We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

"The big fat calorie counting con"

BarryK15
BarryK15 Posts: 6
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
I guess not everyone is on board with MFP. I don't know, it worked pretty well for me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11249611/The-big-fat-calorie-counting-con.html?fb
«13456789

Replies

  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    tY1csir.gif
  • hamoncan
    hamoncan Posts: 148 Member
    "For Dr Lucan and his fellow researcher James DiNicolantonio, rather than simply counting calories to help dieting, we should be looking at the type of food we are eating."

    Real ground breaking stuff there! /sarcasm
  • DeWoSa
    DeWoSa Posts: 496 Member
    Interesting article. But not as interesting as the sh**storm that's about to descend upon this thread!
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    tumblr_mehnylZOJ71qcv9vp.gif
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    edited November 2014
    hamoncan wrote: »
    "For Dr Lucan and his fellow researcher James DiNicolantonio, rather than simply counting calories to help dieting, we should be looking at the type of food we are eating."

    Real ground breaking stuff there! /sarcasm

    If you overeat ANY food you'll gain bodyfat. I am still waiting for the 10,000-calories-a-day -approved-food list to not gain weight diet. I guess I'll keep waiting
  • KylaDenay
    KylaDenay Posts: 1,585 Member
    Well this should be interesting.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    It is much easier to get people to watch how much they eat if all they have to track is calories. The big problem is that the way we calculate the number of calories in food is flawed. Our stomachs aren't a furnace that burns food to produce energy, and yet, that's how we calculate calories. It would be better if we calculated calories based on the energy the body can get from the food. Not that it is really that far off.
  • SingRunTing
    SingRunTing Posts: 2,604 Member
    So macros are important?? Who knew!! Mind = blown!!

    They're basically saying that macros are more important than calories. I can live with that, but if you overeat on macros, you're still overeating. Not sure how you would track macros without tracking calories as well.
  • CupcakeCrusoe
    CupcakeCrusoe Posts: 1,467 Member
    OP, I don't think you meant to do what you just did, since you said counting calories worked for you.

    That said, in.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Well, I got morbidly obese by overeating medium-chain triglycerides in particular, and dropped 100 pounds by calorie counting and eating potatoes, which doesn't work apparently. Magic?
  • Branstin
    Branstin Posts: 2,320 Member
    There isn’t any new revelation in the article. More importantly, I wish the author takes his head out of his butt and realize just because people promote calorie counting they are not dismissing the importance of macros. If this was the case then MFP would only have a total calorie column and not bother to suggest a breakdown of calories into macro and micro nutrients. Furthermore, counting calories still needs to be done until a person is better able to grasp portion control.
  • skinnyD2308
    skinnyD2308 Posts: 92 Member
    I think most people on here subscribe to both calorie counting and watching macros (the contents of the calorie). The concern in the article seems to be that people won't eat healthy fats because the calorie count is high, but that healthy fats shouldn't been excluded from our diets because they are good for us. Because I know this, I do spend calories on healthy sources of fats, but I still stay within my calorie count, because I stronger suspect that if I ate too many of any macro - no matter how healthy, I wouldn't not be currently losing weight.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    I measure my healthy fats with my tablespoon, and treat them more like "medicine". This includes peanut butter and nuts. I do notice the medicine goes "down" nicely and keeps everything running smoothly.
  • NextPage
    NextPage Posts: 609 Member
    I think that there may have been too much of an emphasis on calorie counting at the expense of nutrition and macro analysis but calories are always going to be important. Focusing on a specific macro will not help much if you still over eat. However, if you are tending to always over eat because there wasn't enough emphasis on food choices that made you feel full and satisfied, then concentrating on the right balance of macros for you will help. It is interesting that most people on MFP do look at macros, calorie counting and exercise but articles like to pinpoint one factor as being the "truth" and debunking other factors. Of course it isn't very "sexy" to write "exercise, eat a wide variety of food types and eat in moderation". Luckily most of us know this and act accordingly.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    skinnyD2308 wrote: »
    I think most people on here subscribe to both calorie counting and watching macros (the contents of the calorie). The concern in the article seems to be that people won't eat healthy fats because the calorie count is high, but that healthy fats shouldn't been excluded from our diets because they are good for us. Because I know this, I do spend calories on healthy sources of fats, but I still stay within my calorie count, because I stronger suspect that if I ate too many of any macro - no matter how healthy, I wouldn't not be currently losing weight.

    I'm currently eating a vegan diet, barely making it to 30 grams of protein a day, almost always over on crabs and fat and I'm still losing consistently. Really.. macros are for general health/satiety/muscle mass. They have little to do with weight loss calorie for calorie.
  • trinatrina1984
    trinatrina1984 Posts: 1,018 Member
    200.gif
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    post-35676-Beth-Behrs-Kat-Dennings-Conan-B7Zx.gif
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    the paper is set to shake the foundations of the diet industry.

    Read the article, hope they follow up and see. If its proven then they could simply rejig calories for certain foods.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,251 Member
    It's gonna be a long week here....
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    GuitarJerry wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    skinnyD2308 wrote: »
    I think most people on here subscribe to both calorie counting and watching macros (the contents of the calorie). The concern in the article seems to be that people won't eat healthy fats because the calorie count is high, but that healthy fats shouldn't been excluded from our diets because they are good for us. Because I know this, I do spend calories on healthy sources of fats, but I still stay within my calorie count, because I stronger suspect that if I ate too many of any macro - no matter how healthy, I wouldn't not be currently losing weight.

    I'm currently eating a vegan diet, barely making it to 30 grams of protein a day, almost always over on crabs and fat and I'm still losing consistently. Really.. macros are for general health/satiety/muscle mass. They have little to do with weight loss calorie for calorie.
    ^^^ This. Right here. Macros are for health.

    You can eat twinkies all day, and still lose weight if you are eating less than you burn. Is it healthy? No. Will you lose weight? Yes.

    people mix up health and weight gain/loss constantly and it's frustrating. They are very distinctly different things.

    Next someone will post about how a calorie is not a calorie and how you said they should eat Twinkies all day.....gifs will ensue.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    I couldn't care less about the calorie controversy, but I do think there needs to be a much greater conversation about macros and a de-villainization of the fat macro.
  • KylaDenay
    KylaDenay Posts: 1,585 Member
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    It's gonna be a long week here....
    Well at least we have the holiday coming up mid week. Hopefully people take a break :)
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    edited November 2014
    The Big Calorie Counting Strawman
    weightology.net/?p=1279
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    edited November 2014
    Calorie counting certainly has worked for me as far as weight loss goes, but macro ratio seems to work best for energy level and satieaity (for me).
  • nicsflyingcircus
    nicsflyingcircus Posts: 2,951 Member
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Cool story, bro.


    Random aside; my 14yo daughter uses this expression.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    SingRunTing wrote: »
    So macros are important?? Who knew!! Mind = blown!!

    They're basically saying that macros are more important than calories. I can live with that, but if you overeat on macros, you're still overeating. Not sure how you would track macros without tracking calories as well.

    OK, good, this was my take on the article as well. I mean, sure, it would be great to eat the optimal ratio all the time. But for most people, at the end of the day, eat less than your burn and strive for a "well-rounded" diet. I don't see how anything they presented makes calories obsolete.
  • maoribadger
    maoribadger Posts: 1,837 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    skinnyD2308 wrote: »
    I think most people on here subscribe to both calorie counting and watching macros (the contents of the calorie). The concern in the article seems to be that people won't eat healthy fats because the calorie count is high, but that healthy fats shouldn't been excluded from our diets because they are good for us. Because I know this, I do spend calories on healthy sources of fats, but I still stay within my calorie count, because I stronger suspect that if I ate too many of any macro - no matter how healthy, I wouldn't not be currently losing weight.

    I'm currently eating a vegan diet, barely making it to 30 grams of protein a day, almost always over on crabs and fat and I'm still losing consistently. Really.. macros are for general health/satiety/muscle mass. They have little to do with weight loss calorie for calorie.

    OT but am amused by your typo. A vegan who is over on crabs ;)

  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 7,041 Member
    maoribadger wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    skinnyD2308 wrote: »
    I think most people on here subscribe to both calorie counting and watching macros (the contents of the calorie). The concern in the article seems to be that people won't eat healthy fats because the calorie count is high, but that healthy fats shouldn't been excluded from our diets because they are good for us. Because I know this, I do spend calories on healthy sources of fats, but I still stay within my calorie count, because I stronger suspect that if I ate too many of any macro - no matter how healthy, I wouldn't not be currently losing weight.

    I'm currently eating a vegan diet, barely making it to 30 grams of protein a day, almost always over on crabs and fat and I'm still losing consistently. Really.. macros are for general health/satiety/muscle mass. They have little to do with weight loss calorie for calorie.

    OT but am amused by your typo. A vegan who is over on crabs ;)

    Gotta love autocorrect...
  • LeenaGee
    LeenaGee Posts: 749 Member
    An extract from the article "The big fat calorie counting con"

    "It's time we update and mass broadcast a more advanced nutritional understanding of food. Calorie counting has had its day; if we don't move on from its archaic ways, the worrying trends around obesity in the Western world will only continue to worsen, and our health as a whole will decline."
This discussion has been closed.

Categories