[6cd6beb]

>if you can't tell how many calories are involved on each side of the equation, it's a meaningless measure.

Incorrect. It's an imprecise measure. You said "Some studies show as much as a 20% difference in what was on the label and the actual caloric content". So then the labels are accurate within a 20% margin of error at worst.

Sounds like a pedantic little nag but then again

- "Star Spangled Blizzard - Mini" - 430 calories

- 1 serving of broccoli (1/2 cup, cooked) - 25 calories

A 50% margin of error would be fine given some of the choices out there. With that said, you usually don't pick between a dq blizzard or broccoli. More reasonable comparisons would be a blizzard vs water (0 cal) or broccoli vs french fries (regular size - 290 cal).

In a nutshell: if a thermostat's off by up to 10 degrees it can still ballpark whether the temperature's livable.

https://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/Company/Nutrition/Treats/

https://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/Company/Nutrition/Treats/

https://www.livestrong.com/article/402398-what-is-a-serving-...

[falcolas]

This is, almost literally, a comparison between apples and orange candy. The two are so incomparable that it's meaningless.

Now then, if you were comparing a Starbuck's chocolate muffin and a Blizzard as a treat to fit into your diet without blowing it - could you?

[forgottenpass]

if you were comparing a Starbuck's chocolate muffin and a Blizzard as a treat to fit into your diet without blowing it - could you?

If I'm having a "treat" then I'm already blowing my diet; regardless of if the number fits within a calorie goal.

A calorie budget is a bit like a financial budget. Just because I have allocated a point up to which I can "spend" each day, the long-term goals are a force to minimize day-to-day spend even within that allocation.