WEBVTT - Episode One: When a Calorie Isn’t A Calorie 0:00:02.279 --> 0:00:08.920 We're gonna chack one almond, see how much it weighs. Okay, 0:00:10.160 --> 0:00:13.039 I'm not happy with the size of this almond because 0:00:13.080 --> 0:00:19.040 it's touching the edges of the capsule. So I'm gonna 0:00:19.120 --> 0:00:25.400 take a smaller piece, once smaller. So I'm standing in 0:00:25.440 --> 0:00:30.720 a government laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland with Teresa Henderson, a 0:00:30.800 --> 0:00:35.800 scientist with the US Department of Agriculture. She's sizing up 0:00:35.840 --> 0:00:38.800 a zip block bag of almonds that I brought here 0:00:38.840 --> 0:00:42.720 with me as a snack. I've just asked her if 0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:46.640 we could do a little experiment to figure out how 0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:50.600 many calories are in my almonds A half one, because 0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:56.200 that might be too small where I can be cut it. 0:01:01.640 --> 0:01:06.600 Calories are everywhere. They're listed on the packaging of your 0:01:06.680 --> 0:01:10.440 favorite junk food and on the menus at chain restaurants. 0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:15.720 Apps like my fitness Pal and new exists mainly to 0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:20.600 track exactly how many calories you eat each day. There 0:01:20.640 --> 0:01:23.679 are numbers that a lot of us spend a lot 0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:29.039 of time considering. I know I do. A banana has 0:01:29.200 --> 0:01:35.160 about a hundred calories. A slice of bacon, haste, if 0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:40.640 you can eat just one. These numbers are treated like gospel, 0:01:41.800 --> 0:01:45.880 But have you ever stopped to think where do they 0:01:45.920 --> 0:01:50.960 come from? Figuring that out is what brought me here 0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:55.400 to this U. S. D A lab. This was the 0:01:55.440 --> 0:01:59.480 start of a journey into the world of diets, where 0:01:59.560 --> 0:02:02.320 I quit clely learned that a lot of the things 0:02:02.480 --> 0:02:06.920 we think of as fact are a lot more complicated, 0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:12.840 including the calorie. But first, back to our little science 0:02:12.919 --> 0:02:19.880 experiment with Teresa. She's about to explode my almond literally 0:02:20.760 --> 0:02:25.079 to figure out how many calories are in it. A 0:02:25.200 --> 0:02:29.360 little chap. Teresa is chopping up my almond to prepare 0:02:29.400 --> 0:02:34.919 it for a machine called a bomb calorimeter. It's this big, 0:02:35.120 --> 0:02:39.480 boxy gray thing about the size of a printer. Put 0:02:39.560 --> 0:02:45.000 my two thirds of an almond in there, and it weighs. 0:02:47.600 --> 0:02:51.160 Teresa puts the almond in a small, shallow tray called 0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:56.160 a combustion capsule. The tray gets connected to a fuse 0:02:56.240 --> 0:03:00.440 wire and the whole thing is lowered into a metal 0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:05.760 container inside the machine. This is the bomb part of 0:03:05.880 --> 0:03:12.280 bomb calorimeter. The bomb is surrounded by water. The water 0:03:12.720 --> 0:03:16.680 is going to heat up, and however hot it gets 0:03:17.200 --> 0:03:21.040 will tell us how many calories my almond has. And 0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:26.120 now it's starting so it's equilibrating and going through its process. 0:03:27.240 --> 0:03:31.280 For a few minutes, it's quiet. All I can hear 0:03:31.680 --> 0:03:40.160 is a low hump. The beeping means an electric current 0:03:40.240 --> 0:03:44.520 is going to pass through the fuse wire and explode 0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:48.960 my snack. You might expect blowing up an almond to 0:03:49.040 --> 0:03:54.000 make a big bang, noise or something, but it actually doesn't. 0:03:56.000 --> 0:04:02.680 It should be. We'll find out if it worked correctly, 0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:06.320 the almond would be gone. Ah, temperature is going up. 0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:10.560 That's a good sign. But what does blowing up my 0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:15.120 almond have to do with calories? So it's just basically, 0:04:15.320 --> 0:04:17.200 if you throw a log of wood on a fire, 0:04:17.720 --> 0:04:20.200 it's going to burn and give off heat. Right, it's 0:04:20.200 --> 0:04:23.520 the same concept. You're throwing, you know, a measured amount 0:04:23.640 --> 0:04:28.400 of food or whatever and burning it, and it's going 0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:30.720 to give off heat, and you're measuring the amount of 0:04:31.279 --> 0:04:36.280 fuel energy in that food bomb. Calorimeter prints out a 0:04:36.320 --> 0:04:40.200 little white paper that looks like a receipt. Teresa tears 0:04:40.240 --> 0:04:44.960 it off and reads the result. My single almond contains 0:04:45.080 --> 0:04:51.720 about seven calories. She opens up the machine. There's nothing 0:04:51.800 --> 0:04:56.120 left but a few black smudges. You can see that 0:04:56.200 --> 0:05:02.320 almond burnt very nicely, my snack is gone. But don't 0:05:02.320 --> 0:05:06.360 write that number in your food log just yet. Calories 0:05:06.400 --> 0:05:11.120 are way more complicated than our little experiment might suggest. 0:05:12.040 --> 0:05:16.320 I'm going to get into that soon. First, let's start 0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:22.280 with a more basic question. What is a calorie anyway? 0:05:22.600 --> 0:05:26.720 And where do the calorie counts on foods come from? 0:05:26.760 --> 0:05:29.440 What's the calorie? Calorie? Is something that makes it belly fat? 0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:31.520 How they figure it out? I don't know. You just 0:05:31.560 --> 0:05:33.560 read the can and that's how much calories is in 0:05:33.600 --> 0:05:36.840 the food? I have no clue. I used to think 0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:40.160 that there was a method where they I don't. I 0:05:40.200 --> 0:05:45.480 don't know. I could only guess. Calories represent how much 0:05:45.600 --> 0:05:49.440 energy there is in food. Energy your body then uses 0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:52.960 to do all the things it does in a day. 0:05:53.440 --> 0:05:56.480 I think of it like fuel in a car's gas tank. 0:05:57.600 --> 0:06:01.760 Calories power your walk to the off this, cooking dinner 0:06:01.800 --> 0:06:06.440 when you get home, even reading your kids a bedtime story. Wow, 0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:09.039 the only thing I like. I'll X I'll google it. 0:06:09.480 --> 0:06:12.800 How many calories is in one egg? How many calories 0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:16.320 isn't one slice of turkey? Vegans? These are the voices 0:06:16.360 --> 0:06:19.560 of some nice strangers who we interviewed while they were 0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:23.560 shopping at a Whole Foods in Brooklyn, and there are 0:06:23.680 --> 0:06:30.600 pretty good representation of well all of us. Everyone's at 0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:34.600 least heard of a calorie, and for many of us, 0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:38.599 they actually play a pretty big role in our decisions 0:06:38.640 --> 0:06:45.240 about food. Calories have this incredible power over us. We're 0:06:45.520 --> 0:06:51.200 obsessed with calories because we're obsessed with being thin, but 0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:55.040 most of us have no idea what a calorie really 0:06:55.360 --> 0:07:01.480 is or how they're calculated. And here's the thing. People 0:07:01.560 --> 0:07:05.400 like to say a calorie is a calorie, but the 0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:10.800 calorie isn't actually that straightforward. The number of calories in 0:07:10.840 --> 0:07:14.720 a food can change depending on how we prepare it 0:07:15.120 --> 0:07:19.559 and who's eating it. Calorie counts on foods can even 0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:25.880 sometimes be wrong, like our almond from earlier. Scientists are 0:07:25.920 --> 0:07:29.960 still to this day figuring out the best way to 0:07:30.080 --> 0:07:34.280 measure how much energy the food that we eat has. 0:07:35.960 --> 0:07:40.120 It's not just calories. Calories are the start of everything. 0:07:40.320 --> 0:07:44.400 We still don't know about gaining and losing weight and 0:07:44.440 --> 0:07:48.760 what weight has to do with being healthy anyway. But 0:07:48.880 --> 0:07:52.120 that hasn't stopped people from telling you exactly how to 0:07:52.240 --> 0:07:56.760 finally drop that last ten pounds or bragging that they 0:07:56.800 --> 0:08:01.160 still fit into their high school genes or doctors from 0:08:01.200 --> 0:08:06.080 telling you to lose weight. It also hasn't sat people 0:08:06.280 --> 0:08:10.880 from making tons of money off of totally unscientific advice. 0:08:12.120 --> 0:08:16.600 I'm am a court healthcare reporter for Bloomberg News. This 0:08:16.800 --> 0:08:21.960 is Losing It a podcast from Prognosis. We've been trained 0:08:22.080 --> 0:08:26.240 to think of dieting as a weight loss solution, but 0:08:26.320 --> 0:08:31.320 a lot of the science actually suggests the opposite. Dieting 0:08:31.360 --> 0:08:34.160 may work in the beginning to bring that number down 0:08:34.400 --> 0:08:38.240 on the scale, but as the weeks and months turn 0:08:38.320 --> 0:08:43.200 into years, the reality is that people usually don't keep 0:08:43.240 --> 0:08:47.520 the weight off. This series is about how and why 0:08:47.840 --> 0:08:51.880 we've been going about weight loss all wrong, and whether 0:08:51.920 --> 0:08:54.240 we should even be trying to lose weight in the 0:08:54.280 --> 0:08:57.840 first place. I'm also going to look for a better 0:08:57.880 --> 0:09:03.520 solution for us away out of this whole mess. But first, 0:09:03.840 --> 0:09:22.640 let's talk some more about the humble calorie. Let's go 0:09:22.760 --> 0:09:25.320 back in time to when the calorie as we know 0:09:25.480 --> 0:09:30.199 it was born. Calories got popularized in the late nineteenth 0:09:30.240 --> 0:09:35.120 century by a guy named Wilbur olin Atwater. Wilbur was 0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:39.480 a chemistry professor at Wesleyan University who also worked for 0:09:39.520 --> 0:09:42.920 the U S d A. He's actually considered the father 0:09:43.160 --> 0:09:49.560 of nutritional science in the US. Years earlier, European scientists 0:09:49.559 --> 0:09:52.800 had come up with the idea of using calories to 0:09:52.880 --> 0:09:59.400 measure energy. Remember, calories are a unit of energy. Scientists 0:09:59.480 --> 0:10:04.120 began using them to talk about heat powering machines like 0:10:04.240 --> 0:10:16.240 steam engines. Later they started measuring calories in food. Wilbur 0:10:16.440 --> 0:10:19.600 was drawn to this new way of thinking and got 0:10:19.640 --> 0:10:23.400 really serious about figuring out how much energy was in 0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:29.319 different foods. Wilbur was also worried about people over eating. 0:10:30.120 --> 0:10:33.600 He wanted to know how much food people really needed. 0:10:34.559 --> 0:10:37.880 The calorie looked like a great way to do just that, 0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:42.040 so he tries to get the word out. He also 0:10:42.160 --> 0:10:46.000 came up with a formula for calculating the caloric value 0:10:46.080 --> 0:10:50.439 of food based on how much of it is fat, protein, 0:10:50.720 --> 0:10:55.800 and carbohydrates. That's actually how most calorie counts on foods 0:10:55.920 --> 0:11:00.720 get calculated today. The bond calorimeter we used earlier to 0:11:00.800 --> 0:11:04.319 blow up my almond is a more old school method. 0:11:10.240 --> 0:11:13.200 The calorie is an attractive measure because it is a 0:11:13.240 --> 0:11:16.680 simplified number in which you can sort of put in 0:11:16.720 --> 0:11:19.640 front of an item of food. This is Giles Yo 0:11:20.280 --> 0:11:23.600 scientist with the University of Cambridge, and people think the 0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:26.840 higher the number the worst of food. In very but simplistically, 0:11:27.080 --> 0:11:29.559 in the environment, the lower number the better, the food, 0:11:29.600 --> 0:11:32.720 healthier it is for you. But that is not true. 0:11:33.080 --> 0:11:36.680 Giles is not a fan of the calorie. He actually 0:11:36.760 --> 0:11:40.920 wrote a book with a pretty blunt title, why Calories 0:11:40.960 --> 0:11:46.480 Don't Count. And about a decade ago, scientists at the 0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:51.079 U s d A also start asking big fundamental questions 0:11:51.160 --> 0:11:57.240 about calories. Their names were David Bear and Janet Navatni, 0:11:58.400 --> 0:12:03.880 and they became interested in nuts, specifically. Yes, we're going 0:12:03.920 --> 0:12:09.199 to talk more about nuts in this episode. Anyway, they 0:12:09.280 --> 0:12:13.400 noticed that in some studies where people were fed nuts, 0:12:13.600 --> 0:12:19.960 their bodies weren't fully breaking the nuts down. That's the 0:12:20.000 --> 0:12:25.480 politest way of putting in. What we started to think 0:12:25.520 --> 0:12:29.079 about was if the fat isn't being completely digested this 0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:32.079 is David, and it's coming out in the waste and 0:12:32.120 --> 0:12:36.640 the faces, then the calories from the fat aren't being 0:12:36.679 --> 0:12:40.680 completely absorbed as well. And it made us wonder whether 0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:45.920 we were getting accurate calorie values for tree nuts. So 0:12:46.000 --> 0:12:49.400 David and Janet put this theory to the test. They 0:12:49.440 --> 0:12:55.120 did a series of studies looking at almonds, pistachios, cashews, 0:12:55.160 --> 0:12:59.400 and walnuts, and it turned out their hunch was right. 0:13:00.840 --> 0:13:04.600 The typical calorie counts the numbers listed on labels at 0:13:04.600 --> 0:13:09.640 food stores were too high for those nuts. The fat, 0:13:10.280 --> 0:13:14.520 the stuff that makes nuts so high calorie, wasn't being 0:13:14.760 --> 0:13:19.959 fully digested. The scientists were able to see this right 0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:26.320 in people's poop, and like David said, if people weren't 0:13:26.360 --> 0:13:32.400 digesting all that fat, they also weren't absorbing the calories 0:13:32.480 --> 0:13:36.479 from that fat. The nuts turned out to have anywhere 0:13:36.559 --> 0:13:43.000 between five and fewer calories than their nutrition label set, 0:13:44.040 --> 0:13:48.920 and the nuts with the biggest difference almonds, like the 0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:53.120 one we blew up in the lab. Nuts, like all 0:13:53.280 --> 0:13:57.520 plant material, have a cell wall, and that's where we 0:13:57.600 --> 0:14:03.160 find the fiber that's also resistant to digestion. We can 0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:08.319 ferment it and break it down, but plant cells are 0:14:08.360 --> 0:14:11.840 surrounded by the cell wall, and until you can open 0:14:11.920 --> 0:14:15.280 up that cell wall, you can't get to what's inside 0:14:15.600 --> 0:14:20.680 the plant cell. In the case of nuts, they're relatively 0:14:20.760 --> 0:14:23.000 high in fat, so there's a lot of energy stored 0:14:23.040 --> 0:14:27.640 within those cells. With whole nuts, that means unless you're 0:14:27.720 --> 0:14:35.440 a really thorough chew er, you're probably pooping a lot 0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:44.880 of fat out and that means fewer calories. So in short, 0:14:45.840 --> 0:14:50.240 nutritional labels have been telling us for years that a 0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:54.840 bunch of different kinds of nuts are more caloric than 0:14:54.880 --> 0:14:59.160 they actually are, and that could be the case for 0:14:59.280 --> 0:15:05.080 other food too. We've been trained to take calorie counts 0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:10.320 on food incredibly seriously. We count our calories so we 0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:13.960 don't eat too many. We we food to make sure 0:15:13.960 --> 0:15:18.240 we're counting exactly how many calories were eating, or we 0:15:18.360 --> 0:15:23.000 buy prepackaged food because those numbers seem like they're more accurate. 0:15:24.160 --> 0:15:29.040 But as I dug into this all of that, it 0:15:29.160 --> 0:15:33.640 started to seem like a giant waste of time and effort. 0:15:36.440 --> 0:15:41.760 Wilbolan Atwater intended calories to be a tool for making 0:15:41.840 --> 0:15:47.240 better decisions about how to fuel ourselves. Instead, we've wound 0:15:47.280 --> 0:15:50.800 up in this world where somehow a hundred calories of 0:15:50.880 --> 0:15:55.360 nuts seems equivalent to a hundred calorie pack of chips. 0:15:56.480 --> 0:16:00.520 We're focusing on the number over the quality of food, 0:16:00.720 --> 0:16:04.080 and we're also focusing on the number way too much. 0:16:05.000 --> 0:16:08.960 We've taken it way too far. Somewhere along the way, 0:16:09.200 --> 0:16:12.880 calories went from a guide to navigating food to some 0:16:12.960 --> 0:16:18.360 sort of holy infallible thing, and in the process they've 0:16:18.560 --> 0:16:24.440 also kind of become misinformation. These issues with calories go 0:16:24.840 --> 0:16:31.200 way beyond nuts. Processing food, including by cooking, it also 0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:37.320 changes the amount of calories we get from it. Why well, 0:16:37.480 --> 0:16:42.640 For one, digestion is work and how hard you are 0:16:42.680 --> 0:16:48.040 working affects the end calorie count of a food. Processing 0:16:48.240 --> 0:16:52.280 or cooking food makes for less work for your body. 0:16:52.320 --> 0:16:54.200 Is it a carrot, Is it a steak? Is it 0:16:54.200 --> 0:16:57.440 a donut? That our body has to look to differing 0:16:57.600 --> 0:17:01.600 degrees hard or not as hard to extract the calories, 0:17:01.640 --> 0:17:04.040 and this cost energy And so therefore you have to 0:17:04.080 --> 0:17:06.719 take this into account when you're try and account the 0:17:06.760 --> 0:17:09.120 calories within the food. It's your body has to work 0:17:09.160 --> 0:17:11.480 a hell of a lot harder to put out calories 0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:13.719 from a carrot than it needs to from a donut. 0:17:14.920 --> 0:17:18.320 The calories and a food can even depend on who 0:17:18.440 --> 0:17:22.399 is eating it. If you and I ate the same sandwich, 0:17:23.080 --> 0:17:27.240 we might get different amounts of energy from it. That 0:17:27.280 --> 0:17:31.080 has to do with how different bodies processed food differently 0:17:31.960 --> 0:17:37.080 because of genetics and factors like the gut microbiome. So 0:17:37.280 --> 0:17:41.000 even though nutrition labels make it seem like calories are 0:17:41.040 --> 0:17:47.159 a fixed value. They actually aren't. Calorie counts on food 0:17:47.520 --> 0:17:52.560 are misleading at best, and food companies are playing their 0:17:52.560 --> 0:17:57.400 own games. Okay, so a serving as q cups, which 0:17:57.440 --> 0:18:02.040 is decent. It's there's there's of it allegedly seven servings 0:18:02.040 --> 0:18:04.560 in this spect a hundred and forty calories per serving 0:18:04.640 --> 0:18:08.240 and seventy for a cup. Okay, So is this food 0:18:08.280 --> 0:18:11.439 good or bad for you? I have no idea. That 0:18:11.640 --> 0:18:14.840 was me and the editor of this podcast, Christin V. Brown. 0:18:15.720 --> 0:18:18.480 We're back at that Whole Foods in Brooklyn where we 0:18:18.560 --> 0:18:22.600 interviewed people about calories. We wanted to check out calor 0:18:22.720 --> 0:18:26.160 counts in the wild to get a sense of how 0:18:26.200 --> 0:18:31.119 helpful this tool for evaluating food really is. One of 0:18:31.160 --> 0:18:33.600 the things we looked at was a bag of Musely, 0:18:34.119 --> 0:18:38.040 a quarter cop as a hundred and forty calories. You know, Musely, 0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:42.200 the breakfast cereal that's kind of like granola. So that's 0:18:42.240 --> 0:18:47.000 the same as our thirteen potato chips and our popcorn? Right? Yeah? 0:18:48.359 --> 0:18:51.160 Why is a hundred and forty the magic number? Most 0:18:51.200 --> 0:18:54.800 foods we looked at were around hundred and forty calories 0:18:54.880 --> 0:18:59.520 per serving and hundred and forty doesn't sound like that 0:18:59.680 --> 0:19:02.560 many calories. Feel like everything has had the same amount 0:19:02.600 --> 0:19:06.399 of calori. See also a hundred and sixty is anyone 0:19:06.400 --> 0:19:08.960 going to a serving size with more than two hundred calories? 0:19:09.800 --> 0:19:14.040 According to the Food and Drug Administration, a serving size 0:19:14.359 --> 0:19:19.760 isn't a recommendation, it's actually how much people usually eat 0:19:19.920 --> 0:19:24.400 or drink that product. So when you see thirteen potato 0:19:24.520 --> 0:19:28.520 chips is a serving size that's supposed to be how 0:19:28.560 --> 0:19:35.080 many potato chips people eat in a sitting. Potato chips, Yeah, right. 0:19:36.160 --> 0:19:39.200 And don't even get me started on how many servings 0:19:39.200 --> 0:19:43.960 are in a container. Often you buy something small that's 0:19:43.960 --> 0:19:48.119 obviously meant to be a single serving, and yet somehow 0:19:48.240 --> 0:19:53.159 the label claims it's two or three or even four servings. 0:19:54.600 --> 0:19:58.400 The more servings in a container, the fewer calories companies 0:19:58.480 --> 0:20:01.399 have to list on the label, and the better it 0:20:01.400 --> 0:20:04.960 looks when you compare it to another food. You're just 0:20:05.040 --> 0:20:07.800 relying on calories. You would say, okay, I could have 0:20:07.880 --> 0:20:10.080 popcorn for breakfast, or I could add usely and it 0:20:10.080 --> 0:20:11.960 would be the same amount of calories. And so why 0:20:12.000 --> 0:20:14.399 should I choose the thing that seems kind of gross 0:20:14.400 --> 0:20:18.800 and healthy? Our field trip to whole Foods left me 0:20:18.880 --> 0:20:25.520 wondering are calories fundamentally broken. I'm pretty much leaning yes 0:20:25.960 --> 0:20:29.560 at this point, but many of the experts I spoke 0:20:29.640 --> 0:20:34.440 with said they're working to improve calorie counts, not get 0:20:34.520 --> 0:20:40.760 rid of them. Here's their argument. Sure, calories aren't perfect, 0:20:41.359 --> 0:20:47.040 but they're essentially accurate, if not precisely. So they give 0:20:47.119 --> 0:20:50.760 you a number you can compare with other foods, and 0:20:50.880 --> 0:20:54.920 that can help you decide whether to have, say a pizza, 0:20:55.480 --> 0:21:00.199 or a big salad for dinner. Here's Rachel Carmody, an 0:21:00.200 --> 0:21:05.560 assistant professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University, saying, 0:21:06.000 --> 0:21:08.399 you know, these food labels have been horribly wrong, and 0:21:08.440 --> 0:21:10.920 we're just going to now revamp them all, which could 0:21:11.040 --> 0:21:13.800 lead to a lot of confusion. So I think this 0:21:13.880 --> 0:21:16.280 has to be done responsibly. We're trying to make the 0:21:16.280 --> 0:21:19.880 tool more useful. The problem with this, though, is that 0:21:20.000 --> 0:21:23.679 we all know the salad is the healthier choice for dinner, 0:21:24.320 --> 0:21:30.360 not pizza. Sadly, people still use calorie counts to make 0:21:30.440 --> 0:21:35.040 decisions about what they buy and what they eat. We 0:21:35.080 --> 0:21:39.000 want to believe the calorie is this highly accurate measure, 0:21:39.760 --> 0:21:44.520 down to a single calorie or two food labels lead 0:21:44.640 --> 0:21:49.479 us to believe the same, but calories really shouldn't be 0:21:49.600 --> 0:21:54.119 used like that. Calories give us the illusion of control 0:21:54.320 --> 0:21:58.760 over diet and weight, but it's just that an illusion. 0:22:00.080 --> 0:22:04.800 Giles Yo, the University of Cambridge researcher, who is anti calorie, 0:22:05.040 --> 0:22:08.040 says it would be better instead to communicate a few 0:22:08.160 --> 0:22:13.440 key measures of nutritional value, specifically the amount of fiber, 0:22:13.840 --> 0:22:18.280 protein added, sugar and fat in the food. My argument 0:22:18.520 --> 0:22:21.919 is to move away from the calorie per se, but 0:22:22.040 --> 0:22:26.399 actually to consider the quality of the food, and I 0:22:26.440 --> 0:22:29.520 think that is far more important. Now. It happens to 0:22:29.560 --> 0:22:33.119 be related to the calorie, but the calorie is a 0:22:33.160 --> 0:22:37.440 blunt tool in terms of trying to measure the quality 0:22:37.480 --> 0:22:39.280 of a of any given food you're trying to eat. 0:22:40.000 --> 0:22:44.000 When Giles talks about high quality foods, he means those 0:22:44.080 --> 0:22:48.840 that have more protein and fiber, like beans or chicken 0:22:49.800 --> 0:22:54.280 nuts count two. His point is a good one. Calories 0:22:54.280 --> 0:22:58.520 can be deceptive. A can of coca cola and a 0:22:58.600 --> 0:23:04.000 pint of strawberries both have similar numbers of calories, but 0:23:04.119 --> 0:23:10.280 they definitely do not have similar nutritional values. It's easy, though, 0:23:10.359 --> 0:23:14.440 to think that low calorie means healthy. We talk about 0:23:14.440 --> 0:23:18.480 weight loss in the same way too, Like anyone who 0:23:18.520 --> 0:23:21.760 goes on a diet and loses fifteen pounds is going 0:23:21.800 --> 0:23:25.399 to be in better shape. But if I went on 0:23:25.520 --> 0:23:29.240 an all coca cola diet and lost weight, would I 0:23:29.280 --> 0:23:34.359 be healthier? That's why we shouldn't make weight loss equivalent 0:23:34.520 --> 0:23:38.600 with good health. Something will get into leader in the series. 0:23:40.640 --> 0:23:44.600 We also now know that calorie counts on labels don't 0:23:44.640 --> 0:23:48.959 actually tell us how many calories of food has because 0:23:49.119 --> 0:23:52.359 how you prepare food and how you digest it and 0:23:52.440 --> 0:23:56.560 a lot of other things can change the number. And 0:23:56.680 --> 0:24:01.479 yet calories are still being treated as the truth. There 0:24:01.480 --> 0:24:05.280 are labels as fact when they probably need at least 0:24:05.320 --> 0:24:09.480 an asterisk. Diets are being sold to people based on 0:24:09.520 --> 0:24:13.960 the science behind these numbers. That's a global industry worth 0:24:14.040 --> 0:24:18.239 a hundred and ninety two billion dollars a year. And 0:24:18.320 --> 0:24:23.000 people are relying on calories deciding whether they buy or 0:24:23.119 --> 0:24:28.960 eat food because of them. They're meticulously counting them, measuring 0:24:29.000 --> 0:24:33.240 their foods to make sure that no calorie goes unaccounted for. 0:24:36.280 --> 0:24:38.760 The crucial moment for me was when you know, we 0:24:38.840 --> 0:24:42.320 had a holiday event at work and I didn't like 0:24:42.440 --> 0:24:45.199 my photos I didn't like it, and I was like, 0:24:45.320 --> 0:24:48.119 I really have to make change for myself because I 0:24:48.160 --> 0:24:50.879 didn't like the way. You know, I look, this is 0:24:50.960 --> 0:24:55.320 Danny Cologne. She's talking about photos from a Christmas luncheon 0:24:55.480 --> 0:24:58.760 her company through in two thousand and six. I thought 0:24:58.800 --> 0:25:02.119 myself on the thicker side and you know, I have 0:25:02.200 --> 0:25:04.639 my little double chin, and I didn't like it. It 0:25:04.720 --> 0:25:07.480 was just like, I don't like seeing myself like that. 0:25:07.520 --> 0:25:10.239 I had never gotten to that that point before, and 0:25:10.280 --> 0:25:13.159 that was the turning point for me. Deeany says she 0:25:13.280 --> 0:25:17.399 first started battling the scale about twenty years ago after 0:25:17.480 --> 0:25:21.600 having her second child. She's now forty three and a 0:25:21.640 --> 0:25:24.560 mother of five. I was never a big girl, but 0:25:24.760 --> 0:25:26.560 I had gained a little bit and I was always 0:25:26.560 --> 0:25:29.600 trying to lose it, you know what I mean. And 0:25:29.640 --> 0:25:31.919 as when I had my third child, so that was 0:25:31.960 --> 0:25:34.760 a little bit. You know, then it just starts adding 0:25:34.840 --> 0:25:37.840 up and you're trying. But it's you know, as the 0:25:37.840 --> 0:25:40.840 older you get, the harder it is. Plus I was 0:25:41.240 --> 0:25:45.359 a full time employee, plus I was at home. I 0:25:45.400 --> 0:25:47.359 had to a sense to the kids and for me 0:25:47.440 --> 0:25:49.760 to the thought of even having to make two wheels 0:25:50.160 --> 0:25:53.760 as in a diet meal for herself and another meal 0:25:53.960 --> 0:25:57.240 for her family was very very hard on me. So 0:25:57.560 --> 0:25:59.840 it was just something that was always on the back burner. 0:26:00.119 --> 0:26:03.399 At the time, Danny was working as a project coordinator 0:26:03.560 --> 0:26:07.560 in Tampa, Florida. She now lives in Puerto Rico. You 0:26:07.600 --> 0:26:09.600 want to get on this weight lost journey, but there's 0:26:09.680 --> 0:26:13.120 so much out there an aesthetic. I need my carbs, 0:26:14.359 --> 0:26:16.680 so it was very hard to reay, be like, I 0:26:16.720 --> 0:26:19.639 can't just eat need the vegetables, and it's hard to 0:26:19.680 --> 0:26:22.720 cut out a whole book group. So to take out 0:26:22.720 --> 0:26:27.080 that completely, Yeah, that wasn't gonna work for my household. 0:26:28.280 --> 0:26:32.480 Danny tries out a couple of different programs. Some even 0:26:32.640 --> 0:26:36.639 helped her lose weight, but they all had some kind 0:26:36.760 --> 0:26:42.360 of downside. The costs, in particular, were an obstacle for her. 0:26:43.480 --> 0:26:47.840 One program cost five dollars just to sign up. I mean, 0:26:47.840 --> 0:26:50.080 every time you go to a weight loss program, you're 0:26:50.119 --> 0:26:53.159 paying money. And I was like, Okay, maybe I'm ready. 0:26:53.200 --> 0:26:55.640 Now I got the tools that I need, and maybe 0:26:55.720 --> 0:26:58.520 i'll I can do this on my own and I 0:26:58.520 --> 0:27:01.360 don't have to invest in that money. Danny knew from 0:27:01.359 --> 0:27:05.159 her previous experiences with weight loss programs that tracking the 0:27:05.200 --> 0:27:09.919 food she eats really helps, so she starts calorie counting 0:27:10.280 --> 0:27:13.840 with the help of some free online tools. There are 0:27:13.880 --> 0:27:17.240 all these random calculators out there that you can use 0:27:17.400 --> 0:27:21.400 to decide how many calories to eat based on how 0:27:21.480 --> 0:27:25.360 much weight you want to lose. Danny uses one and 0:27:25.520 --> 0:27:30.160 decides she needs to eat less than calories a day. 0:27:30.640 --> 0:27:36.560 This time, the diet starts working almost immediately. She loses 0:27:36.680 --> 0:27:42.200 twelve pounds in twelve weeks. The program is simple, eat 0:27:42.280 --> 0:27:46.400 less and move more. It's free, and Danny can see 0:27:46.480 --> 0:27:50.800 the results. I'm like more of a harder to lose weight. 0:27:50.880 --> 0:27:54.560 Maybe I have a flower metabolism. But once I started 0:27:54.640 --> 0:27:58.440 seeing that my clothes was, you know, sitting a little 0:27:58.440 --> 0:28:01.480 bit more loose, and I started getting on the scale 0:28:02.040 --> 0:28:05.399 and the numbers were going little by little, I was 0:28:05.440 --> 0:28:08.720 like very, very motivated, and to think, oh my gosh, 0:28:08.720 --> 0:28:12.640 I'm being successful was just amazing. So it just makes 0:28:12.680 --> 0:28:16.879 you strive for more. Danny is currently allowing herself about 0:28:16.960 --> 0:28:23.040 twelve hundred calories each day. That's pretty low. A woman 0:28:23.160 --> 0:28:27.960 her age really needs around two thousand calories. But for 0:28:28.080 --> 0:28:32.720 what it's worth, government guidelines say most women can safely 0:28:32.840 --> 0:28:37.800 lose weight eating twelve hundred to fift hundred calories a day. 0:28:38.000 --> 0:28:41.280 Danny uses this app called lose It, which keeps track 0:28:41.360 --> 0:28:44.959 of her calorie budget. If she has a hundred calorie 0:28:45.000 --> 0:28:51.320 cup of plane Cheerios, then she has eleven hundred left easy. 0:28:51.520 --> 0:28:54.480 She also likes the flexibility. The good thing about calor 0:28:54.480 --> 0:28:58.120 a counting is that you're not excluding any food groups 0:28:58.520 --> 0:29:01.680 at all. Like let's say that Danny plans on having 0:29:01.800 --> 0:29:06.080 salmon and potatoes for lunch, but it doesn't end up happening. 0:29:06.760 --> 0:29:10.000 You just stand. You just put in your app. You know, hey, 0:29:10.040 --> 0:29:13.280 I had a pizza, cheese, whatever, and that's it. Other 0:29:13.360 --> 0:29:17.200 diets are more rigid. In other words, that's the good 0:29:17.240 --> 0:29:19.160 thing about it is like people don't have to over 0:29:19.240 --> 0:29:23.480 stress on oh my god, I've failed because I had 0:29:23.520 --> 0:29:26.600 a slice of pizza. You can have your slice of pizza, 0:29:27.200 --> 0:29:30.400 just you know that you wake this much amount of 0:29:30.440 --> 0:29:33.640 kellys on that pizza, so have a smaller amount for 0:29:33.720 --> 0:29:40.240 your dinner. Danny loses weight calorie counting until she doesn't. 0:29:41.280 --> 0:29:46.080 It's hard to keep it up. Life happens. Her mom 0:29:46.160 --> 0:29:49.680