Live data from Hacker News

I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

lifehacker.com

231–240 of 302 posts

Re: I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

#231
post #91

Calorie tracking is also about educating yourself about how many calories certain things are, so you can make better decisions. Like, oil is insanely caloric and can accidentally add hundreds of calories, but it's nearly impossible to eat too many greens. Once you learn this, then the tracking is just to keep you honest - your brain knows what to do but it lies to you when it wants to bend the rules and those little…

Yeah there's like 2 or 3 foods you realise you're eating that totally mess you up. For me it was peanut butter and sausages (not together...). Just so many calories and it's not like I even cared about either that much.

Yes, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit that is so bad that it's best to just not do it at all. Soda was the big one for me. There's really no responsible way to drink full-sugar soda, it's just too many calories. Oh, and ice cream.

Re: I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

#232
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seems to be against the concept of calorie counting as a whole too What are peoples criticisms of calorie counting? Its the only thing that keeps my weight from creeping up. There are way to many calorie dense foods that can easily sneak in if im thoughtless. (I want my 20 year old life style back :( )

> What are peoples criticisms of calorie counting? Probably the same criticism that applies to all "methods to do a thing". That people often miss the forest for the trees and obsess on the wrong metric (counting calories while still ingesting preprocessed industrial food and beverages) instead of the right one (losing weight while being healthy at the same time).

While there is a risk of missing the forest for the trees, I also think that most diets fail because they're too perfect. You don't need to be perfectly healthy, and you don't need to eat 100% whole foods.

When we get into this sort of mindset that we need to be attentive of absolutely everything we eat then we develop a sort of adversarial relationship with food, and for most people that's just not sustainable. The difference between a successful diet that works and one that doesn't could be diet soda. Sounds stupid, but if you're miserable then your diet isn't going to last. Making better decisions is an improvement, and is MUCH better than dropping the pursuit all together.

There's plenty of people who are very healthy and they eat ice cream, drink soda some times, maybe have cheesecake occasionally. That's part of life, and for a lot of people that's one of the parts of life that makes it worth living. Conversely, there's a lot of people who try something like Keto and then eventually fail and fall into an even worse relationship with food then they had when they started.

Re: I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

#233

Founder of https://snapcalorie.com and ex-Google AI researcher here. The article actually gets our pricing wrong, it's completely free to use SnapCalorie, the $79.99 price is a donation to support our research and help us continue providing the best tools to everyone for free. We've published in top peer reviewed academic conferences and our algorithm (can't say the same for other apps) IS actually more accurate than…

This is the classic refrain product owners counter back with any time people present reasonable criticism of their AI app. User: "This (AI product) doesn't work!" Product Owner: "Well, humans are also bad at that." That's not the promise of these apps in general! The whole selling point of AI is that they're vastly better - if my eyeball estimate is "pretty inaccurate" and by your own admission the app is "pretty ina…

> The whole selling point of AI is that they're vastly better

Not to nitpick, but "better" isn't on a single axis. Taking a photo is a better experience than searching and keying in every component, even if the accuracy is identical.

AI tools don't even have to be "vastly" better. They could be, and often are, even worse on several axes, because they often trade quality for ease-of-use.

You may assign a lower weight to the ease-of-use axis (as engineers, we tend to), but then you're likely not the ideal customer for many of today's AI products.

Re: I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, it can replace myfitnesspal features from 10 years ago, but do them worse. Revolutionary.

Also, do you mind dropping the sarcasm and explaining why you believe MyFitnessPal might be superior to ChatGPT in the usage I’m suggesting?

You're offloading understanding what you're eating to a sentence generating algorithm. You might as well just eat Soylent if you're going to use an LLM for nutrition tracking.

Re: I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

#235

I always just assumed these were terrible. There just isn’t enough info in a photo, even for the world’s leading calorie counting expert, to give a sensible estimate of the calories content. Ans even more so for macros. Add to that the fact vision is still pretty crap and you have a complete joke that I can’t believe anyone is paying for.

Yeah. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that a Coke Zero looks identical to regular Coca Cola, yet they have vastly different calorie content, to put it mildly.

Sauces loaded with butter, sugar or other goodies will of course be the same story.

Re: I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

#237
post #91

Calorie tracking is also about educating yourself about how many calories certain things are, so you can make better decisions. Like, oil is insanely caloric and can accidentally add hundreds of calories, but it's nearly impossible to eat too many greens. Once you learn this, then the tracking is just to keep you honest - your brain knows what to do but it lies to you when it wants to bend the rules and those little…

Yes exactly, all that's needed in practice is to learn a handful of simple heuristics and you'll be fine if you follow them. Unfortunately simple does not equate to easy, losing weight is quite hard for most people but the hard part is not knowing what to do, it's actually doing it.

I think that nearly all of the consumer weight loss industry, of which these silly AI photo apps are a small part, is an attempt to turn a simple but hard process into one that's complicated but easy. In practice such shortcuts generally don't work which is why products like these have miserably low success rates.

Re: I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah there's like 2 or 3 foods you realise you're eating that totally mess you up. For me it was peanut butter and sausages (not together...). Just so many calories and it's not like I even cared about either that much.

Yes, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit that is so bad that it's best to just not do it at all. Soda was the big one for me. There's really no responsible way to drink full-sugar soda, it's just too many calories. Oh, and ice cream.

I actually saw a large observational study recently with the surprising result that people who began eating more ice cream actually lost weight. It's not that ice cream is good for you (obviously), but that people often use it to replace foods that are even worse.

Re: I used AI-powered calorie counting apps, and they were even worse than expected

#240
post #91

Calorie tracking is also about educating yourself about how many calories certain things are, so you can make better decisions. Like, oil is insanely caloric and can accidentally add hundreds of calories, but it's nearly impossible to eat too many greens. Once you learn this, then the tracking is just to keep you honest - your brain knows what to do but it lies to you when it wants to bend the rules and those little…

In many respects calorie counting is an exercise in misinformation induced stupidity, from bad science.

What people fail to realize is the calories on the label aren't the calories they are actually getting. Those on the label are the calories for the substance found by burning it in a lab. Calories absorbed are quite different, and depend on the method of preparation and personal factors. Different methods release different percentage amounts to be taken up by your body in digestion.

Additionally, the standard saying "Calories in Calories Out" only applies when you are healthy, and have no weight or medical issues. The moment you have any kind of metabolism-mediated or norepinphrine-mediated reactions (i.e. allergies, chemical exposures [pfas], etc), that paradigm fails.

If you are getting ravenously hungry or nauseous , you are starving yourself, and this can damage your metabolism, and it won't result in long-term weight loss. You lose metabolically active tissue over fat which adapts to lower BMRs.

When you are eating healthy at the proper times, you aren't getting ravenously hungry.

Anyone who has done Atkin's knows that after they transition into ketosis, they don't get hungry. They eat very high caloric foods, but they eat much less, and the carbohydrates, or excessive protein, and usually so low that the extra fat they eat doesn't get stored as fat. Not everyone can do that though because of issues with kidney, liver, or gallbladder, but the ones that can lose amazing amounts of weight effortlessly. The diet itself is also anti-inflammatory, and cholesterol isn't an issue.

This is going to shock people.

I've weighed my food out to get that daily calorie count. Here's a mindblower. I can eat 2700 calories of fats, and protein in a 60 30 ratio keeping carbs at 20g for the day, and I will on average lose 1-2 pounds a day, and this is done after the transition where water weight drop off has already plateaued (the weight loss isn't water weight, and its mostly not muscle mass either).

Each pound is 3500 calories. My BMR is supposed to be 2200 for my weight and height/body composition. How am I in what amounts to an effective 9700 calorie deficit with no exercise, and no hunger?

I've done this alongside college friends too. They see almost the exact same results. They found it a little annoying because they had to get checked out by a doctor first for those issues, and had to drink a lot more water, eat more fiber, and ensure they got the essential vitamins. Aside from that, the fat just falls off.

Calories in vs. Calories out is a lie.

Post reply on HN