Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Calorie deniers
Options
Replies
-
tarekhamouda7445 wrote: »Out of personal experience, counting calories is important but when I eat Carbs with a calorie deficit I don't lose weight, I only lose weight on a low carb calorie deficit diet, everybody is different.
No, everybody is not different when it comes to the laws of energy balance. If you are in a sustained/consistent calorie deficit, you will lose weight regardless of the macronutrient composition of your diet, what time of the day you eat or how often you eat. Period. What you're claiming is not scientifically/physiologically possible.21 -
Most articles I've read that say "counting calories doesn't work" fall back on two arguments we get often here, and I think dispel quite well.
- People who are counting calories pay no attention to types of foods/nutrition, and eating nothing but crap (which for some reason it's assumed everyone would naturally do) will make you miserable and you'll quit.
- It is impossible to count calories 100% accurately, so you'll probably get it wrong and it won't work.
I agree with what some others have said, that you don't HAVE to count calories, but whether you do or not, it's the calories that determine whether you lose weight or not. Some of us like to face the details head on and count those pesky buggers, others like to use a work around where focusing on something else causes you to eat less calories naturally. It can sound really math-intensive and complicated/time consuming for people who have never done it, and for some people (who just really have a tough time with numbers, or who have an obsessive personality), it can become complicated and time consuming.12 -
Most articles I've read that say "counting calories doesn't work" fall back on two arguments we get often here, and I think dispel quite well.
- People who are counting calories pay no attention to types of foods/nutrition, and eating nothing but crap (which for some reason it's assumed everyone would naturally do) will make you miserable and you'll quit.
- It is impossible to count calories 100% accurately, so you'll probably get it wrong and it won't work.
I agree with what some others have said, that you don't HAVE to count calories, but whether you do or not, it's the calories that determine whether you lose weight or not. Some of us like to face the details head on and count those pesky buggers, others like to use a work around where focusing on something else causes you to eat less calories naturally. It can sound really math-intensive and complicated/time consuming for people who have never done it, and for some people (who just really have a tough time with numbers, or who have an obsessive personality), it can become complicated and time consuming.
This is spot on. Rejection requires construction of a strawman to deconstruct.
In both examples neither hold a high priority of influence in weight management. Both examples pose a threat to the denier mentality.
You don't have to count, but you have to engage in behaviors that result in caloric maintenance/deficit. There are several experience posters on this forum who no longer count calories, but they did at some point. This is one of many strategies for success - to implement behaviors to ensure successful weight management10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »To pick a nit and refine some terminology here, technically, you don't have to *count* calories. There's a difference between the people who say that a calorie deficit being needed for weight loss is "outdated science" (those people exist), and people who tell you that you don't need to count calories to lose fat.
There are other ways of losing fat besides calorie counting like becoming portion aware. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone.
Saying that, energy balance deniers (as I like to call them) are charlatan). Eat clean and lose weight! Eat whole foods and lose weight! Eat xyz way and lose weight! Calories don't matter, what you eat matters! Those people are a huge problem and make up a big chunk of the diet industry and take up a lot of oxygen in the public consciousness in regards to ideas about dieting thanks to articles in the media and social media.
As a former 210 pound whole foods vegetarian
, calories do indeed matter. Nutrition is important for your health, but for weight management? Calories are king. How you handle getting them under control comes down to personal preference. I myself do like counting. It suits my control freak and nerd tendencies.
So a short synopsis is you don't have to count calories, but calories count when it comes to weight loss.
i'd like to slightly revise the bolded above:
So a short synopsis is if your weight self-manages itself, you don't have to count calories, but counting calories does mattercount when it comes to weight loss.
Not necessarily. Even people whose weight isn't self-managing can lose weight without counting calories *if* they adopt dietary strategies that put them into a deficit overall. Counting calories isn't required for weight loss, it's just a tool that makes it easier for people to consistently get into a deficit.
Sure it is possible for some to find strategies that don't involve counting calories. I have no clue what other dietary strategies might also work, and maybe some of the folks that don't want to count would like to hear more about what you refer to!
I counted calories while I was losing weight...I learned a lot, but it ultimately made me a little crazy. I don't count calories to maintain or lose if I need to. Right now I'm trying to drop about 5 Lbs that I put on over the late summer/early fall when I was battling some injuries.
For one, I'm very nutrition conscious and eat pretty well whether maintaining or losing, but when losing I cut back on more of my treat foods..like usually Friday night is pizza night...when I'm cutting weight, pizza night might only be once per month.
I also typically cut back on my portions for breakfast and dinner...lunch remains more or less normal. So instead of having oats and eggs for breakfast as an example, I'll pick one or the other. For dinner, I usually just have a protein and veg vs protein, veg, and a grain or starch in maintenance. There are exceptions like tonight I'm making a black bean soup.
I also cut back on snacking. In maintenance I snack more and graze more...when I'm losing I typically keep to one or two planned snacks in the afternoon/early evening (I eat dinner late).
I usually try to give my exercise a little bump up too...I exercise regularly either way, but I typically give it a little nudge when I'm trying to lose weight...hard right now because of the winter/cold/darkness, etc...I'm usually in the position in the Spring when the cycling seasons starts to kick off, so bumping up my exercise in the Spring is as much a get ready for the season thing as it is a lose weight thing.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »To pick a nit and refine some terminology here, technically, you don't have to *count* calories. There's a difference between the people who say that a calorie deficit being needed for weight loss is "outdated science" (those people exist), and people who tell you that you don't need to count calories to lose fat.
There are other ways of losing fat besides calorie counting like becoming portion aware. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone.
Saying that, energy balance deniers (as I like to call them) are charlatan). Eat clean and lose weight! Eat whole foods and lose weight! Eat xyz way and lose weight! Calories don't matter, what you eat matters! Those people are a huge problem and make up a big chunk of the diet industry and take up a lot of oxygen in the public consciousness in regards to ideas about dieting thanks to articles in the media and social media.
As a former 210 pound whole foods vegetarian , calories do indeed matter. Nutrition is important for your health, but for weight management? Calories are king. How you handle getting them under control comes down to personal preference. I myself do like counting. It suits my control freak and nerd tendencies.
So a short synopsis is you don't have to count calories, but calories count when it comes to weight loss.
i'd like to slightly revise the bolded above:
So a short synopsis is if your weight self-manages itself, you don't have to count calories, but counting calories does mattercount when it comes to weight loss.
Not necessarily. Even people whose weight isn't self-managing can lose weight without counting calories *if* they adopt dietary strategies that put them into a deficit overall. Counting calories isn't required for weight loss, it's just a tool that makes it easier for people to consistently get into a deficit.
Sure it is possible for some to find strategies that don't involve counting calories. I have no clue what other dietary strategies might also work, and maybe some of the folks that don't want to count would like to hear more about what you refer to!
In a deficit, I typically keep meals and snacks from breakfast until dinner similar (depending on the day) and I have a "food bank" of items I chose from. Let's say snacks, I get a choice of: protein shake, cottage cheese with fruit, egg white scramble, shrimp and hot sauce, beef jerky. etc. I try not to go out of those boundaries and after weighing it once, I can eyeball the correct portion size. Making and following rules helps too, for example, having this much protein at each meal, limiting certain food items to times of day or week, they can be broken/modified of course but then I have to move things around. I also use my trend weight and know how to make adjustments in my eating habits that week to correct it if need be (ex. cut out morning snacks). This is what works for me.
0 -
Good insightful stuff here guys, and just to be clear when I say calorie deniers I’m talking about the people who flat out say you do not need to be in a deficit to lose weight. Or on the extreme cases flat out denying it in way that a calorie is something that can’t be measured or exist in food. There are actual doctors or quacks I’d say who have their licenses right now to practice who put out videos about this stuff. Imagine being a scientist and getting behind flat earth theory lol.0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There are other ways of losing fat besides calorie counting like becoming portion aware. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone.
Isn't "portion aware" just a synonym for "estimating the amount of calories based on portion size," though?tarekhamouda7445 wrote: »Out of personal experience, counting calories is important but when I eat Carbs with a calorie deficit I don't lose weight, I only lose weight on a low carb calorie deficit diet, everybody is different.
If that was true it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. With one caveat, if you aren't totally digesting certain low-carb foods it could be possible to eat more calories without gaining weight. Like for example many people can't fully digest raw nuts or certain raw vegetables. But in that case you would see the "evidence" (TMI).4 -
gatherum89 wrote: »Good insightful stuff here guys, and just to be clear when I say calorie deniers I’m talking about the people who flat out say you do not need to be in a deficit to lose weight. Or on the extreme cases flat out denying it in way that a calorie is something that can’t be measured or exist in food. There are actual doctors or quacks I’d say who have their licenses right now to practice who put out videos about this stuff. Imagine being a scientist and getting behind flat earth theory lol.
They're deluded, or deliberately being disingenuous in order to sell their books, programs, etc (I'm looking at you, Fung and Taubes). Simple as that.
In other news, one can deny the law of gravity all they want - but if they jump out of a third story window, they're still going to hit the ground whether they believe it or not. Too bad the laws of energy balance don't have such immediate and tangible results when one attempts to disprove them.9 -
gatherum89 wrote: »Good insightful stuff here guys, and just to be clear when I say calorie deniers I’m talking about the people who flat out say you do not need to be in a deficit to lose weight. Or on the extreme cases flat out denying it in way that a calorie is something that can’t be measured or exist in food. There are actual doctors or quacks I’d say who have their licenses right now to practice who put out videos about this stuff. Imagine being a scientist and getting behind flat earth theory lol.
This makes me think of shouty guy. I haven't seen him around in a while. He would come and type in all caps about how calories aren't a real thing. That carbon was the key to energy for weight. He wouldn't tell me how to count carbon in my food though. He claimed to be friends with all the big named physicists. He also devolved into name calling. His coherency seemed to drop with every single post, not that he seemed too coherent to begin with. He did have a few posters he seemed to like. Maybe he's mourning the passing of Stephen Hawking (RIP - what a brilliant mind we lost there).4 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There are other ways of losing fat besides calorie counting like becoming portion aware. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone.
Isn't "portion aware" just a synonym for "estimating the amount of calories based on portion size," though?
No, it's a means of calorie restriction without exactly counting every calorie. Some seem to do well simply cutting back on portion size and continuing to keep an eye on it. They also do things like cut back on snacking, make wise food choices, etc.
Honestly, I maintained a reasonable weight for some time at one point when I was younger simply doing that myself. I still weighed a bit more than I wanted to, but I was a relatively low weight given my own history with weight at the time.
4 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There are other ways of losing fat besides calorie counting like becoming portion aware. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone.
Isn't "portion aware" just a synonym for "estimating the amount of calories based on portion size," though?
When I was growing up (1950s/60s), calorie counting wasn't very practical for the average person, but people still lost weight intentionally. There were two common general methods**: One was reducing portions, basically the same thing as being "portion aware", a.k.a. "eating less".
For people who stuck with it, it tended to work. Most people used a general idea of which things were "fattening foods" (ice cream, cake, etc.) as part of that, but they were in no way "estimating calories". Calories weren't on food labels, there weren't apps, there wasn't an internet; you could go to the library and look things up, or buy a very limited little book (in the latter part of that time), but it really wasn't practical. You could only call it "estimating calories" if you stand back reeeaaaal far and squint. (You'd have to say that the "eat only grapefruit" diet was estimating calories, then, too.)
There are people today who can lose weight the same way by limiting portions; they're not "estimating calories". If you asked them whether a steak or an ice cream sundae had more calories, they'd have no actual knowledge. (Witness that fact that dieters are fooled by Crispy Chicken Salads, because "salad is low calorie". They may even think they're estimating calories, but they're not.)
As an aside, there was a hilarious thread where one guy argued that people couldn't lose weight in the 1950s/60s (or thereabouts), because they didn't know about calories, and didn't know why people got fat. Heh.
** Just for the record, the other common method was following a very prescriptive "diet plan": For breakfast, eat 2 poached eggs, half a slice of dry toast, and a grapefruit half; for lunch eat a tuna or chicken salad made with a specified vinaigrette dressing recipe; for dinner eat a chicken breast with a side of green beans and a glass of skimmed milk - that sort of thing. (I made up those specifics, but it's not super far off.)
5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »No, it's a means of calorie restriction without exactly counting every calorie. Some seem to do well simply cutting back on portion size and continuing to keep an eye on it. They also do things like cut back on snacking, make wise food choices, etc.
Honestly, I maintained a reasonable weight for some time at one point when I was younger simply doing that myself. I still weighed a bit more than I wanted to, but I was a relatively low weight given my own history with weight at the time.
But it's still sort of an indirect method of calorie counting. It's saying "if I eat X amount of food or less per day, I will lose (or maintain) weight." The amount of food corresponds to a calorie value, which may be unknown, but still you're adhering to that amount of calories indirectly. It's not the same as the calorie deniers (like some keto and low-carb people, or raw vegans and RT4, or even some "clean eating" people) who say there's no connection between the amount of calories eaten and weight, and instead it has to do with what foods you're eating.When I was growing up (1950s/60s), calorie counting wasn't very practical for the average person, but people still lost weight intentionally. There were two common general methods**: One was reducing portions, basically the same thing as being "portion aware", a.k.a. "eating less".
For people who stuck with it, it tended to work. Most people used a general idea of which things were "fattening foods" (ice cream, cake, etc.) as part of that, but they were in no way "estimating calories". Calories weren't on food labels, there weren't apps, there wasn't an internet; you could go to the library and look things up, or buy a very limited little book (in the latter part of that time), but it really wasn't practical. You could only call it "estimating calories" if you stand back reeeaaaal far and squint. (You'd have to say that the "eat only grapefruit" diet was estimating calories, then, too.)
There are people today who can lose weight the same way by limiting portions; they're not "estimating calories". If you asked them whether a steak or an ice cream sundae had more calories, they'd have no actual knowledge. (Witness that fact that dieters are fooled by Crispy Chicken Salads, because "salad is low calorie". They may even think they're estimating calories, but they're not.)
As an aside, there was a hilarious thread where one guy argued that people couldn't lose weight in the 1950s/60s (or thereabouts), because they didn't know about calories, and didn't know why people got fat. Heh.
** Just for the record, the other common method was following a very prescriptive "diet plan": For breakfast, eat 2 poached eggs, half a slice of dry toast, and a grapefruit half; for lunch eat a tuna or chicken salad made with a specified vinaigrette dressing recipe; for dinner eat a chicken breast with a side of green beans and a glass of skimmed milk - that sort of thing. (I made up those specifics, but it's not super far off.)
They definitely did know about calories back then and Weight Watchers, which is basically calorie counting by a different name, was invented in the 60s. But see above for why portion control is also basically calorie counting by a different name and isn't the same as calorie denial.4 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »No, it's a means of calorie restriction without exactly counting every calorie. Some seem to do well simply cutting back on portion size and continuing to keep an eye on it. They also do things like cut back on snacking, make wise food choices, etc.
Honestly, I maintained a reasonable weight for some time at one point when I was younger simply doing that myself. I still weighed a bit more than I wanted to, but I was a relatively low weight given my own history with weight at the time.
But it's still sort of an indirect method of calorie counting. It's saying "if I eat X amount of food or less per day, I will lose (or maintain) weight." The amount of food corresponds to a calorie value, which may be unknown, but still you're adhering to that amount of calories indirectly. It's not the same as the calorie deniers (like some keto and low-carb people, or raw vegans and RT4, or even some "clean eating" people) who say there's no connection between the amount of calories eaten and weight, and instead it has to do with what foods you're eating.When I was growing up (1950s/60s), calorie counting wasn't very practical for the average person, but people still lost weight intentionally. There were two common general methods**: One was reducing portions, basically the same thing as being "portion aware", a.k.a. "eating less".
For people who stuck with it, it tended to work. Most people used a general idea of which things were "fattening foods" (ice cream, cake, etc.) as part of that, but they were in no way "estimating calories". Calories weren't on food labels, there weren't apps, there wasn't an internet; you could go to the library and look things up, or buy a very limited little book (in the latter part of that time), but it really wasn't practical. You could only call it "estimating calories" if you stand back reeeaaaal far and squint. (You'd have to say that the "eat only grapefruit" diet was estimating calories, then, too.)
There are people today who can lose weight the same way by limiting portions; they're not "estimating calories". If you asked them whether a steak or an ice cream sundae had more calories, they'd have no actual knowledge. (Witness that fact that dieters are fooled by Crispy Chicken Salads, because "salad is low calorie". They may even think they're estimating calories, but they're not.)
As an aside, there was a hilarious thread where one guy argued that people couldn't lose weight in the 1950s/60s (or thereabouts), because they didn't know about calories, and didn't know why people got fat. Heh.
** Just for the record, the other common method was following a very prescriptive "diet plan": For breakfast, eat 2 poached eggs, half a slice of dry toast, and a half grapefruit; for lunch eat a tuna or chicken salad made with a specified vinaigrette dressing recipe; for dinner eat a. chicken breast with a side of green beans and a glass of skimmed milk - that sort of thing. (I made up those specifics, but it's not super far off.)
They definitely did know about calories back then and Weight Watchers, which is basically calorie counting by a different name, was invented in the 60s. But see above for why portion control is also basically calorie counting by a different name and isn't the same as calorie denial.
No. If portion control is calorie counting by a different name, then every weight loss method in the world is calorie counting by a different name.
All of them, under the covers, are about balancing intake and output, things we conventionally measure in calories, and sometime refer to as CICO. Calorie counting is either a specific method where you actually count calories, or the term is pretty meaningless and we need a new name for the method where you just . . . count calories.
And I think you maybe missed the part where I said I was alive in the 1950s? I'm pretty clear what happened then.8 -
No. If portion control is calorie counting by a different name, then every weight loss method in the world is calorie counting by a different name.
All of them, under the covers, are about balancing intake and output, things we conventionally measure in calories, and sometime refer to as CICO. Calorie counting is either a specific method where you actually count calories, or the term is pretty meaningless and we need a new name for the method where you just . . . count calories.
And I think you maybe missed the part where I said I was alive in the 1950s? I'm pretty clear what happened then.
Not true. A lot of diets have to do with what you eat and the idea that eating or avoiding specific foods will help you to lose weight. Atkins, South Beach, RT4, keto, paleo, carnivore, plant-based diet, Starch Solution, "clean eating," and many others are all about WHAT you eat and say very little to nothing about how much you eat. In fact many of them openly state that there are no restrictions on calorie intake (you can look it up).
Calorie counting and portion control are the same in that they are about how much you eat. The former is measured using a more exact method than the latter, but the principle is the same. You can eat whatever foods you want as long as you don't eat above a certain amount. Some people may choose to give up certain foods to reduce overall portion size, like giving up dessert to reduce total calories, but no specific foods are "fattening" in and of themselves and it's about the context of total amount eaten. Of course any weight loss method that actually works ends up amounting to CICO, but the point is that most popular diet plans do not acknowledge that, because then people would realize they don't need the plan to lose weight. And that's why fad diets don't work for most people and usually end up making them fatter, and why experts caution against them.
8 -
tarekhamouda7445 wrote: »Out of personal experience, counting calories is important but when I eat Carbs with a calorie deficit I don't lose weight, I only lose weight on a low carb calorie deficit diet, everybody is different.
If carbs prevented weight loss in a calorie deficit, that would be the solution to world hunger.19 -
NorthCascades wrote: »tarekhamouda7445 wrote: »Out of personal experience, counting calories is important but when I eat Carbs with a calorie deficit I don't lose weight, I only lose weight on a low carb calorie deficit diet, everybody is different.
If carbs prevented weight loss in a calorie deficit, that would be the solution to world hunger.
Lmao good one I like the way you think.
1 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »I think it comes down to looking for ways to "hack" or "trick" the process.
Yup (even, oddly, if it's actually more difficult -- never eat food you like again, but you can eat as much as you like!)"There are no calories in stolen food!" (Roz on Nightcourt, after swiping a fry from Christine's plate.)
Reminds me of when I was a summer associate and associate at a big law firm the ongoing joke was "if you don't pay for it, it doesn't have calories." Free food was everywhere. It was an incentive as a summer and a comfort/reward for having no life as an associate.3 -
[laurenq1991 wrote: »No. If portion control is calorie counting by a different name, then every weight loss method in the world is calorie counting by a different name.
All of them, under the covers, are about balancing intake and output, things we conventionally measure in calories, and sometime refer to as CICO. Calorie counting is either a specific method where you actually count calories, or the term is pretty meaningless and we need a new name for the method where you just . . . count calories.
And I think you maybe missed the part where I said I was alive in the 1950s? I'm pretty clear what happened then.
Not true. A lot of diets have to do with what you eat and the idea that eating or avoiding specific foods will help you to lose weight. Atkins, South Beach, RT4, keto, paleo, carnivore, plant-based diet, Starch Solution, "clean eating," and many others are all about WHAT you eat and say very little to nothing about how much you eat. In fact many of them openly state that there are no restrictions on calorie intake (you can look it up).
But the truth is that many of these restrictions tend to result in lots of people eating fewer calories (at least for a while). They work for the people for whom that is true, and not for those for whom they don't affect calories.1 -
gatherum89 wrote: »Good insightful stuff here guys, and just to be clear when I say calorie deniers I’m talking about the people who flat out say you do not need to be in a deficit to lose weight. Or on the extreme cases flat out denying it in way that a calorie is something that can’t be measured or exist in food. There are actual doctors or quacks I’d say who have their licenses right now to practice who put out videos about this stuff. Imagine being a scientist and getting behind flat earth theory lol.
In addition to the thankfully few calorie deniers I get irritated by the crowd that insist there are different kinds of calories, good or bad calories, clean or dirty calories etc. etc.
As someone who got fat eating 95% good home cooked food (and 5% hospital food) I find the idea that you can't get fat eating "good food" with "good calories" a bit comical.8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »tarekhamouda7445 wrote: »Out of personal experience, counting calories is important but when I eat Carbs with a calorie deficit I don't lose weight, I only lose weight on a low carb calorie deficit diet, everybody is different.
If carbs prevented weight loss in a calorie deficit, that would be the solution to world hunger.
Exactly. I always turn it around, and no one can seem to explain it going in the opposite direction, for people that are underweight and struggling to gain. Oh if only it were that easy, right.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions