1. Many people don't finish what they order in one meal. I can generally get two meals out of a Chipotle burrito. Many do, of course, but that can't be sussed out of the data they used. In addition, the chips sides are sized to share, and I'd wager that most people who order those do share with someone else.
2. It's a mistaken assumption that one meal ought to be only 1/3 of your daily calorie intake. Most of the meals came in around 1000 calories, but I also bet that for most people, this is their largest meal of the day.
3. The recommended maximum sodium intake of 2.4g is probably too low based on many recent studies. Sodium intake is only a significant risk for a very small handful of the population, and in fact low sodium intake is as risky if not more risky, and there's good evidence that 2.4g/day is on the low end of long-term positive health outcomes.
Given the freshness and quality of the ingredients at Chipotle, and the simplicity and openness with which the food is prepared, focusing on calorie and sodium counts is an incomplete way to assess the healthiness of the food. I guarantee that a meal with fewer calories from McDonalds or in a microwaveable box is going to be overall far less healthy.
> I'd wager that most people who order those do share with someone else.
I live in a college town and this is definitely not the case here. Most people buy them for themselves. Items are also typically eaten for one meal, but it's college students so that's to be expected.
> It's a mistaken assumption that one meal ought to be only 1/3 of your daily calorie intake
I think what they're getting at is what you're also making a point about; that it doesn't necessarily have to be eaten in one setting. The point of lower calories is is gives you more options with what you can eat without gaining weight (assuming you're not on a weight-gain program for power lifting). What's deceiving is that, while Chipotle offers the full ranges of calories for their food, they don't mention that if you go through with all the things they offer then you usually end up in the 1000+ range. I wouldn't doubt if there are many people downing 1000+ calories thinking that they're closer to 600.
> focusing on calorie and sodium counts is an incomplete way to assess the healthiness of the food
This is correct, but to a point. An excess of calories, unless offset by regular exercise, leads to weight gain, which is collectively unhealthy for our society. There's obviously much more to it (an obese person who can run a mile is considered healthier than a skinny person who can't for example), but that's failing to see the bigger picture. The point is, people in developed countries are shoving more calories into themselves than they need, and places like Chipotle aren't a haven of good health - they're also part of the problem.
Found one[0], but I'm sure you could also find more. This is stuff that's often taught in health programs at universities during a section on cardiorespiratory fitness. The general idea is that a fat person who can run well can support their body, whereas a skinny person who can't run well cannot support their body.
Well, "health" isn't unidimensional, but one of the key areas (and one, but not the only, key risk area from obesity) is cardiovascular/respiratory health. Being able to run a mile (or not) is a much more direct indicator of that than obesity/non-obesity is, so at leas in that area of health, it makes sense to see an obese person who can run a mile as "healthier" than a ideal-body-fat person who cannot.
I don't want to look up a source offhand, especially since it would require some reading between the lines, but, 56% of NFL players are obese (97% are overweight), according to BMI guidelines. Going on the same "that doesn't sound right" criteria, saying they're less healthy than a skinny, sedentary person just because they have more muscle (and possibly more fat, but after all, BMI doesn't distinguish) doesn't sound right to me.
> 56% of NFL players are obese... Going on the same "that doesn't sound right" criteria, saying they're less healthy than a skinny, sedentary person just because they have more muscle (and possibly more fat, but after all, BMI doesn't distinguish) doesn't sound right to me.
It doesn't sound right to you because it isn't correct. NFL players, as a general rule, are not obese. Obesity is an excess of fat, by both the colloquial and medical definitions. BMI is an indication of obesity, which is not the same as a definition of same.
: a condition characterized by the excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body
Medical Definition of OBESITY
: a condition that is characterized by excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body and that in an adult is typically indicated by a body mass index of 30 or greater
"STANDARD DEFINITIONS OF OBESITY, which are based on height and weight, may not apply to former National Football League players and other groups with greater muscle mass, according to a new study"
Emphasis mine.
From your own quotation, "typically indicated by a body mass index of 30 or greater"
Ergo, a standard definition of obesity is calculated by height and weight, deemed 'BMI', which does not take muscle mass into account. Which is what my post states. BMI would state they're obese, and that says little about their actual health.
What that means is that when you see a high BMI there's a really good chance you're seeing obesity. But since obesity is defined as excess fat, the unusual cases where BMI doesn't correlate are exceptions to a rule. It should not surprise that professional athletes have bodies that are unusual and exceptional.
"an obese person who can run a mile is considered healthier than a skinny person who can't for example
Do you have a link or data to support that idea? Genuinely curious, as that doesn't sound right to me."
to which I replied
"56% of NFL players are obese (97% are overweight), according to BMI guidelines."
What exactly have you said that disagrees with that? I -agree- that ~real~ obesity, as is generally referred to, is based on fat percentage; I never said otherwise. What I said, very explicitly, was that an NFL who is considered obese ACCORDING TO BMI GUIDELINES (which are used very frequently by layman and health official alike when discussing nutrition and exercise) is actually pretty healthy; the original post questioned whether someone could be obese, able to run a mile, and still be healthier than someone who is skinny but not physically fit enough to run a mile. I addressed that with the qualifier of 'according to BMI' included.
Also, eve if people do pig out, Chipotle has better options for people trying to keep within a calorie budget. A salad bowl with meat, salsa, and guac is really filling and under 500 calories.
I usually eat a Chipotle burrito for lunch on work days. According to their site's calculator, my burrito is 970 Calories, but given that I'm a regular they usually make me large burritos, so I estimate the Calories to be closer to 1200 or 1300. But I exercise regularly and only eat two meals per day, so it's honestly the best thing I could ask for: tasty calories with a lot of protein, made of seemingly real food, that I don't have to prepare for myself.
> A couple 15-minute light walks to and from the bus stop and the apartment/office can bring one's energy expenditure up to 3000 calories in a day
Those numbers seems off. A 10km running session (~1 hour) burns approximately 800kcal. You would need quite a lot of "15-minute light walks" to go from 2000kcal/day to 3000. Way more than 4 times a day.
I do agree that the 2000 calories/day, or 2500 if you exercise moderately, is not the whole story. However, I think it is a very decent estimation for most people, as long as you're not a professional athlete or deviate from the norm one way or another.
1. Many people don't finish what they order in one meal. I can generally get two meals out of a Chipotle burrito. Many do, of course, but that can't be sussed out of the data they used. In addition, the chips sides are sized to share, and I'd wager that most people who order those do share with someone else.
2. It's a mistaken assumption that one meal ought to be only 1/3 of your daily calorie intake. Most of the meals came in around 1000 calories, but I also bet that for most people, this is their largest meal of the day.
3. The recommended maximum sodium intake of 2.4g is probably too low based on many recent studies. Sodium intake is only a significant risk for a very small handful of the population, and in fact low sodium intake is as risky if not more risky, and there's good evidence that 2.4g/day is on the low end of long-term positive health outcomes.
Given the freshness and quality of the ingredients at Chipotle, and the simplicity and openness with which the food is prepared, focusing on calorie and sodium counts is an incomplete way to assess the healthiness of the food. I guarantee that a meal with fewer calories from McDonalds or in a microwaveable box is going to be overall far less healthy.