Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics

California Studies in Food and Culture #33

by Marion Nestle, Malden Nesheim

Calories—too few or too many—are the source of health problems affecting billions of people in today’s globalized world. Although calories are essential to human health and survival, they cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. They are also hard to understand. In Why Calories Count, Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim explain in clear and accessible language what calories are and how they work, both biologically and politically. As they take readers through the issues that are fundamental to our understanding of diet and food, weight gain, loss, and obesity, Nestle and Nesheim sort through a great deal of the misinformation put forth by food manufacturers and diet program promoters. They elucidate the political stakes and show how federal and corporate policies have come together to create an “eat more” environment. Finally, having armed readers with the necessary information to interpret food labels, evaluate diet claims, and understand evidence as presented in popular media, the authors offer some candid advice: Get organized. Eat less. Eat better. Move more. Get political.

Genres: Food, Nonfiction, Health, Nutrition, Science, Politics, Fitness

304 pages, Paperback

First published March 2, 2012

About the author

Marion Nestle, Ph.D, M.P.H., is the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She is also a professor of Sociology at NYU and a visiting professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University.

Nestle received her BA from UC Berkeley, Phi Beta Kappa, after attending school there from 1954-1959. Her degrees include a Ph.D in molecular biology and an M.P.H. in public health nutrition, both from the University of California, Berkeley.

Reviews

[Darren · Rating 4 out of 5]

It seems that we all talk about calories, whether it is too many or too few, but do we really know what a calorie is, how it came about and the role that it plays in each and everyone's life?

This scholarly work takes a look at this very question, attempting to cut through the hype from vested interest parties who want to promote their products and services by rallying around the humble calorie. We generally understand what happens when we consume too many or too few calories and the problems that ensue, yet things are not just as simple as to eat the right number of calories per day. The right balance of nutrients is also important and these cannot be considered by plain calorific numbers alone.

As you would expect, the authors go into tremendous detail about what exactly a calorie is, how it is measured and what it really means in a food-sense. But also political and scientific considerations are also examined. It is quite interesting to consider the changing face of the calorie and how it is presented to the consumer. Many of us are conditioned to look quickly at a product's "information panel" to see a typical amount of calories that are ascribed to a serving. But are we equally as alert as to notice that this 'typical' figure can be played with by adjusting a 'typical serving size' or even how the product is served. Suddenly in real life a product might not be as healthy as we first thought… perfectly legal yet….

Despite the book's scholarly foundations (and there are a lot of further reading suggestions and notes at the rear) it is written in a style that the average non-professional reader should have no major problems with following. It presents an interesting series of opinions and overviews that are deserving of a wider audience by those who have the power to change their diet. This book won't give you the push you might need to actually do something, but it will give you a lot of good knowledge to at least help you form a better understanding of an often misunderstood subject. The rest must be down to you! The price might be a bit high for a casual read but it would be worth it. Just take one less hamburger a couple of times...

Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics, written by Marion Nestle & Malden Nesheim and published by University of California Press. ISBN 9780520262881, 288 pages. Typical price: GBP20. YYYY.



// This review appeared in YUM.fi and is reproduced here in full with permission of YUM.fi. YUM.fi celebrates the worldwide diversity of food and drink, as presented through the humble book. Whether you call it a cookery book, cook book, recipe book or something else (in the language of your choice) YUM will provide you with news and reviews of the latest books on the marketplace. //

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I usually avoid reading about food because it usually makes me want to smear some Wonder Bread with the most hydrogenated peanut butter I can find, roll it all up into a ball, and shove it in my mouth. But this wasn't a diet book, or a lifestyle book - it was more of a history/science book (hence the "From Science to Politics" subtitle). The authors don't delve much into what to eat (a positive, in my view) except for the very obvious, I'm assuming because Nestle has another book called What to Eat, which, I'd imagine, covers that ground. What this book does cover: everything from how a calorimeter works to why there are no nutrition facts on alcoholic beverages (except for when there are) to why exercise is promoted as the method for weight loss even though it isn't for most people. The prose is clear and easy to read, the authors know when to break out the diagrams, and there's even some (fairly dry) humor.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Calories don't count. But Nestle, in all his books, has an agenda of power over the people. So any orthodoxy is good, science is just another label of belief for these people. And thanks to a horde of Nestle-likes obesity, diabetes, heart problems are rampant. All because of the poor guy at McDonald's who has to lose his job and go on the dole so Nestle could hire 20 more nephews and nieces as underlings at some department of woo-woo.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a diet book. While it is probably considered a health book, it could easily be shelved in the political/current affairs section of any bookstore. Because what it talks about goes far beyond weight and waistlines into the very political structure of the weight-loss industry and big business.





Sure, it talks about how unhealthy most Americans are, and without a doubt the most troubling aspect is the rising obesity rates in children. But, given how many low-calorie and "diet" options are out there, why aren't people eating better?



The answers are pretty disturbing. First off, human nature is an issue, and how impressionable our minds can be. If a food item says it has low calories or is low-fat, we tend to tell ourselves it's okay to eat more. Some more shockers:

"When fast-food restaurants position themselves as healthy, customers tend to underestimate the calories....and choose higher-calorie side dishes, drinks, or desserts." Think Subway plus that lovely chocolate chip cookie next to the register, which is okay now, because the sandwich was so healthy!
"When portions are labeled small, people believe they are eating fewer calories regardless of the number of calories the foods contain or their actual size." So small fries aren't really great even if they are small. Damn.
"When Oreo cookies are labeled as organic, people perceive them as having fewer calories than conventional Oreos....even when the study subjects have been shown package labels indicating their calories are equal..." Yikes.
Another surprise: if the label grants that the product has some beneficial component, such as "vitamins added" or "contains probiotics", many of us will assume it's healthier and thus the calories "don't count nearly as much". Ouch.



Then it looks at some diet claims: apparently the Negative Calorie Diet claims that eating certain foods will make the body burn calories instead of store fat. Of course, it's not possible, and the dynamics of the claim are analyzed.



One example of this is given of how people interpret or imagine calories work when faced with a choice. Sort of like the "diet coke plus cheeseburger" phenomenon we may not want to admit to, this one is disturbing. A scientist did an experiment with bowls of chili and salad. With the chili alone, participants guessed that the portion contained 700 calories. But when the same bowl of chili was placed with a green salad, they guessed that the meal was 655 calories. That somehow, the salad magically eradicated chili calories!



Beyond those terrible details, there's the whole idea of how badly we underestimate portions, and how even children aren't able to understand what is or isn't reasonable. What makes this such an issue is that junk food and high-calorie treats are big business; manufacturer's aren't really interesting in you eating less because you'll buy less. Sure, they may offer a 100-calorie snack pack, but the increased price makes up for their losses. And it's sort of disturbing to see just how involved this large corporations get into political lobbying to keep healthy food out of schools, and using this power to simply redesign their products to gain imaginary approval.



It seems like the cards are stacked against anyone eating healthy, but this shows ways a consumer can analyze ridiculous claims, see through the hype, and understand just how nutrition works. Also, with that knowledge, a person can make better choices and realize just how much a business model is manipulating their health.



One area I would have like to seen explored a bit more is just how to make good choices for people on the go for whom the worst of the food choices are aimed. I'd like to be able to explain to my sons why a Monster energy drink and a King Size Snickers is not a meal, because their crazy schedules don't allow them much time for planning or prepping something healthy. A list of "yes, you can buy this at 7-Eleven before work and still be healthy" foods would have been nice, but probably not realistic. And I think that is another point the book makes very clear: we are in charge of our health. We can't leave it to fast-food companies or convenience stores to provide the healthiest choices...they simply have no incentive to do so unless people change their habits. It really can't be left to chance or as an afterthought.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came to this book via an excellent podcast, Maintenance Phase, which referenced it extensively for one of their episodes. As I have listened to all their episodes, I can’t remember which one, but it does stand in for their ethos generally – that ethos being that any measure of food intake and energy output is contingent at best, and everything we have isn’t great, it’s just better than nothing. Which is mainly about the BMI scale and the Atwater values.

Interesting facts and observations:

‘Packages began to sport claims that their contents were free of fat, cholesterol, trans fat, salt, or sugar; contained vitamins or antioxidants; or were organic or could help prevent heart disease or immune disorders. Because people tend to interpret the meaning of such claims as “low calorie,” health claims are calorie distracters.’

‘The calorie, [Nick Cullather] says, “has never been a neutral objective measure of the contents of the dinner plate. From the first its purpose was to render food and the eating habits of populations politically legible.”

How calories are actually measured (wild):

‘You place a weighed portion of food in the bomb (a sealed chamber), which has been filled with pure oxygen under high pressure. After immersing the bomb in a measured quantity of water, you ignite the food and let it burn (oxidize) to completion. The heat released by the burning warms the surrounding water. You calculate the calories from the measured rise in water temperature. Calibrated appropriately, bomb calorimeters can give quite accurate measurements of the number of calories in a food.’

‘Unless you engage in a great deal of physical activity, basal metabolism is likely to account for about two- thirds of your total calorie needs.’

Why measures don’t focus on exercise:

‘Moving more does not affect the economic interests of food companies or any other powerful industry.’
Like the people who make Fitbits.

‘fidgeting— has been found to account for an impressive 100 to 800 calories a day’

‘Doubly labeled water experiments show that both the BMR and the total energy expenditure (including physical activity) increase with increasing overweight or obesity. Despite the relatively lower energy cost of maintaining body fat, heavier bodies take more energy to maintain and to move. The increase in basal and total expenditure with weight appears to hold true at any level of physical activity.’

‘we consider finding out what people eat the greatest intellectual challenge in the field of nutrition today. Why? We have no nice way of saying this. Whether consciously or unconsciously, most people cannot or do not give accurate information about what they eat. When it comes to dietary intake, pretty much everyone forgets or dissembles. This problem makes surveys of dietary intake exceedingly difficult to conduct and to interpret.’

Having done an MPH, I can only agree.

Why a single-drug target will never work:

‘Getting glucose to the brain is so critical that it is the regulatory system's first priority. To protect brain fuel supplies, the system evolved to be highly redundant. If one signaling factor fails to function, another quickly compensates. And because some signaling factors have multiple effects, drugs aimed at one function may also cause undesirable effects on others.’

‘Attractive as it is, the idea of thrifty genes is not universally accepted. If such genes were so important for the survival of ancient humans, then everyone living in modern- day “eat more” food environments ought to be obese. John Speakman, a biologist from Aberdeen, views obesity in modern society more as a matter of “genetic drift.”’

‘In such environments, matters largely beyond personal control— the presence of other people, the location of meals, how often meals appear, how large food portions might be, how tasty the foods are, and how they are advertised— are remarkably effective at overcoming physiological regulatory mechanisms.’

Environment, environment, environment.

‘Reversing this level of calorie imbalance will be difficult for most people to manage. They cannot do it alone. As Katan and Ludwig suggest, “Rather, an effective public health approach to obesity prevention will require fundamental changes in the food supply and the social infrastructure. Changes of this nature depend on more stringent regulation of the food industry, agricultural policy informed by public health, and investments by government in the social environment to promote physical activity.” We think so too.’

‘In 2009 the value of the diet industries in the United States was estimated at nearly $ 60 billion,’

‘Even today [Lulu Hunt Peters’] advice sounds remarkably familiar: “You may eat just what you like— candy, pie, cake, fat meat, butter cream— but— count your calories. You can't have many nor large helpings, you see; but isn't it comforting to know that you can eat these things? Maybe some meal you would rather have a 350- calorie piece of luscious pie, with a delicious 150- calorie tablespoonful of whipped cream on it, than all the succulent vegetables Luther Burbank could grow in California…. Now that you know you can have the things you like, proceed to make your menus containing very little of them.”’

‘In its massive review of studies of diet and weight loss, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee concluded, “No optimal macronutrient [protein, fat, carbohydrate] proportion was identified for enhancing weight loss or weight maintenance. However, decreasing caloric intake led to increased weight loss and improved weight maintenance…. Diets that are less than 45 percent carbohydrate or more than 35 percent protein are difficult to adhere to, are not more effective than other calorie- controlled diets for weight loss and weight maintenance, and may pose health risk, and are therefore not recommended for weight loss or maintenance.”’

The history of American obesity:

‘In 1973 and 1977, Congress passed laws that reversed long- standing farm policies aimed at protecting prices by controlling production. These policies paid farmers to set aside acres, but that changed when Earl Butz, a former dean of agriculture at Purdue, became USDA secretary and reportedly urged them to plant “fencerow to fencerow.” Whether Butz really said this or not— no source has ever been found for the statement— the new policies encouraged farmers to plant as much as they possibly could. Food production increased, and so did calories in the food supply. The addition of 700 calories a day per capita made the food industry even more competitive. Food companies now had to find new ways to sell products in an environment that offered a vast excess of calories over the needs of the population.’

‘We like to ask the question “When did it become acceptable to eat in bookstores?” Today snack foods are sold in 96 percent of pharmacies, 94 percent of gasoline stations, 22 percent of furniture stores, and 16 percent of apparel stores. Research shows that if food is at hand, people will eat it.’


‘The Consumer Price Index indicates an increase of about 40 percent in the relative cost of fruits and vegetables since the early 1980s, whereas the indexed price of desserts, snack foods, and sodas has declined by 20 to 30 percent. Lower prices encourage people to eat more. Higher prices discourage food purchases. 21 For example, as part of its contribution to obesity prevention, Coca- Cola now offers drinks in 7.5- ounce cans but prices them higher than 12- ounce sodas. As a retailing executive once explained to us, if customers want smaller portions, they ought to be willing to pay for them.’

‘As for efficacy: one clinical trial gave orlistat to obese patients with type 2 diabetes. After four years, 52 percent of the patients taking orlistat— and eating a reduced- calorie diet— completed the study and maintained an average weight loss of 7 percent. But only 34 percent of people taking a placebo completed the study; they had an average 4 percent weight loss after four years. 11 The 3 percent difference is either impressive or not, depending on how desperate you are. And you still need to eat a reduced- calorie diet to achieve weight loss. But because almost any weight loss is associated with improved glucose tolerance, obesity specialists consider orlistat an effective treatment.’

Same goes for those bloody SGLT2 inhibitors.

[Virginia · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars mainly. I skimmed through the whole book in a few hours. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you eat, what you drink, when you eat it...it's entirely about how many calories you consume. They brought up a recent experiment where a guy ate a twinkie every three hours and then if he was hungry in between he would eat doritos and oreos, and that was it. I can't recall the length of time he did this but it was at the most only a couple weeks and he lost 8 pounds. This was an example showing that it really IS just about the calories.

They say there is some evidence that the less calories you eat the longer you'll live, but they don't give you a specific calorie range to follow. They did add the caveat that most people would find it uncomfortable to be that hungry, whether they lived longer or not.

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars is generous, considering I had high hopes of learning a ton of new information from this book, and that was not the case. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is confused about calories and how our bodies use them. But for anyone who has taken some courses on nutrition, has a basic knowledge of the way the body functions, and especially those who've read Nestle's book: What to Eat, this would not be considered a necessary read. I was impressed with the logical approach to a topic on which there is widely varying information. And I like Nestle's (and Nesheim's) mostly unbiased way of presenting facts, and appreciate the studies used to back them up.

[Marisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is so freaking awesome. If you have ever read a diet or nutrition book, read this one and don't bother with the others. It will answer all your questions and straighten out all the weird ideas you got in your head from so much misinformation that is ubiquitous in diet books. Michael Pollen, Joel Furhman, Dr. Oz, Joe Friel, and on and on and on....Every book I've read has several flaws. This book is PURE AWESOME FACT. Science, people! And very frank, honest science that recognizes when science gets it wrong, or doesn't quite have all the answers, or why nutrition "fact" seems to change every day. Read this book before you eat another bite! (Just kidding.)

[Carrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

If a fairly in-depth discussion of what a calorie is, how calorie input and output are measured, etc. sounds interesting to you, then you will most likely enjoy this book. My main takeaway was that the 'mainstream' methods of estimating caloric needs and measuring input/output (e.g., using an online food/exercise tracker) are extremely imprecise. It can definitely be helpful to ensure that you are on the right track with your nutrient intake in general, but anything more than that is difficult to accomplish.

[Patricia Cherry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

This is a book that makes sense. No nonsense, just plain facts. We hear so much about diets that leave out particular macronutrients. But the only advice that comes out of this book at the end, is the most important. Make every calorie you consume, nutritious. Calories count. I have learnt a lot about the history of how calories were discovered and how we are consuming far too many of them by reading this.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Calories 101

This book gives the reader basic information about calories from food and how and why people gain and lose weight. It’s written from a scientific point of view citing peer-reviewed and other studies going back as far as the 19th century. The idea is to debunk the mass of misinformation, disinformation and downright BS that is rampant on television, the Web and in the popular literature. This is not the sort of book that is going to get you excited about the latest fad diet. Both authors are nutrition scientists and professors at New York University (Nestle) and Cornell (Nesheim).

After defining a calorie, the authors give some history with an emphasis on the work of Wilbur Atwater (1844-1907) who is generally recognized as the father of modern nutrition science. Then they explain in detail how the body turns food into energy followed by a close look at the difficult and confusing studies related to the intake of calories and how they are burned off.

The authors try to account for the increase in the number of people worldwide who are overweight or obese. They cite research showing that larger portion sizes play a role in the obesity epidemic. Most people when presented larger portions tend to eat more. Food producers know this and that is why they have chosen to “supersize” us. They have been able to do this economically because in recent decades food prices have gone down relatively speaking. (What’s happened in the last couple of years is a different story however.) Significantly the number of available calories per capita in the US has increased by about 700 calories per day from 1960 to 2005. (See the table on page 181.)

Even more to the economic point is the fact that caloric dense foods like fats, oils, pies, cookies, etc. are cheaper per calorie than fresh fruits and vegetables. Junk foods like sodas, white bread, etc., which are mostly empty calories, are (not quite) force-fed to the masses.

“Whole foods” are becoming more expensive relatively speaking, and this is a serious problem. Consuming empty calories leaves our bodies hungry for nutrients and makes us consume more.

The problem in the prehistory and even before we were fully human (during which our eating habits were formed) there was a lack not so much of nutrients but of pure energy-producing high-caloric foods. Because of this we love sugars and starches, oils and fats. Additionally many children are not so crazy about vegetables because their systems tell them that the best foods to eat are foods high in calories, that is, foods that taste sweet and oily. They shy away from foods that have the kind of flavors that veggies have. And I ask you, how can an apple taste sweet when you are drinking Coca-Cola? Such “modern” artificial foods have debased our taste buds.

As for exercising less being the reason people are fatter today than they were some decades ago, the authors demur a bit, arguing that it’s unclear mainly because it is very, very difficult to do studies on people in which all calories consumed and all exercise done can be accurately measured. Most studies depend on self-reporting which is notoriously inaccurate. While the self-reporting of exercise may be exaggerated a bit, the self-reporting of calories consumed is typically massively underreported.

Next the authors get into the politics of calories, how the food industry tries to get people to consume more food so that they can sell more food. Advertising and the influence of the industry on government agencies is discussed and shown to be part of the problem. The problem? Being overweight and/or obese is dangerous to your health and is expensive for society.

Finally the authors offer this advice: “From our review of the research we are convinced that calories count. If you want to lose weight, you really do need to eat less and move more than you have been doing.” (p. 217) They add that they know that this simple and straightforward advice is not easy to follow “in an ‘eat more’ food environment.” My belief (after years of study and practice!) is that this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth: eat less, move more. Everything else is a distraction. The fact that some people put on weight more easily than others is true, but it doesn’t change the fact of how to take it off and keep it off. And, by the way, whether you follow a high fat/high protein diet such as Atkins or just the opposite, the authors show that over the long term it won’t make any difference. It’s calories in and activity out. Of course a diet based on fresh, whole foods in moderation is the way to go, not some unbalanced diet.

One thing I want to note is that the authors cite studies showing that there is no such thing as a calorie-neutral or calorie-minus food. I used to think it took as much energy to digest say raw celery as was available in the stalk. Not so. “A medium-sized rib of celery has only about 6 calories” but it takes only about half a calorie of energy to digest it. (p. 190)

There is one problem with the book I have in hand. (I checked it out of the local community college library.) Several of the pages near the end of the book, especially in the notes section, are just plain blank.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Mikey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Calories are energy;
they are the stored-energy bound up in food
(ie. fat, protein, carbs and alcohol molecules);
they're the heat-energy of the body
heat-energy of work (muscular movement)
excess heat-energy stored for later use
(ie. fat cells and a lesser degree "stored carbs")
Yet, outside of biology, they are so much more...
-----------------
This is not a "diet book" but a historical account of the underlying scientific journey that led to the above (simplified) definition.

It's a historical account on the legal restrictions to food label regulations (e.g. How come alcohol doesn't include a nutrition label?) Its an indictment on the lack of research into the public understanding of calories.

Important Caveat:
The book was written in 2014 thus does NOT include:
- the 2016 New Food Label requirements
- Up-to-date scientific review of weight loss
(ie, nutritional genomics, human microbiome, Health-At-Any-Size, etc.,)

Finally, the book is from the University of California Press, a publishing house that primarily focuses on Academic Publishing. For this reason, it may be a particularly dry read for most.

[George McDonald · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fairly dry account of a lot of research into the role calories play in weight maintenance. Nothing too surprising here. The basic conclusion is that all calories are essentially the same, and if you intake more calories than you expend, you gain weight.

I guess the most interesting thing I learned from the book was about Wilbur Atwater, a late 19th century nutritionist, who appears to have been exceedingly prodigious, and seemingly answered every important question in the field. The book devotes chapters to people trying to improve on his work, and concluding that the x few percentage increase in accuracy that can be obtained by modern methods hardly matter at all. I would have liked to have met that guy.

Fairly interesting discussion of how marketing in the food industry is all geared toward making us eat more and larger portions. Inspired me to take a new look at the size of what I eat.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim craft a well-flowing, deep dive into calories, from their nature to their issues. An interesting history lesson starts us off, with a surprisingly early date for the concept of calories and the intrinsic relation of the food we eat and its results on our bodies. This is followed by the scientific breakdown of calories, leading naturally into the results of too few or too many calories. Finally, we pivot to the politics of calories, where corporate lobbying mixes with the general lack of knowledge of the American people to create a minefield of poor eating choices for the average consumer.
All in all, a fun trek examining nearly every context of calories, capped by a succinct message on coping with our "eat more" environment: Get organized. Eat less. Eat better. Move more. Get political.
Studiously annotated, as well; the final sixth of the book is a bibliography, were I've found four papers I know I'm going to read later!

[Guilherme Zeitounlian · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating story of the calorie as a scientific unit, and also of the health and political implications of that.

It is a fascinating read, although some of its advice is downright contradictory - like the suggestion to follow some sort of "point-counting" system... if you're counting something, isn't it better to just count the calories, since they're noted everywhere (and you don't have to learn a new system for it)?

Or... you could just eat foods that happen to NOT trigger you to overeat, and let satiety take care of most of that effort.

(This might not get you a six-pack, but will definitely help with societal problems such as obesity and diabetes.)

All things considered, this is a nice and interesting read - and it's not a diet book.

[Megan Chrisler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I assumed, since it had Marion Nestle's name on the cover, that it would be great. I was right. It's slightly outdated, but overall it's jam-packed with thorough research. They clearly say it's not a weight-loss book, but their advice is still great for anyone looking to lose weight (which I have successfully done). This is a great resource for nutrition scientists, dieticians, personal trainers, and anyone looking to be healthier.

My one criticism is the complaint I always have with the discussion around obesity: no mention of food addiction. The authors dance around it, but don't call it out by name. I don't see how we solve the obesity epidemic without acknowledging this very real disorder. Still a great read, though.

[Beau · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heavier on the science than the politics, but a worthwhile read. It's a little dated at this point (published 2012), but it does a good job explaining the history of calories, how they have been / are measured biochemically and determined for new food products, how calories should be used for the promotion of public health, and also how they have been used to serve ulterior motives.

Nutrition science has moved away from a calorie-centered approach, and this book is a good resource to add context and balance to the discourse.

[Maggie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really good baseline introduction to the science of calories and addresses how many fad and popular diet approaches don't focus on the true fact that the amount that you're eating (compared to what you're expending) is truly all that matters although it's not easy nor glamorous. Also had some very interesting sections on marketing, politics, and examination of the environmental factors in our country that contribute to overeating.

[Raegan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a big fan of Marion Nestle and found a book I hadn't yet read. It was good and provided important background information for anyone interested in food books, but I don't feel like I learned much and I'm not as inspired as I normally feel reading her work.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant.

[Mandi · Rating 5 out of 5]

In depth research on the topic of calories. I really liked this book. It was well written and helped me understand calories (or rather kilocalories) better.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first part of this helpful book reviews what calories are, how nutritional calories are measured, the basics of how they're metabolized, and how calorie values of foods are arrived at (it's not easy!). It then moves on to the known effects of calorie deficiency (starvation or semi-starvation) and excess.

A virtue of Why Calories Count, or a deficiency if you're looking for something else, is that it's tightly focused on food calories and how they work. For example, if you want to look into how fat calories are processed and whether they're processed in some special way, this book will help you; if you want to know about whether dietary fat causes heart disease, it won't.

I appreciated the authors' discussion of how difficult it is to do good dietary studies, and how few studies' results can really be trusted. Self-reports are commonly used even though they're known to be extremely unreliable. Many studies don't take into account high drop-out rates: saying that a diet worked often really means that it worked for the few highly-motivated people who finished the study.

Much of the book is devoted to current controversies over whether "a calorie is a calorie," or whether carbohydrate, fat and protein work differently in weight gain, loss or maintenance. They come down pretty firmly on the calorie-is-a-calorie side, while emphasizing that there's still a lot we don't know. I think that they successfully debunk what might be called the Strong Taubes Conjecture: Gary Taubes' claim that excess calories in themselves are irrelevant to weight gain, but that carbohydrate calories specifically cause a disorder of fat deposition. One amusing study: a researcher managed to live on nothing but Hostess Twinkies and chips but was still able to lose weight by controlling his calorie intake. I bet he was glad when the study was over.

I was a bit frustrated by the book's tentative discussion of how different sources of calories, especially sugar, might be metabolized differently. I'm sure the authors would answer that they're tentative because the evidence only justifies tentative results.

Why has obesity increased so suddenly and explosively since the 1980s? The authors give (and argue well for) a social/economic answer. Changes in food policy in the 1970s and 1980s caused a huge injection of cheap calories into the food supply, enabling a big increase in available junk food and fast food chains offering inexpensive menus. I was surprised to learn that, though it seems obvious that we (especially children) are less active and get less exercise than we did 50 years ago, there's no good evidence that this is true.

The book closes with some recommendations for eating well in an environment that encourages poor eating. Nothing very inspiring: the usual "eat less, exercise more, eat healthful foods." The advice befits the cautious and evidence based tone of the whole book, but doesn't make for a very stirring conclusion.

In summary, this is a sober book that presents a lot of evidence in a readable way, and gives us good reason to question many, perhaps most, of the dietary claims that we read so often.

[Reid · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent treatment of the complex subject of calories, what they are (and you thought you knew!), how they work, our attitudes toward them and how easily they fool us into eating too many of them. Nestle and Nesheim are professors of nutrition and have considered the subject of what and how we eat for decades—it shows in how thoroughly they cover this ground and with the comfort with which they do it. They are not writers by profession, so they come across sometimes as what they are: lifetime academics who have more commitment to accuracy than entertainment and a dry and somewhat self-deprecating sense of humor. But this is a tiny quibble and not really a complaint. This is a very readable, informative, necessary work on a complicated subject.

I am one of those many people who wrestle with issues of weight. This book assures me that I am not alone. More than half of the people in the U.S. are overweight and a (ahem)large proportion of those are obese. Most of us don't want to be, but find it very difficult to take off the pounds. Why is that? After all, if we have been running and tire, we stop. If we are sleeping and have gotten enough, we wake up. Why is it that when we have eaten sufficient calories we do not and cannot seem to call a halt? This book will give you some answers, including a few that may surprise you.

The authors also give the lie to most of the fanciful, extreme diet plans out there. The fact remains that one must eat fewer calories and/or burn more to lose and maintain weight; there is no other way. They go into the many reasons why all of this excess weight is deleterious to us and the increases in side effects such as heart disease and diabetes. At the same time, they are self-admitted "foodies" who enjoy eating. What they give us here is the gift of a common sense approach to eating without any of the guilt or boosterism seen elsewhere around this topic. They do not give us any easy solutions, but speak eloquently to the information we need to make good food choices for ourselves.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

A scientific, but still easy-to-read book regarding the science of calories and - more specifically - how your body uses those calories. While not a "diet book," it still presents a very logical and compelling framework for how you should eat - in particular that, primarily, the number of calories you eat is the most critical thing - followed by what you eat.

There is quite a bit of interesting science in here that was new to me...but anyone even remotely aware of nutrition won't find any new advice in this book.

Despite that, with our country's obesity rate eclipsing 1/3 of the population, this should probably be a must-read.


Selected quotes:

From a political standpoint, advice to move more is much less threatening than advice to eat less. Moving more does not affect the economic interests of food companies or any other powerful industry.

Calorie distracters lull people into forgetting how much they are eating.

Avoid food products with: more than five ingredients (too highly processed), ingredients you can't pronounce (bad-tasting chemical additives), artificial ingredients (they taste bad and can never be tested enough), a cartoon on the package ("eat more" marketing directed at kids), a health claim on the package (these are inherently deceptive).

If you want to lose weight, you really do need to eat less and move more than you have been doing. But let's be clear: you must also eat better, which means making healthier food choices.

...100 calories is the amount of heat needed to bring a quart of water to the boiling point...

The source of calories may make a small difference in weight maintenance or less, but it appears to be much less important than the ability to resist pressures to overeat calories in general.

For many people, especially kids, the best way to reduce calories is to cut down on sugary drinks.

In reality, 'negative calorie foods' are no more than wishful thinking.

Try this: friends don't let friends eat whole portions.

[Kendra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I hate to say this, as I love Marion Nestle, but this book was pretty dry. I didn't learn much, however the information was laid out in a clear and understanding way. The prose was just incredibly dry, and uninspired, which is surprising for an author who has greatly inspired me in the past.

Therefore I was excited to read this book by one of my favorite authors, who I expected would cut through all of the noise surrounding the science of calories and provide answers to my questions. In this aspect, the book succeeded and was sort of a response to the hype generated by Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories , a tome which I have yet to read. I have been swayed by the magnetism of Taubes and his new ideas, and this book helped me to temper some of that wayward enthusiasm. Also, one of my professors told me that Taubes does a great job of accusing public health officials of making baseless recommendations, and then turns around and does the same thing himself. I can see that he does that, but in fairness to him, I will crack open his admittedly well-researched book.

Aside from the scientific bickering, the book also proffered up some useful advice, in the form of reminders seen below.

...dieters can consciously override the basic drive to eat for short periods of time, [but] most cannot keep doing so. Hormones such as leptin and ghrelin that stimulate the appetite after weight loss do not adapt quickly to reduced body weight. They continue to send out "eat more" signals for as much as a year after weight loss. Eventually biology wins out. "The world would be a better place, Jeffrey Freidman says, if people who deride obese people kept this in mind."

Nestle also reiterates the age-old advice, with a few new twists thrown in: Get organized. Eat Less. Eat better. Move More. Get Political. Words to live by, as it turns out.

[Julie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gobs of information, written by two professors of nutritional sciences, resulting in what I call "thesis-like" reading. Not breezy or conversational, but backed up by a few lengthy and exhaustive appendices. Want to learn vocabulary words like "cholecystokinin?" Or the formula for figuring out the calories in alcoholic beverages if you know the alcohol percent? (Percent alcohol X number of ounces X 30 ml/ounce X 0.8 gram/ml X 7 calories/gram.)

Here is what I learned in a nutshell: "complex" is a word that scientists use when they don't understand how a process works. (This is what the authors say, btw, not my opinion.) And nearly everything about how appetite, calories, genetics, BMR, thermic effects, etc. effect body weight is "complex."

According to the latest, and best-designed studies:
a) Eating breakfast everyday MIGHT help you lose weight, but skipping breakfast is a good way to reduce overall calorie intake.
b) Snacking - a good thing? Not really; the more often you eat, the more calories you are likely to consume.
c) Reducing the amount of calories you eat is hands-down the most effective way to lose weight. Exercising alone WON'T cause you to lose any significant amount of weight. Exercising does other fabulous stuff for you; and you should definitely exercise but NOT eating a Twinkie per day is tons simpler than burning off those 150 excess calories.

So, no magic here. If you want to lose weight, it seems the most effective method is to stop eating so much.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and fairly comprehensive overview of the history, science, and politics behind that eternal frustration of dieters everywhere, the calorie. What we know about the calorie, it turns out, isn't half so interesting as what we on't know, and why. Marion Nestle and her co-author, Malden Nesheim, explain the difficulties in measuring both inputs and outputs of calories, and then the further difficulties of both turning that into useful information and getting people to act on that useful information.

While they acknowledge the pressing problem of under- and malnutrition worldwide, and the frustrating fact that the world manufactures enough food to cure those problems, Nestle and Nesheim are primarily interested in the American story: why do we eat so much more than we used to? Why is the state of package labeling the way it is? Why are calories only listed on light beers, and not other forms of alcohol? The answers to these questions are wrapped up in politics, society, culture, and (occasionally) science, past and present.

Why Calories Count is an extremely useful book if you want to be a more educated consumer of food in America. And why wouldn't you want to be?

[Joy Weese Moll · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a science book that covers science the way that I most like to learn it — from history. The book begins with a definition of calorie in the first chapter, but then takes us all the way back to Ancient Greece to trace the knowledge of food energy forward from that point. The history covers two separate but related branches — how calories are counted in foods and how calorie use is measured in living bodies.

With that solid background, we’re then ready to tackle what calories do for us, the complexity of determining how many calories we need, and the problems of too few and too many calories. The final section covers the current “eat more” environment and the economic, political, and social factors that created it and make it difficult to change.

While this is not a diet book, a concluding chapter “How to Cope with the Calorie Environment” provides a framework for maintaining a healthy weight.

More here: Book Review: Why Calories Count by Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim

[Auggy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Back in high school, I once had to burn a Cheeto in a science lab. Since then, I think I've had a pretty good grasp of what a calorie is (which is good, since that was the purpose of the lab). Apparently, though, not everyone got to burn up snack food in school. Chatting with the husband, he was fairly clueless about calories in food and how our bodies used them, etc. So I suppose a lot of this book would be totally new information for some folks whereas the "what a calorie is" bit was just further clarification for me.

I'm not sure why it took me six months to read - when I actually read on it, it went by pretty quickly. It's got a lot of interesting information about calories. I particularly liked the parts that talked about how to properly measure them and how different values (for fat, carbs, protein) were discovered. Ultimately it was all really interesting stuff, just not exactly a gripping plot, you know? Well-written though. Not too dry or science-y.

It seems that it always takes me a while to read Marion Nestle's books. I always find them interesting and easy to read. I just have a hard time picking them back up once I've put them down.

[Brenda Schoen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't believe that I'm writing this about a science-based book but once I picked it up I couldn't put it down and finished reading it in one sitting. Yes, the general take away message is nothing new "eat less, move more" but this isn't a diet book at all. It was about the historical, scientific and political effect of the calorie and our food and weight.

I found it interesting to learn that statistically children are no less active then they were 30 years ago. This has often been my own opinion. As elders lament about "kids these days on their laptops and cell phones" I watch my children and their peers running through the backyard and also have recollections of my own youth where we all watched Saturday morning cartoons and read the latest Sweet Valley Twins books with an addiction.

While it wasn't a "diet book" it did offer me some hope and motivation. If in no other way a book that could have come across as complicated reaffirmed the fact that losing weight doesn't have to be. Eat less, move more. (And don't try to eat tons less, just a little less will do).