Ep 370 - Calories: Labels vs Reality

·1 hr 9 min·5 clips

A class action lawsuit claims David protein bars misreport calories by 80% and fat by 400%.

The episode begins with Eric Helms sharing news about Dr. Josh Pellin's PhD defense on muscle resensitization, hinting at future discussion. The hosts then transition to the main topic: a class action lawsuit against David protein bars, which claims the bars underreport calories by 80% and fat by 400%. Trexler outlines the lawsuit's basis, referencing analysis by Dr. Kevin Klatt, who criticizes the gravimetric method used (AOAC 945.44) for failing to distinguish a novel fat substitute, Esterified Propoxylated Glycerol (EPG), from regular fat. EPG yields only 0.7 calories per gram versus fat's 9 calories. The discussion highlights the limitations of bomb calorimetry, which measures total combustion energy, not what the body absorbs. Helms notes similar past controversies, like Quest bars and olestra in fat-free Pringles. The conversation shifts from the specific lawsuit to broader principles. The hosts explain that calorie labels involve estimation and assumption, and even accurate labels don't guarantee absorption due to factors like food matrix effects. They reference their MASS Research Review articles: Trexler's 'You Are What You Absorb, Not What You Eat' and Helms' 'Can Food Choices Impact Energy Balance Even in Isocaloric Diets'. Helms details a model comparing a Western diet, a moderate fitness diet, and an extreme bodybuilding diet, all at 2500 labeled calories, showing metabolizable energy differences up to 300 calories due to variations in protein, fiber, and food processing. Examples include whole almonds and cold potatoes providing fewer absorbable calories due to structural components and resistant starch formation. Trexler cites a study where high-fiber diets resulted in 84-96% energy absorption versus 94% for low-fiber diets, illustrating individual variability. They discuss how processed foods reduce thermic effect of food (TEF) and increase absorption, compounding energy balance effects. The hosts reconcile 'calories in, calories out' with 'if it fits your macros' by emphasizing that 'calories in' refers to absorbed energy, not labeled intake. They advise focusing on dietary reliability over absolute validity, recommending consistent food rotations—especially whole, unprocessed options—to manage absorption unpredictability. Personal anecdotes highlight how shifting from processed to whole foods can improve satiety and diet outcomes. The episode concludes by encouraging periodic dietary audits and acknowledging the humility learned from past dismissals of whole-food benefits.

As heard by us

A clear, practical look at why calorie labels do not always match the energy digestion actually extracts.

Food-label calories often look more exact than they really are, and Iron Culture uses that tension as its way into how listed energy can differ from what the body actually metabolizes.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Wondering whether a calorie label tells the whole story? Start here, with almonds, resistant starch, and a little label trouble.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Iron Culture presented by MASS