How many calories in that brownie: Why food labels are wrong

THANK YOU FOR VISITING SWEATSCIENCE.COM!

My new Sweat Science columns are being published at www.outsideonline.com/sweatscience. Also check out my new book, THE EXPLORER'S GENE: Why We Seek Big Challenges, New Flavors, and the Blank Spots on the Map, published in March 2025.

- Alex Hutchinson (@sweatscience)

***

Fascinating article in New Scientist about the “calorie delusion.” Turns out that the number of calories listed on food labels can be very misleading, depending on the type of food:

[A]ccording to a small band of researchers, using the information on food labels to estimate calorie intake could be a very bad idea. They argue that calorie estimates on food labels are based on flawed and outdated science, and provide misleading information on how much energy your body will actually get from a food. Some food labels may over or underestimate this figure by as much as 25 per cent, enough to foil any diet, and over time even lead to obesity.

The standard figures assume that we get about 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate and protein, and 9 calories per gram of fat. But because of the way we digest food, more recent research suggests that’s an overestimate by about 20 percent for protein, and 25 percent for dietary fibre. Other factors like the texture of the food, whether it’s cooked, and even whether it’s chopped or ground up, also make a big difference.

In a study published in 2003, for example, a team led by Kyoko Oka at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, investigated the effect of food texture on weight gain. They fed one group of rats their usual hard food pellets, while a second group received a softer version. Both pellets had exactly the same calorie content and flavour. The only difference was that softer ones were easier to chew. After 22 weeks, the rats on the soft food diet were obese and had more abdominal fat. “Food texture might be as important a factor for preventing obesity as taste or food nutrients,” Oka and his colleagues concluded (Journal of Dental Research, vol 82, p 491).

The bottom line, as the article points out: don’t pick a brownie full of refined flour and sugar over a granola bar full of nuts and whole grains just because the label says the brownie has fewer calories.

How to drink during exercise: gulp, don’t sip

THANK YOU FOR VISITING SWEATSCIENCE.COM!

My new Sweat Science columns are being published at www.outsideonline.com/sweatscience. Also check out my new book, THE EXPLORER'S GENE: Why We Seek Big Challenges, New Flavors, and the Blank Spots on the Map, published in March 2025.

- Alex Hutchinson (@sweatscience)

***

From an interesting interview with University of Pittsburgh sports nutritionist Leslie Bonci, the author of Sports Nutrition for Coaches, in the New York Times:

Q: Should we keep sipping fluids while we’re exercising?

A: How we drink can make a difference in how optimally we hydrate our body. A lot of people sip liquids, but gulping is better. Gulps of fluid leave the stomach more rapidly. It’s important to do this. It seems counterintuitive, it seems like gulping would cause a cramp. People are more likely to have stomach cramps sipping because fluid stays in their gut too long.

When you take more fluid in, gulps as opposed to sips, you have a greater volume of fluid in the stomach. That stimulates the activity of the stretch receptors in the stomach, which then increase intra-gastric pressure and promote faster emptying. This is why gulping is preferred.

Definitely news to me! The whole interview is worth a read, as a reminder of sports nutrition basics.

Pounding protein to pack on muscle: myth?

THANK YOU FOR VISITING SWEATSCIENCE.COM!

My new Sweat Science columns are being published at www.outsideonline.com/sweatscience. Also check out my new book, THE EXPLORER'S GENE: Why We Seek Big Challenges, New Flavors, and the Blank Spots on the Map, published in March 2025.

- Alex Hutchinson (@sweatscience)

***

The latest Jockology column is now available — it takes on the myth that you need to pound huge protein shakes after your workouts if you want to pack on muscle. This is a classic case of researchers saying one thing, while top athletes tend to do something completely different. Are the athletes just stuck with outdated traditions, or are the researchers failing to operate in the “real world?”

It’s a pretty safe bet that the guy at the gym who is built like a tree trunk and bench-presses the entire rack also has an enormous barrel of protein powder tucked into his gym bag. This, you might think, is a pretty good endorsement of the “you’ve got to eat muscle to build muscle” school of thought.

But correlation is not the same as causation.

Read the rest of the column — and then feel free to tell me I’m an idiot. After all, I’m not the most muscular guy the world…

Vitamin D and sports: overhyping a strong case

THANK YOU FOR VISITING SWEATSCIENCE.COM!

My new Sweat Science columns are being published at www.outsideonline.com/sweatscience. Also check out my new book, THE EXPLORER'S GENE: Why We Seek Big Challenges, New Flavors, and the Blank Spots on the Map, published in March 2025.

- Alex Hutchinson (@sweatscience)

***

The current issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise has an article called “Athletic Performance and Vitamin D,” a topic that ignited some mild controversy when I dealt with it in a Jockology column back in March. The authors review five lines of evidence in support of their hypothesis that vitamin D helps athletic performance. In particular, they focus on a series of German studies from the 1940s and 50s showing that ultraviolet irradiation improved athletic performance, and on the spectacularly unsurprising result that athletes seem to be fitter in the summer (when vitamin can be produced from sunshine) than in the winter. Tellingly, they include this caveat about studies of vitamin D deficiency:

No attempt was made to associate athletic performance with 25(OH)D levels (a measure of vitamin D levels) in these four studies—or any study that we could locate.

Continue reading “Vitamin D and sports: overhyping a strong case”

A successful Easter egg hunt won’t interfere with training

THANK YOU FOR VISITING SWEATSCIENCE.COM!

My new Sweat Science columns are being published at www.outsideonline.com/sweatscience. Also check out my new book, THE EXPLORER'S GENE: Why We Seek Big Challenges, New Flavors, and the Blank Spots on the Map, published in March 2025.

- Alex Hutchinson (@sweatscience)

***

The reputation of the humble egg, so long considered a cholesterol time-bomb, has been gradually rehabilitated by a series of studies over the past several years. In honour of Easter, I thought I’d mention one of these studies, from the January issue of the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. Researchers from the University of Connecticut put 12 subjects through a 6-week endurance exercise program. Half of them ate 12 eggs a week, the other half ate none. The result: both groups improved good cholesterol by 10 percent and decreased bad cholesterol by 21 percent — and there was no discernable difference between the egg and no-egg group. Happy Easter!