Doesn't Counting Calories Count?
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Just because somebody is not actively or obviously counting calories, doesn't mean their body isn't doing the math.
The scale and how your clothes fit (preferably tight jeans, not yoga pants) will let you know if you're eating in a deficit, surplus or maintenance.
I am aware when I'm satisfied and "should" stop eating, it's my willpower that needs working on.
That might work for you, but some of us don't get that message from our body that it has done the math. Some of us will sit down with 1 lb. of meat, then go back for another lb. over and over and over again until either we tell ourselves this is just going to make us fat and we stop eating, or we run out of meat. Here's a recent example - last Sat., I cooked a pork butt in the slow cooker. It was 3.37 lbs. when I started. I added diced onions, diced peppers, salt, black pepper, garlic salt, and water. Cooked it for hours. Throughout the day, I ate other foods for normal meals. When the roast was done, I ate it, the onions, peppers, and drank the fatty water/broth mixture it had cooked in. I was still hungry afterwards, but decided I was so far over calories already for the day that it would be best to stop before getting myself even further behind.
That isn't the first time either - I've had much larger quantities of meat and was still hungry. Should I have had no vegetables in it? Would that have made a difference? What about the salt, garlic salt, black pepper, and water? What would you suggest it would take for my body to do that math properly and let me know I'm eating too much?
Admittedly I cant imagine eating that much without feeling ill, let a lone still hungry afterward. I guess this is one reason i weigh all of my food and count my calories. I prelog my day everyday, if i logged 250g of chicken, 150g of veggies etc etc, that's exactly how much goes on my plate. I've learnt what satisfies me, and what doesn't. Obviously I'm not perfect, and i do have IDGAF days, but they are few and far between.
I also go to bed between 7-8 every night and watch tv in my bedroom, If i stay out in the living room chances are high that I'll start snacking, but once I'm in bed i couldn't be bothered getting up again.
There's something more going on with your appetite thermostat @midwesterner which i am not even going to begin to diagnose or understand. Is it honestly true hunger you're feeling or do you just like to eat and have that over stuffed feeling. Do you try to eat within your calories? For me, maintaining my weight and not ever becoming overweight again is always in the forefront of my mind. I refuse to go through this dieting crap ever again, once is enough!
I also only started gaining weight at around age 40, before that i was always at a slim normal weight, so i've only had to battle this for a few years, it hasnt been a life long struggle which i think makes a big difference.
ETA: I also walk a lot and have my fitbit synced to mfp. If i want to eat more that day then I'll exercise more to fit it in. I would struggle to stay in a deficit without exercise. It's one of THE most important things i do to maintain my weight somewhat effortlessly.
I definitely have real hunger, and have only felt "over stuffed" maybe a few times in my life. I can eat a lot, but do try to stay within my calories. I've had some pretty good runs, but I find that whether I stay within calories or not, I'm hungry anyway. It doesn't really make a difference what I'm eating.
I may be hungry because I don't make any amylin, but that doesn't come close to explaining the magnitude of my appetite. My point is that we can't all just eat at maintenance based on comfort / feeling / some internal cue.2 -
Oh new quote for the low-carb diets that don't count calories.
This is from "The Big Fat Lie" Chapter 10In 1919, an internist with a practice in New York City named Blake Donaldson stumbled on the diet independently. As he recounts in his memoir, Strong Medicine (1961), he was frustrated by his inability to help obese patients lose weight simply by cutting back on calories. He discovered the high-fat diet after consulting experts at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, he says, who told him that the Inuit lived mostly disease-free, surviving almost entirely on the “fattest meat they could kill.” Donaldson decided to give it a try. Banning all sugar and flour, he prescribed mainly meat to his patients: fatty meat three times a day. There may be an “upper level of meat intake” where people can no longer lose weight, he concluded, “but I’ve never found it.”
Also from chapter 10 of "The Big Fat Lie"Pennington’s diet did not restrict total calories. The twenty male executives he selected ate, on average, over 3,000 calories a day, including 6 ounces of meat, 2 ounces of fat, and no more than 80 calories of carbohydrates at each of three daily meals. As Pennington described it, the executives on his diet experienced “a lack of hunger between meals . . . increased physical energy and sense of well-being.” And despite eating so much, they lost 7 to 10 pounds a month.
Pennington wrote extensively on the subject of obesity. Rather than being content with seeing his patients lose weight, he sought to understand why a low-carb diet might work. Any theory had to take into account that the answer wasn’t a reduction in calories, because Pennington’s patients didn’t seem to be eating fewer calories than normal and in some cases, were eating more.1 -
Oh new quote for the low-carb diets that don't count calories.
This is from "The Big Fat Lie" Chapter 10In 1919, an internist with a practice in New York City named Blake Donaldson stumbled on the diet independently. As he recounts in his memoir, Strong Medicine (1961), he was frustrated by his inability to help obese patients lose weight simply by cutting back on calories. He discovered the high-fat diet after consulting experts at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, he says, who told him that the Inuit lived mostly disease-free, surviving almost entirely on the “fattest meat they could kill.” Donaldson decided to give it a try. Banning all sugar and flour, he prescribed mainly meat to his patients: fatty meat three times a day. There may be an “upper level of meat intake” where people can no longer lose weight, he concluded, “but I’ve never found it.”
Also from chapter 10 of "The Big Fat Lie"Pennington’s diet did not restrict total calories. The twenty male executives he selected ate, on average, over 3,000 calories a day, including 6 ounces of meat, 2 ounces of fat, and no more than 80 calories of carbohydrates at each of three daily meals. As Pennington described it, the executives on his diet experienced “a lack of hunger between meals . . . increased physical energy and sense of well-being.” And despite eating so much, they lost 7 to 10 pounds a month.
Pennington wrote extensively on the subject of obesity. Rather than being content with seeing his patients lose weight, he sought to understand why a low-carb diet might work. Any theory had to take into account that the answer wasn’t a reduction in calories, because Pennington’s patients didn’t seem to be eating fewer calories than normal and in some cases, were eating more.
Thanks for sharing and this in my with my own eating experience.0 -
I have read the book "Strong Medicine" by Donaldson. It's pretty interesting. He has some weird theories about injecting boiled milk and arthritis, but it's still a good read. There are a lot of obscure old books ("Calories Don't Count" by Taller, "Strong Medicine" by Donaldson, "The Fat of the Land" by Stefansson, and some more that don't come to mind). In almost every one of these, the dominating theme is calorie restriction is not a good thing.
In "Calories Don't Count" Taller says (pg 37)But in the light of Pennington's work, one could assert with absolute certainty that the calorie theory had no scientific basis whatsoever. It is merely a vague sort of treatment, like bed rest for a cold. When it works, it usually functions through the process of semistarvation. It is a subnutritional diet; the body does not get enough of what it needs. When a low-calorie diet is called a "crash diet," the term is perfect. A low-calorie diet causes a physical crash, and can, carried to extremes, prove to be fatal.
It would be hard to interpret that in a "pro calorie counting" manner.
0 -
Oh new quote for the low-carb diets that don't count calories.
This is from "The Big Fat Lie" Chapter 10In 1919, an internist with a practice in New York City named Blake Donaldson stumbled on the diet independently. As he recounts in his memoir, Strong Medicine (1961), he was frustrated by his inability to help obese patients lose weight simply by cutting back on calories. He discovered the high-fat diet after consulting experts at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, he says, who told him that the Inuit lived mostly disease-free, surviving almost entirely on the “fattest meat they could kill.” Donaldson decided to give it a try. Banning all sugar and flour, he prescribed mainly meat to his patients: fatty meat three times a day. There may be an “upper level of meat intake” where people can no longer lose weight, he concluded, “but I’ve never found it.”
Also from chapter 10 of "The Big Fat Lie"Pennington’s diet did not restrict total calories. The twenty male executives he selected ate, on average, over 3,000 calories a day, including 6 ounces of meat, 2 ounces of fat, and no more than 80 calories of carbohydrates at each of three daily meals. As Pennington described it, the executives on his diet experienced “a lack of hunger between meals . . . increased physical energy and sense of well-being.” And despite eating so much, they lost 7 to 10 pounds a month.
Pennington wrote extensively on the subject of obesity. Rather than being content with seeing his patients lose weight, he sought to understand why a low-carb diet might work. Any theory had to take into account that the answer wasn’t a reduction in calories, because Pennington’s patients didn’t seem to be eating fewer calories than normal and in some cases, were eating more.
Oh believe me, there’s an upper intake. My very first keto fulk proved it. Between the chicken wings, 73/27 ground beef and beef/pork ribs, I gained 2.2-2.5 lbs./week. It definitely did not end with a good look. Hah.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Oh new quote for the low-carb diets that don't count calories.
This is from "The Big Fat Lie" Chapter 10In 1919, an internist with a practice in New York City named Blake Donaldson stumbled on the diet independently. As he recounts in his memoir, Strong Medicine (1961), he was frustrated by his inability to help obese patients lose weight simply by cutting back on calories. He discovered the high-fat diet after consulting experts at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, he says, who told him that the Inuit lived mostly disease-free, surviving almost entirely on the “fattest meat they could kill.” Donaldson decided to give it a try. Banning all sugar and flour, he prescribed mainly meat to his patients: fatty meat three times a day. There may be an “upper level of meat intake” where people can no longer lose weight, he concluded, “but I’ve never found it.”
Also from chapter 10 of "The Big Fat Lie"Pennington’s diet did not restrict total calories. The twenty male executives he selected ate, on average, over 3,000 calories a day, including 6 ounces of meat, 2 ounces of fat, and no more than 80 calories of carbohydrates at each of three daily meals. As Pennington described it, the executives on his diet experienced “a lack of hunger between meals . . . increased physical energy and sense of well-being.” And despite eating so much, they lost 7 to 10 pounds a month.
Pennington wrote extensively on the subject of obesity. Rather than being content with seeing his patients lose weight, he sought to understand why a low-carb diet might work. Any theory had to take into account that the answer wasn’t a reduction in calories, because Pennington’s patients didn’t seem to be eating fewer calories than normal and in some cases, were eating more.
Oh believe me, there’s an upper intake. My very first keto fulk proved it. Between the chicken wings, 73/27 ground beef and beef/pork ribs, I gained 2.2-2.5 lbs./week. It definitely did not end with a good look. Hah.
Meat only? Donaldson was basically a carnivore proponent. Also curious as to how many calories you ate and for how long. I have seen keto and carnivore overfeeding attempts before, and only underweight people managed to put on weight long-term. A few, who went from very restricted calories, put on weight for a short period (until their body realized it wasn't a temporary feast between periods of starvation) and then it fell off pretty quickly.
Also, a calorie restricted bulk (where you intentionally eat more than you need and keep the calories high) isn't very different from a calorie restricted cut, in terms of this conversation. These authors are talking about eating to hunger, and not force feeding. I know that overfeeding is harder than most give it credit for, so there is also that. If you force yourself to overeat, could you gain weight? I will go with a firm "maybe" as an answer to that.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Oh new quote for the low-carb diets that don't count calories.
This is from "The Big Fat Lie" Chapter 10In 1919, an internist with a practice in New York City named Blake Donaldson stumbled on the diet independently. As he recounts in his memoir, Strong Medicine (1961), he was frustrated by his inability to help obese patients lose weight simply by cutting back on calories. He discovered the high-fat diet after consulting experts at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, he says, who told him that the Inuit lived mostly disease-free, surviving almost entirely on the “fattest meat they could kill.” Donaldson decided to give it a try. Banning all sugar and flour, he prescribed mainly meat to his patients: fatty meat three times a day. There may be an “upper level of meat intake” where people can no longer lose weight, he concluded, “but I’ve never found it.”
Also from chapter 10 of "The Big Fat Lie"Pennington’s diet did not restrict total calories. The twenty male executives he selected ate, on average, over 3,000 calories a day, including 6 ounces of meat, 2 ounces of fat, and no more than 80 calories of carbohydrates at each of three daily meals. As Pennington described it, the executives on his diet experienced “a lack of hunger between meals . . . increased physical energy and sense of well-being.” And despite eating so much, they lost 7 to 10 pounds a month.
Pennington wrote extensively on the subject of obesity. Rather than being content with seeing his patients lose weight, he sought to understand why a low-carb diet might work. Any theory had to take into account that the answer wasn’t a reduction in calories, because Pennington’s patients didn’t seem to be eating fewer calories than normal and in some cases, were eating more.
Oh believe me, there’s an upper intake. My very first keto fulk proved it. Between the chicken wings, 73/27 ground beef and beef/pork ribs, I gained 2.2-2.5 lbs./week. It definitely did not end with a good look. Hah.
Meat only? Donaldson was basically a carnivore proponent. Also curious as to how many calories you ate and for how long. I have seen keto and carnivore overfeeding attempts before, and only underweight people managed to put on weight long-term. A few, who went from very restricted calories, put on weight for a short period (until their body realized it wasn't a temporary feast between periods of starvation) and then it fell off pretty quickly.
Also, a calorie restricted bulk (where you intentionally eat more than you need and keep the calories high) isn't very different from a calorie restricted cut, in terms of this conversation. These authors are talking about eating to hunger, and not force feeding. I know that overfeeding is harder than most give it credit for, so there is also that. If you force yourself to overeat, could you gain weight? I will go with a firm "maybe" as an answer to that.
I've never tried to gain weight on this WOE, but successfully maintained for awhile last year - was trying to lose, but just couldn't bring myself to eat so few calories while running a lot. Over the few weeks since I've returned, I lost some water weight in the first week and have maintained since. Despite that I could stand to lose about 15-20 lbs. of excess fat, my goal has been becoming fat adapted and athletic training (detrained during the diet break). I've set my calories to maintenance, but mostly eat to satiety. Sometimes I exceed calories, sometimes I go under. Either way, I've been able to maintain by eating to hunger for a couple weeks now. That's at about 19%-20% body fat, so not exactly lean.1
This discussion has been closed.