESS than you are currently eating. End of story."

 
Successful weight-loss requires establishing new eating Habits.
For successful maintenance of that weight-loss,
one must create a new “normal” which is based on those Habits.

A Habit is a settled tendency or usual manner of behavior.
Specifically here, a behavior pattern acquired by frequent repetition
that shows itself in regularity or increased facility of performance; and
an acquired mode of behavior that has become nearly or completely involuntary.

Habit comes from repeated behavior.

Willpower is defined as energetic determination.

Willpower and Habit are related.
because Habits are ESTABLISHED…
i.e. brought into existence via some act of will…
…..one’s choice or determination…
and it initially takes willpower to establish a habit.

                                         
No one wants to be in the "Obese" category,
because that label goes past a little bit "Overweight",
and defines one as actually too "Fat".

The numbers I previously posted in  "Normal, Overweight, or Obese"
are standard BMI (Body Mass Index) numbers.
BMI categories are:

• Underweight = <18.5
• Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
• Overweight = 25–29.9
• Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

Many athletic people who are carrying a lot of muscle under their fat strongly
protest that their muscles make them an exception,
and therefore they don't fall into the standard BMI categories.

However the following quote from Bodybuilding expert, John Barban, is very on Point about this issue. 
 
QUOTE:        

BMI chart – What is all the Fuss About?

I was reading a blog about the BMI (Body Mass Index) chart the other day and noticed that many people were saying that it’s not accurate and is an outdated measurement and needs to be replaced/revised.

So I started to think about why anyone would say this. The BMI chart was created over 100 years ago as a way of charting body ‘fatness’ or ‘thinness’. With the influence of Ancel Keys (visionary scientist way ahead of his time) BMI became a prominent tool in the 1970′s for assessing population health risks.

There is a criticism that the BMI doesn’t account for different ‘frame’ sizes of people (endomorphs and ectomorphs) or athletes who have built up their muscles to a much larger degree than the regular population. Both of these criticism’s seem to be weak as true ecotmorphic or endomorphic people are very rare…in other words, for MOST of the population the BMI works just fine, and that was the point in the first place.

The athlete argument doesn’t hold much water either, as they represent a very small percentage of the population and many of them at all levels use steroids and other drugs that artificially elevate their lean body mass. In other words, the BMI was never meant to be applied to people taking steroids and GH.

So what about ‘natural’ athletes and bodybuilders who don’t use drugs but just build lots of muscles? Surely they wouldn’t be in the ‘normal’ BMI range…right? Wrong!

A few days ago I posted pictures of myself after a 5 day fast (I weighed 176 lbs in those pics…granted this was mostly a water reduction)…as of the moment I am writing this my bodyweight fluctuates between 180-183lbs. In both cases I am still within the normal BMI range. And this is where the argument about athletes being in the ‘overweight’ BMI range because of increased muscle mass falls apart for me.

In these pictures -> DO I LOOK SKINNY? I’m well within the normal BMI range…and I don’t think I look too small or lacking in muscle development. In fact I’ve spent the past 15 years trying to build as much muscle as I can…and I STILL fall within the ‘normal’ BMI range. If anyone was a candidate for being ‘overweight’ due to muscle mass I thought surely I would be it…but nope I’m still ‘normal’.

So the argument that athletes can build enough muscle to somehow push them out of the normal BMI range seems a bit wonky to me (unless of course they are using steroids or were true endormorphs to begin with…which is an exceedingly small portion of the population). Look at those pictures of me again, do I really look like I could possibly get bigger? Do I look like I NEED to be bigger? AND do I look unhealthy at the size I am?

The problem people have with the BMI is not the chart itself, but what the chart MEANS to them. The chart is meant to show ‘fatness’ and categorize it as normal or abnormal on both the high and low end. The key word here is ‘normal’.

What SHOULD be normal for a human body and what has BECOME normal in modern western societies are two different things.

The BMI chart shows what SHOULD be normal, not what is currently considered normal.

If most of the population is overweight (according to the BMI chart) the error in logic could be that the population is right and the BMI chart is wrong.

I think many people have a sharp emotional reaction to things like the BMI chart because it categorizes you in a way that feels discriminatory and prejudicial. Of course there is no emotion behind the BMI chart, it’s just a mathematical equation…but there is some thought and research into it, it’s not just a random idea, so you know there is some validity to the category you’ve been placed in according to the chart. And this is why it bothers people. If there is some good reason why you are categorized as ‘overweight’ then you’re faced with the following dilemma about your belief in the normalcy of your current body size:

Either the chart is wrong, or YOU are wrong.
It’s much easier to dismiss the chart as being inaccurate and not useful for your specific body shape and size or whatever excuse you like, than it is to accept the fact that perhaps you’re in fact simply overweight.
The final point on this topic is the view from being in the normal category vs the overweight or obese categories.

I used to be much heavier than I am now and I used all the same excuses explaining away the BMI as antiquated and outdated and didn’t account for the mountains of muscle I had built over the years. In reality, I was just fat.

Once I went through my cut down and got rid of all the excess weight I ended up right where the BMI chart predicted me to be at the high end of the normal range…which makes perfect sense as I’ve built as much muscle as I can without drugs.

If I’m currently in the normal category, and I’ve spent my whole life trying to build muscle, and all of my measurable health markers are in very good shape, and I’m happy with the look and shape of my body, and I have a golden Adonis Index ratio…then how is it possible for me or anyone with roughly my frame (which is average) to actually be in the overweight category without simply having more fat mass on their body and subsequently looking worse than I do right now?

In other words, if some people suggest the BMI cutoff for ‘overweight’ is too low, then what does that make me in these pictures? Underweight?

Or is it that people who don’t like the category the chart puts them in immediately react by dismissing the chart as being wrong instead of heeding the guidance it provides to lose some weight. This of course is cognitive dissonance at its finest.

For anyone who is in the ‘normal’ range the BMI chart seems to make perfect sense, or at least it does to me.

by John Barban, Bodybuilder,  (www.johnbarban.com)
who currently has a business association with Brad Pilon, the author of Eat Stop Eat.

 Here are the pictures which are referenced in the quote above.        

                                    
Some people believe that food addiction is more a matter of psychology than of physiology. I find the question interesting.  Are those cravings for sweets and starches REALLY a problem of the mind, or are they problems of the body?

I, myself, have spent a lifetime considering this issue a psychological one.

My personal experience with this involves about 20 years of Therapy while working to overcome that problem,....to no avail.

With professional help, I've dug into my psyche on the "whys"; I've taught myself most of the "hows"...in fact... I've learned and incorporated most all of the various recommended Behavior Modifications.  Numerous "mindful" eating behaviors have become Habits for me.

For many, many years, my pattern has been not to label foods "good" or "bad", but to allow myself to have a little of anything I want, including the occasional sugar-laden dessert.

Those techniques have helped me RESIST the cravings, but they have NOT REDUCED or ELIMINATED the cravings. There are quite a few “Experts” who feel that the term "addiction" is not helpful, when talking about food, and they tend to avoid using it for various reasons.

At this particular moment, I have finally reached the point where I am willing to seriously consider the possibility that these cravings may have a strong physical element,rather than being merely psychological.

I've begun to think that new way, due to my exposure to Good Calories Bad Calories (2007) by Gary Taubes, and his recently released book, Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It (2011) which is now featured for discussion here on BOOKTALK.

Perhaps many of us DO have a physical intolerance for certain food substances....  Perhaps the physical tolerance for them varies between individual, just like some people have bodies that are allergic to peanuts... and to varying degrees...., maybe there is something to the Theory about Insulin and Carbohydrates too. 
  I don't know.  

I DO know that psychological treatment won't resolve a physical problem. All the therapy in the world won't let those who have a severe peanut allergy, eat peanuts without side-effects.

This year I began a personal experiment to see what a lengthy Low-Carb commitment will do in my body. I am especially interested to see whether or not a total elimination of sugar and refined grains, and a serious restriction of whole grains, starchy vegetables, and fruit will eliminate or greatly reduce these cravings in my own body. This is a day-by-day experiment...which is being carried out with planned pauses ....and at this point....I don't even know how long I'll be able to stick with that Experiment-of-One

Each of us does the best we can with our own experiences. The same things don't work for everyone.

In my own body, it makes no difference whether it is white sugar, or "natural" sweeteners. MY body treats them all the same way. I am learning that...right now... this seems to be true for me
even with regards to many starches.

In fact, recently I learned that a few weeks of extremely-low-carb eating does reduce my cravings for sugars and starches, however, within 24 hours after having half a cup of Lentils ...(complex natural carbs)... for lunch, all of my sugar cravings returned. And....I've carefully examined my surrounding circumstances...mental state....etc,  and feel fairly certain that this instance was not due to a psychological issues. So…that leads me to believe that there must be some type of physical element involved.

Life goes on.
We all do what we can.
I'm now living as a normal weight person, and I'm willing to keep doing whatever it takes to make that a long-term status.