Why calories is bad for our body?

People eat more often than usual during the holidays — and this year, many are prompted to eat stress as epidemics. One common way to avoid overweight is to choose a healthier option with fewer calories in each serving. One problem with this technique is that people who think they are healthy are eating something. For example, holiday party guests can pack sprouted cabbage on a plate instead of heavy meat dishes such as mash potatoes. However, it only works if counting and comparing the amount of calories with a dish is justified. This is a topic explored in a series of surveys published in the Journal of Consumer Research. I thought it was more difficult than I expected.

Health experts generally recommend two ways of analyzing the calorie content of a food: try to come up with the number of portions of a meal or think of high and low calorie foods in terms of quality. - Brie cheese and mashed potatoes = high, peas and Brussels sprouts = low.

Those who favor the post-fight mode will conclude the same, but it will be easier for most people to do it regularly. But our research suggests that these two methods result in over-estimating too many calories - which has a great impact on dieting.

We then randomly asked half of them to guess how many calories each dish contained, from very low to high, and the rest were supposed to give the most accurate estimate of the amount. Participants were shown the pictures again and asked to choose between two lower calorie options, which we then allowed to eat.

We found that who used size had more calories than most chocolate almonds. And when choosing low calorie snacks, most of the students choose regular almonds.

On the other hand, most students who correctly give numerical forecasts choose chocolate coated almonds as a low calorie option. 

They calculate that, on average, chocolate-coated almonds have about 111 calories, compared to 117 for regular ones. But the group also underestimated how many calories a large chunk of regular almonds has: 200, twice the number of calories in chocolate covered ones.

We repeated the variants of the first study, in which we had participants in which calories were measured in low- and high-intensity workouts, with similar results. We are looking at different products. For this study, we asked 277 people who teamed up on Subway and McDonald's last year to rate the calories of a 12-inch turkey sandwich and cheeseburger. People have been asking for large-scale qualitative assessments for the same idea that turkey is low in opal calories, but quantifiers rightly meditate that opal is actually high in calories - in fact, just 300 versus 510 hamburgers.

To see if we could find a way to correct a fixed error involving approximate quality, we adjusted the previous study of almonds, but first asked some participants to look at 12 images of different sized snack plates and determine the serving size in a sliding scale. Participants evaluated the caloric values of a small plate of chocolate covered almonds and a large plate of normal almonds. Drawing their attention to the size of the piece helped all participants to be more precise in their estimation, which is especially helpful for people who have estimation skills. So even if people aren't good at counting calories, whether they're dieting or burning with exercise, there are ways to do better. Remember this at the next party, when you are tempted to top your plate with Brussels sprouts.