Have We Gotten Calories Wrong All This Time? Study Challenges 130 Years Of Nutrition Science
StudyFinds Analysis
May 29, 2026 (StudyFinds) – Every nutrition label in America is built on the same set of numbers: 4 calories per gram of protein, 4 per gram of carbohydrate, 9 per gram of fat. Those figures trace back to formulas developed in the late 1800s, known as the Atwater factors, and they were a genuine scientific achievement for their time. The problem is that they treat the human digestive system like a simple furnace, one that processes food the same way in every person, every time. A team of researchers has now built a mathematical model that accounts for what the old method ignores, and in a small controlled trial, their results suggest the century-old formula has been getting the math wrong, particularly on a typical Western diet.
Called DAMM (Digestion, Absorption, and Microbial Metabolism), the new model tracks food energy step by step as it moves through the digestive system, from the first bite through what gets absorbed in the lower intestine and what gets excreted. Scientists at Arizona State University and AdventHealth Translational Research Institute conducted the research, published in the journal PLOS ONE.
Gut bacteria actively break down undigested food, especially fiber and resistant starch, producing small molecules called short-chain fatty acids that the body absorbs and uses for energy. Atwater assumes this microbial contribution is the same for everyone, regardless of diet or individual. DAMM says that assumption is wrong.
How Scientists Tested the DAMM Calorie Model
To test DAMM, researchers drew on data from a previously completed clinical trial involving 17 healthy men and women. Each participant consumed two very different diets in a randomized order, with each person as their own comparison point to control for differences like age, sex, and ethnicity.
One diet was a whole-foods plan built around high amounts of fiber and resistant starch, the kinds of carbohydrates that pass through the small intestine mostly undigested and serve as fuel for gut bacteria. A Western diet was the other option: high in processed foods and low in fiber. Both were precisely calibrated to match each participant’s individual energy needs, prepared in a dedicated kitchen, and monitored for more than 99% adherence. Participants spent 11 days on each diet at home, then 11 days in a specially equipped facility where researchers measured their energy output. A washout period of at least 14 days separated the two phases.
Researchers measured how much energy participants actually absorbed by analyzing fecal samples collected over six days and tracked methane gas production over 23-hour periods inside a room-sized metabolic chamber. They also measured how long food took to travel through the large intestine using a swallowable electronic capsule. Genetic testing of fecal samples identified populations of methane-producing microbes in the gut.
Old Formula vs. New Model: How Big Is the Gap?
When researchers compared DAMM’s predictions to actual measurements, the improvement over Atwater was clear. DAMM achieved a fit between predicted and measured energy absorption of 96%, compared to 88% for Atwater. Measured in gCOD, a unit of chemical energy in food, Atwater’s predictions were off by about 22 units per day on average, while DAMM’s were off by only about 2.5.
On the Western diet specifically, Atwater consistently underestimated how much energy participants were actually absorbing, a statistically significant bias that DAMM did not share. Researchers suggest this happens because the old method undercounts the energy contribution of short-chain fatty acids produced by gut bacteria, particularly on diets where fiber is scarce.
Gut Microbes May Be Hiding in Biofilms, Skewing Standard Tests
Only some people harbor methane-producing microbes in their guts, and when researchers tried to estimate those populations using fecal samples, DAMM’s methane predictions were off by a wide margin, at least ten times lower than actual measurements.
Researchers argue that many of these microbes may not be floating freely in stool samples at all. Rather, they may be retained in a biofilm near the intestinal lining, where standard fecal samples would miss much of their population. When the model was adjusted to assume the true population was larger than fecal samples suggested, predictions improved dramatically, jumping from a poor fit to a 76% match with measured methane output.
Certain methane-producing microbes have been linked in other research to conditions including obesity and anorexia, though the mechanisms are not yet understood. If these organisms are embedded near the gut lining rather than in the gut contents, that position could amplify their interactions with the body in ways that standard stool-based microbiome studies would consistently miss.
Microbiome Variation May Explain Why the Same Diet Works Differently for Different People
Gut microbiome composition is known to vary by sex, age, race, geography, genetics, and health status. A model that accounts for what those microbes are actually doing, rather than treating their contribution as fixed and identical for everyone, could help researchers eventually understand why the same diet produces different outcomes in different people. DAMM still needs to be validated in studies designed specifically around weight loss or weight gain before that potential can be confirmed, but it is the first model built to ask that question seriously.
Reviewed by John Anderer
Research led by Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown (Arizona State University)
Disclaimer: This article is based on a single small study involving 17 healthy adults and should not be taken as medical or dietary advice. The DAMM model has not yet been validated in clinical settings involving weight loss, weight gain, or metabolic disease. Consult a qualified healthcare professional before making changes to your diet or health routine.