Calorie counting doesn't work according to a new study. Apparently.
Options
Replies
-
The Daily Mail lives on hype. The only mention of 'counting' calories comes from the article's title, not from the article. This is not published research. It has not been peer reviewed. It is bad science to not have others in the field verify your work. It becomes pseudo-science without this verification. Basically this guy just wants hype to sell copies of his book that comes out in a couple days.
Here's PBS News Hour's follow up:
Editor’s note: It has come to NewsHour’s attention that some claims in this article cannot be independently verified, as the noted study isn’t published publicly nor readily available in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, while mouse studies have found links between gut microbes, dietary changes and obesity, the evidence remains less clear in humans. As Robert Knight of the University of Colorado wrote in a recent review in the British Journal of Nutrition: “It remains a challenge to identify the key pathogenic microbiota and to establish a causal (rather than associative) relationship between specific microbes or community states and a given physiological or disease phenotype.”
That said gut microbes are currently poorly understood and it may be possible that some of 'our' cravings for certain foods come from chemical signals sent by gut bacteria wishing to eat.
And then Jesus spoke0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
If my doctor said this to me I would be finding a new doctor.
Quite often doctors say stuff like that (or recommend ridiculous calorie levels) because they assume their patients are incompetent loggers/counters or are lying. So telling them not to eat sugar if they are people who have been eating tons of sweets (or the dr assumes they do) is an easy way to make them cut calories if the dr suspects they aren't really eating the calories reported, as well as of course forcing them to eat a better diet, again if they are eating a poor one.
I'd find this offensive since I am not someone who logs poorly (at least not without being aware of it) and would be honest with my dr about my diet. However, I'm sure drs get jaded, and I've lied about other stuff, I admit.0 -
You can but it would violate the below policy as I stated on the last page.skysiebaby wrote: »
I think MFP removed my photo from the original post
hahaha let's keep it rolling
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
0 -
skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
winning races<>out running a bad diet.
as I said interpretation is subjective.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
The bold is 100% false. If you read any of our post, you will see we start with calories (because the controls loss/gain/maintenance), but advocate getting 80-90% of your diet from nutrient dense foods.
Also, if I am a pro cyclist, I would include gummy bears in my diet, especially while riding as it's mainly dextrose (fasted converting sugar) which can help replenish glycogen fast. But that is just me personally.
Also, i haven't read the book, so if that is where you automatically draw our information from, it would be hard to put that in context. But my general context has always been about losing weight, particularly in the area of getting abs/flat stomachs.0 -
False dichotomy is false.skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
No one says it is "all science," but science dictates the results of the choice to eat too much.
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
If my doctor said this to me I would be finding a new doctor.
Why? It's solid advice. As we see on MFP every day, counting accurately is harder than it looks. The doctor is offering a simple alternative to fixing the realities of bad counting. Since most obese Americans are eating so much sugar that doing nothing but eliminating sugar is enough to drop out of a caloric excess, the advice is very much in line with a philosophy of "here's a simple way to go to a deficit".
0 -
It does make sense to me that if you eat foods that allow your gut bacteria to thrive which in turn causes your body to function at an optimal level that you may be able to manage a higher caloric maintenance. However, you still have a limit to your calories and if you find yourself overstepping that limit, you will gain weight as has been proven time and time again. This article would have done much better to leave the "calorie counting doesn't work" line out of it and maybe pursued the data from a different angle. I wonder if it ever occurred to them to put the two theories together, because obviously calorie counting DOES work.
Of course, "good for your gut" foods are generally lower calorie than "bad for your gut" foods such as Big Macs. All you need is for the cook at McD's to double your mayo portion accidentally and you've got a lot of extra calories. What happens if you eat a couple extra salad leaves? Not much. Did these participants weigh their food and log accurately? If they didn't, this test is basically null and void.0 -
I eat the same dang foods that I ate when I was obese, just less of them.JustAnotherGirlSuzanne wrote: »It does make sense to me that if you eat foods that allow your gut bacteria to thrive which in turn causes your body to function at an optimal level that you may be able to manage a higher caloric maintenance.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I eat the same dang foods that I ate when I was obese, just less of them.JustAnotherGirlSuzanne wrote: »It does make sense to me that if you eat foods that allow your gut bacteria to thrive which in turn causes your body to function at an optimal level that you may be able to manage a higher caloric maintenance.
So do I. I was just musing. There's no way I'm giving up my ice cream.
0 -
Because that's the location of the discussion and that's how that's how it's used here.TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.
Not the company - the community.
99% of the time on MFP "you can't outrun..." is a reference to caloric intake, not nutritional content.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Commenting without having read thru all the comments -
Research on the gut microbiome (much like research on epigenetics) is in its infancy. We simply don't know enough to be making any kind of recommendations. The fact is, there are more NON-human cells in our body than there are human ones. So the notion that out "gut bugs" influence our health (and quite possibly our weight) in a significant way is not a totally off-the-wall notion. That said, we don't know (yet) what the optimum gut microbiome looks like, nor do we know how to get there. Some foods seem beneficial (fermented foods, like yogurt, sauerkraut, kieifer, etc) and others appear more harmful (refined carbohydrates), but like I said, it's just too soon into this field of study to be making recommendations to the general public. Theories are great in the world of science and academia. But for practical applications in the real world, we need more concrete evidence of what to do in order to obtain "optimal" gut bacteria. Until then, the best advice is to do the best you can with the info you actually have - we know that calorie restriction (however you happen to go about it) and increased activity works. It's not fun. It's not glamorous. Its doesn't sell newspapers. But it will work. And until science gives us something more concrete to work with, everything else is just snake oil.
Yup. Sick to death of the media jumping on preliminary speculative findings and then the internet gurus running away with it.
I predict the "gut flora diet" will be the next big thing. Everyone will be eating lacto-fermented veggies and yogurt to lose weight.
It already kinda is. Mercola is all over it! Ferment your own veggies so you don't get fat and die of cancer and Alzheimer's!
And it is sad, because the research IS really fascinating. I would suspect gut flora does play a role in weight management, due to how it might affect satiety, digestive ease, and nutrient absorption, not by magically making you fat or skinny. I read something that vaguely suggests it is our gut flora that causes specific food cravings. So maybe it's not a little devil on my shoulder, telling me to eat the whole bag of chips. It is my not-diverse-enough-gut-bacteria! Of course it's still me sticking my hand back in the bag
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
I've always understood it to mean that merely increasing exercise won't cause you to lose weight.
Which is not always true.
Exactly. Same here. Most people I recall that have brought it up on their own went on to absolutely clarify that they didn't feel exercise was a legitimate method of creating a deficit that would cause weight loss
0 -
skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because that's the location of the discussion and that's how that's how it's used here.TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.
Obviously, one way it is used here is to talk about excess calories. But as many people have demonstrated, you can exercise and lose weight and just because you increase exercise doesn't mean that you are going to eat a lot more. So, with that understanding, the assertion in question is, at best, a rule of thumb and can't be said to be true all the time. But when it comes to bad nutrition, no amount of exercise is going to correct that, because the body is missing some of the building blocks it needs.0 -
blargh. These articles are awful. Folks don't want to be responsible for doing work to get the results. Ppl ask me how I lost the weight and when I say truthfully "count calories and exercise like a maniac" their faces fall and they say "oh" and then "well do you have to keep counting and working out?" And I say YES unless I want to gain it all back, I count cals and I continue working hard. Then they say "OH." and they walk away. OK then, stay fat, whatever... not my problem lol0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions