The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

Wonderob

What do you all think about this article? (See link to is at bottom of post)

---

The truth is… calories are important, but that doesn’t mean we need to count them or even be consciously aware of them. Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed.

I've never understood this proposition. When were humans healthiest then, 2000 years ago when life expectancy was 30? Victorian times when life expectancy was 40? How about the early 20th century when cigarettes were endorsed due to their appetite-suppressing powers?

I agree that we may not have been at our healthiest in the past, but it has nothing to do with counting calories. The increase in our longentivity has more to do with soap and modern medicine than it does with diet.

People do not need to count calories to stay within a healthy weight range.

I didn't say that it was anything to do with counting calories, the vast majority of people from generations back were malnourished. I merely contested the ridiculous premise that "Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed" Oh no they very much weren't!

The inference was that counting calories isn't healthy "Because we were healthier before we started counting calories" Pure fabrication

geebusuk

Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:

Protein: Eating a high protein diet can boost metabolism by 80-100 calories per day and significantly reduce appetite and cravings. Protein calories have a different effect than carb or fat calories (32, 33, 34).
Satiety: Many studies show that different foods have varying effects on feelings of fullness. You need much fewer calories to feel full from eggs or boiled potatoes, compared to donuts or ice cream (35).
There are many more examples of foods and macronutrients having vastly different effects on hunger and hormones.

The myth that calories are all that matters for weight (and health) is completely wrong.

No, those are not examples of why "a calorie is NOT a calorie".
They are examples of how food that has one calorie of energy may affect the 'calories out' portion of calories in vs calories out.
It does not mean that one calorie of that food has two calories of energy.
Most of the times I buy icecream, I ride a return trip of 6-10 miles to the shops on a push bike to get it.
Does that mean that icecream in this situation has a lot less calories because I burn some in the process?
No.

paganstar71

I subscribe

SezxyStef

I agree as far as nutrition goes.

Most people who want to lose weight tho don't do it for health they do it for a number on the scale.

I am going to bold/underline and italizie this next statement for emphasis

For weight loss a calorie is a calorie but for nutrition and health Macros are important

That has been said over and over again in those forum posts about a calorie is not a calorie...most people just skim over the part after the but...

jim180155

I agree as far as nutrition goes.

Most people who want to lose weight tho don't do it for health they do it for a number on the scale.

I am going to bold/underline and italizie this next statement for emphasis

For weight loss a calorie is a calorie but for nutrition and health Macros are important

That has been said over and over again in those forum posts about a calorie is not a calorie...most people just skim over the part after the but...

I get your point, but that's a waste of an underline.

Macros are important. Nutrients are important. Proportions are important, and total consumption is important.

Numbers on a scale are only part of the result, but they are an important part.

Note: I would have underlined something just for fun, but I don't know how to do that on this forum.

SezxyStef

I get your point, but that's a waste of an underline.

Macros are important. Nutrients are important. Proportions are important, and total consumption is important.

Numbers on a scale are only part of the result, but they are an important part.

Note: I would have underlined something just for fun, but I don't know how to do that on this forum.

Not really a waste as there are some heated debates about CICO as some people believe that quality of food is more important for weight loss as opposed to CICO...and those of us who say for weight loss it's all about CICO do believe that nutrition is important too but if you just care about that scale watch calories...

As for the Underline etc it's easy.....

square bracket U square bracket text square bracket then a / U square bracket

[ letter] text [/letter] letter being b or i or u

Francl27

I think the article is spot on, really. Of course where you get your calories from matter... you'd be hungrier and eat more if you only ate carbs, for example.

PearlAng

Very insightful!

jim180155

I get your point, but that's a waste of an underline.

Macros are important. Nutrients are important. Proportions are important, and total consumption is important.

Numbers on a scale are only part of the result, but they are an important part.

Note: I would have underlined something just for fun, but I don't know how to do that on this forum.

Not really a waste as there are some heated debates about CICO as some people believe that quality of food is more important for weight loss as opposed to CICO...and those of us who say for weight loss it's all about CICO do believe that nutrition is important too but if you just care about that scale watch calories...

As for the Underline etc it's easy.....

square bracket U square bracket text square bracket then a / U square bracket

[ letter] text [/letter] letter being b or i or u

Thank You!!!

No, really.

Oh oh. I think you've created a monster

The_1_Who_Knocks

The article isn't taking on calorie counting, it's taking on the mindset of people who think that calories are the only thing that matters. Eating junk just isn't very good for you, even if you only eat a little bit of it.

True, but "not good for you" has nothing to do with weight loss.
People need to stop shoving weight loss and nutrition together, because really they are two separate things.

I think the point of the article was this, and I know that it is true for me. If you eat healthy, it is very difficult to overeat.

geebusuk

I think the article is spot on, really. Of course where you get your calories from matter... you'd be hungrier and eat more if you only ate carbs, for example.

Some people don't find that to be an issue.

Everything I've read suggests that calories, for most people, are the most important as far as weight loss goes.
And if you're already overweight, you'll benefit more by losing weight with a calofic deficit than not losing or not losing so much by targetting specific micronutrients.
After that, exercise seems to make a bigger difference - and to some degree you need to be more careful with what you eat if you aren't physically fit from activity.

Despite that, for my particular goals - body composition and physical fitness, I certainly do pay attention to protein regularly and the other two occasionally. I also try to make sure I get a range of micronutrients.

Edmond_Dantes

OP, excellent article. Thanks for posting it. It is accurate.

Some will try to attack the points of the article because of their persistent misconceptions (the fault of years of non-scientifically based nutrition advice) and personal beliefs. That's just human nature.
There are still many nutrition and exercise "myths" floating around these boards that could use addressing, but one step at a time.

Go_Mizzou99

This was a good Saturday morning read. It just left me with one nagging questions though:

Is my coffee water or not. Answer me dammit!

jim180155

Based strictly on my own experience, I'd say that you'll lose weight if you switch to a whole food, plant based diet. Period. There is no need to count calories.

I tried a WFPB diet for three months. I was also tracking calories on MFP, but the calorie counts didn't matter much. After eating WFPB all day and the day before and the day before that and every other day, the thought of eating more than I should just didn't appeal to me. I might have felt a little hunger, but the only thing waiting for me was more kale or broccoli or an apple.

If I had been able to sneak in some pizza, a hamburger or steak, I would have consumed an extra thousand (or two) calories on those days.


After three months I started adding meat and dairy back into my diet. I still try to eat whole foods and most of them are plant based, but I eat what I want. I definitely need to monitor calories though.

I'm glad I tried the WFPB diet. It wasn't going to work for me long term, but it did teach me to like veggies. Veggies are now a big part of my diet, whereas before I used to choose between meat and milk, or meat with bread and milk.

jim180155

This was a good Saturday morning read. It just left me with one nagging questions though:

Is my coffee water or not. Answer me dammit!

Yes, yours is. Quit doing that. Add more coffee.

geebusuk

Based strictly on my own experience, I'd say that you'll lose weight if you switch to a whole food, plant based diet. Period. There is no need to count calories.

Even if you eat more calories than you have going out?

I can easily eat LOADS of fruit. And quite a lot of other veg I like, actually.

I would suggest it's another way to easily restrict calories/food by removing a swathe of fairly wide ranging foods.
If that's what it takes, fair enough.

BrainyBurro

#3 is nonsense.

the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.

for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.

for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.

so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.

snowflake954

bump

jim180155

Based strictly on my own experience, I'd say that you'll lose weight if you switch to a whole food, plant based diet. Period. There is no need to count calories.

Even if you eat more calories than you have going out?

I can easily eat LOADS of fruit. And quite a lot of other veg I like, actually.

I would suggest it's another way to easily restrict calories/food by removing a swathe of fairly wide ranging foods.
If that's what it takes, fair enough.

I agree with you. If you eat more calories than you burn, you'll gain weight. My point was that if you eat WFPB, you won't want to overeat. There's just not enough fun in the food, and you won't be tempted to overeat. You'll lose weight.

And I'm not recommending it. Some vegans and vegetarians eat that way and are very happy with their choices. Personally, I'd rather eat a more balanced blend, try to stay away from processed food, and limit my total intake by counting calories.