Explain diets that don't count calories to me

1235

Replies

  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Also, fat is very satiating and eating more of them can keep us full for longer. If we eat a high fat low carb, low-ish protein diet our body starts to produce keynotes, it stops using glycogen as fuel and switches over to 'fat burning' mode these keyones suppress appetite and that another reason why people loose weight on a low carb diret.

    Calories are really irrelevant but calorie 'lovers; will argue that by default we are eating less calories because we cutting a food group, but in all reality, we are just eating how humans are meant to eat and regulating weight/loosing weight that way.

    This is obviously a HUGE overview of the complexity of human body. it really inst just as simple as calories in-calories out. That s a huge 'F you' to our amazing body!!!!!

    I would only count calories as a general guide as to the volume of food one should eat (after lifetime of not eating naturally, we may need to use a calorie from time to time to measure the amount of food)

    Eat real foods and your brain and body will take care of the rest :)

    Lol, first fat has been found not to be very satiating, although protein has

    And once your body starts to burn "keynotes" it totally ceases to burn glycogen?

    And humans are meant to eat low carb? Paleolithic diet reconstructions have them eating a lot of carbs ~300g a day
    Dat frugivore ancestry

    ... if we want to go further back in time
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Someone Try Intermitting Fasting.. and how much Is that Person loss fat,, Sry i am little low on English :)

    I am currently doing Intermittent Fasting, since Aug. 2013
    Doing LeanGains protocol
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    They had Cows, but they were called UGGs back then.
  • VelveteenArabian
    VelveteenArabian Posts: 758 Member
    We must not have any bacon fiends in this thread if you're telling me you can eat bacon as a staple and keep it at a deficit. ;)
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Also, fat is very satiating and eating more of them can keep us full for longer. If we eat a high fat low carb, low-ish protein diet our body starts to produce keynotes, it stops using glycogen as fuel and switches over to 'fat burning' mode these keyones suppress appetite and that another reason why people loose weight on a low carb diret.

    Calories are really irrelevant but calorie 'lovers; will argue that by default we are eating less calories because we cutting a food group, but in all reality, we are just eating how humans are meant to eat and regulating weight/loosing weight that way.

    This is obviously a HUGE overview of the complexity of human body. it really inst just as simple as calories in-calories out. That s a huge 'F you' to our amazing body!!!!!

    I would only count calories as a general guide as to the volume of food one should eat (after lifetime of not eating naturally, we may need to use a calorie from time to time to measure the amount of food)

    Eat real foods and your brain and body will take care of the rest :)

    Lol, first fat has been found not to be very satiating, although protein has

    And once your body starts to burn "keynotes" it totally ceases to burn glycogen?

    And humans are meant to eat low carb? Paleolithic diet reconstructions have them eating a lot of carbs ~300g a day

    Sorry Dude,

    The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (just one of the sources) has them eating mainly animal protein and fat. with a relatively small amount from carbs (although that was slightly different for the ones living nearer the equator).

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Also, fat is very satiating and eating more of them can keep us full for longer. If we eat a high fat low carb, low-ish protein diet our body starts to produce keynotes, it stops using glycogen as fuel and switches over to 'fat burning' mode these keyones suppress appetite and that another reason why people loose weight on a low carb diret.

    Calories are really irrelevant but calorie 'lovers; will argue that by default we are eating less calories because we cutting a food group, but in all reality, we are just eating how humans are meant to eat and regulating weight/loosing weight that way.

    This is obviously a HUGE overview of the complexity of human body. it really inst just as simple as calories in-calories out. That s a huge 'F you' to our amazing body!!!!!

    I would only count calories as a general guide as to the volume of food one should eat (after lifetime of not eating naturally, we may need to use a calorie from time to time to measure the amount of food)

    Eat real foods and your brain and body will take care of the rest :)

    Lol, first fat has been found not to be very satiating, although protein has

    And once your body starts to burn "keynotes" it totally ceases to burn glycogen?

    And humans are meant to eat low carb? Paleolithic diet reconstructions have them eating a lot of carbs ~300g a day

    Sorry Dude,

    The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (just one of the sources) has them eating mainly animal protein and fat. with a relatively small amount from carbs (although that was slightly different for the ones living nearer the equator).

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full

    Sorry dude, Cordain is biased

    here is a rebuttal to cordain's "study"

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/6/1590.full

    Also

    Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

    http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf
  • Roadie2000
    Roadie2000 Posts: 1,801 Member
    5 years out, virtually all diet-only approaches fail. People are OVER their starting weight.

    Great business for the diet industry- a never-ending supply of customers.
    Well metabolism also generally slows down with age, and people generally get fatter as they get older.

    But that's also why a diet shouldn't be a diet, it should be more of a lifestyle change.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    5 years out, virtually all diet-only approaches fail. People are OVER their starting weight.

    Great business for the diet industry- a never-ending supply of customers.
    Well metabolism also generally slows down with age, and people generally get fatter as they get older.

    But that's also why a diet shouldn't be a diet, it should be more of a lifestyle change.
    Metabolism is part of it. Especially for yo-yo-ers. But most of it is folks returning to eating too many calories and not moving enough.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Also, fat is very satiating and eating more of them can keep us full for longer. If we eat a high fat low carb, low-ish protein diet our body starts to produce keynotes, it stops using glycogen as fuel and switches over to 'fat burning' mode these keyones suppress appetite and that another reason why people loose weight on a low carb diret.

    Calories are really irrelevant but calorie 'lovers; will argue that by default we are eating less calories because we cutting a food group, but in all reality, we are just eating how humans are meant to eat and regulating weight/loosing weight that way.

    This is obviously a HUGE overview of the complexity of human body. it really inst just as simple as calories in-calories out. That s a huge 'F you' to our amazing body!!!!!

    I would only count calories as a general guide as to the volume of food one should eat (after lifetime of not eating naturally, we may need to use a calorie from time to time to measure the amount of food)

    Eat real foods and your brain and body will take care of the rest :)

    Lol, first fat has been found not to be very satiating, although protein has

    And once your body starts to burn "keynotes" it totally ceases to burn glycogen?

    And humans are meant to eat low carb? Paleolithic diet reconstructions have them eating a lot of carbs ~300g a day

    Sorry Dude,

    The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (just one of the sources) has them eating mainly animal protein and fat. with a relatively small amount from carbs (although that was slightly different for the ones living nearer the equator).

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full

    Sorry dude, Cordain is biased

    here is a rebuttal to cordain's "study"

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/6/1590.full

    Also

    Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

    http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf

    Thanks just read it. Man it was long.

    Interesting. I would agree a lot makes sense. I think the one thing to take into consideration though is before the advent of farming, the human body had to rely on feast and famine.

    Which is why we have evolved over the years to use body fat as a preferred fuel source (I say preferred as on a low carb diet we still constantly burn both sources, as some major organs and our brain do require a certain amount of glucose to function optimally). It's just that we only store a limited amount of glucose in our liver (glycogen) and muscles and can only produce a limited amount of glycogen via fatty acids daily.

    So you would have to assume that hunter gatherers probably didn't have a constant source of glucose (except the ones living next door to the 7-11).

    Anyway cheers for the studies - really good reading.
  • maillemaker
    maillemaker Posts: 1,253 Member
    Got a link to a paper ? sounds an interesting one. Couldn't get past a spinning thing on the video.

    Dr. Leibel is very well published so you may indeed be able to find his work in printed format. I'd recommend you try a different browser or something to watch the video though.
  • maillemaker
    maillemaker Posts: 1,253 Member
    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.

    No, that is not what Dr. Leibel is talking about in the segment of the video I cited.

    He did a controlled study, 24-hour supervision, liquid diet, over some period of time, with about 30 patients, and varied their intake with the same calories but for part of the time having 10% fat content while other times 70% fat content. There was no change in weight. He specifically says, "a calorie is a calorie". In terms of weight loss, dietary content does not matter.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    So fat loss was statically different at 6 months, but not at 24 months?

    At 24 months −4.6 and−2.9 kg P=0.095 with the bigger fat loss to Paleo.

    So not statistically significant at 5%, but significant at 10%.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Also, fat is very satiating and eating more of them can keep us full for longer. If we eat a high fat low carb, low-ish protein diet our body starts to produce keynotes, it stops using glycogen as fuel and switches over to 'fat burning' mode these keyones suppress appetite and that another reason why people loose weight on a low carb diret.

    Calories are really irrelevant but calorie 'lovers; will argue that by default we are eating less calories because we cutting a food group, but in all reality, we are just eating how humans are meant to eat and regulating weight/loosing weight that way.

    This is obviously a HUGE overview of the complexity of human body. it really inst just as simple as calories in-calories out. That s a huge 'F you' to our amazing body!!!!!

    I would only count calories as a general guide as to the volume of food one should eat (after lifetime of not eating naturally, we may need to use a calorie from time to time to measure the amount of food)

    Eat real foods and your brain and body will take care of the rest :)

    Lol, first fat has been found not to be very satiating, although protein has

    And once your body starts to burn "keynotes" it totally ceases to burn glycogen?

    And humans are meant to eat low carb? Paleolithic diet reconstructions have them eating a lot of carbs ~300g a day

    Sorry Dude,

    The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (just one of the sources) has them eating mainly animal protein and fat. with a relatively small amount from carbs (although that was slightly different for the ones living nearer the equator).

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full

    Sorry dude, Cordain is biased

    here is a rebuttal to cordain's "study"

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/6/1590.full

    Also

    Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

    http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf

    Thanks just read it. Man it was long.

    Interesting. I would agree a lot makes sense. I think the one thing to take into consideration though is before the advent of farming, the human body had to rely on feast and famine.

    Which is why we have evolved over the years to use body fat as a preferred fuel source (I say preferred as on a low carb diet we still constantly burn both sources, as some major organs and our brain do require a certain amount of glucose to function optimally). It's just that we only store a limited amount of glucose in our liver (glycogen) and muscles and can only produce a limited amount of glycogen via fatty acids daily.

    So you would have to assume that hunter gatherers probably didn't have a constant source of glucose (except the ones living next door to the 7-11).

    Anyway cheers for the studies - really good reading.

    The problem with glucose (that's what winds up in the serum from carbohydrates) is that it is an osmotically active particle. Too much glucose in the serum will cause fluid shifts that can be potentially disastrous. Most cells protect themselves by letting in glucose only when a cell surface protein is activated- which is dependent on insulin. The brain cells are different. Glucose is freely permeable and so a high intra-cellular concentration of glucose can cause problem.
    The body also protects itself against high glucose levels by quickly converting excess glucose within the cell into long polymeric chains of glucose molecules that precipitate out at granules and remain stored in the cell until needed- this primarily being the muscle and liver cells.
    High levels of glucose in the serum can also interact with other serum proteins, "glycosylating" them.
    So which developed first- fat metabolism (aerobic- needs oxygen to work)or glucose metabolism (does not need oxygen).

    We are talking about a billion years of evolution, here.

    That the body protects itself against glucose suggests it developed later. That the brain needs glucose to function could mean that working with glucose gave the organism a competitive advantage neurologically despite the drawbacks.

    Or God just created us that way six thousand years ago.

    Man that was a big explanation about glucose (it was kinda lost on me - not sure what you were getting at).

    We're you just doing biology wheelies!! :smile:
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    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.

    No, that is not what Dr. Leibel is talking about in the segment of the video I cited.

    He did a controlled study, 24-hour supervision, liquid diet, over some period of time, with about 30 patients, and varied their intake with the same calories but for part of the time having 10% fat content while other times 70% fat content. There was no change in weight. He specifically says, "a calorie is a calorie". In terms of weight loss, dietary content does not matter.

    But not everything is digested with the same efficiency, so surely the source you get your calories from matters. Or do you calculate for your digestive efficiency when you read the side of the label?
  • maillemaker
    maillemaker Posts: 1,253 Member
    2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html

    44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14

    Interesting article on the T2 diabetics.

    However, only 5 of the 16 patients had stable weight maintenance at the end of 44 months. Most of the patients were on a steady up-trend, just like Dr. Leibel showed in his lecture slides.

    I also found this interesting:
    Five of 16 patients in the intervention group have had stable bodyweight 38 months after the conclusion of the 6 months study period without any special follow-up. Weight increase has been preceded by an increased intake of carbohydrates in those cases where it has occurred. It is clear that the high-carbohydrate diet followed before the study has been an important, probably the central, contributing cause of their condition.

    What this means is that once you start a low-carb diet, you have to stick to it forever or the weight will come back. This of course has sustainability ramifications.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Dr. Leibel is very well published so you may indeed be able to find his work in printed format. I'd recommend you try a different browser or something to watch the video though.

    "Variations in fat intake
    from 0% to 70% of total energy under conditions ofequal energy
    intake produced no significant changes in body weight over periods of observation averaging 33 d."

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/55/2/350.full.pdf
  • Timmmy40
    Timmmy40 Posts: 152 Member
    In theory yes. I was on Atkins 2 different times. First time I lost 65 lbs then gained it back because I didn't learn anything. The second time I lost 20 lbs then I couldn't lose a pound more so I started counting calories. Now 120 lbs lost I will stick to counting calories. When I was on Atkins I was eating well over 3000 calories a day. Who knows because I didn't count them. It does work to lose weight, but it doesn't work long term.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    In theory yes. I was on Atkins 2 different times. First time I lost 65 lbs then gained it back because I didn't learn anything. The second time I lost 20 lbs then I couldn't lose a pound more so I started counting calories. Now 120 lbs lost I will stick to counting calories. When I was on Atkins I was eating well over 3000 calories a day. Who knows because I didn't count them. It does work to lose weight, but it doesn't work long term.

    More power to your elbow!
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    I understand it, I don't get the relevance. Who's arguing carbs vs fats? Were talking both - just different volumes.
  • Commander_Keen
    Commander_Keen Posts: 1,179 Member
    They're usually forbidding your from eating certain foods that are known to be overeaten by people. By cutting them out, you automatically take (much) fewer calories to you than you usually would, resulting in weight loss.

    and then the flip side is this.. If I skipp two slices of bread, which 150 calories, I could still have 150 calories with Chicken. and still not loose weight.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    However, only 5 of the 16 patients had stable weight maintenance at the end of 44 months.

    Quite a high proportion compared to some, especially as "all but one have lower weight at 44 months than at start". Interesting that "two thirds of control patients from the high-carbohydrate diet group that had changed to a low-carbohydrate diet after the initial 6 month observation period" too.
  • maillemaker
    maillemaker Posts: 1,253 Member
    But not everything is digested with the same efficiency, so surely the source you get your calories from matters. Or do you calculate for your digestive efficiency when you read the side of the label?

    Did you just ignore the part of the lecture I paraphrased for you that said that diet composition doesn't matter in terms of body fat mass? Watch the lecture.
  • maillemaker
    maillemaker Posts: 1,253 Member
    "Variations in fat intake
    from 0% to 70% of total energy under conditions ofequal energy
    intake produced no significant changes in body weight over periods of observation averaging 33 d."

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/55/2/350.full.pdf

    Yup, that is the same study he is talking about in part of the lecture. Of course the lecture covers much more than dietary composition. The main thrust of the lecture is about the genetic and hormonal nature of body fat storage.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    They're usually forbidding your from eating certain foods that are known to be overeaten by people. By cutting them out, you automatically take (much) fewer calories to you than you usually would, resulting in weight loss.

    and then the flip side is this.. If I skipp two slices of bread, which 150 calories, I could still have 150 calories with Chicken. and still not loose weight.
    Absolutely. Or you could have one slice, or you could choose a different bread, or you could choose not to have a sandwich every day... there are many ways to go about it. Create a caloric deficit however you see fit.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    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?

    2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html

    44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14

    So fat loss was statically different at 6 months, but not at 24 months?

    Ouch.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    were cows present in paleolithic times??

    No.
  • MaryMBacon
    MaryMBacon Posts: 94 Member
    i didn't read all the responses. to the OP, there is a thing called mindful eating. you don't count calories or anything else. you listen to your body and what it is telling you. you eat until you are satisfied, then stop eating until the next time you are hungry. It is the way babies eat and most kids. you eat whatever you want, you just need to make sure to pay attention to your body's hunger and satisfaction signals.

    Babies and children can become overweight from overeating. Usually from being fed as consolation. Humans can learn to take comfort from food at a very young age.


    This is actually the specialty I coach on. There is a great book called intuitive eating but I happen to think it's gone too far with the "do what you want with no limits or guide" theme. The real problem is mindful eating requires a lot of work to learn because it was taught out of us, We (meaning anyone with a weight problem) was taught to eat in response to external cues such as what time it is, when we last ate, whose birthday it is, what are we celebrating, how was my day and what's available. Every time you think of a holiday a food pops in your head -- valenties day = chocolate, Thanksgiving = turkey, halloween = candy St. patty's day = shamrock shakes,
    Small children eat intuitively but telling them "you just ate" "it's not dinner time" or "if you're good we'll go out for ice cream" or the worst "if you eat your vegetables you can have desert" teaches this out of us.
    I have clients use MFP for tracking because we all need more awareness, but in reality thin people don't track, thin people eat what they are hungry for and stop when satisfied, it takes time and effort tor relearn the skill but it's well worth it.
    Having said that there is no "DIET" that doesn't count something - The intuitive eating program is the anti-diet.

  • toomanireasons
    toomanireasons Posts: 84
    Years ago I lost 60 pounds easily on low to no carb dieting, never counting a calorie...but diabetes runs in my family and carbs make me retain a ridiculous amount of fluids. So I think the whole Atkins thing is great for some people depending on their particular system.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    were cows present in paleolithic times??

    No.

    Yes there were - they were called UGGS
  • SewingLynx
    SewingLynx Posts: 27 Member
    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.)

    I used to do REALLY well on low carb diets, I never bothered to stress about the calories and I pretty much ate whenever I felt like it. I would lose pretty quick and it was nice. But now, I recently tried to do that again and it doesn't work very well for me at all. I lost like 5 lbs in 2 months. That's just not normal for me. My body must have changed. So, while it seems odd, it might work for some people but then again, we change and at some point it may not work anymore, but it used to work wonders for me. Now I'm back to counting calories. The way the low carb diets are supposed to work is that if you don't have any carbs stored up, then your body goes straight into burning fat off of your body because it's forced to (no excess carbs being stored). ;o) Hope this helps!

Categories