[coldtea]

>I outlined the mechanism that I think these 'counters' are actually achieving results by in spite of their atrocious data collection.

The mechanism is simple: they reduce their caloric intake, because they can track how much they eat. More or less: it doesn't have to be perfect, nor is it "atrocious" if it isn't. And you can easily just round the numbers up ("I calculated 500 for this thing, but let's say it's 600 just to be safe").

You seem to believe that any kind of "back of the envelope" / "ballpark" calculation is useless. Or that people only eat complex multi-part meals with no nutricion information, and have to gauge everything from zero all the time.

[jackvalentine]

So I went looking for any studies about peoples ability to estimate calories, since any under/over estimation compounds either way in terms of results.

It turns out like everything, that's a tricky thing to study. When people are aware that their meals are going to be scrutinised they change what they eat for the duration of the study.

I wasn't able to find a recent study that investigates people's ability to estimate calories and the variance in their estimations.

> You seem to believe that any kind of "back of the envelope" / "ballpark" calculation is useless.

I do think that anything above a "good, bad, not sure" estimate is probably going to be so inaccurate as to not be worth the effort. However the act of trying to count calories itself promotes a mindfulness of what we're eating and that can induce change.