caloric value of an orange?

I've been using fitday for a while and have been blithely entering 1 orange each time I ate one. For example, if I use Fitday's definition of "Orange, raw, California, naval" and select 1 "fruit (2 7/8" dia)", fitday tells me: 64 calories

However, if I go to the USDA National Nutrient Database, it reports that 1 "Orange, raw, navels" is 69 calories. Minor discrepancy, yes.
More significantly, it says that the same orange weighs 140g.

On my (good quality) kitchen scale, I see my orange weighs about 290g (and that's *after* the peel is removed) and it's roughly the same diameter.

140g (USDA & fitday) does NOT equal 290g (real life)

By weight, the oranges eat are more than 200% heavier than the oranges that fitday is talking about.

Now plausibly, the orange I am eating is particularly "well-hydrated".
I've certainly had my share of dried out oranges that are about the same size but probably weigh 50% less. Presumably though, the caloric value is the same. But is that even what fitday/USDA is measuring? I bet they're using good-quality fresh oranges.

Either way it strikes me that weight is not the best way to assess calories in an orange. And I'm wondering if I've long been vastly underestimating the amount of calories I'm consuming from oranges.

By the way, I've noticed the same problem with grapefruit. They weigh about half what the USDA says they should.

The problem is that I'm not sure the number is even consistent. There are so many parameters involved in caloric value that it will change from one batch to the next in completely random fashion. For instance, for fruits :
- precise specie of fruit. Some tables just have "apples" and "oranges"
- country of origin, location within the country
- time of season, fruits usually get higher in sugar as they mature
- use of fertilizers, organic fruits tend to be smaller and lower in sugar
- weather, on dry warm years, fruits will be higher in sugars
- sun exposure, depending on what hillside the fruits were grown, they will have very different properties. That's why you always have a good and a bad hillside for wine.

The same goes for a lot of food, like meat, dairy, eggs... The only reliable food is the 100% chemical kind, that you shouldn't eat anyway... So, consistency is not really an option. You can't even rely on random variations to cancel each others. If you have a warm spring, all the fruits will tend to move the same way into higher caloric values. If your local supermarket switches from one producer to another, the shift in caloric value will also be long term.
The number is real only if you accept that it has a pretty large number of inaccurary, like 20% or more.

Right, there are many times that I have put in 1.5 (or whatever seems appropriate) for the fruit/veggie value if I thought that it was 1.5x larger than "average." I have been trying to do more with, if the scale is doing what I want, I must be doing something right...

This is why I only use 1 program to get my caloric values from. And use nothing else but this program. You will get the fell after a while for how your body works with the values given by the program when used daily. If you bounce around to every chart known you will eventually go insane.

Well calorie counts are just a tool (as are carb counts, calories burned, etc.). I understand that you are trying to fine tune it but I think that maybe you are stressing about this too much? At any rate, I do applaud you for eating a varied diet. That's really a good thing.

I have been in a broccoli run at dinner. Since broccoli seems to be about done for the year, I need to find some new dinner time veggies!

P.S. The elliptical said 828 calories burned yesterday. So does that mean 828 or 80% of that 662 or what?

But if you are consistent with it then the number is real. It may not be the exact number of calories that you eat but it is a useful tracking tool. If your bathroom scale is consistenly incorrect and the number goes down (but does not match the number at the doctor's office), did your weight go up or down?

I know what you mean! Butternut squash is about to disappear and I need to decide what I'll be eating for lunch till the lettuce & spinach come up :-/

Yes, I do think 50% calorie differentials are significant factors. If it were 10% or even 20%, I wouldn't mention it - but 50%? Wow!
That's just way too inaccurate.

Yes, I'm pursuing weight loss. And I'm trying to make the most of the tools at hand. It seems to me that if fitday/USDA are off by 50%, maybe I'm using them incorrectly or inefficiently. Knowing that many others here use these same tools, I'm merely looking for experience using these tools.

The scale is still headed down although it's less steep than would be predicted by simply counting calories. That's why I started using a scale, just to doublecheck what fitday is telling me.

Simply "eating less" won't work for me because I don't eat the same thing every day or even every week. Some weeks I eat no oranges while other weeks I eat quite a few. I go with the flow. When the stores are carrying good oranges at a good price, I'll buy them. Otherwise
I'll buy something else. (Don't get me wrong - I'm not obsessed with oranges. They're just an example here.)

So far I'm finding that most of the fitday calorie numbers are dead-on, exactly what they should be when I doublecheck them with the scale and the USDA database. This makes me happy because I've gotten pretty comfortable entering things like "1 large apple" knowing that it might be off by 10% or even 15% but knowing it's not significant in the scheme of things.

But since I've been using the scale, I've run into a few foods that show surprising deviations - and the oranges stood out as the most remarkable one so far. That's what prompted me to ask here if there's something about measuring oranges that I don't understand.

Don, what direction is the scale going these days?

I am not a fan of calorie counting but am currently doing so to refresh a sense of awareness and responsibilty of what goes down the hatch.

Even Carnegie hall prodigies have to practice their scales and get back to basics on a regular basis.

If one must count, I would prefer to do so in 'portions" but portions themselves are composed of calories (energy), weight, measurements, nutruients, fiber and water.

Two more options. use the program with higher counts to keep yourself in line, lower ones to feel virtuous.

Not meaning to be irreverant or insensitive but do you think the calorie differentials in the various nutrient value interpretations of oranges are the significant factor in your nutrition program? Are you pursuing weight loss or just scientific accuracy?

Lately we become more and more aware that the government is not always a reliable source of information. This is the same government that promotes 5-12 servings of grain products daily.