Buzz
Research over the past few years has shown that whole nuts are less calorie-dense than earlier believed. This shift is now being reflected on updated food labels. For instance, a KIND bar previously listed as 200 calories will now display 180 calories.
KIND stated via email that they consider themselves the first snack company to revise their labeling. While most brands rely on calorie data from a USDA database, which hasn’t been updated, the scientific basis for these calorie adjustments is widely recognized.
Why Were the Calorie Counts for Nuts So Inaccurate?
A calorie measures energy. If you had an engaging science teacher in high school, you might remember burning food—literally setting it on fire—and measuring the temperature change in a beaker of water placed above the flame. The greater the temperature rise, the more energy was stored in that Dorito or whatever you burned.
While the human body operates differently from a classroom experiment, it has been understood for over a century that our bodies extract approximately 9 calories per gram of fat, 4 calories per gram of protein, and so on. Over time, scientists have refined these calculations to account for variations in how different foods are digested.
However, whole nuts were not closely examined until recent studies.
This discovery was made through a rather unpleasant experiment (apologies in advance).
Nuts, as plant-based foods, consist of cells with sturdy walls. These walls give nuts their satisfying crunch but also trap some nutrients, particularly fats, making them less accessible to our digestive system. When nuts are chopped or ground into almond butter, nearly all nutrients are released. However, whole nuts often pass through the body with many nutrient-rich cells still intact.
You can probably guess where this is headed. In recent studies conducted by the USDA, participants were given diets with and without nuts. Researchers analyzed the food consumed by burning and drying it, then performed the same process on their waste to determine how many calories remained undigested.
While the experiments were more intricate, the core concept involved participants collecting all their urine and feces in a cooler between lab visits. A big thank you to these courageous individuals for contributing to scientific progress.
What does this mean for someone like me who loves nuts?
The findings revealed that cashews contain 16% fewer calories than earlier estimates, walnuts have 21% fewer, and almonds have 32% fewer.
Despite the reduced calorie count, the updated KIND bar labels do not alter the macronutrient information—such as fat grams—because these values reflect the nutrient content measured in the food itself. While your body absorbs less fat than previously believed, the fat grams listed on the label remain unchanged. Essentially, the numbers don’t perfectly align, but that’s how the labeling system works.
A fascinating observation from the studies is that individuals extracted varying amounts of calories from nuts. For instance, while a serving of cashews averaged 137 calories, one person absorbed only 105 calories, whereas another derived 151 calories. This variability highlights that calorie counting is inherently imprecise, as each body processes food differently, among other factors.
If you enjoy whole nuts, they’re not as calorie-dense as you might have assumed. This is particularly useful information for those meticulously tracking calories or indulging in nuts frequently.
Updated 1/15/2020 at 3:08pm to include clarification from a KIND spokesperson regarding the unchanged macronutrient labeling.
