We need a "Pro Calorie Counting" thread/discussion
Replies
-
The question here is whether calorie counting is useful when on a diet that doesn't rely on calorie restriction. For the Eskimo, I'd say no.
For the rest of us, surrounded by delicious and inexpensive treats, good restaurants, social gatherings, and free donuts and pizza in the meeting room? It'd be hard to be a good Eskimo in my world, so I'll count calories.1 -
I don't think that's the question at all. The question is why should we be counting calories when on a low-carb diet. There might be valid reasons to count. I don't think donuts, pizza, and such treats that are high-carb would be a reason. You're not supposed to be eating those.
We, well I, am looking for a thread of support for why we should count anything more than carbs. Why should we have a calorie goal while eating low carb? Tangentially, but related, should someone also track macros (aside from the obvious carbs alone)?
What you do when/if you leave low-carb and go back to eating a high[er] carb diet isn't really relevant to this. Actually, that's something I am going to be including the the anti-counting thread. It's what to do when not counting isn't working, and the first thing will be to go even lower on carbs. Have you been allowing some fruit (or god forbid a donut) each week? Cut it out. Give it time and see if that helps. Still not working? Whittle those carbs down even more. Counting calories is the very last thing I'd recommend. That's when all else has failed.1 -
I guess this is why there are diet debates.
We know the LF propaganda well.
The LC books say LF has failed us -- it's carbs that are evil, not fat. Taubes even goes so far as saying that the low-fat diets that did show health benefits were LC diets in disguise. All you need to do is count carbs, and zero is the best count. The pendulum has swung far.
The truth might be somewhere in the middle. The problem is being in a continuous state of excess calorie consumption. Our bodies can handle excess calories, but not continuously. Carbs, especially processed carbs, make it very easy to enter this state. So carbs are evil, but it's because they put us in this hypercaloric state.
Maybe that's not even an official camp yet, but I'm in this camp. Count calories and avoid evil carbs as much as possible. Count 'em both.
For calories, we can guestimate how many we should have, and it's easy to adjust that number if we continue to gain weight.
For counting carbs, most people make a guess and have no mechanism to adjust that number if they're wrong. It only really makes sense to count carbs if you have a rational target based on measuring the carb-specific effects on you (blood sugar, ketones, whatever). And I'm not knocking guestimates -- it's what I do myself, but I'm more confident about calorie counts being meaningful.
I count them both. I set my calorie target on the usual metrics. I set my carb target on my past diet experiments and lipid profiles before and after. I confess that my own past diet experiments were confounded by weight loss that I wasn't tracking, so my carb target may be crazy. 2 -
Everyone counts one way or another if they have ever jointed MFP.
I weigh daily and count if I start gaining weight. Like I went up on a snow day and when I back tracked I figured out I have 3 pounds of almonds while at the computer all day. I did not need that extra 5000 calories that day or the extra 90 grams of net carbs.
Now that I have stopped 'dieting' and moved to a new 'eating lifestyle' I do not use any practices that I do not see myself doing 40 years from now. Perhaps being 64 I have just learned enough about myself so as to know what I am willing to do and not to do long term.
Again everyone counts calories directly or indirectly that log into MFP. 1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Again everyone counts calories directly or indirectly that log into MFP.
Assuming everyone logs everything they eat. Some people only log veggies or carb-containing foods. Some don't log anything at all. You're only getting a complete calorie count if your log is complete.
Also, I think we're more talking about "counting" in the sense of having a specific calorie goal and endeavoring to stop eating if you exceed that goal. I logged for months without counting, in the sense that I didn't care if I hit 1,500 or 15,000 each day. I was recording the food just as a record for my data analysis. I think we might need to make that clear, since one of the most pertinent points seems to be "I want data" and stuff like that.
I don't think tracking for the purposes of just getting raw data is bad. I think it can be if you're basing eating decisions on the amount of calories you've eaten that day, the amount of calories in a specific food, and the amount of calories you've arbitrarily decided to stay under. It's this second part which I'm hoping this thread finds reasons to defend. Why should we have a calorie goal? Why should be try and eat under (or around) a certain amount? That's what I mean by counting. Not just logging and knowing the amount you ate.
0 -
A decade ago I was 60#s overweight and didn't need to count. But at only 15-20#s over where I want to be on a relatively small frame the calories matter, too. If I don't count calories, too, I stall.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Again everyone counts calories directly or indirectly that log into MFP.
Assuming everyone logs everything they eat. Some people only log veggies or carb-containing foods. Some don't log anything at all. You're only getting a complete calorie count if your log is complete.
Also, I think we're more talking about "counting" in the sense of having a specific calorie goal and endeavoring to stop eating if you exceed that goal. I logged for months without counting, in the sense that I didn't care if I hit 1,500 or 15,000 each day. I was recording the food just as a record for my data analysis. I think we might need to make that clear, since one of the most pertinent points seems to be "I want data" and stuff like that.
I don't think tracking for the purposes of just getting raw data is bad. I think it can be if you're basing eating decisions on the amount of calories you've eaten that day, the amount of calories in a specific food, and the amount of calories you've arbitrarily decided to stay under. It's this second part which I'm hoping this thread finds reasons to defend. Why should we have a calorie goal? Why should be try and eat under (or around) a certain amount? That's what I mean by counting. Not just logging and knowing the amount you ate.
This is something I think can make it dangerous for newbies. I've lost count how many times I've seen someone shocked to find out eggs have carbs, or someone switches brands of sausage or cheese, and has a rant when they find out the new ones have carbs where the old ones didn't...after they've had them a dozen times. It is, IMO, making the learning curve harder. After a few years, you just know to check the label on everything, even if it's something you've had before, because formulas and packaging sizes change. It's not really something that comes instinctively unless you're already used to watching for allergens.0 -
Preface: Body needs energy, energy is in form of calories, body can store energy as fat when excess is given to it. This is the human gas tank.
Begin rant
Alright, here's why we need a calorie goal.
EXCESS calories, no matter in what form, are stored by the body as fat. You're body expends barely more energy getting it's energy from fat than from table sugar, our cells are remarkably efficient that way. (Look up the Kreb's cycle and cellular respiration) Therefore, those of us who want/need to lose weight must EAT AT A DEFICIT(barring certain medical conditions/freaky biology).
This is basic biology, and honestly, those of us who's cells perform the process of cellular respiration at a fairly standard rate(MOST PEOPLE) are going to be subject to the standard interpretation that cico gives. That is, multiply goal weight by 10, eat that number of calories per day.
Yes, there are exceptions to this. But they are just that.
Goat, you look remarkably healthy, but d@mnit you are a freaking biological anomaly! As a bio major I can't explain how the h*ll you work. Kudos to you man for being the outlier on that bell shaped curve. For most of us though, we fall on the bell.
This is why we need a calorie goal.
End rant
1 -
People who don't read nutrition labels are likely to incorrectly log regardless of whether they log things like eggs or not. The amount in eggs is pretty inconsequential. Even a dozen eggs would be like 5g total.
sweetteadrinker, I'm not denying that calories in must be lower than calories out to lose weight. I'm denying the idea that we need to help our body decide the calories in side of the equation. If we eat when hungry, until we're not hungry, and just listen to our body, it will moderate hunger and metabolic rate to the degree it needs to for natural weight normalization. It may not be as fast as many people want, but over time, the amount of body fat will stabilize around a healthy amount for that person. Pushing yourself lower than that will typically require you to actively force yourself to eat less.
I am also denying the fact that if you eat more calories than your body initially may have needed that the inevitable conclusion is that those calories must be stored as fat. There are many things your body can do with the extra calories (rebuild tissue, remineralize bone, raise your temp, make you fidget or want to walk, etc.) besides just store them as fat. And, if you happen to have excess fat stores already, storing extra calories as more fat will be very low on that list... a last resort if you will. When there's nothing else the body can do, no other way to spend the excess calories, nothing more productive that the energy could be spent on, the excess calories will have to be stored as fat. The problem is your body determines where the cut-off for EXCESS calories really occurs, and you can't easily predict that amount to self-determine where to stop eating.
Likewise, if you under-eat, trying to force your body to burn fat, it can choose to do other things before spending fat. Now, low-carb happens to help prevent this, but you don't really get an idea of where your body's metabolic flexibility comes to an end and fat burning must start.
Edit: I am an anomaly... this is confusing to even myself. Frankly, by eating over my expected maintenance calories, I expect to maintain my current weight. My body seems to be deciding that I have no idea what I am talking about. And either my TDEE is much higher than expected (unlikely... considering that I had a BMI of nearly 40 before low-carb), or something else is going on.0 -
People who don't read nutrition labels are likely to incorrectly log regardless of whether they log things like eggs or not. The amount in eggs is pretty inconsequential. Even a dozen eggs would be like 5g total.
sweetteadrinker, I'm not denying that calories in must be lower than calories out to lose weight. I'm denying the idea that we need to help our body decide the calories in side of the equation. If we eat when hungry, until we're not hungry, and just listen to our body, it will moderate hunger and metabolic rate to the degree it needs to for natural weight normalization. It may not be as fast as many people want, but over time, the amount of body fat will stabilize around a healthy amount for that person. Pushing yourself lower than that will typically require you to actively force yourself to eat less.
I am also denying the fact that if you eat more calories than your body initially may have needed that the inevitable conclusion is that those calories must be stored as fat. There are many things your body can do with the extra calories (rebuild tissue, remineralize bone, raise your temp, make you fidget or want to walk, etc.) besides just store them as fat. And, if you happen to have excess fat stores already, storing extra calories as more fat will be very low on that list... a last resort if you will.
Edit: I am an anomaly... this is confusing to even myself. Frankly, by eating over my expected maintenance calories, I expect to maintain my current weight. My body seems to be deciding that I have no idea what I am talking about. And either my TDEE is much higher than expected (unlikely... considering that I had a BMI of nearly 40 before low-carb), or something else is going on.
Not trying to hijack, but have you ever had a fat analysis done? Maybe you're overestimating your BF%, so you're not really eating at a surplus, but it looks like you are.0 -
I'm denying the idea that we need to help our body decide the calories in side of the equation. If we eat when hungry, until we're not hungry, and just listen to our body, it will moderate hunger and metabolic rate to the degree it needs to for natural weight normalization.
I think this is most true for protein intake. I get disgustingly full when I eat a lot of protein.
Not as true for fat intake, especially in liquid/sauce form.
And not true at all for Evil Processed Carbs.
0 -
Not trying to hijack, but have you ever had a fat analysis done? Maybe you're overestimating your BF%, so you're not really eating at a surplus, but it looks like you are.
On my list of things to do.
Lowest estimate I get is using body tape measurements and a variety of calculations. That gives me 16.1% or 59.5 kg of LBM and 11.5 kg of body fat. Using the BMR from LBM calculation (from: http://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/Katch-McArdle-Calorie-Calculator-For-Men-And-Women.cfm ) gives me a TDEE of 1,664 calories/day. That means I have to be at least moderately active (2,580 calories/day TDEE). A little higher than the 1,562 (2,422) given by the keto-calculator for my stats, but not significantly so.
I also think a 16% body fat is a bit optimistic for me. I know I've got more to lose before I get there. I'd estimate my actual body fat is closer to 18-19%.0 -
I'm denying the idea that we need to help our body decide the calories in side of the equation. If we eat when hungry, until we're not hungry, and just listen to our body, it will moderate hunger and metabolic rate to the degree it needs to for natural weight normalization.
Do you realize that humans are designed, biologically speaking, to eat to excess and gain weight? Evolution has long favored those who could easily gain (and had difficulty losing) weight. Winter's meant food was scarce, famine was likely in each lifetime. Weight normalization, as you say, would mean the heaviest weight you could still "live" in, meaning still walk and hunt/gather.
Also, all the tissue repair and such is covered under what you'd need to maintain. Our bodies are very good at keeping us alive.0 -
Yes, we are designed to handle excess calories and store it as fat. We're damn good at it, too.
Where we start to fail is when it's a continuous process. The body can't provide the new fat stores with sufficient oxygen, for example. That's when our blood gets flooded with triglycerides and we start growing inflammatory organ-damaging ectopic fat.0 -
Yes I do realize that. I don't agree with the heaviest possible weight you could live in and still walk and hunt/gather. There's a diminishing return on extra weight. Assuming my "normal" weight would be around 12% BF, that's 8 kg of fat. That's 61,600 calories (really probably closer to 37,000 before we're eating into essential body fat). You can live a pretty long time on that amount, especially when your metabolism and activity down regulate to reduce TDEE. Women could live even longer... which makes sense because men are less biologically important to the survival of the species (only a couple need to survive the famine).
Edit: In the presence of excess protein and calories, rebuilding beyond bare maintenance is well documented to occur. The amount needed to keep the body alive and running is different than the amount needed to keep it optimal. When there is obvious signs of excess, that's the obvious time for the body to make sure it's in peak form... because that famine could be right around the corner.0 -
Yes, we are designed to handle excess calories and store it as fat. We're damn good at it, too.
Where we start to fail is when it's a continuous process. The body can't provide the new fat stores with sufficient oxygen, for example. That's when our blood gets flooded with triglycerides and we start growing inflammatory organ-damaging ectopic fat.
Sorry, the quote came out weird. I was after Goat and his "weight normalization" theory. AND I so agree with you, we were meant to gain fat all summer and lose it in winter. Now we have heated homes.0 -
More about the idea that we have evolved to gain weight easily and lose it more difficultly (aka "The Thrifty Gene Theory") can be found here: http://www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com/thrifty-gene-hypothesis-2.htmlc. The hypothesis rests on the assumption that we evolved through many periods of famine. Ample anthropological evidence contradicts this assumption. Our hunter gatherer ancestors most likely lived in an equilibrium with their environment.
d. In general, when species encounter an overabundant food supply, they multiply -- they don't get fat and sick.
Or here:
http://robbwolf.com/2007/09/17/the-not-so-thrifty-gene/According to the Thrifty Gene hypothesis, if humans are given access to unrestricted food they SHOULD gorge well above maintenance levels because this is the only way our ancestors could have survived. What we observe however is if carbohydrate levels are relatively low while protein is moderate and fat intake is high satiety precludes weight gain. Said another way: It’s hard as hell to get fat on a low carb diet.
Or here:
http://dvr.sagepub.com/content/3/1/7.abstractIn this review I present details of the evidence supporting the famine hypothesis and then show that this idea has five fundamental flaws. In essence, famines are a relatively modern phenomenon and occur only about once every 100–150 years. Consequently, most human populations have only experienced at most 100 famine events in their evolutionary history. Famines involve increases in total mortality that only rarely exceed 10% of the population. Moreover, most people in famines die of disease rather than starvation and the age distribution of mortality during famine would not result in differential mortality between lean and obese individuals. A simple genetic model shows that famines provide insufficient selective advantage over an insufficient time period for a thrifty gene to have any penetration in the modern human population.
Basically, there's no evidence to support the idea that we're supposed to get fat/obese in the presence of excess calories. Nor that we should have a hard time losing excess fat and getting back to an ideal weight.0 -
Basically, there's no evidence to support the idea that we're supposed to get fat/obese in the presence of excess calories. Nor that we should have a hard time losing excess fat and getting back to an ideal weight.
Hmmm...I look at those around me and at myself in the mirror and more than half the people I know struggle to lose weight and to keep it off if/when it's successfully lost. I typically run ~650 or more miles and bike 3500-4k miles in a year...and struggle. If losing were easy and gaining were difficult I should be a size 2.
0 -
Basically, there's no evidence to support the idea that we're supposed to get fat/obese in the presence of excess calories. Nor that we should have a hard time losing excess fat and getting back to an ideal weight.
Hmmm...I look at those around me and at myself in the mirror and more than half the people I know struggle to lose weight and to keep it off if/when it's successfully lost. I typically run ~650 or more miles and bike 3500-4k miles in a year...and struggle. If losing were easy and gaining were difficult I should be a size 2.
Better phrased, there's no evolutionary or genetic reasons that make gaining fat easily and losing fat difficult advantageous. It's not evolution. It's the food.
I believe you work very hard to lose weight. It's the shame of CICO. People work so hard and get almost no where. Then, you remove a sufficient amount of carbs, and the body heals and can moderate itself. Magic? No. Hormones and quality food that repairs the feedback systems that got screwed up.
Edit: This is not to say you'll ever be a size 2. Some people are bigger or smaller than others. What you will become is the size that is within a healthy range for you.
Edit again:Dr. Eades offers a phenomenal analysis of the two studies but I think it’s worth noting the low carb group is allowed ad-libitum access to food, yet theses folks consumed what is essentially a caloric restricted diet…but with none of the problems experienced by the high carb group. - See more at: http://robbwolf.com/2007/09/17/the-not-so-thrifty-gene/#sthash.s1IscuMU.dpuf
There was caloric restriction with the low carb, it was just not conscious. You will eat less than you burn to lose weight. The main idea (of the other thread... which this one is trying to counter) is that you don't need to know how much you're eating in order to do that.0 -
-
My family has long joked that the Venus of Willendorf and my grandma Berniece could have been body-doubles.
0 -
Hi Fit_Goat,
I am just curious. You probably know who all (on this & Keto group) are really low carbers, like less than 5 grams a day AND that eat a large amount of calories (like you do). How many people can you guesstimate that is? (I realize that you can't possibly know how many of the 17,000+ members) but you may know some that have stated so on this thread and other threads, because you would know "kindred spirits". I'm thinking that number is low or is it? (I'm defining "low" as less than 10). Or are there quite a few?
Dan the Man from Michigan
0 -
Hi Fit_Goat,
I am just curious. You probably know who all (on this & Keto group) are really low carbers, like less than 5 grams a day AND that eat a large amount of calories (like you do). How many people can you guesstimate that is? (I realize that you can't possibly know how many of the 17,000+ members) but you may know some that have stated so on this thread and other threads, because you would know "kindred spirits". I'm thinking that number is low or is it? (I'm defining "low" as less than 10). Or are there quite a few?
Dan the Man from Michigan
On MFP? Low. I can speak with assurance of one other like myself. There are a few that I suspect, although I've never bothered to ask. My thread asking who was eating a lot was a monumental failure. So, there's not a lot here. I know several through other forums and on facebook though. Most people end up on MFP through calorie restriction first, and that keeps through even when they move to low-carb. Outside of this site, I would say at least a dozen long-term high calorie very low carb people. And probably 50+ others who are very low carb, but eat a more moderate amount of calories (as that's all they they want each day). I base that only on self-reported amounts of meat, as they generally don't count calories or weigh their food. Some people claim to average around 1-1.5 pounds of meat a day (which is 1200-1800 calories at best) and others claim to be in the 2-3 pound range (2400-3600 depending on fat content). Some occasionally eat even higher.
But, I want to clarify, I am not saying "eat unlimited or a lot of calories" when I am saying to not count. With low carb, you'll (well, you should) naturally trend towards slightly fewer calories than you actually need while you have excess fat. You may very well end up eating the same amount of calories you'd be eating if you were counting. You might eat less, or slightly more (but still under your TDEE). I am not making the claim that everyone can eat 3,000 calories a day and lose weight.
I feel like people think that not counting means "eat more than your TDEE" or something. It's not that at all. If you eat as much as you want, your body will eventually get on board and moderate your hunger to your energy requirements. You may experience a slight rise on the scale at first, especially if you've been restricting, but the weight eventually comes off. You may only feel like eating 1200 calories a day when not counting. The difference is that you're not forcing it when your body is asking for more.
When I was actively losing most of my weight, I tracked but did not restrict. My actual calorie counts varied tremendously. I had <1,600 calorie days (rare) and >3,000 calorie days (also rare). Most days fell in the 1,700 range with some slightly over 2,000. I usually had 3-4 "lowish" days followed by 1 or maybe 2 "bigger" days. On a weekly basis, I averaged about 1,900 per day. With my estimated TDEE of 2,400, I was losing about a pound a week. I could have set my calorie goal at 1,900 and eaten exactly that amount to achieve the same thing. I probably would have lost faster, as I wouldn't eat more the days when I was under but I wouldn't allow myself to go much over. But, it would have been harder and less pleasant.
For those with lower TDEEs, they might average only 1400 a day (or whatever their body needs) over a week or so. It's not about eating more than you need. It's about not denying your body what it requests simply because you have a magic number in mind that you have to stay under.0 -
Edited to add: this is why I am slightly confused about why I am still losing weight. I have upped my calories to the amount that should mean maintenance, based on my rate of loss and previous consumption amount. Instead of stopping my loss, it has only slowed it (by a little more than half). I'm not complaining. I still have excess I would like to lose. I'm just not focused on it. So, I allow myself to eat with slightly less care. If I am slightly hungry, I don't wait to see if I am really hungry (like when I was trying to lose). I just eat some steak or burgers.0
-
in the book i am reading (Bailor, is that his name, the Microsoft guy) it's got a great consensus of the reasons it's hard (if not impossible) to count the energy you are taking in and expending. that being said, i also understand if it's the best system we have, then it's the best we have. i am on the fence about it. i do track because i am a master negotiator with myself. i can convince myself a snickers is a low carb necessary choice for lunch tomorrow. That being said i assume the system is quite imperfect and if i could see the "true" amount i take in and put out it would be way off-but the main board CICO types do not seem to accept this idea at all. They think using a half cup instead of "grams" will doom your weight loss efforts to failure.
Also i agree-underestimating .5g carbs in an egg will not most likely result in my gaining weight.
i am toying with the idea of just counting carbs. But if i am hungry i will eat. But i will eat low carb.0 -
Ok, Thanks for the quick reply. And I see you are compiling a list of reasons/objections why people don't eat like that. Why do think that so many people won't try your method? Obviously many of us have been exposed to it, and we are relatively educated/knowledgeable. It sounds really good (I like the part about eating big steaks). Do you think many of us don't think it will work? Do you think it only works for certain types of people? Are we scared it won't work? Is it a logistical thing? Or is the weight loss too slow? Or we just don't want to give up those last few carbs? Or is it because we tried it, (but didn't do it right, maybe ate too many carbs), had a weight gain, then said, "Well that doesn't work, going back to low cal". Or maybe its cost prohibitive? (although there are many people that can afford it). Or maybe we have been brainwashed with CICO theory so much so, that we can't give it up?
I would like to see the compiled list of reasons stated so far AND your theory why people don't embrace this WOE?
I haven't listed my reasons yet. I would probably be in the camp of, "I don't like the speed at which you lose (too slow)". And "I just can't let go of those last few carbs" camp
LOL!
I will say, that I personally like intermittent fasting better because I think it compliments Keto, faster weight loss and has many other health benefits.
I look forward to hear your thinking on this...
Thank you,
Dan the Man from Michigan
My Blog: It's Ketogenic or Bariatric (How I found the Ketogenic Diet)
Keto Abbreviations, Acronyms & Terminology Used in LCD & Keto Discussion Groups
My Past Discussions (lots of easy Keto recipes and other useful Keto info)
My Blog: Intermittent Water Fasting & Keto
0 -
Not trying to hijack, but have you ever had a fat analysis done? Maybe you're overestimating your BF%, so you're not really eating at a surplus, but it looks like you are.
and this is the issue, your energy expenditure is unknown and not independent of your food intake. One argument for logging food would be that it's possible to do so and it's a variable you have at least the option of manipulating.0 -
I will work on compiling reasons. I don't think you need to completely give up carbs to stop counting. Some people can eat 50g and effortlessly lose/maintain. Some people can eat even more than that. Some people need to eat less. Think of those thin people who never gain a pound but eat tons of carbs. They're not as sensitive as those of us who gain weight eating carbs. You'll need to cut down your carbs until you find the level you can personally handle.
I don't think you have to just eat steaks of give up veggies (probably) or other stuff. It all depends. Personally, I can't eat without counting if I include sugar alcohols, tons of veggies, and lots of cheese. If I cut those out, I have no problem. The more I include, the more likely I am to stop losing or even gain. I could eat some veggies without gaining. I just choose not to.
Do some people gain weight when they stop counting? Yeah. It happens. The body prioritizes healing first. One woman, who has eaten like me for years, gained weight for 6 months when she first started. Yep, six months. I don't know how she didn't give up. After that, she started losing weight. She lost all she gained. She didn't initially go carnivore for weight loss purposes though. Here's the experience in her own words.I gained about forty pounds in those six months before it started to reverse...though, looking back at pictures, I swear, you would never guess that it was that much. Also, I was VERY calorie restricted before I started ZC and was exercising a MINIMUM of two hours every single day. I weighed about the same amount that I do now (before started ZC) but I looked so much more gaunt back then.
When ZC gave me the green light to "eat until full", I went for it! I ate and ate and ate! I was STARVING!! So, yes, I gained for six months. My weight gain leveled off right around the six month mark when my appetite leveled off...Finally! I started having more energy and less appetite. I felt GOOD! And then, the weight started coming off quickly! Within a few months, I looked better than I ever had! And felt better, too!
I imagine that few people here could do that. All it would take is a ten pound gain to panic them and call an end to not counting. Of course, this is not a typical experience. Few people start this way of eating near their ideal weight. The heavier you are, the less likely you are to gain. The weight loss might be slower, which can be a problem. Or it can stall. It's less predictable. It takes patience and a fair amount of trust in the science behind it, for those times when you're not seeing what you want.
Do I think most people think (or are scared) it won't work? Yes. But, why wouldn't they think that? We've seen what happens when we don't count. That's how we ended up here. All of our experience tells us that not counting and controlling food makes us fat. Counting and controlling it can work (at least for a while) and it's hard to give that up. I was there. The idea of not counting was just too much for me when I started. It was only after a few months of keto that I decided to let my calories ride (still tracking... just in case) and see where the average ended up.
I don't really fault anyone for counting. I know I present my side very strongly, but I do have compassion for their position. Especially if you've lost some weight on calorie restriction, found yourself stalled, moved to low-carb (counting) and finally seen the scale start moving again, and maybe tried to not count and gained (or stopped losing). At that point, you'd pretty much have to believe that it won't work for you.
Anyway, that's my basic thinking right now, off the top of my head.0 -
Not trying to hijack, but have you ever had a fat analysis done? Maybe you're overestimating your BF%, so you're not really eating at a surplus, but it looks like you are.
and this is the issue, your energy expenditure is unknown and not independent of your food intake. One argument for logging food would be that it's possible to do so and it's a variable you have at least the option of manipulating.
I am not opposed to logging. I see logging and "counting" as two different things. It's from logging that I know I average about 2,400 calories/day (actually around 2,540 over the last 33 day period I bothered to track--ending Mar 6th). Over that time period my weight trend (and weekly average weight) went down 0.9 kg (~2 lbs). A 0.19 kg/week (0.42 lb/week) rate. The CICO implications is that I've got a TDEE of about 2,750 calories/day.
The difference between logging, for data purposes, and counting would be decided when/if someone chose to not eat when hungry because that would put them over a given calorie limit they have decided upon.0
