Why counting calories could be making you fatter.
Replies
-
I fear you are seriously misunderstanding this article.
Reducing blood glucose rises does not in any way suggest a decreased calorie absorption. It means that the food has a lower glycemic index which is a measure independent of the number of calories you absorb.
Making "resistant starches" doesn't reduce the calorie burden, just the insulin-stimulation burden.
YES, THIS.
GI is irrelevant to weight loss. If you don't have a medical condition that makes it relevant for your health, ignore it and choose the food that satisfies your nutritional needs and satiety.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Simply look to what diet soda consumption likely does to a great many people. They think they have extra calories to spend elsewhere, and eat to excess.
Great point.0 -
No, what he calls the digestive effect is NOT the thermic effect. They are two completely different things. That is what you are not understanding.herrspoons wrote: »
Um... The Atwater system allows for digestive effect, which is part TEF, which is why its different from the Rubner system that doesn't and produces higher values as a result.
http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/28/6/443.full.pdf
That is supposedly measuring (and not very effectively in some cases) what is not available to the body. All it does is subtract the energy available from the waste products from the energy available from the food. This is where he adjusts for things like insoluble fiber content.
It ignores completely how much energy the body uses to digest food. There is no way it could using his methodology. TEF is a completely separate component.
This has a detailed explanation of the difference. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I think you're overestimating how insignificant the impact that would have psychologically. If someone's in it to lose weight in the first place and is still counting calories, it's all well and fine, but for the average person?
Simply look to what diet soda consumption likely does to a great many people. They think they have extra calories to spend elsewhere, and eat to excess.
No, I don't think it should have any psychological impact at all...for people with healthy habits.
Not everyone who drinks diet soda eats more to make up the calories they "saved". Some do...some don't. There are tons of people here claiming they drink it every day and lose weight...so that is obviously where the psychology you speak of plays in. Those that eat more are obviously not forming a habit that is supportive of long term weight management. But that does not mean other people can't drink diet soda and use it to remove empty calories they would otherwise drink. I personally don't drink any soda..but I just prefer other things.
I eat almonds regularly...always have...I like them. However, now that I know the calories are overstated, I am not eating extra almonds to make up the difference. That would be counterproductive. I just look at the "savings" as a nice benefit.
The point is knowledge like this can be used to make more informed, better choices...even for people who don't count calories. If how you cook something impacts effective calories, you don't need to adjust anything or eat more or less...but you can consider that when deciding how to prepare it. Or you can choose one snack instead of another, at least on occasion...to help maintain a healthy weight. Some people will make that effort or change, others won't...the individual can decide if it is worth it for them.
The point is being healthy is the result of many individual habits. No one thing will make or break you., but making mindful informed choices goes a long way. If you can't be bothered to chill your pasta, you can still be healthy and maintain or lose weight. But it could be an easy change that could give an incremental benefit to others.
0 -
EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
It's not monumentally large. Over the course of a six month cycle, it might save you a week or two of dieting.
0 -
Liftin4food wrote: »From the Daily Mail website this morning:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3011031/The-real-truth-calories-counting-making-FATTER.html
Daily mail is not a good source. They just aren't.0 -
The differences in TEF between different foods isn't that big anyway. Months back there was a thread about it with a study (I guess?) that found a sub 100 calorie difference in TEF between a potential diet consisting of 100% carbs vs. 100% protein at I dunno either 1500 or 2000 calories total intake I think. It's been a while and I suck at finding stuff on pubmed.0
-
herrspoons wrote: »That said, since Atwater's figures are so averaged and generous, the effect of TEF doesn't seem to have a major impact, leading them to the conclusion that a calorie is a calorie.
TEF is already accounted for on the intake side, even if it's not intentional or explicit - the guidelines we've built for caloric intake requirements already bake in TEF, because they're based on positive health outcomes.
The only time it *might* be necessary for a weight-loser to adjust for TEF would be if they moved to an extreme set of macro ratios, stayed there for a very long time, and were running small deficits.
0 -
This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Oh brother.
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Who in the hell is sitting there with a massive pile of chicken vs. a massive slice of cake?
THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE, PEOPLE.
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.0 -
BrentJulius wrote: »
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
Stop creating a fake scenario to make the minors seem like they matter....the majors are what's important.
0 -
Have any of you guys actually watched the programme? It just finished on BBC. There really was nothing controversial in it to my mind.0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I don't think it should have any psychological impact at all...for people with healthy habits.
Not everyone who drinks diet soda eats more to make up the calories they "saved". Some do...some don't. There are tons of people here claiming they drink it every day and lose weight...so that is obviously where the psychology you speak of plays in. Those that eat more are obviously not forming a habit that is supportive of long term weight management. But that does not mean other people can't drink diet soda and use it to remove empty calories they would otherwise drink. I personally don't drink any soda..but I just prefer other things.
I eat almonds regularly...always have...I like them. However, now that I know the calories are overstated, I am not eating extra almonds to make up the difference. That would be counterproductive. I just look at the "savings" as a nice benefit.
The point is knowledge like this can be used to make more informed, better choices...even for people who don't count calories. If how you cook something impacts effective calories, you don't need to adjust anything or eat more or less...but you can consider that when deciding how to prepare it. Or you can choose one snack instead of another, at least on occasion...to help maintain a healthy weight. Some people will make that effort or change, others won't...the individual can decide if it is worth it for them.
The point is being healthy is the result of many individual habits. No one thing will make or break you., but making mindful informed choices goes a long way. If you can't be bothered to chill your pasta, you can still be healthy and maintain or lose weight. But it could be an easy change that could give an incremental benefit to others.
Right. Because the general population is so focused on healthy decision making that on the whole, average weight is just that: average. People out there not counting calories are succeeding left and right, apparently.
You are talking about people TRYING to make better choices and are very informed, but the point I was making was in terms of the general population that's on the whole, seen record obesity rates. Media reporting on medical issues is bullet-point driven, and the psychology of people wanting an easy fix is something not to be underestimated.0 -
Stop creating a fake scenario to make the minors seem like they matter....the majors are what's important.
LOL, okay, well one persons minors is another persons majors. You keep doing your thing and I'll keep doing mine.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Who's saying macros are not important?
Really?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
BrentJulius wrote: »
Sorry you don't like my analogy, which was simply that, not literal. The point I was obviously expressing is that macros are important although many people argue they are not.
No one on MFP has EVER argued that macros are not important...at least not in the context presented.
ETA: OK in the interest of not making a blanket statement, maybe some goober at some point has, but certainly no where near "many" people.0 -
Karen_libert wrote: »I don't think the article itself is wrong per se but it doesn't explain itself properly. I know 1000 calories of cake and 1000 calories of lean meat and veg are the same calories and that as long as you eat the right number you will loose BUT I agree that 1000 calories of meat and veg will sustain you and make you less likely to be hungry and feel the urge to eat over your daily requirements. The article hints at that but doesn't go far enough. I hope the tv show will explain fully.
0 -
I fear you are seriously misunderstanding this article.
Reducing blood glucose rises does not in any way suggest a decreased calorie absorption. It means that the food has a lower glycemic index which is a measure independent of the number of calories you absorb.
Making "resistant starches" doesn't reduce the calorie burden, just the insulin-stimulation burden.
I was just reading an article that the resistant starches aren't as digestable thus fewer calories can be used. This article was advocating a funky coconut oil style of making rice: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/25/scientists-have-figured-out-a-simple-way-to-cook-rice-that-dramatically-cuts-the-calories I haven't looked at it in any detail, but it strikes me as a good excuse to make fried rice LOL.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
BrentJulius wrote: »This article is *kitten*, counting calories is important in overall weight loss but you have to count macros too if your goals are more body composition based. 1000 calories worth of cake does not equal 1000 calories worth of chicken breast no matter how badly people would like that to be so
well that train is never late ….
yes 1000 calories of cake = 1000 calories of chicken…because energy.
however, they are not nutritionally the same.
second however, no one is advocating a diet that consists of a consistent dosage of 1000 calories a day of cake….
0 -
Right. Which is all just a complicated way of saying that in every way that actually matters to people looking to improve their health, all calories are NOT equal.
0 -
well that train is never late ….
yes 1000 calories of cake = 1000 calories of chicken…because energy.
however, they are not nutritionally the same.
second however, no one is advocating a diet that consists of a consistent dosage of 1000 calories a day of cake….
I would lose weight so fast on that plan tho.
0 -
No. Eating too much food makes you fatter.0
-
otheliemoor wrote: »
I read the article and immediately started to blame the Muslims for making me fat.
heh heh heh heh0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 17 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions