Explain diets that don't count calories to me
Options
Replies
-
Well my Dr. who is a specialist in Diabetes and hey I'm a diabetic now, put my on Atkins... it does some of what I read here already BUT mainly it cuts sugar, as in BAD carbs after your weight loss they have a maintenance menu, if you come off it you most likely will gain wt. (or so I heard) in my case, yes I was losing wt. but when I saw my heart Dr. she freaked out and that ended that diet idea! Had to find a compromise. BTW the irony of my heart Dr. negative response it, Dr. Atkins developed this diet for fast wt. loss for heart patients that needed to lose to safely have surgery!0
-
Unless you know how many calories you are eating and using, I don't think you can really lose weight on any diet though.
This is not true. Many people lose weight without ever counting calories. They simply eat less than they were eating while gaining weight. It's possible to tell how many calories you need simply by whether you are losing, maintaining or gaining weight.
I kept my weight in check for many years without weighing anything (including myself) or counting calories. If my jeans got tight, I ate less until they fit right again.
I agree - my mum and brother have lost weight on Slimming World, without counting calories per se. Basically, in a calorie counting diet such as MFP, you find your own way to feel full on e.g. 1500 calories per day. You start from the very theoretical background to dieting, and work up. You tweak your own numbers until it works for you, and it's very trial and error. However, the SW, WW etc. do the hard work for you - they do the calorie counting and assesment of nutritional value etc., and offer you a diet structure, rather than a diet theory from which to build your own structure. Their structure leads to a diet that is broadly speaking in deficit, even if the dieter doesn't actually realise this is the case.
<bunch of text removed to save space>
I wasn't really refering to WW or SW either. I know nothing of SW, but WW is calorie counting of a sort. It just uses points instead of the actual calorie count.
I was refering to people who don't use any formalized system for weight control. Who just use nothing other than their body, the mirror and clothing as a guide.
Ahhh,
In that case, they do basically what we do, without the maths to prove it, e.g. cut down on portion sizes, switch sweet sugary snacks for fruit and carrot stick, switch whole milk to semi skimmed, lower carb intake etc. All of these serve to reduce calorie count, without actually measuring calories.
i.e. This:I lost weight at the start without counting calories. Australian government had a "swap it" campaign on TV - eg. Switch to whole grain food, swap soda for water, get off the couch and play with your kids, leave the car at home and walk your kids to school etc. etc I decided WTH? Try it. I found with whole foods my portions got smaller but also I'd experiment with smaller portions of takeaway etc and found I could survive that lol. At a deficit but not sure how much. I walked 1/2hr per day. Lost 32lbs roughly and steadily until hubs bought me a smartphone the next Xmas then I found Mfp. Sometimes I wish I'd never found Mfp though tbh. On the other hand, I do also wonder how much further I'd have gone without counting calories. I was enjoying the thought of getting better nutrition and setting a better example for my kids which I feel is sustainable and still motivates me.
The best thing about Mfp and why I'm still here is my friends but everything else has been a see saw of love/hate.
Although I find MFP helpful for surprise calories and portion control - I switched a few things out of my diet and did more exercise for a couple of months prior to using MFP, but didn't lose any weight.
For those of you discussing whether or not Atkins caused you to lose weight without calorie deficit, I suggest you read this:
http://evidencemag.com/calories-count/
Basically, scientific research shows you can't lose weight without calorie deficit. Without measuring your calories before and during your Atkins diet, you have no evidence to suggest that you were losing weight without calorie deficit. Are there any actual clinical trials that show this effect? I'm all for challenging the "orthodoxy", but with clinically controlled, peer reviewed evidence. Anecdotal evidence along the lines of "I was on the Atkins diet and I lost weight but I don't think I cut my calories" doesn't hold much weight (haha) with those of a scientific mindset. Sure, Atkins works for some people, but the best scientifically supported explanation is that they were in calorie deficit, whether they knew it or not.Though I didn't keep calorie counts at the time, I did eat that way every day and I can calculate now what I was eating. Lunch alone was almost 1500 calories. Every day. I mean, at Burger King the double whopper with cheese and bacon and no bun is over 1000 calories, and then I added a big dollop of full-fat mayo. And those are thin patties compared to what I normally ate.
Retrospective calorie counting is highly unreliable. In order to do a proper measurement you would need to weigh and log every food you eat. Overeaters are notorious in self-reported clinical trials for forgetting food they've eaten and underlogging, so hindsight estimations are not a good example and you would need contemporaneous logging for the most accurate count. In order to give this claim credibility, you need precision and consistency in your measurements of food, weight, TDEE, BMR etc., prior to, during and after the "diet" phase, which you cannot acheive to sufficiently accurate levels retrospectively.0 -
I was listening to Aragon in a pod cast talking about sugar and a few other things and he sort of hypothesized discreetly that there may be some truth in the last decade or so of the increase in protein correlating to slowing and stopping the obesity trend.......more protein and less carbs in a diet generally equates to more satiety. I thought it was interesting.Most everyone I know who's lost weight ANY way has gained it back.
Most folks gain it back when they stop being diligent with WHATEVER approach they've used.
Good point, not to mention anecdotal evidence like that is unreliable.
That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?0 -
If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...0 -
I have a man crush on Aragon so anything he says I am instantly interested in LOL
Thanks for the heads up!0 -
I was listening to Aragon in a pod cast talking about sugar and a few other things and he sort of hypothesized discreetly that there may be some truth in the last decade or so of the increase in protein correlating to slowing and stopping the obesity trend.......more protein and less carbs in a diet generally equates to more satiety. I thought it was interesting.Most everyone I know who's lost weight ANY way has gained it back.
Most folks gain it back when they stop being diligent with WHATEVER approach they've used.
Good point, not to mention anecdotal evidence like that is unreliable.
That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
I've heard similar, although I beleive this is probably about satiety, as you say. If you eat more protein, you feel more sated, and you eat less food later, so the total day's calorie count adds up to less, if that makes sense? I think there may have been some studies about this, although I can't remember any links to them off the top of my head.0 -
If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
Have a read of this.....
http://evidencemag.com/intermittent-fasting-weight-loss/
Pretty much agrees with you I think 0 -
The diet I recommend most to people is find 300-500 calories that you eat and remove it... No counting calories involved.
or
Eat smaller portions of everything you already eat.
Both are simply, easy to maintain and a lot less complicated than tracking calories. Not everyone has the willpower or dedication to track everything they eat.0 -
This kinda makes no sense. Back to eating normally is what made people fat in the first place.If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...0 -
The diet I recommend most to people is find 300-500 calories that you eat and remove it... No counting calories involved.
or
Eat smaller portions of everything you already eat.
Both are simply, easy to maintain and a lot less complicated than tracking calories. Not everyone has the willpower or dedication to track everything they eat.
eh...this wouldn't work for most.
if you are eating 700 calories over maintenance and you cut 500 you will still gain...only way that works is if you are maintaining.
"DIETS" work due to calorie deficet...and most who don't count are in a deficet when they are on a DIET...doesn't matter which one.
That being said they don't teach you portion control, nutrition or why you are overeweight or how to maintain it once you get to your desired goal...
Calorie counting when done as a lifestyle does all that...pretty easy.0 -
I may start looking into this theory. If we look at trends in the US population, 2000 was when sugar and obesity peaked. I think the popular high carb and low fat diet that was previously dominant for decades also peaked. Almost all diet today and I mean in the last decade or so are generally based on consuming fewer carbs.
I was listening to Aragon in a pod cast talking about sugar and a few other things and he sort of hypothesized discreetly that there may be some truth in the last decade or so of the increase in protein correlating to slowing and stopping the obesity trend.......more protein and less carbs in a diet generally equates to more satiety. I thought it was interesting.Most everyone I know who's lost weight ANY way has gained it back.
Most folks gain it back when they stop being diligent with WHATEVER approach they've used.
Good point, not to mention anecdotal evidence like that is unreliable.
That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
I've heard similar, although I beleive this is probably about satiety, as you say. If you eat more protein, you feel more sated, and you eat less food later, so the total day's calorie count adds up to less, if that makes sense? I think there may have been some studies about this, although I can't remember any links to them off the top of my head.0 -
If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.0 -
This kinda makes no sense. Back to eating normally is what made people fat in the first place.If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
It does make sense. Once weight is lost, you arent likely to continue with a particular diet, are you? A 5:2 diet is a temporary eating plan, not a way of life, so the body readjusts to what it knew before, is the theory. The mentality is that the work is done. Dont need to diet any more, as opposed to just sticking to the same plan but varying portions slightly to control weight.0 -
How do diets like Atkins work if you're not counting calories? I don't think everyone that has followed it has been a flat out failure - otherwise the products wouldn't sell. Since weightloss seems to be all about calories in < calories out, how does weightloss happen if you're not counting calories?
(No I'm not interested in trying Atkins. I need my carbs. This is just pure curiosity.)
For Atkins, the simple fact that you are eliminating carbs, you are eliminating calories....
So unless you make those calories up with other foods.....then you are cutting calories.0 -
If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.
My post was meant to giverecommendations to eating structure. Besides, a calorie deficit plan would imply better eating habits. How would you make this in the first place. A 5:2 diet would also be pointless if the dieter was unable to break poor habits. No-one is going to be able to lose weight constantly gorging on oversized portions whatever the diet entails.
Atkins may not have meant to be a temporary diet, but following research medical experts only recommend this as a temporary fix or a danger to your health. Even people who do it in the short term feel the side effects of lethargy and tiredness, deprived of energy.0 -
In terms of weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
It has been shown in controlled studies that weight will be unchanged on the same calories regardless if those calories come from 10% fat or 70% fat.
See two minutes (49:40 to 51:49) of this video from Dr. Leibel at one the Grand Rounds lectures from the National Institute of Health:
http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=2993&bhcp=1
Low-carb diets like Atkins do nothing in terms of weight loss directly. What they may do is, at least temporarily, help with satiety.0 -
It has been shown in controlled studies that weight will be unchanged on the same calories regardless if those calories come from 10% fat or 70% fat.
Got a link to a paper ? sounds an interesting one. Couldn't get past a spinning thing on the video.0 -
It has been shown in controlled studies that weight will be unchanged on the same calories regardless if those calories come from 10% fat or 70% fat.
Got a link to a paper ? sounds an interesting one. Couldn't get past a spinning thing on the video.
What about the story of that man that lost weight eating only Twinkies/Hohos and such? If that's not a diet made up of mostly bad stuff I don't know what is.0 -
I think more research into macronutrient effects on overall adherence and health might be in order......You seem to be repeating some pretty standard propaganda regarding diets. The reason medical experts recommend this type of diet being temporary is because there are no long term studies on these types of diets to speak of, nothing more, no devil lurking.If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.
My post was meant to giverecommendations to eating structure. Besides, a calorie deficit plan would imply better eating habits. How would you make this in the first place. A 5:2 diet would also be pointless if the dieter was unable to break poor habits. No-one is going to be able to lose weight constantly gorging on oversized portions whatever the diet entails.
Atkins may not have meant to be a temporary diet, but following research medical experts only recommend this as a temporary fix or a danger to your health. Even people who do it in the short term feel the side effects of lethargy and tiredness, deprived of energy.0 -
Slimming World - Food combining - not calorie counting.
A lot of High protein diets don't require calorie counting (although it is advisable as it's easy to eat too much of a deficit).
By the way these are answers to the OP's questions I am not advocating not counting calories and that eating a deficit will help you lose weight.
In response to a calorie, is a calorie is a calorie - it's a bit more complex than to say you will loss weight the same regardless of calories you consume from different macronutrients. But that's a topic for a different thread I think.0
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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions