The article seems to contradict that - unprocessed foods are the hardest to estimate. Pounding, grinding, cooking free available calories, bringing them closer to the published number.

I'd say portion control is a bigger problem than any of the things you just listed.

The amount of effort it takes your digestive system to process raw chicken vs. cooked chicken is obviously different, but the fact that they chose to focus on these issues doesn't make them more impactful than portion control.

I was thinking in terms of cooking at home versus going to eat at a restaurant. Restaurants are far more egregious in terms of being calorific as well as highly variable and prepackaged food usually isn't that good for you.

I really think the "unprocessed food" thing is a heuristic that has lost its power. The problem is that it is completely possible to make unprocessed food that is terribly unhealthy. And unfortunately, as with processed food, the cheapest ways to make unprocessed food tastier also make it less healthy. Keep in mind that honey, which many people would consider "unprocessed", is very nearly identical to HFCS-55 (and no, there is not good evidence that the slight differences between them significantly impact their health effects).

So early on, "avoid processed food" was a good way to guess at which foods were likelier to be healthy without having to actually examine them closely. But the heuristic is highly exploitable (i.e. you can trick people into thinking unhealthy food is healthy by making it from "unprocessed" ingredients), and in a relatively free market, it was inevitable that it would be exploited.

Now, if you advise people to either eat raw, unmodified ingredients, or make their own food out of raw unmodified ingredients, then that will still help them. But I think most people hear "avoid processed food" and think "Oh, I should buy these cookies that are made of whole grains and honey", and that is not helpful advice anymore.

OK, my take on this is that I need a framework to operate within. The frameworks I have chosen are Weight Watchers because it gives me a daily food budget which I can fine tune depending on whether I think I am losing enough weight (0.5-1Kg/week). The specific food choices are informed by Glycaemic Index principles which ranks foods based on the body's glucose response and hence provides a measure of how effective the food item is at keeping you feeling fed. I get the impression that GI is not highly regarded in the USA, if so why is this?

1. The comment above says "upto 20%" - that seems a bit high, no? Is it not possible to make better estimate of calories?

2. Any thoughts/experience with raw foods? (also juicing, water fasting etc? someone documented their water fast, I can't remember the URL now. It sounded dangerous, but also awesome to know the results)

3. For a moderately active person, which is better? Eating 2 huge meals a day, or 5-6 small meals?

Thank you.

> The comment above says "upto 20%" - that seems a bit high, no? Is it not possible to make better estimate of calories?

You could claim a different number but you'd be fooling yourself. Pick a number that seems reasonable relative to BMR and your goals and adjust as you go. That's kinda the whole point of my company is helping people make these adjustments without going through the hassle themselves.

Humans learned to cook because it allowed us to extract nutrients from food more efficiently and thus survive. If eating too much is your problem, tending towards raw food might help (but not to the exclusion of proper meals). If you're an athlete, not so much. I wouldn't take any one movement or fad all that seriously.

Juicing is a fad designed to bilk money from people, any diet/fast predicated on getting the majority of your calories from nutrition-less sugar is loony and bad for your health.

>For a moderately active person, which is better? Eating 2 huge meals a day, or 5-6 small meals?

It depends on what moderately active means. I think this is highly individual but I'll tell you what the "usual" is.

Strength trainers will generally eat 6 meals, but that's so that they can fit more calories in without getting stuffed.

Runner eating habits are highly variable and have a lot to do with glycogen replenishment. Carb-backloading before going to bed is a current fad for both runners and strength-trainers, but it seems pretty similar to the carb-loading stuff from the 80s, but with the benefit of more rigorous testing and study.

This is one of those things that require tinkering and experimentation. Some people eat 2 meals, skipping breakfast, some eat like hobbits. If you're trying to lose weight, optimize for eating habits that prevent snacking as well as over-eating during meals. Portion control is paramount.

Thank you for answering.

getting the majority of your calories from nutrition-less sugar is loony What did you mean by nutrition-less sugar? Vegetable/leafy juices (celery, spinach etc) have lots of nutrition, correct? (much more than just a fruit juice).

Sorry, there was a bit of sampling bias there. Most of the juicers I know will lean heavily on juicing fruits, not vegetables/leafy things, for the sake of flavor.

It's fine to juice things, especially if it helps you to get vegetables in your diet, but avoid fruits and excess sugar. I know too many juicers who end up getting like 70% of their calories from sugar because they're sucking down glorified fruit smoothies all the time.

> relatively unprocessed food for which it is reasonable to estimate calories

What I got out of the article is unprocessed foods are the least accurate when it comes to calorie counts because they aren't digested as easily.

What's your job BTW?