

Here's how bad the calorie counts on apps and wearables really are - joshreads
http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/421049/heres-how-bad-calorie-counts-apps-and-wearables-really-are

======
Jemaclus
I've often been frustrated with calorie-counting apps. Let's say I eat a
hamburger from a local restaurant. I go to my calorie-counting app, and I type
in "burger". It shows me a list:

* McDonald's Big Mac 485 calories

* McDonald's Quarter Pounder 435 calories

* In 'N Out Burger 400 calories

* Bubba Burger 315 calories

* Beef burger (raw) 239 calories

* Hamburger Beef on a Bun 243.9 calories

And so on. That range there is over 140 calories. That's a wild margin there.
And I also got fries:

* French Fry (Sodexo) 260 calories

* Curly Fries 200 calories

* McDonald's Medium Fries 310 calories

* Five Guys Fries 300 calories

And so on and so forth.

But you know, I just want to Local Burger Joint Restaurant. I don't know
exactly how many ounces this patty was, or whether they put butter on it. I
don't know if they fried these fries in duck fat or peanut oil or veggie oil.
Depending on how they prepared it and what the portion sizes are, the calories
per serving an vary wildly.

Yet when you go into a food app, they say:

> "How many ounces of fries did you eat?"

> "I dunno, MyFitnessPal. I ate what they gave me. Let's make it a round
> ballpark figure of 30 french fries."

> "Sorry, Jemaclus. That's not a valid measurement."

How about this. How about instead of making ME guess, why don't YOU guess? Why
don't YOU say "Okay, generally when you get a burger, it's between 250 and 500
calories... we have 394 samples of burgers in our database. The median calorie
count is 412, the mean is 425, the range is 150,... some other statistical
mumbo jumbo, and bam. Okay, Jemaclus, we think the burger was roughly 418
calories, or between 410 and 430 calories."

And then do the same thing for the fries.

Because at the end of the day, I'm just guessing too. When I look at my
calorie count at the end of the day, I would be a fool to say "I ate precisely
2318 calories today." What I really think when I see my calorie count is:
"This app says I ate 2318 calories today, which is _roughly_ between 2200 and
2400 calories. That's pretty much where I want to be, so I'm okay with that."

I mean, don't make me think about it. Don't make me pick which burger I ate
from which chain, because the odds are that the exact food I'm eating isn't in
your database. Don't make me pick the serving size, because I don't carry a
scale around with me -- or measuring cups.

Just ask me what I ate today. Then you figure out the rest. We're both
guessing here. Just handle it for me.

Thanks.

~~~
dragonwriter
> How about this. How about instead of making ME guess, why don't YOU guess?

Because then it would be precise, but not accurate, and calorie counting apps
are designed as tools to help people who care about accurately tracking what
they eat; they aren't intended to replacing _knowing_ what it is you are
eating, they are intended to facilitate going from knowing what you are eating
to having a log of calories (and, often, additional related information like
macronutrient distribution.) You might occasionally need to estimate if you
are eating a serving that isn't in their database (e.g., the "medium fries" of
a fast-food outlet they don't have) or not eating a full serving, etc., but
even then you'll be able to estimate better than the app would be able to
guess, if you have put even a minimal effort (and if you care, you will.)

What you are asking for is basically an app designed to provide the false
comfort of an illusory accuracy for people who really don't care about
tracking what they eat but would like to feel like they are doing it. Which, I
suppose, might be a real and possibly even quite large and profitable market,
but isn't the market most calorie counting apps are aiming for.

> Don't make me pick the serving size, because I don't carry a scale around
> with me -- or measuring cups.

If you care about controlling or tracking your diet at all, it takes very
little time and effort to learn to estimate portion sizes reasonably well. And
portion sizes vary widely, and there's no way an app can do that for you
(well, I suppose, with a camera, the same techniques used to take synthesized
3D pictures, and some kind of reference object that you can put in frame for
scale, it probably could, but that's probably more work for the user than just
estimating for yourself.)

~~~
Jemaclus
I think there's room for both models. I care about what I eat, but the way
calorie counters work now is that they have _too much friction_ for someone
who's basically guessing most of the time anyway. You can add some minor
qualifiers to help narrow down the quantities.

> "Hey Jemaclus, it's 2pm. What'd you have for lunch today?"

> "A burger."

> "On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the healthiest, how healthy was the
> burger?"

> "4" (I made it myself)

Ping me with a push notification -- hey, time to enter it! -- then ask me a
quick question or two to qualify the results. How healthy was it? How many
common-sense servings do you think you just ate?

My point is that the numbers regular calorie counters give are very exact
numbers -- 489 calories for a Big Mac -- but food is rarely served perfectly.
Two burgers cooked within 10 minutes of each other at the same restaurant
might vary wildly in the number of calories, depending on the size of the
patty, the amount of seasonings and butter and what-have-you added to the
dish, and so on. At the end of the day, I'm just guessing.

On calorie counting apps, the serving sizes are almost always useless. This
burger is measured in ounces -- is that before or after cooking? How many
ounces is the burger I just got from the restaurant? I know a Quarter Pounder
with Cheese from McDonalds is, well, 4 oz (before cooking!), but does that
translate 1:1 with my app? Who the hell knows?

I think if you're neurotic or otherwise obsessed with tracking your calories
super seriously, then maybe you're right. But in my experience, most of my
friends who start using calorie counting apps _stop_ using calorie counting
apps, because it's so much damned work to track everything they eat all day
long.

I'm advocating a smarter system. I'm guessing, which is more work than I want
to do. Do the guessing for me. Do the work for me. Prompt me when you don't
think you can make an accurate guess. I'm happy to say "I think it was 1.5
servings and relatively healthy", but I don't need to sit here and compare a
4oz burger from McDonalds against a 1/3 lb burger from In 'n Out against a "2
patty" burger from Joe's Burger Shack and try and figure out which one more
accurately reflects the burger that's sitting in front of me right now.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I care about what I eat

Then you _can 't avoid learning to estimate portions_. And once you do that,
the way most standard food logging apps, web or mobile, work should generally
work (there is room for improvement in friction, in some cases, but not in the
particular area of making the app guess more.) There's no shorter cut from
which meaningful results can be gathered. And its not that hard.

> On calorie counting apps, the serving sizes are almost always useless.

They aren't "useless", they do require you to understand portions. They
replace manually logging and tallying what is logged, not actually recognizing
what it is you are eating.

> This burger is measured in ounces -- is that before or after cooking?

Pre-cooked. Its the generally-accepted standard (most logging systems I've
seen expressly indicate this, though some don't).

> I think if you're neurotic or otherwise obsessed with tracking your calories
> super seriously, then maybe you're right. But in my experience, most of my
> friends who start using calorie counting apps stop using calorie counting
> apps, because it's so much damned work to track everything they eat all day
> long.

Calorie counting apps aren't useful, though, if the user isn't visually making
meaningful estimates (and, yes, they'll generally be estimates if you aren't
preparing it yourself) of quantitative portion sizes and specific included
elements beyond "1 to 5" ratings of healthiness -- _because_ of the very kinds
of variability that you yourself point to. Calorie counting apps _can_
facilitate the process of tracking, but they _can 't_ replace the recognition
and quantification of what you are eating part (which, yes, is _initially_ the
hard part of food tracking -- but its also the part that gets easy with
experience.)

There's some pretty simple rules of thumb for visually estimating portion
sizes, etc., that can be helpful if you _aren 't_ eating a predefined menu
item that is already in the apps database, and its possible that UX could be
improved by facilitating access to guidance on those when logging such items.
But that's different than the model you propose, which has serious GIGO
problems.

> I'm advocating a smarter system. I'm guessing, which is more work than I
> want to do. Do the guessing for me. Do the work for me.

Sorry, you're the one who has the sensory input from which to make a
meaningful estimate. Its obviously not impossible for a machine to do this,
given the right sensors and the right application of them to the food, but its
not going to save you any work on a smartphone platform.

> I'm happy to say "I think it was 1.5 servings and relatively healthy

Yes, but that's not meaningful input from which any useful information can be
gained. Unless you have a well-calibrated consistent definition of a serving
-- in which case, you can just as well say how many ounces, etc., it was.

