Explain diets that don't count calories to me

yarwell

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

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

"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

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

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

were cows present in paleolithic times??

No.

MaryMBacon

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

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

were cows present in paleolithic times??

No.

Yes there were - they were called UGGS

SewingLynx

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!

neanderthin

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!

Maybe your less active overall, maybe your food choices have more fat....fat is pretty much negligible in the satiety department. Low carb works because protein is more satiating then carbs and people eat less by default, not because the body is burning stored fat as fuel, that stored fat energy is used for energy and fuel regardless of what diet someone is on and is only used when someone is in a deficit.

Ambrodel

Maybe your less active overall, maybe your food choices have more fat....fat is pretty much negligible in the satiety department. Low carb works because protein is more satiating then carbs and people eat less by default, not because the body is burning stored fat as fuel, that stored fat energy is used for energy and fuel regardless of what diet someone is on and is only used when someone is in a deficit.

I think this article will help you understand how fat is stored and how to loose fat. Using more energy that you are consuming is one part of the equation, but not the whole equation. Carbohydrates play an important role in how the body uses stored fat.

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/articles/fat-loss/2197-the-science-on-fat-loss-lipolysis-and-fat-burning.html#.Uv1G9UJdX90

Acg67

Maybe your less active overall, maybe your food choices have more fat....fat is pretty much negligible in the satiety department. Low carb works because protein is more satiating then carbs and people eat less by default, not because the body is burning stored fat as fuel, that stored fat energy is used for energy and fuel regardless of what diet someone is on and is only used when someone is in a deficit.

I think this article will help you understand how fat is stored and how to loose fat. Using more energy that you are consuming is one part of the equation, but not the whole equation. Carbohydrates play an important role in how the body uses stored fat.

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/articles/fat-loss/2197-the-science-on-fat-loss-lipolysis-and-fat-burning.html#.Uv1G9UJdX90

I'm reasonably certain he understands both fat storage and loss, but since you brought it up, how come fat loss isn't significantly different between high and low carb diets holding protein and calories constant?

neanderthin

Maybe your less active overall, maybe your food choices have more fat....fat is pretty much negligible in the satiety department. Low carb works because protein is more satiating then carbs and people eat less by default, not because the body is burning stored fat as fuel, that stored fat energy is used for energy and fuel regardless of what diet someone is on and is only used when someone is in a deficit.

I think this article will help you understand how fat is stored and how to loose fat. Using more energy that you are consuming is one part of the equation, but not the whole equation. Carbohydrates play an important role in how the body uses stored fat.

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/articles/fat-loss/2197-the-science-on-fat-loss-lipolysis-and-fat-burning.html#.Uv1G9UJdX90

Thanks for the article. I think I'm missing your point, can you address exactly the passages your referring to and what they mean to you.

Iwishyouwell

Calorie counting is a very new phenomenon in human dietary history.

The vast majority of people, for the vast majority of history, didn't calorie count.

It really shouldn't be that much of a stretch to fathom how human beings can lose weight without counting calories.

Calorie counting is seen as more of a necessity now because we have such a plethora of deceptive, delicious man-made concoctions that are dense in calories, yet relatively low in volume. Most natural foods, as is, manage to bring volume and bulk, being filling without being particularly calorie dense. Calorie dense foods in nature are the exception, not the rule. Human beings formerly didn't really need to calorie count in order to find satiation and satisfaction thanks to a reliance on more natural, whole foods and recipes that were simpler and featured more natural foods. Also when most people had to work to produce their own food, portion control was inherent. Of course these are just a couple factors among several as to why we could easily get away with staying thinner, while not even knowing what a calorie was.

Counting calories are pretty imperative if your diet consists heavily of more dense foods that can easily add up calorically. It also is imperative if you've bought into the notion that you must eat every day, all throughout the day, which is another modern myth and very out of line with the eating patterns of years past.

When you do not have a diet overly rich in those foods and/or you do not gorge on food all day long, every dayt, as if it were a necessity, you don't have anywhere near the need to count calories.

- Signed someone who has lost close to a 130lbs...without counting a single calorie.

VelveteenArabian

It really shouldn't be that much of a stretch to fathom how human beings can lose weight without counting calories.

It is but it isn't.

I know that if I went on a low-carb diet and was told I could eat all the bacon I could stand, I would eat so many calories in bacon on a daily basis (and eat other things), that I have trouble imagining that I could possibly lose weight like that. Does not compute. I could easily down 2 pounds of bacon in one sitting and still be hungry a few hours later.

Stage14

Before I started counting calories, I could do a fad diet and lose weight because the fad diet changed my calorie intake without me really realizing it too much. Part of that was cutting out high calorie/low nutrient food and part of it was that when I was in the mindset of "I'm on a diet", I naturally ate less because I thought that being hungry/unsatisfied was simply part of the gig.

However, since I've been counting calories, I have tried low carb in addition and it made zero difference. Eating 1750 calories on a low carb diet and eating 1750 calories without counting carbs yielded virtually the same weight loss rate for me, but I enjoyed life a lot less on low carb, so I went back to not worrying about them.