"The big fat calorie counting con"
Options
Replies
-
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.
THIS!! /thread0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I wonder how people controlled their weight before calories were invented. I wonder how the animal kingdom does it.
Good question. When I was younger in the 60s and 70s, nobody counted calories to lose weight. My mother wanted to lose ten pounds once (she was never overweight, except for maybe those ten pounds), and she just cut her portions back and lost ten pounds over several months. Thus far, I have not learned that tool.
0 -
Yep. My cat Buddy (gray and white tabby in my profile picture)weighed 22 pounds once when I was free feeding my cats. My vet told me to put him on a diet. I no longer free feed either of the kitties, and Buddy is now down to 17 pounds and healthy as a....not horse, lion.herrspoons wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I wonder how people controlled their weight before calories were invented. I wonder how the animal kingdom does it.
The animal kingdom does it by a process of selection in the wild. Too little to eat and you starve, too much and you can't catch your food or the predators can catch you. If you have a house cat it will happily continue to eat until it nearly explodes.
As for people, people have been dieting for thousands of years - the word diet derives from the Greek diatia - the culture in the ancient Greek City Sates was one of athleticism and physical perfection, particularly in the ruling classes, as the poorer folk couldn't afford the foods. So they learned how much they could eat and what gave the best results over a period of decades. In effect, this was a very early form of calorie counting.
0 -
from skimming the article all i read was "fat is good for you even though it's high in calories, therefore calorie counting is bogus".
there's no actual argument about why cico is wrong, nor are there any numbers to support their conjecture about calories being an outdated unit of measurement. not to mention, it seems to be working on the assumption that people are not able to make proper food choices and count calories at the same time.
if you are eating 5000 calories of healthy, whole foods per day, you are still eating 5000 calories per day. this is just sensationalist blabbering for lazy people to post on their facebook walls as proof of why their diet isn't working.
ETA: i also lost 100+ lbs not counting calories, but i was still eating significantly less than i was before i started losing. clearly, i was operating at a deficit. just cause you don't count calories doesn't mean they don't exist.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I wonder how people controlled their weight before calories were invented. I wonder how the animal kingdom does it.
Not sure what you mean by "calories were invented" I'm pretty sure we didn't invent the calorie we just decided to measure them based on an observable standard. To me your question sounds like "I wonder what people did before we invented fire".
If you mean calorie counting well there have been diets for longer than I have been alive and I remember the 70's and the trial of Dr Scarsdale's murder and my mother attending Weight Watchers meetings every Wed night (plus WW is older than I am by a few years). I don't think they counted calories as much as they do today but they certainly had diet plans for a long time.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »But for losing weight? No. Counting calories whilst eating reasonably is the only effective means of controlling the process.
Really?
Then I'm confused as to how I've lost over 100 pounds...not counting calories?
Well I'm guessing that, since you had at least 100 pounds to lose, you simply cut down on the amount you were eating and monitored things on the scales. That'll work if you have a lot of weight to lose, less so if you're getting down to those last 20 pounds or so.
I've been down to the "last 20 pounds or so".
Without calorie counting.
Let me just get some clarification here, just in case I'm misintepreting your point.
Are you saying that it's impossible to lose all one's weight without the aide of calorie counting?0 -
So from what I read in the article (ignoring the commentary from the journalist) those who conducted the study aren't saying that calories aren't important they are just trying to say composition of calories is important as well. I think calories are important but quality of the calories is important too. That's not a radical idea.
"Published by the Cambridge University Press, the research centres around the idea that two foods with exactly the same calorie content will be processed by the body differently. As a result, the calorie-equal foods will have different effects."
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. "A calorie’s worth of salmon (largely protein) and a calorie’s worth of olive oil (purely fat) have very different biological effects from a calorie’s worth of white rice (refined carbohydrate) – particularly with regard to body weight and fatness."0 -
Whether or not you counted calories, you ate at a calorie deficit to do so well weight loss.
Of course I did. That fact is not in question.Man, I wish I was at that place where I didn't count calories, but every time I have tried to eat intuitively, for lack of a better phrase, I have ended up overeating and gaining weight. For me, counting calories and logging is my accountability factor.
Learning about the basics of calories was imperative once upon a time. It's eye opening when you're first introduced to the entire concept of the calorie.
But after that? Honestly there has never been a time when I put on weight and wasn't aware that I was just plain overeating on very high calorie foods. Weight "creep" doesn't surprise me personally. I know what I'm doing, even if I don't like what I'm doing.
0 -
Call it what you will, bottom line is, in order to lose weight, you must eat less "calories" than you burn.0
-
Basically.
Find a way to create a deficit that works for you and have at it.
Hopefully it's the same method that you'll use to maintain your loss, or you're able to transfer successfully to a method that does.
But at the end of the day the statistics for the long term success for all methods, including WLS, are pretty poor. So we're all fighting a life long battle for control. Good luck to us.0 -
I agree that the article isn't really debunking calorie counting so much as it is insisting that composition of calories is of great importance to weight loss.
The "revolutionary", "ground shaking" bit is this:
"In other words,‘eating more’ and ‘moving less’, thought to be causes of body fattening by calorie-focused thinking, may actually be a result of body fattening."
The authors then go on to describe the biochemistry that they feel proves this. Basically that eating too many carbs throws hormones so far out of whack that internal fat stores start to build up, then a person's appetite increases and their desire to move decreases, then they gain weight. A central part of their argument is that energy intake and energy expenditure are physiologically linked, so when you affect the intake equation (by eating to many carbs and messing up your hormones), you also affect the expenditure side which supposedly makes you want to move less. Which then feeds back to the intake side, making you want to eat more.
It's an interesting argument, but at it's root it's just another way of saying carbs/ sugar bad, fat/ protein good and it treads a little too close to "magic bullet for weight loss" territory for my taste. It's also basically a review article where the authors use other people's research on specific topics to construct their own little story that they think is correct. I'll be waiting for a real study to provide some evidence before I worry about it too much.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Nope. But it's a lot more difficult and imprecise, and less effective.
Difficulty is subjective. The roads I take to my deficit aren't more "difficult" than counting/weighing/logging for me. It is less precise, though not necessarily less effective.herrspoons wrote: »How do you know you're in a deficit if you don't calorie count?
I lose weight. I don't need to calorie count to tell me I'm in a deficit no more than I need an odometer to tell me I'm traveling a distance.
There is nothing mysterious about creating a deficit. People were creating deficits long before they knew what a calorie was. Calorie counting is a method to help create deficit, not the deficit itself. And thus there are plenty of other methods to help create said deficit.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Nope. But it's a lot more difficult and imprecise, and less effective.
Difficulty is subjective. The roads I take to my deficit aren't more "difficult" than counting/weighing/logging for me. It is less precise, though not necessarily less effective.herrspoons wrote: »How do you know you're in a deficit if you don't calorie count?
I lose weight. I don't need to calorie count to tell me I'm in a deficit no more than I need an odometer to tell me I'm traveling a distance.
There is nothing mysterious about creating a deficit. People were creating deficits long before they knew what a calorie was. Calorie counting is a method to help create deficit, not the deficit itself. And thus there are plenty of other methods to help create said deficit.
I completely agree with this.
I always advocate starting off with calorie counting, but some people can just intuitively eat less and lose weight (my sister being one of them). If you don't need to count to lose, why the heck would you? I'm completely jealous of people who can do this.
Unfortunately, I don't think I will ever be one of them. Every time I think I have the hang of this and stop, I gain again. This time I'm sticking with it for good.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »If you don't need to count to lose, why the heck would you? I'm completely jealous of people who can do this.
Beats me. But there are people around here who seem almost insulted if you decide to use other methods to create deficit.SingRunTing wrote: »Unfortunately, I don't think I will ever be one of them. Every time I think I have the hang of this and stop, I gain again. This time I'm sticking with it for good.
I hope my wife comes to this realization. She's tried a number of different programs through the years. The only way she's able to lose without counting and tracking is on restrictive programs that basically guarantee you loss, and she never sticks to those for any great length of time. She's somebody who, no matter how much nutritional infor she gets, is just not good at all with estimating what she eats. She needs to become a counter/tracker/logger, for everything she puts in her mouth. She's the kind who gets frustrated that she's maintaining, yet really has trouble seeing how many calories she's truly eating.
I don't need to count, but I respect that others do and I'm super glad that the tools are available for those who need that kind of accountability.0 -
Counting calories and counting macros are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think it would be quite difficult. But hey, that's just me and my 40lb weight loss talking, what do I know?0
-
Interesting article, not exactly new or breakthrough information! Fats good for you.....who knew?0
-
herrspoons wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »Basically.
Find a way to create a deficit that works for you and have at it.
Hopefully it's the same method that you'll use to maintain your loss, or you're able to transfer successfully to a method that does.
But at the end of the day the statistics for the long term success for all methods, including WLS, are pretty poor. So we're all fighting a life long battle for control. Good luck to us.
How do you know you're in a deficit if you don't calorie count?
You lose weight! It's not rocket science!
0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »The Big Calorie Counting Strawman
weightology.net/?p=1279The strawman is that the concept of calorie counting is flawed because it ignores food quality and treats all food calories the same. This is utter nonsense. Calorie counting is simply an awareness tool, no different from regularly stepping on the scale to check your body weight. Both are types of self-monitoring. Now, just because the scale can’t tell you how much fat or muscle you’re losing doesn’t mean it’s not useful. Likewise, just because calorie counting can’t tell you the quality of those calories doesn’t mean it’s not useful. You can still overeat on “quality” calories and not reach your weight loss goals. Ultimately, calories still matter whether you like to believe it or not.
this guy talks too much sense.
this article has been krieger'd, goodnight.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions