.png)
Calories are everywhere.
From food labels to fitness trackers, they are presented as the ultimate measure of whether we’re eating “too much” or “too little.” What if I told you that the way we think about calories is outdated, overly simplistic, and doesn’t reflect how our bodies actually process food? In my previous posts, we explored the idea that calories don’t define the full nutritional value of food and debunked common calorie-related myths. Today, we’re going a step further—diving into the science behind why calorie counts aren’t as reliable as we’ve been led to believe.
Think of it this way: judging food solely by its calorie count is like judging a dancer only by their hyperextension, banana feet, or high extensions. While those traits might be impressive, they don’t tell you the whole story. What about the dancer's artistry, musicality, stamina, and technical skill? A dancer’s talent is far more than just one physical trait, just as food’s value is much more than just its calorie number. Let’s pull back the curtain even further on calories and explore why they don’t count in the way we assume they do.
the origins of calorie counting: Atwater's bomb calorimeter
The calorie counts we see on food labels today can be traced back to the work of Wilbur Atwater, an American scientist in the late 1800s. Atwater wanted to determine how much energy food provided to the body, so he developed a method using a bomb calorimeter—a device that literally burns food inside a sealed container to measure energy released as heat. The results from these experiments led to the standardized calorie values we still use today: 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, and 9 calories per gram of fat.
But Atwater didn’t stop there. He also burned human waste (yes, poop!) to measure how much energy was actually absorbed versus excreted. His findings helped refine calorie values, but here’s the problem: we are not bomb calorimeters. Burning food in a lab tells us how much potential energy it contains, but it doesn’t tell us how our bodies digest, absorb, or metabolize that food in real life.
why calories aren't a perfect measurement
So if calorie numbers are based on lab experiments rather than real human digestion, how much do they actually tell us?
The truth is, not much. Here’s why:
🔹 Digestibility matters - Not all food is absorbed the same way. Fiber, for example, provides calories on paper, but because our bodies can’t fully break it down, much of it passes through undigested. The same goes for certain resistant starches. So while a label might say “200 calories,” what you actually absorb could be much lower.
🔹 The Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) - Different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. Protein, for instance, burns the most energy during digestion—your body has to work harder to break it down compared to carbs or fats. This means that two foods with the same calorie count may have very different net effects on metabolism.
🔹 Microbiome impact - Your gut bacteria influence how many calories you extract from food. Two people can eat the same meal, but their microbiomes can cause them to absorb different amounts of energy from it.
🔹 Hormonal influence - The body doesn’t treat all calories the same way. Carbs, fats, and proteins trigger different hormonal responses, affecting hunger, satiety, and energy storage. For example, 100 calories of table sugar will spike blood sugar quickly (affecting insulin and sex hormones like estrogen and testosterone, the most), while 100 calories of protein will keep you full longer and require more energy to digest.
Here’s where the dancer analogy fits perfectly: Judging food by calories alone is like saying, "That dancer has hyperextension, so they must be a phenomenal performer." Sure, hyperextension can be a great asset, but what about their coordination, endurance, or ability to pick up choreography? Calories give us one piece of the puzzle, but they don’t tell the whole story.
the real impact on dancers + athletes
For dancers, energy balance is critical—not just for performance, but for long-term health and injury prevention. Many dancers fall into the trap of believing that tracking calories will help them optimize their diet, but the reality is far more complex.
The idea that “calories in, calories out” (CICO) determines weight or performance is overly simplistic and ignores the way different foods fuel, repair, and sustain a dancer’s body. Under-fueling—even if calories appear sufficient on paper—can lead to low energy availability (LEA), hormonal disruptions, increased injury risk, and burnout.
Instead of focusing on calorie numbers, dancers need to consider:
✅ Nutrient density (Are you getting enough vitamins + minerals by eating the rainbow?)
✅ Meal timing (Are you fueling before and after rehearsals and having meals consistently throughout the day?)
✅ Food variety (Are you eating a mix of macronutrients to sustain energy?)
moving away from calorie obsession
If calorie numbers aren’t reliable, what should dancers focus on instead?
Here’s a better approach:
1️⃣ Prioritize fueling over restriction – Rather than focusing on what you can cut out, think about what you can add to support your energy needs.
2️⃣ Ditch calorie-tracking apps – These tools often lead to obsessive behaviors and don’t account for the complexity of digestion, hormones, and metabolism. (PS - It's not a REQUIREMENT to complete a food journal when working with a licensed dance nutritionist.)
3️⃣ Listen to your body – Hunger cues, energy levels, and performance quality are far better indicators of whether you’re fueling correctly than a calorie count ever will be.
Imagine if a dancer was constantly told, “Your high extensions matter more than anything else.” They’d start focusing solely on stretching, neglecting strength, artistry, and musicality. Eventually, their performance would suffer. This is exactly what happens when dancers fixate on calorie numbers—we lose sight of the bigger picture of fueling for performance.
conclusion
Calories exist, but they don’t count in the way we think they do.
The human body is not a bomb calorimeter, and digestion is far too complex to be reduced to a simple math equation. While calories may provide a rough estimate of energy intake, they don’t determine what's needed for your personal empowered performance, satiety, metabolism, or long-term health.
Dancers, your body deserves more than a number. Instead of fixating on calories, shift your focus to nutrient-rich meals, consistent fueling, and performance-driven eating habits.
If you’re ready to move away from calorie obsession and start fueling for strength, energy, and endurance, let’s chat! Schedule a free Performance Nutrition Discovery Call today and let’s make sure your nutrition is supporting your dancing—not working against it.
references
Yeo, G. (2021). Why Calories Don’t Count: How We Got the Science of Weight Loss Wrong. Orion Publishing Group.
Atwater, W. O. (1899). Principles of Nutrition and Nutritive Value of Food. U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 21. 👈 It's OLD!
Hall, K. D. et al. (2012). "Energy balance and its components: Implications for body weight regulation." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 95(4), 989–994. Link
High Performance Nutrition for Masters Athletes. (n.d.). Human Kinetics.
How is the caloric value of food determined? (1973). U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Retrieved from https://www.usda.gov 👈 It's OLD!
Sims, S. (2016). ROAR: How to Match Your Food and Fitness to Your Unique Female Physiology for Optimum Performance, Great Health, and a Strong, Lean Body for Life. Rodale Books.
Sims, S. (2022). Next Level: Your Guide to Kicking Ass, Feeling Great, and Crushing Goals Through Menopause and Beyond. Rodale Books.
Westerterp, K. R. (2004). "Diet-induced thermogenesis." Nutrition & Metabolism, 1, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-7075-1-5
Comments