Article that defies MFP.

Lean59man

Comment of this article.

"Why you shouldn't rely on counting calories to lose weight."

http://www.businessinsider.com/calorie-counting-not-best-way-to-lose-weight-2018-1

kimny72

The things he mentions don't argue against cico, just points out variables that can make your numbers slightly different than a calculator would suggest.

Also no citations to suggest that anything he mentions makes enough of a difference to make calorie counting problematic.

And no suggestion of what to do instead, so I'm not really sure what the point is.

AnvilHead

kimny72 wrote: »

The things he mentions don't argue against cico, just points out variables that can make your numbers slightly different than a calculator would suggest.

Also no citations to suggest that anything he mentions makes enough of a difference to make calorie counting problematic.

And no suggestion of what to do instead, so I'm not really sure what the point is.

To generate clicks and drive ad revenue.

Lounmoun

Why would I go to business insider for weight loss advice?

TonyB0588

Lean59man wrote: »

Comment of this article.

"Why you shouldn't rely on counting calories to lose weight."

http://www.businessinsider.com/calorie-counting-not-best-way-to-lose-weight-2018-1

Read here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest

ms_havisham

So, I have been counting calories (with a couple breaks) for the past year. I have lost 45 pounds while eating a mixture of whole foods, fast food, convenience food, and just plain sinful food. It is a diet I can sustain indefinitely which makes me feel far more confident about maintaining the loss.

I will admit that the variables do make sense. I can meticulously log my diet and exercise and lose more weight than recommended. I usually take it as a sign to up my calories. I have Crohn's disease and during a flare up I have absorption issues. If you aren't absorbing, you aren't really taking in the calories. Sometimes even the wrong food combination will do it.

But the article provides no details, no data, and is fairly pointless. Of course many bodies have different dietary needs. That is the beauty of CICO. You can adjust it around your personal needs. There aren't a lot of diets that are so personal.

Wheelhouse15

This isn't actually new. For instance, I did some research a while ago and found that there are two types of gut bacteria for processing wheat, one for whole wheat and for white flour. Research has shown that the one that processes the whole wheat is less efficient and extracting calories than the white flour bacteria. So this accounts for some of the difference we see when we note that whole wheat only delivers about 70% of it's total calories as net calories while white flour is around 90% total to net conversion. We also know that raw foods yield fewer net calories than cooked etc.

So, I think his example is probably too extreme to be correct, but the argument for looking past just total calories is valid, but for a dieter the idea that we should eat as much whole food as possible and adjust intake accordingly should work well for most.

ghudson92

This isn't an article, it's an opinion piece. There are no references to relevant literature and no mention of methodology to ensure validity and reliability.

Wheelhouse15

georgyporcupine wrote: »

This isn't an article, it's an opinion piece. There are no references to relevant literature and no mention of methodology to ensure validity and reliability.

The scientist actually doesn't say that it isn't CICO, and what he says has some truth the more we learn about gut bacteria the more we find that we have adjustments on the CI side. Unfortunately, the extreme example is frankly BS. The researcher involved has never seen a person gain on 2000 and lose on 2500, although in theory it is possible if the person at a diet that was 95% net absorption vice a diet of 70% net absorption they would actually have a CI of 200 higher on the lower intake. Of course, they would also have to have a TDEE of around 1800. I wouldn't be surprised to find the usual rat studies to try to back this idea up but humans aren't lab rats.

This doesn't happen in real life since most people who count calories aren't just eating white floor and sugar, which you would pretty much need to do to get that high of an absorption. So yes, the article was crap but the theory is interesting and it just goes to show what we have been saying forever here, CICO is the only thing that matters but there are a lot of things that influence both parts of the equation. In practise, all diet compositions have very similar results when we look at the CI and CO numbers.

aniracace

I don't really understand why some people are so against calorie counting. I mean unless someone has an eating disorder or is predisposed to developing an eating disorder, it doesn't really seem like such a big deal. I feel like people paint calories counting as some obsessive ritual conducted on the daily. Now it certainly can become obsessive, but for most people it's a solid method of tracking weight loss. Accuracy in logging is another matter, but for the most part it's a solid method for tracking weight loss.

So why are some people so adamantly against it?

BrettWithPKU

Hopefully this is some sort of 'teaser' piece for a future article that will revolutionize the way we think about metabolism and weight management. Otherwise it's a complete waste of everyone's time.

Wheelhouse15

BDonjon wrote: »

Hopefully this is some sort of 'teaser' piece for a future article that will revolutionize the way we think about metabolism and weight management. Otherwise it's a complete waste of everyone's time.

TBH, I don't think this research will be of much use for obesity treatment, I think the ideas of understanding gut flora will have bigger implications for other areas since some bacteria are known to interact with certain gene expressions and can cause issues. I'm much more interested in the idea of promoting general health through this research rather than worrying about something that is already treatable through much simpler means for most.

zyxst

5738_Cassiel wrote: »

I don't really understand why some people are so against calorie counting. I mean unless someone has an eating disorder or is predisposed to developing an eating disorder, it doesn't really seem like such a big deal. I feel like people paint calories counting as some obsessive ritual conducted on the daily. Now it certainly can become obsessive, but for most people it's a solid method of tracking weight loss. Accuracy in logging is another matter, but for the most part it's a solid method for tracking weight loss.

So why are some people so adamantly against it?

Because it requires work and they have to face the facts of how much food they actual eat. It's easier to blame "carbs" or "slow metabolism" for being fat than eating too much.

Also, because it's science.

AnvilHead

5738_Cassiel wrote: »

I don't really understand why some people are so against calorie counting. I mean unless someone has an eating disorder or is predisposed to developing an eating disorder, it doesn't really seem like such a big deal. I feel like people paint calories counting as some obsessive ritual conducted on the daily. Now it certainly can become obsessive, but for most people it's a solid method of tracking weight loss. Accuracy in logging is another matter, but for the most part it's a solid method for tracking weight loss.

So why are some people so adamantly against it?

Usually for one of two reasons:

1) The article (and its provocative headline) will bring clicks to the website and earn them more money from advertisements.

2) Telling people that there's an "easier way" will help them sell lots of books, diet plans and "supplements".

Wheelhouse15

AnvilHead wrote: »

5738_Cassiel wrote: »

I don't really understand why some people are so against calorie counting. I mean unless someone has an eating disorder or is predisposed to developing an eating disorder, it doesn't really seem like such a big deal. I feel like people paint calories counting as some obsessive ritual conducted on the daily. Now it certainly can become obsessive, but for most people it's a solid method of tracking weight loss. Accuracy in logging is another matter, but for the most part it's a solid method for tracking weight loss.

So why are some people so adamantly against it?

Usually for one of two reasons:

1) The article (and its provocative headline) will bring clicks to the website and earn them more money from advertisements.

2) Telling people that there's an "easier way" will help them sell lots of books, diet plans and "supplements".

Exactly, and for this article in specific, the big problem here is that there is no "easier way" given. It's all theoretical about a subject that's really just starting to be investigated. Even if this idea of gut flora was more developed you would still have to count calories and also carefully monitor what you are eating to boot since you would want to promote the microbes that are more inefficient at processing foods and avoid promoting growth of those that are more efficient at it. Really, that sounds like a lot more work to me!