Calorie counting doesn't work according to a new study. Apparently.
Replies
-
Well, in my own personal study it does work, and that's the only study that matters to me.
0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
are you sure you read the article...here are the headlinesEverything you think you know about diets is WRONG: Counting calories is a total waste of time, it’s bacteria in your gut that make you fat and finally, cheese, alcohol and chocolate can all help
Professor Tim Spector, a leading genetics expert, finds compelling evidence as to why calorie-controlled diets don’t work
He believes with the right regimen of diet and exercise, we can be happy, healthy - and lean - and keep the pounds off for life
Author of new book The Diet Myth: The Real Science Behind What We Eat
First line of the article
Calorie-controlled diets don’t work.
The word calorie is there 16x...insulin x00 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....
Point is: The claims are "Calories are all the same." I am saying, "No they're not based on hormonal situation."
now, you are moving the goalposts.
you brought up insulin resistance and I pointed out it was oft topic, you then said it was on topic, and it was again pointed out that it was off topic, and now you come back with this...? LOL0 -
Oh look who's here.
What's the over/under on the thread lock?0 -
Interesting study Pu_239 (I actually printed it out and read through the whole thing), but the point is that the article linked here is that counting calories does not work, which is just plain insupportable.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Oh look who's here.
What's the over/under on the thread lock?
imminent0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....
Point is: The claims are "Calories are all the same." I am saying, "No they're not based on hormonal situation."
now, you are moving the goalposts.
you brought up insulin resistance and I pointed out it was oft topic, you then said it was on topic, and it was again pointed out that it was off topic, and now you come back with this...? LOL
You sound surprised?
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....
Point is: The claims are "Calories are all the same." I am saying, "No they're not based on hormonal situation."
now, you are moving the goalposts.
you brought up insulin resistance and I pointed out it was oft topic, you then said it was on topic, and it was again pointed out that it was off topic, and now you come back with this...? LOL
You sound surprised?
no, just pointing out the obvious.0 -
Once again, negative comments, has anyone done any research on this subject?. Typical.
The title is misleading. Being a person who had severe digestive issues for 6-12 months. I did my research on the subject. Gut health is probably the most critical part for the human body to function properly.
What did you do? Did you get better? Id like to know. Pm me if you would.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Oh look who's here.
What's the over/under on the thread lock?
Based solely on verbosity and not content...I'd say we've got another 100 or so posts before we get there.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.
There is a difference between someone who try there hardest to accomplish weight loss for example even if they failed or took them longer to do then someone putting in no effort hoping the world finds some way that you could take something and boom you are magically x amount of pounds down with no effort. You would not call the latter being lazy?
If you do things right, there is no "try" in weight loss, it happens naturally with very little effort.
Statistics show different. My personal experience shows way different. If it was easy then 9 times out of 10 this site would not exist.
Or maybe it's just being done in away that makes it more difficult. Based on the current advice taken.
I was actually going to agree that some people are just doing in wrong. I can admit that past attempts at weight loss were done the wrong way.
You know what? I'll actually say for me? This is not hard work. My past attempts? Were.
I LIKE logging and weighing my food. It appeals to some geeky/nerdy/control freak side of me. I LIKE exercise. I NEVER could say that before.
The biggest factor in it being easy for me now, though? I have my head on straight about food after 40 years of having it REALLY messed up by a lot of things. It took me that long to get to the bottom of a very tangled knot of a lot of different factors.
I worked hard and slayed some dragons to get to this point, but I don't find what I'm doing to lose weight -- this is the last step on a very long path -- hard at all. I know this isn't true for everyone, though.
0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....
Point is: The claims are "Calories are all the same." I am saying, "No they're not based on hormonal situation."
actually according to the article yes they are and it's the gut bacteria that defines if you are lean or not...so even those with metabolic disorders or who are insulin resistant should be lean given the correct ratios of gut bacteria.In a book published this week, The Diet Myth: The Real Science Behind What We Eat, Professor Spector argues that, with the right regimen of diet and exercise, we can change our personal mix of gut bacteria to become one that keeps us happy, healthy — and lean.Nowadays, we naturally associate junk food diets with weight gain. But is it the food itself that causes the pounds to pile on — or could it be a result of the damage it causes to our diversity of gut bacteria?This was clear proof that fat-associated microbes are really toxic and can be transmitted like an infection. The toxic microbes are more likely to grow rapidly in our guts and be a problem if other microbes are suppressed or if there is a lack of diversity.’Dieting can also be dangerous, he adds. ‘The increasing promotion and use of restrictive diets that depend on just a few ingredients will inevitably lead to a further reduction in microbe diversity and, eventually, to ill-health.’
and then there is this....uh oh.0 -
donalynvaughn wrote: »Let's see, I have lost 70 pounds since August doing a low calorie program plus moderate (just getting off of my butt) exercise. But it doesn't work. Whatever. Seriously, I get asked every day, "What are you doing?" Several people have started doing what I am doing and have also lost weight, but there are those who want the magic pill. "Oh, I can't do that." "Aren't you taking a diet pill or something." NOPE. Laziness got me fat and hard work is going to fix it. Not that I am calling fat people lazy, but lazy habits will kill you - driving through the drive through instead of fixing a healthy meal, parking next to the door when you go shop instead of walking from the parking lot, sitting watching TV all night instead of going for a walk, etc. Lazy habits.
ditto..I am down 89 lbs thru cal counting and exercise everyday. People ask me what my secret is too..and I tell them..do what WE ALL KNOW we are supposed to do..eat well most of the time, stay away from fast food and pop, sugar, salt...have a treat now and then, but count it when you do. etc etc...it works if you work it !!!!
if drinking vinegar, taking a pill, or any of the other miracle cures worked we would all be skinny !!!!!!!!!
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »So having read through this whole debacle I have a few thoughts.
First - while you can't escape the realities of creating a calorie deficit, it seems short-sighted, at best, to think that all those millions upon billions of creatures living in our intestines (lovely thought, huh) couldn't possibly have an impact on our health or weight. That said we really don't know *what* that impact might be, how it would work, or how best to "optimize" the number and type of bacteria in our intestines. Those who are jumping the gun and recommending specific diets to improve intestinal flora are charlatans.
Second - we may very well find that optimizing our intestinal bacteria has a significant impact on weight loss (be it due to improved satiety, improved digestion, reduced craving, whathaveyou). But that still seems pretty low on the totem poll. First and foremost a calorie deficit must be created - eating less, exercising more. Then I can see playing around with macros to find what works best for a given individual to allow them to maintain a deficit without feeling hungry - different macro ratios can dramatically impact satiety, but it is highly individual. Then a focus on micros - making sure your nutritional needs are adequately met - is warranted, not for weight loss so much as for optimal health and nutrition. Finally, AFTER one has done all of that, maybe looking towards ways of improving one's gut bugs could help. This article was basically putting the cart before the horse, trying to skip the (boring) work that needs to be done before one gets to put the icing on the cake (as it were).
As for "you can't outrun a bad diet", I'll go ahead and say that I can see both meanings - no amount of exercise will help you lose weight unless you are in a calorie deficit is obviously true. But I've also heard it stated in regards to nutrition, especially when talking about "skinny-fat" people. Yeah, you can exercise and be thin and in great shape, outwardly, but if you are eating mostly crap (the definition of which, right, wrong, or indifferent, varies from one person to the next, unfortunately), you may still be unhealthy (high cholesterol, high blood glucose, high BP, etc). Both sentiments are accurate. I'd love to see someone of a normal weight with good blood markers switch from a mostly "healthy" diet to one comprised of mostly "junk" (or vice versa) to see what would happen to their blood markers, holding their weight constant through the switch.
Oh, and call me a terrible person, but fat unicorns are hilarious!
I did - I have the health records to prove it. From the time I became a successful business owner of a chocolate company where I made my own goods from scratch to when I sold it (that made it successful - sold it for more than what I bought it for) and for three years after, my blood markers are terrible.
I have the last three at Mercy here in STL. I can get Mercy to dig up my Minnesota records to successfully demonstrate the issue.
That's what I've been discussing all along. What we have here is a bunch of people who refuse to believe it. I keep saying I am living proof. There's nothing left to be said.
Back to work!0 -
*were not are0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.
There is a difference between someone who try there hardest to accomplish weight loss for example even if they failed or took them longer to do then someone putting in no effort hoping the world finds some way that you could take something and boom you are magically x amount of pounds down with no effort. You would not call the latter being lazy?
If you do things right, there is no "try" in weight loss, it happens naturally with very little effort.
Statistics show different. My personal experience shows way different. If it was easy then 9 times out of 10 this site would not exist.
Or maybe it's just being done in away that makes it more difficult. Based on the current advice taken.
I was actually going to agree that some people are just doing in wrong. I can admit that past attempts at weight loss were done the wrong way.
You know what? I'll actually say for me? This is not hard work. My past attempts? Were.
I LIKE logging and weighing my food. It appeals to some geeky/nerdy/control freak side of me. I LIKE exercise. I NEVER could say that before.
The biggest factor in it being easy for me now, though? I have my head on straight about food after 40 years of having it REALLY messed up by a lot of things. It took me that long to get to the bottom of a very tangled knot of a lot of different factors.
I worked hard and slayed some dragons to get to this point, but I don't find what I'm doing to lose weight -- this is the last step on a very long path -- hard at all. I know this isn't true for everyone, though.
Congrats. You are not the only one.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Interesting study Pu_239 (I actually printed it out and read through the whole thing), but the point is that the article linked here is that counting calories does not work, which is just plain insupportable.
In my first post, I said "the title is misleading." The actual artical which the girl linked to had very little to do with calories.
@MrM27 The study i posted is about how all calories are not created equal in terms of weight loss. Most are debating calories.
@Pu_239 did we read the same article..the word calorie was mentioned 16x...
And per the article...it's gut bacteria that makes you lean not anything else.
to the bolded part....what??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? are you serious?0 -
Now my blood work is back to normal - and all through a nutritious diet regimen created by my doctor, nutritionist, and PT facility all in collaboration - and I have those records posted.0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Now my blood work is back to normal - and all through a nutritious diet regimen created by my doctor, nutritionist, and PT facility all in collaboration - and I have those records posted.
Nobody cares.
N=1
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
Etc..
-1 -
girlviernes wrote: »Interesting study Pu_239 (I actually printed it out and read through the whole thing), but the point is that the article linked here is that counting calories does not work, which is just plain insupportable.
In my first post, I said "the title is misleading." The actual artical which the girl linked to had very little to do with calories.
@MrM27 The study i posted is about how all calories are not created equal in terms of weight loss. Most are debating calories.
I am not the one mentioning Insulin resistance, you are.
then start your own thread about insulin resistance and all calories not being equal ...no need to derail this one with your insulin resistance argument, which is what you do in every single thread.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Now my blood work is back to normal - and all through a nutritious diet regimen created by my doctor, nutritionist, and PT facility all in collaboration - and I have those records posted.
You should be seeing a registered dietician. It's possible that none of those people you see have any idea what they're talking about.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions