Do I HAVE to count calories?

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

NOMORECARS

A couple things.

2) Resorting to name calling also just shows how just how weak your argument is.

[/quote]
Please Enlighten Me, Which name did I call you?

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.

JUST STOP ALREADY DUDE.

VERY COGENT ARGUMENT

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.

you don't know what you think you know.

There are more things in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

snowflake954

You know what? I've been reading the threads for over a year now, and there are people on here who have been on lots longer. You can spot an intelligent person and their ideas very quickly and also just the opposite. You seem to have read some blogs, read a few books, hashed it all together, and become an expert. You have lots of contradictions and confusion in your posts. Haven't you noticed that no one is agreeing with you? You keep saying people on here don't know anything, and it's just the opposite. I would advise you to read the threads and learn something before preaching to the masses. Best.

NOMORECARS

You know what? I've been reading the threads for over a year now, and there are people on here who have been on lots longer. You can spot an intelligent person and their ideas very quickly and also just the opposite. You seem to have read some blogs, read a few books, hashed it all together, and become an expert. You have lots of contradictions and confusion in your posts. Haven't you noticed that no one is agreeing with you? You keep saying people on here don't know anything, and it's just the opposite. I would advise you to read the threads and learn something before preaching to the masses. Best.

OK, BYE

Vermilliana

I was never that big of an advocate of counting calories. All food has calories and its just as easy to eat 2000 calories worth of crap as it is to eat the same in real food. So I started out counting fat and protein but dismissed calories and carbs (I was doing muscle work, I only felt I my protein/fat counts mattered *facepalm with Force*) Thing is, I was eating so many extra calories of carbohydrates on top of the bunch of calories I was eating to meet my protein goal that I was having Horrible results. Then I had my AH-HA!! Moment when I realized that protein, fat and carbs are all Made Of Calories! So calories DID matter!! (how bout that!) I started counting calories, and thanks to MFP I figured out how to Properly allocate those calories so that all my needs were being met and I finally started losing weight. The day I learned that every pound of fat in our body contains 3500 calories was a rather mind boggling one that put it in perspective. Seeing that extra 25 lbs as 87500 calories to be burned made counting calories make a lot more sense *L*

_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.

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".

Please Enlighten Me, Which name did I call you?
[/quote]

I didn't say you called me a name, but you did call other people in here names. I reposted it above along with the other parts you deleted from your post.

Mygsds

Whole grain corn isn't food? Interesting.

GMO ROUND UP READY CORN engineered by the Monsanto Corporation IS NOT FOOD
[/quote]
ANSOLUTELY RIGHT

You are talking about corn to be planted in the fields to raise cattle and other farm animals on..

ZombieEarhart

nevermind- I fail at html (

rainbowxelephant

I like how every thread here turns into a huge egotistical debate. No sarcasm, I'm an at home mom and it's like watching soaps!

To answer OP, NO you do not HAVE to count calories.

That said, if you're new to nutrition and weight loss, it's probably the best idea until you get a handle on how your body processes foods. If you follow a nutrition plan set up in blocks like the one for p90x, you count food groups rather than calories.. but if you're inexperienced, I definitely would suggest weighing your food (food scales are super cheap) until you get a good handle on portion sizes.

TheWorstHorse

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?

You DO NOT NEED TO COUNT CALORIES. Eat as much as you can possibly stuff into yourself, just be sure that everything you eat is FOOD. You will be healthy beyond belief in several months. p.s. Doritos and Pepsi is not food. Stay out of bakeries, bakeries do not sell food. Candy stores do not sell food. 90% of your local supermarket shelves are filled with substances which are not food. People can never become obese by eating food.

This is, frankly, terrible advice. Yes, eating whole foods, unprocessed foods, and so on is good for you. Yes, it is easier to maintain a calorie deficit eating these kinds of foods, mostly because most processed foods have more calories per ounce than most unprocessed, whole foods.

But "eat as much as you possibly can"? is, simple weight loss science suggests, a bad idea. The idea that you can eat as much as you want of any food, unprocessed or not, and not gain weight is simply silly. Unprocessed food has calories. If you eat more calories - whatever the source - than your body needs to maintain itself, you gain weight. If you eat less calories - whatever the source - than your body needs to maintain itself, you lose weight.

Are whole, unprocessed foods without additives and chemicals better for your body? There's lots of evidence that says so; people that traditionally eat these kinds of foods seem to have fewer chronic health problems. But suggesting that all you need to do is give up processed foods to lose weight is, as I said, a terrible suggestion.

randomtai

I like how every thread here turns into a huge egotistical debate. No sarcasm, I'm an at home mom and it's like watching soaps!

To answer OP, NO you do not HAVE to count calories.

That said, if you're new to nutrition and weight loss, it's probably the best idea until you get a handle on how your body processes foods. If you follow a nutrition plan set up in blocks like the one for p90x, you count food groups rather than calories.. but if you're inexperienced, I definitely would suggest weighing your food (food scales are super cheap) until you get a good handle on portion sizes.

Um no. This is completely wrong. :noway:

mumblemagic

Erm..... you're on a calorie-counting website and you're asking us whether you need to count calories? Lol

No, you don't *have* to count calories to lose weight. You do have to create a calorie deficit. The simplest way of achieving this is to count your calories. It is a lot of effort, but losing weight on any diet plan is a lot of effort. The advantage of calorie counting is that all the restrictions you impose are decided by yourself.

jonnythan

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.

In all seriousness, wherever you are reading this crap is lying to you big time.

You talk about research, but blogs and mass media books are not research. Start reading JISSN and searching PubMed. That's actual research, and you will not find data to corroberate this nonsense there.

in_the_stars

no. I don't. Micros are all for me.

shmerek

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.

Seriously dude where do you get this crap from? "stored as fat to keep it as far away from the body as possible." Really??? Cite your research for this garbage please. Give me one study that actually proves cutting calories can result in weight gain. That is complete nonsense. Also it is curious how everyone here is wrong but you... Funny that.

NOMORECARS

Can You Gain Weight When You Cut Calories?
Last Updated: Nov 03, 2013 | By Holly Case
Can You Gain Weight When You Cut Calories? It is possible to gain weight while reducing calories. Photo Credit scale image by jedphoto from <a href='http://www.fotolia.com'>Fotolia.com</a&gt;

It is well known that weight loss involves a balance of eating less and exercising more, so it may seem surprising to think that cutting calories could actually result in weight gain instead of loss. However, weight gain and loss are more complex, and multiple factors can influence your weight. It is possible to gain weight even if you cut calories, depending on these other factors.
Enough Calories

It is important not to cut your calorie intake too much. According to Shirley A. Kindrick, Ph.D. of Ohio State University, your body can enter starvation mode when you consume too few calories. You do not need to be literally starving to enter this state, but it can happen when you eat less than half of the amount of total calories you need. This can cause your metabolism to slow down and conserve, rather than burn, the calories you do consume.

THIS WAS COPIED AND PASTED FROM LIVESTRONG, WHICH MANY CONSIDER TO BE A CREDIBLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

NOMORECARS

The Failure of Low Calorie Diets
The American Paradox

A study (1) published in 1997 shows that, between 1980 and 1990, Americans were consuming 4% less calories and 11% less fats than previously. As concerns fat-free foods, in ten years their consumption rose from 19% to 76%. In spite of this, during the same period, obesity in the US increased by 31%. The authors of this study, bewildered by this contradiction, called their study the « The American Paradox ».

This study simply confirmed the facts: contrary to what most nutritionists sustain, there is no correlation between obesity and calories.
Calories have nothing to do with gaining weight

In his comments on the SUVIMAX (2) study, French Professor Jacques Freg remarked that the information collected reveals that people do no actually consume large amounts of lipids (fats), contrary to what is commonly believed.


This French survey, which involved over 14,000 persons who were followed over an 8-year period (from 1995 to 2003), revealed that men consumed an average of 2200 calories per day and women consumed 1600. Not only was this figure lower than expected, it was also below daily recommended energy intake. In spite of a 6% reduction in calorie intake, the average weight of the people surveyed had increased by 30% during the period studied.

Another study, the ASPCC (3), carried out on a representative sample of French people and published in 1997, proves that people’s calorie intake is actually fairly low. The study shows that people consume fewer calories than the daily nutritional amounts recommended by nutritionists.

Professor Creff had already reported similar findings when he published statistics on the medical check-ups of obese people in the hospital where he worked, the Hospital Saint-Michel in Paris. He had in fact observed that over 50% of the people who are obese eat very little.

Several studies carried out on children (4 and 5 years old) reached the same conclusion: weight gain does not depend on caloric intake.

This is particularly noticeable among the Russians where 56% of the women over 30 are obese and they do not consume more than 1500 calories a day for a daily workload which normally demands enormous energy expenditure.

Statistics highlight the prevalence of obesity among farmers, artisans and factory workers. This is particularly surprising considering that these professions demand more physical effort than others. How can we still believe official nutritional recommendations which tell us that one of the mayor causes of obesity is the lack of physical exercise?
The energy factor does not determine weight gain

Globally, calorie consumption in Western countries is from 30 to 35% lower than 50 years ago. Paradoxically, obesity has risen by 400% during the same time lapse in these countries. In France, there are 4 times more obese people now than in the 1960s.

Approximately, 20% of the people in India have become obese in the past 20 years even if they have for the most part remained vegetarian, have moderate calorie consumption and have not really changed their lifestyles and eating habits.

Two questions come to mind: How can what we now know serve to improve people’s health through better eating habits? Me must first ask ourselves, however how dietitians can continue to ignore this evidence.

Contrary to long-held beliefs, the energy factor (calories) is not a key cause of weight gain. Thus, the principle behind low-calorie diets is totally false. We must accept more advanced findings and work from there to reverse the harm done to our societies by misguided beliefs; but first we must look back on our mistakes.
Looking back on our failures

Low-calorie diets recommended by most nutritionists and dietitians are not only totally useless, they are also dangerous. Statistics, such as those put forth by Prof. Van Gaal, show that less than 5% of the cases succeed.

This a ridiculous percentage and even more so, if we compare it to success figures of 15 to 25% for people who stop smoking and drinking, something which is known to be much harder to do.
Our bodies ajust to reduced calorie consumption

Low-calorie diets are useless since, as we reduce the amount of calories we consume, our bodies’ survival instinct automatically makes the best use possible of the energy we put at its disposal. Our bodies learn to optimize the amount of calories we feed them. This is why, when we go back to normal calorie consumption (something we necessarily have to do since we cannot under nourish our bodies forever) our bodies, which have learned to store fats, simply stock these ‘extra’ calories turning them into extra weight. Chances are that once we have taught our body to make do with low-caloric levels, it will gain even more weight when we go back to a more regular intake.

Prof. Brownell (6) has validated this phenomenon through tests carried out on animals alternating high-protein diets with low-calorie diets. The animals gained and lost weight but each time their diet changed, the results were even more marked than before. The results for first diet were rapid and considerable weight loss. However, with each new diet, it proved to be easier for the animals to gain weight (and to gain more weight than before) and harder to lose the new weight gained. This goes to show how our metabolism adjusts to reduced calorie consumption.


Caloric deficits can, in effect, reduce the amount of energy we burn by up to 50%. The problem is that, when we return (even if only temporarily) to our normal caloric intake, our bodies do not adjust by storing less fats. They continue storing fats as in ‘times of shortage’, that which makes us gain even more weight than before.

The « accordion » effect of continuous low-cal diets provokes increasing resistance to losing weight, as shown by numerous studies. (7). Additionally, low-cal diets are risky because they induce a deficiency in micronutrients (salts minerals, vitamins, oleo-elements, essential fatty acids) which are absolutely necessary for our bodies. Without them, our bodies become weak and suffer from chronic fatigue and our immunity system becomes more vulnerable to illness. Added to this is the fact that insufficient proteins tend to reduce our muscular mass, which is replaced by fat as we gain weight.
Nutritionists are unwilling to accept how misguided they have been

The low-cal principle has been the financial mainstay for numerous industries and people: the food industry, the pharmaceutical industry, public and private weight loss centers, health institutes and spas, thallasotherapy centers, nutritionists, dietitians, just to mention a few…Naturally, it is not easy to get the message across that what these industries and people are selling is not as miraculous as they say and that, what is even worse, it is useless and even dangerous for people’s health.

The issue, which is addressed at some medical conventions, is often carefully avoided by the press. Some well-know personalities have approached the subject directly or indirectly. Professor Arnaud Basdevant affirmed in a radio conference in 1990 that « the best way to gain weight is to follow restrictive diets.” In the 1993 Obesity Convention in Anvers, Professor Marian Affelbaum declared to her shocked colleagues: “Yes, we have been collectively fooled.” He assumed this fact to the point that he continued mentioning the issue when he retired.

Prof. W.Willett, one of the most eminent epidemiologists in the US, has been one of the few people to have had the courage to denounce the immense damage caused by low-cal recommendations. (8) In his opinion, these recommendations made by nutritionists “are not even worth the paper they’re written on.” He stated that “These recommendations have even contributed to spreading obesity.”
Counting calories is absurd

Counting calories, like most traditional dietary dogmas, is all theory and no facts. In effect it is a heads and tails approach, it is meaningless and totally ineffective.

The following seven reasons should make this clear:

- macro-nutrients: In order to count the number of calories contained in our food, we have to first determine macro-nutrient (carbs, fats and proteins) content. The problem with counting calories is that, the amount of factors that determine the macro nutrients contained in our foods make for wide variations in caloric content.

Anne Noël’s Charts*, for example, gives sausage meat chair à saucisse for a 100g of 14g g of proteins (14g x 4 Kcal = 56 Kcal) and 38g of lipids (38 x 9 Kcal = 342 Kcal) for a total of 398 Kcal.


Comparatively, the 10,000 delicatessens in France probably have 10,000 different ways of preparing sausage meat chair à saucisse. This means that the caloric content can vary from 15 to 20% from one preparation to another. For certain products, such as mince pie/potted pork rillettes, the amount of calories can vary up to 40% from one preparation to another.

The amount of calories contained in steak varies depending on the animal’s race/stock, what it has been fed on (natural or industrial feed), how it is bred (pasture or stable) and possible chemical treatments (antibiotics hormones…). Its true caloric content can thus vary from 15 to 30% as compared to theoretical chart figures.


As concerns fish, the amount of calories it contains depend on where it was caught (particularly if it industrially bred) as well as from one season to another.

Additionally, the amount of calories contained in our food is also modified by the way we cook it, it is higher or lower depending on if it is deep fried, grilled or boiled.

We can trhen conclude that the calories assigned are purely theoretical. They are therefore mistaken and, what’s more, they differ from one chart/table to another.

- Fibers : theoretical estimates never take into account the role played by fibers in the degree of absorption of the carbs and fats consumed. The fibers eaten with our meals can reduce the amount of calories absorbed.

- Intestinal absorption : Pr. G. Slama has shown that «starches are not interchangeable. ». Starches as for example fries and lentils, might have the same fat content, thus the same amount of calories. This, notwithstanding, does not imply that these calories will be absorbed to the same degree.
The same thing happens with lipid calories whose degree of intestinal wall absorption depends on where fatty acids are positioned on the glycerol molecule (triglycerides), as described by Pr. Serge Renaud in 1995.

- Fatty acids: saturated fatty acids are harder to burn and have a greater tendency to get stored as fat than mono-unsaturated fatty acids.


Comparatively, poly-unsaturated fatty acids (oméga 3), which are found in fish, are never sotored. Better yet, they stimulate metabolic mechanisms which aid weigh loss by increasing thermalgenesis and stimulatng lipolysis.

- Chronobiology : carb, fatty and protein absorption varies depending, not only on time at which we eat our meal, but also on the season (9, 10 et 11). This discovery has set the principles for a new science: chronobiology.

- Breaking up meals: eating the same amount of food (in terms of calories) split up in three to six different meals provokes different energy consumption levels. The more we break up the calories we consume in different meals, the more calories we burn.

- Chemical environment: theoretical estimates do not take into consideration the chemical environment of the food we eat as they enter our intestine, the order of entry nor the volume of their particles despite the fact that these factors condition food nutrients’ degree of absorption. For example, equal portions of sugar (saccharose) will have very little impact on blood sugar levels when eat after a meal whereas, when eaten before a meal, they tend to raise blood sugar levels.

This list, which is not exhaustive, should suffice to appeal to our common sense and convince us of the need to stop the absurd tendency to count calories as a means to losing weight.

If dietitians and nutritionists refuse to accept clear cut evidence to this effect, it is up to people to watch out for their own interests and health by being informed and informing others.
Scientific references:

(1) Adrian F. Heini “Divergent trends in obesity and fat intake patterns : The American Paradox”. The American Journal of Medicine 1997.


(2) Hercberg S. & coll. “Result of a list of a pilot study of the SUVIMAX project”. Rev. Epidemiol. Santé Publique 1995 ; 43 : 139-146


(3) Rigaud D., Giachetti I., Deheeger M., Borys JM., Volatier J.L., Lemoine A., Cassuto D.A., (1997) “Enquête Française de consommation alimentaire I. Energie et macronutriments. » (ASPCC) Cahiers Nutrition & Diététique, 32, 379-389


(4) Bellisle F. « Obesity and food intake in children : evidence for a role of metabolic and /or behavorial daily rythms » Appetite 1988, 11, 111-118


(5) Rolland-Cachera MF., Bellisle F. “No correlation between adiposity and food intake : why are working class children fatter ?” Am.J.Clin.Nutr., 1986, 44, 779-787
Rolland-Cachera MF., Deheeger M. “Adiposity and food intake in young children : the environmental challenge to individual susceptibility” Br.Med.J. 1988, 296, 1037-1038


(6) Brownell KD. “The effects of repeated cycles of weight loss and regain in rats” Phy.Behaviour 1986, 38, 459-464


(7) Louis-Sylvestre L. « poids accordéon : de plus en plus difficile à perdre » Le Généraliste, 1989 ; 1087 ; 18-20


(8) Science & Avenir (février 1999)


(9) Bellisle F, Rolland-Cachera MF, Deheeger M et Guilloud-Bataille M. “Obesity and food intake in children : evidence for a role a metabolic and/or behavorial daily rhythms” (Appetite, 1988, 11 : 111-118)


(10) Armstrong S, Shahbaz C and Singer G. “Inclusion of meal-reversal in a behavior modification program for obesity” (Appetite, 1981, 2 : 1-5).


(11) Halberg F. “Protection by timing treatment according to bodily rhythms. An analogy to protection by scrubbing before surgery”. (Chronobiologia, suppl. 1, 23-68, 1974).

NOMORECARS

THIS IS A STORY FROM HUFFING POST:
Want to Lose Fat? Count Your Hormones, Not Your Calories
Posted: 07/17/2012 8:44 am

Follow
Weight Loss , Weight Loss , Weight Loss , Calorie Restriction , Calories , Fat Loss , Fat Loss Tips , Hormones , How To Lose Weight , Lose Weight , Tips For Weight Loss , Tips On Weight Loss , Healthy Living News

Weight loss and fat loss are not the same thing. You can be burning calories and losing weight, but those calories and that weight may or may not be fat. In fact, the one-size-fits-all weight loss model of "eat less and exercise more" can result in muscle being lost as readily as fat.

The greatest health challenge of this century is the obesity epidemic. According to the 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, close to 70 percent of Americans are overweight and over 30 percent are obese. And here is the bitter truth: The "eat less, exercise more" model of weight loss has not worked. The reason? Calories don't control metabolism, hormones do.

Eat less and what happens? You get hungry. Exercise more and what happens? You get hungry. Anyone who has ever "prepped" for a Thanksgiving dinner knows if you want to come hungry, a good strategy is to skip breakfast and lunch and make sure you exercise. The very thing we are telling people to do -- eat less and exercise more -- is making it far more likely they will do the reverse.

This is why a report in the April 2007 issue of The American Psychologist showed up to 66 percent of individuals following the caloric model of weight loss end up fatter two years later than they were when they started the diet. Any other model, in any other discipline, with a failure rate this high would have been discarded long ago and labeled as useless.

Stopping obesity means understanding hormones, not just calories. Hormones are the messengers that tell the body to burn fat or store fat, remain full or feel hungry, have cravings or not, enjoy balanced energy or feel fatigued. Hormones even impact your mood and motivation to exercise. You can think of hormones as analogous to computer software. They give the body instructions about what to do with the information it is exposed to.

So which is more important, calories or hormones? It is not a simple answer because calories impact hormones and hormones affect calories. The impact cutting calories has on hormones is recognizable and pronounced. The body slows its metabolic rate and sets into motion a host of compensatory reactions that make you hungry, crave calorie-rich foods, sap your energy and slow fat loss. A "calories-first" approach leaves you at the mercy of your metabolism and completely reliant on willpower. Anyone who has ever gone on a diet knows it is almost impossible to win a long-term battle of wills against your physiology.

A "hormones-first" approach is different. It reduces hunger, controls cravings, elevates energy, and increases metabolism, which all leads to an automatic reduction in calories without even trying. This is the perfect scenario for body change: A low-calorie diet in the context of balanced hormonal chemistry.

Perhaps you are still skeptical about the primacy of hormones over calories? If so, I have two questions for you: How many calories does sleep have? How about stress? Silly questions right? You can't eat sleep and you can't eat stress, but there is no denying that they dramatically impact how much you eat and what you crave to eat. They do this not because they are loaded with calories, but because of their negative impact on hormones.

So how do you switch your mindset so you can design a diet that takes a hormones-first approach? Here are five pointers to get you started.

1) Think fat loss, not weight loss.

There is more than one destination for a calorie. Decrease calories and you may lose fat, but you might lose muscle instead. Increase calories and perhaps you will gain fat, but you could alternatively gain muscle. The type of activity you do can determine which occurs. This is why weight training is so powerful in turning weight loss into fat loss. It is the only form of activity that pushes extra calories toward lean tissue growth.

2) Think of food as information, not fuel.

A doughnut and a chicken breast have the same number of calories, but one food will give sustained energy, decrease hunger and blunt cravings. The other will provide less consistent energy and speak more to your fat cells than your muscle. Quality of food matters.

3) Every action has a compensatory reaction.

Meals are not separate and distinct. What you eat -- or don't eat -- for breakfast will impact how much you eat and what you crave to eat for lunch, which will have the same impact on dinner. Your choices at one meal directly influence your decisions at the next meal, and this determines fat loss or fat gain. Don't eat less, eat smarter.

4) Shades of Gray

Nutrition is not black-and-white, but gray. There are individual reactions to food that may apply to one person but not another. The choice to have a diet Coke because it has zero calories may or may not be a wise choice for you. For you, this practice may cause cravings later, but for someone else it could kill the desire for sweet. The weight-loss model completely ignores individual reactions to food.

5) Forget what you weigh.

Gaining weight does not always mean gaining fat. What if you are gaining muscle instead? Realize that a pound of fat and muscle weigh the same, but muscle takes up less space on the body. You can look 130 pounds but weigh 150 pounds when you have developed a lean, muscular physique. Skinny and flabby is the look of weight loss. Lean and tight is the look of fat loss.

Always remember, you are as different on the inside chemically as you are on the outside physically. The weight-loss game is a one-size-fits-all approach to a completely individual practice. It's a game you can't win, because it is not built for you. Instead of being the weight-loss dieter, become the fat-loss detective. Spend the time to figure out your individual metabolic expression, psychological tendencies and personal preferences. Do that and it is not a matter of if you will change your body, but when.

For more by Dr. Jade Teta, click here.

NOMORECARS

THIS INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM AUTHORITYNUTRITION.COM

7 Proven Ways to Lose Weight on Autopilot (Without Counting Calories)
October 22, 2013 | by Kris Gunnars | 52,168 views | 64 Comments

Confused Woman Holding a Calculator“Eat less, move more.”

This is the message we receive from various health gurus and nutrition organizations.

They assume that the only reason people gain or lose weight is because of calories.

This is simply wrong, because our bodies are much more complicated than that.

Different foods affect hunger and hormones in different ways and all calories are NOT equal.

The truth is… there are many things you can do to lose weight, without ever counting a single calorie.

Here are 7 proven ways to put fat loss on “autopilot.”
1. Replace Your Grain-Based Breakfast With Eggs

Eggs in a Basket

Losing weight can be as simple as changing your breakfast.

Two separate studies have shown that eating eggs in the morning (compared to a breakfast of bagels) can help you lose fat without trying.

In one of these studies, 30 overweight or obese women ate either bagels or eggs for breakfast (1).

The egg group ended up eating fewer calories at lunch, the rest of the day and for the next 36 hours.

Put simply, the eggs were so fulfilling that the women automatically ate fewer calories at subsequent meals.

In another study, 152 overweight men and women were split into groups. One group ate eggs, the other ate bagels… both groups were on a weight loss diet (2).

After 8 weeks, the egg group had lost significantly more weight than the bagel group:

65% more weight loss (2 lbs vs 1.3 lbs).
61% greater reduction in BMI.
34% greater reduction in waist circumference.
16% greater reduction in body fat percentage.

The difference in weight loss wasn’t huge, but it clearly shows that simple things like changing one meal can have a small effect.

Another awesome benefit of eating eggs is that they are among the healthiest foods in the world. New studies show that they do NOT raise your bad cholesterol or give you heart disease, like previously believed (3, 4, 5, 6).

If you think you don’t have time to cook a healthy breakfast, think again. Preparing a breakfast with some eggs and veggies doesn’t have to take any longer than 5-10 minutes.

Just set your alarm clock a few minutes earlier… problem solved.

Bottom Line: Studies show that eating eggs for breakfast can help you automatically eat fewer calories, compared to a breakfast of bagels.

2. Using Smaller Plates Can Trick Your Brain Into Thinking That You’re Actually Eating More

Plate With Food

The human brain is the most complex object in the universe, gram for gram.

It tends to work in mysterious ways… and the control of eating behavior is incredibly complicated.

It is the brain that ultimately determines whether we should or should not eat.

Interestingly, there is one neat thing you can do to “trick” your brain into thinking that it has eaten more food.

This is using smaller plates.

The larger your plates or bowls, the less your brain thinks you have eaten. By using smaller plates, you trick your brain into feeling more satisfied with fewer calories.

It’s weird… but psychologists have been studying this and it seems to work (7, 8).

Bottom Line: It is possible to “trick” the brain into thinking that it has eaten more food by using smaller plates.

3. Eating More Protein Can Reduce Appetite, Increase Fat Burning and Help You Gain Muscle

For some strange reason, protein has gotten a bad rap.

Many people think that it can “leech” calcium from the bones and cause kidney disease.

However… this is complete nonsense, which is not supported by science.

A Little Girl Eating Meat

There is a lot of evidence that protein can increase fat burning and reduce hunger, leading to automatic weight loss.

In fact, studies show that protein boosts metabolism more than any other macronutrient (9, 10).

One of the reasons for that is that it takes the body more calories to digest and make use of protein, than it does fat and carbs.

Protein also increases satiety, leading to significantly reduced hunger (11).

In one study, increasing protein to 30% of calories lead to an automatic decrease in calorie intake of 441 calories per day (12).

Many studies show that increasing your protein intake can lead to automatic weight loss, even when eating until fullness (13, 14, 15, 16).

Protein can also help you gain more muscle, especially if you also lift weights. Muscle tissue is metabolically active, meaning that it burns a small amount of calories, even at rest (17, 18, 19).

The best way to get in more protein is to eat more animal foods like meat, fish and eggs… preferably at every meal.

Bottom Line: Increased protein in the diet can boost metabolism and reduce hunger. It can also increase muscle mass, helping you burn more calories around the clock.

4. Eating Foods With a Low Energy Density and Lots of Fiber Make You Feel More Full With Fewer Calories

Vegetables

Another way to feel more satisfied with fewer calories is to eat foods that have a low energy density.

This includes foods that have a high water content, such as vegetables and some fruits.

Studies consistently show that dieters who eat less energy dense foods lose more weight than those who eat foods with a high energy density (20, 21, 22).

In one study, women who ate soup (low energy density) lost 50% more weight than women who ate an energy dense snack (23).

Vegetables are also rich in soluble fiber, which has been shown to cause weight loss in some studies (24, 25, 26).

Another benefit of soluble fiber is that it gets broken down by bacteria in the digestive tract to produce a fatty acid called butyrate, which is believed to have significant anti-obesity effects… at least in rats (27).

Combining animals (high in protein) with a bunch of plants (low energy density) is a recipe for success.

Bottom Line: Choosing foods with a low energy density (like vegetables and some fruits) can help you feel more satisfied with fewer calories.

5. Cutting Carbs Can Make You Lose Weight Fast While Eating Until Fullness

Probably THE best way to start losing weight without calorie counting or portion control is to reduce your carbohydrate intake.

Studies consistently show that people who eat less carbohydrates, automatically start to eat less calories and lose weight without any major effort (28, 29).

In one study, 53 overweight/obese women were randomized to a low-carb group or a calorie restricted low-fat group, for 6 months (30):

Weight Loss Graph, Low Carb vs Low Fat

Women in the low-carb group lost twice as much weight (8.5 kg – 18.7 lbs) while eating until fullness, compared to the low-fat group (3.9 kg – 8.6 lbs), which was calorie restricted.

The best way to cut carbs is to reduce or eliminate major carb sources from your diet like sugars, sweets, sodas, as well as starchy foods like bread, pasta, potatoes, etc.

Getting into the range of 100-150 gram carbs per day can be useful. If you want to lose weight fast, then going under 50 grams per day can be extremely effective.

Another great benefit of reducing carbs… it lowers your insulin levels, which makes the kidneys start shedding excess sodium and water from the body, significantly reducing bloat and water weight (31, 32).

Bottom Line: Cutting carbohydrate intake can reduce appetite and cause automatic weight loss, without calorie counting or portion control. It also leads to significant reductions in water weight.

6. Making Time For Quality Sleep and Avoiding Stress Can Optimize The Function of Key Hormones

Doctor With Thumbs Up

Two things that often get ignored when discussing health (and weight) are sleep and stress levels.

Both are incredibly important for the optimal function of your body and hormones.

Inadequate sleep is one of the strongest risk factors for obesity… short sleep duration raising the risk by 89% in children and 55% in adults (33).

Poor sleep can increase hunger and cravings and cause a biochemical tendency for weight gain by disrupting hunger hormones like ghrelin and leptin (34, 35).

Excess stress can increase your levels of the hormone cortisol, which is known to increase belly fat accumulation and the risk of chronic, Western diseases (36, 37, 38).

For these reasons, it is very important to make time for quality sleep, as well as avoiding unnecessary stressors in your life.

Bottom Line: Poor sleep and excess stress can mess up important metabolic hormones like ghrelin, leptin and cortisol. Getting these hormones under control should reduce appetite and unnatural cravings.

7. Replacing Your Cooking Fats With Coconut Oil Can Boost Metabolism and Reduce Appetite

Coconuts

Coconut oil has some unique properties that can help reduce appetite and increase fat burning.

It is loaded with fats called Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCTs).

These fatty acids get metabolized differently compared to other fats… they go straight to the liver where they are either used for energy or turned into ketone bodies.

Two small studies show that eating these medium chain fats can make people eat fewer calories, one of them showing a reduction of 256 calories per day (39, 40).

These fats also appear to increase energy expenditure, one study showing an increase as high as 5% (41, 42, 43).

Consuming 30 mL (about 1 ounce) of coconut oil may cause significant reductions in BMI and waist circumference, a marker for abdominal fat (44, 45).

Now… I’m not suggesting that you gobble down massive amounts of coconut oil, but replacing your current cooking fats with it could have a noticeable effect (46, 47).
8. Anything Else?

By making a few simple changes that optimize hormones, reduce hunger and boost metabolism, you can lose a lot of weight without ever counting a single calorie.