OK. I can see how they are allowed the 20% error with calories, then. If they analyze all the raw carrots they buy, for example, there will be a lot of lee-way in the calories, depending on how and where they were grown, how much water they end up containing, all resulting from agricultural conditions. They just get a big load of raw carrots and then have to peel them, for example, which adds the dimension of actually taking away calories while you do that! The 20% error just reflects that, although it could just as easily mean that the carrots have 20% fewer calories as more!

All that aside, the practice of simply measuring and counting caloric intake is pretty reliable. Food given to dieters in metabolic clinics isn't run through tests to make sure the calories are exact, and the 'average' which is reported at the end of a study is indicative, pretty much, of what you could reproduce - if a study's results can't be reproduced, it's not worth much. When people are put on strict diets in a metabolic ward with no snacks and measured average food, their calories are counted and they lose weight, barring any serious underlying metabolic disorders. So, can you go by average food, average servings, and average advice 'eat less, move more' and lose weight?

Yes, maybe not at the rate you'd like and as steadily as you'd like, but you do lose weight.

Right now, I'm wearing a pedometer that isn't EXACT but close enough in measuring how much I move my body. It's not even the pedometer that Weight Watchers sells (which is an awesome one, by the way, because it's waterproof). I'm pretty sure I didn't do a great job calibrating this pedometer to match my stride, but that isn't as important as the fact that it is always on me and it's constantly working at measuring, as imprecise as that may be.

I'm sedentary, all of a sudden, a lot - taking a class with a LOT of study involved - and that pedometer sure shows it. Bingo, my weight loss reflects that, big-time, and I just have to work through this 'slow-down' until I can finish the darn class.

The baked potato:
Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Potato, baked, flesh and skin, without salt

The baked potato that weighs 100 grams is 93 calories. (74.9 grams water)

Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Potato, flesh and skin, raw

The raw potato that weighs 100 grams is 77 calories. (79.3 grams water)

That makes sense because the water has no calories. The thing here, I think, is that you are comparing 100 grams to 100 grams, not a potato to a 'similar size' potato. As you said, some water was lost to steam. You're not comparing the baked potato to itself, raw to 'after being baked.' You're comparing two equal-weight potatoes, but one is more 'concentrated in calories' even though it is just the same weight as the other. It's more concentrated in calories because it lost weight when the water evaporated, and did not become lighter in calories because it still, for comparison purposes, had to weigh 100 grams. So it had more potato with less water to meet that 100 grams qualification, because it still had to be a baked potato - in fact, it had to be a different potato to compare 100 grams to 100 grams, one raw and one baked.

For comparison purposes, the baked potato has more 'potato' when weighed, so to speak.

This is kind of the idea behind Rolls' Volumetrics type of dieting. Make things less dense. Eat more soups and things that are watery. That kind of thing.

Hello! So, lately I've been having an intermittent problem with my refrigerator. Yesterday I came home from work, full of energy to get a perfectly portioned frozen dinner, only to find that the refrigerator was not cooling properly. And we're not just talking about frozen dinners; we are talking about the fact that because of this problem, all perishable products spoil.