Comment by owenpalmer
10 months ago
My reasoning for evaluating the relevancy of this app:
1. If the food being scanned has a nutrition label, I don't need this app.
2. If there's no nutrition label, the app can't possibly extrapolate the nutritional information. It can't estimate portion size or the ingredients in the recipe.
3. If the app can't extrapolate nutritional information, I don't need this app.
4. I don't need this app.
It's not about being right, it's about appearing to be right
I think the key insight here is that actually counting calories is not needed by the app's demographic. Possibly just getting them to pay attention to what they are eating is enough for them to see progress or at least feel like they are doing something.
> It's not about being right, it's about appearing to be right
What you need is a LLM.
Isn't this basically what they used, a multimodal AI?
Recently I have started running dish descriptions through deepseek-r1:8b to give a rough estimate on calories and it is sufficient, at least for my cooking. Of course this will hallucinate on complex cases, and arguably simple dishes are easy to count. Still, counting by hand is tedious compared.
I am happy with a rough number on a dish, I do not need precision to know if I am not eating enough calories. Note there are errors on the result and reasoning, but still this dish should be around the ballpark of 500 cal. I figure running this through a larger model might be more accurate. I wondered if maybe I wanted to create an app for that, but I am happy not to.
Yes, simple descriptions could be parsed with NLP, and yes, calories could be inferred with a database.
[flagged]
Money and fame aren't everything.
Some people have values and morals that they live by.
I don’t see why you believe 2 would be true. I expect a strong correlation between the visual appearance of food and its caloric content etc.
Most restaurants smuggle obscene amounts of butter and sugar into dishes to make them more delicious so you'll come back. It's not unreasonable to assume that every subcomponent of a recipe might have sugar added individually.
In packaged foods, there is a whole science of masking the sugar and fat content to make it more addictive without triggering your inbuilt satiety mechanisms [1]. This is what today's engagement optimisers did for money in the 50/60s.
You could argue that these "innovations" were precisely to subvert the intuition that visual appearance of food (and other natural sensors) can be relied on to assess their nutritional properties.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food)#:~:text=T...
> Most restaurants smuggle obscene amounts of butter
God I wish that was true. Butter is far too expensive to do that, so restaurants will use the cheapest alternative (usually soybean oil with butter flavoring) instead.
There is absolutely, unequivocally, 0 chance this can be accurate within any kind of reasonable bounds. I'm guessing you haven't done much calorie tracking if you think this could possibly be true.
I can make two dishes that look identical and have +/- 50% caloric content, easily.
> I expect a strong correlation between the visual appearance of food and its caloric content
This doesn't pass even simple scrutiny. There are so many caloric ingredients that aren't visible in food. You can't tell just by looking whether a rice dish contains half a stick of butter.
Or if it's diet coke or regular coke. Yes, it's drinks, not food, but the same concept applies.
They claim 90% accuracy, whatever that means, but I have my doubts regarding it's usefulness.
How does an app know that this piece of chicken cordon bleu is actually filled with more bacon and cheese than chicken?
Try telling a picture of diet coke from regular coke apart.
This is completely wrong. For example, you can increase the amount of oil or butter in a recipe, doubling or tripling its calorie count, and you would never be able to tell from a picture.
I imagine it just autofills the information and then you can edit it to make it more accurate
You'd have to be kind of stupid to expect it to actually be 100% accurate for all meals
3 replies →
1 tbsp of animal fat has about 900 calories.
1 tbsp of olive oil has 135 calories.
How would the app know which fat the food was cooked in?
> 1 tbsp of animal fat has about 900 calories.
This is extremely false. Please verify your sources better (and apply a skosh of critical thinking).
> 1 tbsp of olive oil has 135 calories.
This is false too, but at least it's in the right ballpark.
2 replies →
That’s not true. They have the same amount of calories roughly. It’s physically impossible for animal fat to have that many calories. Tallow has 900 calories per 100 grams while olive oil has 884. They are almost pure fat and pure fat has 9 calories per gram.