Do I HAVE to count calories?

Fenrissa

Counting calories is definitely more effective, imo. You can lose weight without it but calorie counting makes it much easier once you get into the habit of it.

snazzyjazzy21

If you want to be in shape, yes. Yes, you do.

You do not need to count calories to be in great shape. Athletes 100 years ago did not even know what calories were.

Yes but there is this little thing called progress you know? There is no way an athlete from 100 years ago could compete with a modern athlete with science, nutrition and training methods on their side

It's too bad more people in this forum don't read modern science about not all calories being the same and non-nutritive chemical substances destroying our health.

I take great insult to that. And also wonder what your science sources are because they obviously aren't the same as mine. Because mine say calories are a unit of energy and therefore are all equal. Just like a mile is a mile regardless of who walks it.

sisterlilbunny

How are there not more cat gifs in this thread? Or popcorn? I mean 9 pages in, seriously!

NOMORECARS

If you want to be in shape, yes. Yes, you do.

You do not need to count calories to be in great shape. Athletes 100 years ago did not even know what calories were.

Yes but there is this little thing called progress you know? There is no way an athlete from 100 years ago could compete with a modern athlete with science, nutrition and training methods on their side

It's too bad more people in this forum don't read modern science about not all calories being the same and non-nutritive chemical substances destroying our health.

I take great insult to that. And also wonder what your science sources are because they obviously aren't the same as mine. Because mine say calories are a unit of energy and therefore are all equal. Just like a mile is a mile regardless of who walks it.

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

NOMORECARS

Counting calories is definitely more effective, imo. You can lose weight without it but calorie counting makes it much easier once you get into the habit of it.

There are calories which build your body and there are calories which destroy your body. You can lose weight either way but there are many thin people who have one foot in the grave. If you want to count calories, at least count the right ones. How much you weigh isn't always an indicator of your health. I advocate eating properly and not worrying about calories. When you are healthy from eating properly you will have so much energy that your weight will automatically stabilize and it won't even seem like you're trying.

NOMORECARS

I'm just beginning to try to lose weight, and I think that counting calories might just be more effort/more destructive or discouraging...thoughts?

This is the wrong kind of thinking. This is just vilifying food and confusing people who are looking for real information. Portion control is everything and calorie counting is a big part of it.

I never vilify food. I vilify the corporations which tell us that their garbage is food.

I agree with that. But what your saying in your original post is that portion control doesn't matter. Remember your talking to people many times who may have never considered that -- something which might be self-evident to you or me.

I should have said it differently. When your body receives proper nutrients it will feel satisfied and there will be no need for portion control. The human brain has a set point which tells you when enough food has been eaten, but eating substances without any nutrients constantly triggers hunger because the body does not get what it needs, no matter how much you eat. That is why I say calories are different; some foods satisfy and some don't.

I appreciate your rational response without any attacks. Thank you.

Beckilovespizza

I always count my calories, I find it's the most effective way to keep a track on things including healthy and not so healthy foods. Either way u can keep an eye on ur intake and adjust where u need to. It's worked for me.

snazzyjazzy21

If you want to be in shape, yes. Yes, you do.

You do not need to count calories to be in great shape. Athletes 100 years ago did not even know what calories were.

Yes but there is this little thing called progress you know? There is no way an athlete from 100 years ago could compete with a modern athlete with science, nutrition and training methods on their side

It's too bad more people in this forum don't read modern science about not all calories being the same and non-nutritive chemical substances destroying our health.

I take great insult to that. And also wonder what your science sources are because they obviously aren't the same as mine. Because mine say calories are a unit of energy and therefore are all equal. Just like a mile is a mile regardless of who walks it.

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

We're not talking nutrition, we're talking energy. A calorie is a unit of energy. Every calorie has the same potential energy. Consume more potential energy than you use and your body will store it. Don't consume enough and your body will turn to said stores to get its energy. 70% of American's are obese because they consume more calories than they burn.

I'm not disagreeing that some foods provide more nutritional benefits than others, I'm just disagreeing that calories should be disregarded in favour of 'healthy eating' that makes your weight 'automatically stabilize'.

NOMORECARS

You couldn't think of anything silly to say about nuts I see.

No, because I don't know you.

torontoguy1097

Exactly. Preachy just don't cut it. I loathe cut and dry self righteous statements like that.

aarondnguyen

No, but it's the best way to be accurate with your weight gain/loss goals. And it accounts for the individual differences like job occupation and intensity of workouts (if you do any type of resistance/weight training).

NOMORECARS

If you want to be in shape, yes. Yes, you do.

You do not need to count calories to be in great shape. Athletes 100 years ago did not even know what calories were.

Yes but there is this little thing called progress you know? There is no way an athlete from 100 years ago could compete with a modern athlete with science, nutrition and training methods on their side

It's too bad more people in this forum don't read modern science about not all calories being the same and non-nutritive chemical substances destroying our health.

I take great insult to that. And also wonder what your science sources are because they obviously aren't the same as mine. Because mine say calories are a unit of energy and therefore are all equal. Just like a mile is a mile regardless of who walks it.

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

We're not talking nutrition, we're talking energy. A calorie is a unit of energy. Every calorie has the same potential energy. Consume more potential energy than you use and your body will store it. Don't consume enough and your body will turn to said stores to get its energy. 70% of American's are obese because they consume more calories than they burn.

I'm not disagreeing that some foods provide more nutritional benefits than others, I'm just disagreeing that calories should be disregarded in favour of 'healthy eating' that makes your weight 'automatically stabilize'.

In terms of energy, calories are the same. Whether the body can use the energy is what makes all the difference. If a substance without nutrition is eaten it is either eliminated or stored as fat to keep it as far away from the body as possible. This kind of fat cannot be burnt off because the so called energy it contains cannot be used by the body. Therefore some people find it impossible to get rid of fat. The actual process is far more complex but I am simplifying it.

Then there are foods which actually stimulate the body to burn calories. When you eat high quality protein, 25% of the calories are used in metabolizing it. Carbs only use 10% and fat only 5%.

Cutting calories can actually slow the metabolism and cause weight gain even though there is a lack of energy. Conversely, eating large amounts of certain foods will stimulate the metabolism. Eating celery actually uses more energy than is contained in the celery.

I thought the people in this forum might have a bit of a clue about some of these things but instead, they choose to ridicule me.

NOMORECARS

Exactly. Preachy just don't cut it. I loathe cut and dry self righteous statements like that.

Preaching, like calories is not all alike. Some is useful and some is garbage. Preaching from a base of real knowledge can be very helpful. But a closed mind hears all knowledge as nonsense.

crissi725

Exactly. Preachy just don't cut it. I loathe cut and dry self righteous statements like that.

Preaching, like calories is not all alike. Some is useful and some is garbage. Preaching from a base of real knowledge can be very helpful. But a closed mind hears all knowledge as nonsense.

JUST STOP ALREADY DUDE.

aarondnguyen

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

I don't know where you got that statistic, but my guess is that most Americans don't monitor (by tracking or just keeping an eye on) their caloric intake and they eat spontaneously (perhaps from an inability to distinguish between boredom and legitimate hunger). Calorie-dense food are nowhere near as satiating as ones that are nutrient-dense, so it's easy to snack on them and rack up the calories... which will lead to a caloric surplus. And if this is consistent, you have weight gain. That's all there is to it.

BrainyBurro

Counting calories is definitely more effective, imo. You can lose weight without it but calorie counting makes it much easier once you get into the habit of it.

There are calories which build your body and there are calories which destroy your body. You can lose weight either way but there are many thin people who have one foot in the grave. If you want to count calories, at least count the right ones. How much you weigh isn't always an indicator of your health. I advocate eating properly and not worrying about calories. When you are healthy from eating properly you will have so much energy that your weight will automatically stabilize and it won't even seem like you're trying.

you don't know what you think you know.

_HeartsOnFire_

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

A couple things.

1) When you resort to name calling it makes your whole argument invalid.
2) Resorting to name calling also just shows how just how weak your argument is.

If your "science" can't stand up to criticism, which is what people have provided here, then it's not "science".

snowflake954

If you want to be in shape, yes. Yes, you do.

You do not need to count calories to be in great shape. Athletes 100 years ago did not even know what calories were.

Yes but there is this little thing called progress you know? There is no way an athlete from 100 years ago could compete with a modern athlete with science, nutrition and training methods on their side

It's too bad more people in this forum don't read modern science about not all calories being the same and non-nutritive chemical substances destroying our health.

I take great insult to that. And also wonder what your science sources are because they obviously aren't the same as mine. Because mine say calories are a unit of energy and therefore are all equal. Just like a mile is a mile regardless of who walks it.

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

We're not talking nutrition, we're talking energy. A calorie is a unit of energy. Every calorie has the same potential energy. Consume more potential energy than you use and your body will store it. Don't consume enough and your body will turn to said stores to get its energy. 70% of American's are obese because they consume more calories than they burn.

I'm not disagreeing that some foods provide more nutritional benefits than others, I'm just disagreeing that calories should be disregarded in favour of 'healthy eating' that makes your weight 'automatically stabilize'.

In terms of energy, calories are the same. Whether the body can use the energy is what makes all the difference. If a substance without nutrition is eaten it is either eliminated or stored as fat to keep it as far away from the body as possible. This kind of fat cannot be burnt off because the so called energy it contains cannot be used by the body. Therefore some people find it impossible to get rid of fat. The actual process is far more complex but I am simplifying it.

Then there are foods which actually stimulate the body to burn calories. When you eat high quality protein, 25% of the calories are used in metabolizing it. Carbs only use 10% and fat only 5%.

Cutting calories can actually slow the metabolism and cause weight gain even though there is a lack of energy. Conversely, eating large amounts of certain foods will stimulate the metabolism. Eating celery actually uses more energy than is contained in the celery.

I thought the people in this forum might have a bit of a clue about some of these things but instead, they choose to ridicule me.

Excuse me here, but I must be very stupid. Explain to me how "bad" calories are stored as fat "far away from the body". Are we pulling little trailers around? How does this work? Isn't fat "attached" to the body? Part of it , so to speak.

_HeartsOnFire_

In terms of energy, calories are the same. Whether the body can use the energy is what makes all the difference. If a substance without nutrition is eaten it is either eliminated or stored as fat to keep it as far away from the body as possible. This kind of fat cannot be burnt off because the so called energy it contains cannot be used by the body. Therefore some people find it impossible to get rid of fat. The actual process is far more complex but I am simplifying it.

Then there are foods which actually stimulate the body to burn calories. When you eat high quality protein, 25% of the calories are used in metabolizing it. Carbs only use 10% and fat only 5%.

Cutting calories can actually slow the metabolism and cause weight gain even though there is a lack of energy. Conversely, eating large amounts of certain foods will stimulate the metabolism. Eating celery actually uses more energy than is contained in the celery.

I thought the people in this forum might have a bit of a clue about some of these things but instead, they choose to ridicule me.

Excuse me here, but I must be very stupid. Explain to me how "bad" calories are stored as fat "far away from the body". Are we pulling little trailers around? How does this work? Isn't fat "attached" to the body? Part of it , so to speak.

This was my favorite part...

This kind of fat cannot be burnt off because the so called energy it contains cannot be used by the body. Therefore some people find it impossible to get rid of fat.

So why are any of us even trying? Because at some point we all ate these "nonfoods" and so they are stored and we won't be able to burn that fat off...so according to this "science" we will all be fat forever.

Oh I know why we try, because his statement isn't true!

NOMORECARS