Counting Calories Doesn't Work
Replies
-
I found this gem interesting..
"With reduced consumption of refined grains, concentrated sugar and potato products and a few other sensible lifestyle choices, our internal body weight control system should be able to do the rest."
but what about the rest of us that eat carbs and sugar AND lose weight…?????????? I guess we are just outliers….0 -
bump n grind for later0
-
Maybe its more about the fact that Calorie counting alone doesn't sell as many books as sensationalism0
-
I stopped reading the article because it is kinda true. The more you weigh more calories needed to meet maintenance but weight can speed your metabolism up in calorie deficit.0
-
Since insulin is evil, why aren't they recommending low protein since protein is highly insulinogenic as well?0
-
Lol lies, there have been no metabolic ward trials that controlled caloric intake?
"UNFORTUNATELY, existing research cannot provide a definitive test of our hypothesis. Several prominent clinical trials reported no difference in weight loss when comparing diets purportedly differing in protein, carbohydrate and fat. However, these trials had major limitations; at the end, subjects reported that they had not met the targets for complying with the prescribed diets. We wouldn’t discard a potentially lifesaving cancer treatment based on negative findings, if the research subjects didn’t take the drug as intended."
Yeah. No evidence means its all speculation, and all medical professionals take that with a grain of salt. Everyone has a theory about how/why the body does *fill in blank*. The problem is, there are phenomenal possibilities of uncontrolled variables in a human body, especially in any given group of studied bodies. So basically the whole article is just obesity scare propaganda until we get any actual information on the topics covered and any studies testing their formulated hypotheses. They really discredited themselves with that paragraph.0 -
Well, I am sort of a porkmeister, and if I eat less than 2300 cal's per day, I automatically lose weight each day!
So calories can work.
I just have about 3 - 4 - 5 microwave dinners at 400 cal each, each day.
I like to just stock the fridge only with "TV dinners", like Costco Teryaki Bowls, that are $1 on sale, and 400 cals, and sort of balanced. These are sort of high carbs. Any balanced microwave dinner will work, as long as the sodium is < 1/4 of 1500 mg, < 400 mg, the CDC daily allowed, and the fat is not high.
I am just starting this, so it should work. 3-4 per day.
The fact that these dins are not divisible into snacks is why this works - there is way less temptation to get a huge bowl of some snack food and eat it all day. And microwaving them makes you stop and think that you are really eating.
-
I lost 50 lbs in 1994 or so using this method. With little or no exercise. It was painless, I felt full, and it worked !
Mike0 -
I found this gem interesting..
"With reduced consumption of refined grains, concentrated sugar and potato products and a few other sensible lifestyle choices, our internal body weight control system should be able to do the rest."
but what about the rest of us that eat carbs and sugar AND lose weight…?????????? I guess we are just outliers….
That's the thing, though. There already have been studies done which confirm any "diet" (or whatever word you choose if you avoid that term) that someone sticks to will "work" in the sense that you'll see weightloss/fat loss. It's not any specific diet per se, but to the surprise of absolutely nobody, it seems to just be that when people are mindful of what they eat, they tend to make better choices and eat less overall.0 -
Stupidest article I have read in a good while. -.-0
-
Since insulin is evil, why aren't they recommending low protein since protein is highly insulinogenic as well?
Because then we would be on to them. Because they would have to admit that you can't eat ANYthing, in order to support their insulin hypothesis.
As for those nodding their heads up and down and saying "Yes! This makes sense!" I will leave them with this:
0 -
What an idiot- has he not heard of basic thermodynamics. It's physics, not witchcraft.0
-
Amazing the number of scientific experts we have here on MFP jumping in to criticize peer-reviewed studies from JAMA.0
-
Amazing the number of scientific experts we have here on MFP jumping in to criticize peer-reviewed studies from JAMA.
Amazing how Taubes has been ripped to pieces by others in his field.0 -
Lulz
^ this.
also, i'm so sick of the anti-processed food nonsense that is so pervasive in certain corners of society these days.
there is nothing wrong with processed food. in fact, without processed food, we'd probably have millions and millions more starvation deaths each year around the world, and much less food choice in places where starvation isn't as much a concern.
food preservatives are a good thing! there's a reason why humans started using them!!0 -
It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.
It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.
If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.
I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.0 -
It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.
It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.
If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.
I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.
That is correct. That why people tend to stay away from empty calories. Or eat those foods in moderation.0 -
I had to stop reading when I saw - By DAVID S. LUDWIG.0
-
It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.
It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.
If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.
I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.
That is correct. That why people tend to stay away from empty calories. Or eat those foods in moderation.
This is true. More high-carb processed foods stimulate insulin production, so you store too much of your food instead of burning it quickly, so in response you feel hungrier and eat more. Ever wonder why a super fat person can eat 4,000 calories before dinner and STILL BE HUNGRY? It's not JUST because they are gluttonous slobs, it's because their body is ****ed up into giving them bad hunger signals they should ignore. It's very hard to have the willpower to deny your body when you're that hungry. So instead of simply eating less calories, people who let themselves get this obese need to eat smarter calories, that their body can use quickly, instead of storing quickly and demanding additional food on top of that. This is the core concept behind keto and paleo diets... to restrict the ****ty processed carbs, and replace it with natural whole foods.
That being said, it's far more complex than "calories in/calories out doesn't work" - the second law of thermodynamics runs true regardless.0 -
It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.
It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.
If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.
I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.
That is correct. That why people tend to stay away from empty calories. Or eat those foods in moderation.
This is true. More high-carb processed foods stimulate insulin production, so you store too much of your food instead of burning it quickly, so in response you feel hungrier and eat more. Ever wonder why a super fat person can eat 4,000 calories before dinner and STILL BE HUNGRY? It's not JUST because they are gluttonous slobs, it's because their body is ****ed up into giving them bad hunger signals they should ignore. It's very hard to have the willpower to deny your body when you're that hungry. So instead of simply eating less calories, people who let themselves get this obese need to eat smarter calories, that their body can use quickly, instead of storing quickly and demanding additional food on top of that. This is the core concept behind keto and paleo diets... to restrict the ****ty processed carbs, and replace it with natural whole foods.
That being said, it's far more complex than "calories in/calories out doesn't work" - the second law of thermodynamics runs true regardless.
Also nutrient dense foods over calorie dense foods is the way to go.0 -
Maybe its more about the fact that Calorie counting alone doesn't sell as many books as sensationalism
QFT0 -
Woke up to this gem on Facebook and thought some of you might enjoy reading it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html
Apparently we're all doing it wrong...
I personally thought the article was great. I read it on Friday. I know my genetic makeup is responsible for much of my weight issues.0 -
It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.
It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.
If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.
I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.
That is correct. That why people tend to stay away from empty calories. Or eat those foods in moderation.
This is true. More high-carb processed foods stimulate insulin production, so you store too much of your food instead of burning it quickly, so in response you feel hungrier and eat more. Ever wonder why a super fat person can eat 4,000 calories before dinner and STILL BE HUNGRY? It's not JUST because they are gluttonous slobs, it's because their body is ****ed up into giving them bad hunger signals they should ignore. It's very hard to have the willpower to deny your body when you're that hungry. So instead of simply eating less calories, people who let themselves get this obese need to eat smarter calories, that their body can use quickly, instead of storing quickly and demanding additional food on top of that. This is the core concept behind keto and paleo diets... to restrict the ****ty processed carbs, and replace it with natural whole foods.
That being said, it's far more complex than "calories in/calories out doesn't work" - the second law of thermodynamics runs true regardless.
Incorrect, didn't we just go over protein is highly insulinogenic? And if the concept behind keto/paleo was to eat cals that they can use quickly they would want to eat highly refined carbs or simple sugars. The real concept behind paleo is to avoid certain foods because a small subset of the population cannot tolerate them well, which must mean everyone should avoid them0 -
Article seems to make the common mistake of generalizing "carbohydrates are bad" from the observed "easily digested carbohydrates, eaten in isolation, tend to cause weight gain". That always annoys the crap out of me.
I wonder if "popularizing" the article screwed up the message? The JAMA article referenced (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695) is actually quite good -- especially the concluding paragraph.0 -
I found this gem interesting..
"With reduced consumption of refined grains, concentrated sugar and potato products and a few other sensible lifestyle choices, our internal body weight control system should be able to do the rest."
but what about the rest of us that eat carbs and sugar AND lose weight…?????????? I guess we are just outliers….
That's the thing, though. There already have been studies done which confirm any "diet" (or whatever word you choose if you avoid that term) that someone sticks to will "work" in the sense that you'll see weightloss/fat loss. It's not any specific diet per se, but to the surprise of absolutely nobody, it seems to just be that when people are mindful of what they eat, they tend to make better choices and eat less overall.
so eat less + move more = weight loss….there is no way it can be that easy! Weight loss is like complex physics….0 -
It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.
It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.
If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.
I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.
That is correct. That why people tend to stay away from empty calories. Or eat those foods in moderation.
This is true. More high-carb processed foods stimulate insulin production, so you store too much of your food instead of burning it quickly, so in response you feel hungrier and eat more. Ever wonder why a super fat person can eat 4,000 calories before dinner and STILL BE HUNGRY? It's not JUST because they are gluttonous slobs, it's because their body is ****ed up into giving them bad hunger signals they should ignore. It's very hard to have the willpower to deny your body when you're that hungry. So instead of simply eating less calories, people who let themselves get this obese need to eat smarter calories, that their body can use quickly, instead of storing quickly and demanding additional food on top of that. This is the core concept behind keto and paleo diets... to restrict the ****ty processed carbs, and replace it with natural whole foods.
That being said, it's far more complex than "calories in/calories out doesn't work" - the second law of thermodynamics runs true regardless.
Whatever method you use for weight loss I am not sure insulting obese people is the way to go
0 -
There is not much that's contentious in this article. Effectively says eating crap is bad for you, and you can't rely SOLELY on counting calories to manage yourself.
The real trick comes from the OP - "Counting Calories Doesn't work". Eye catching title to trigger a debate - but it's not the title of the actual article; and nowhere in the article is this blanket statement ever made!0 -
What shocks me is that doctors do all of these studies on overweight and obese people, diets, etc... and they NEVER tap into the MFP community. There is SO MUCH INFORMATION here, in our diaries, we have photographs to show how overweight we were when we started
Any study I see where there were 21 participants isn't valid. Especially when it comes to weight loss, since everyones bodies are so different. But yes, calories in calories out really does work for everyone.
I read this quote: "your New Year’s resolution to lose weight probably won’t last through the spring, let alone affect how you look in a swimsuit in July." I started this journey as a New years resolution. I'm never hungry. I'm eating at a deficit every month for the past 5 months. I feel amazing, I'm losing weight. Why doesn't Dr Ludwig talk to me and hundreds of others on this website and actually get a valid sample size and real information on how real people lose weight and keep it off in the real world.0 -
It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.
It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.
If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.
I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.
That is correct. That why people tend to stay away from empty calories. Or eat those foods in moderation.
This is true. More high-carb processed foods stimulate insulin production, so you store too much of your food instead of burning it quickly, so in response you feel hungrier and eat more. Ever wonder why a super fat person can eat 4,000 calories before dinner and STILL BE HUNGRY? It's not JUST because they are gluttonous slobs, it's because their body is ****ed up into giving them bad hunger signals they should ignore. It's very hard to have the willpower to deny your body when you're that hungry. So instead of simply eating less calories, people who let themselves get this obese need to eat smarter calories, that their body can use quickly, instead of storing quickly and demanding additional food on top of that. This is the core concept behind keto and paleo diets... to restrict the ****ty processed carbs, and replace it with natural whole foods.
That being said, it's far more complex than "calories in/calories out doesn't work" - the second law of thermodynamics runs true regardless.
OR they can just cut down on the amount of food that they currently eat and lose weight that way ….unless of course they have some kind of medical issue that makes them sensitive to carbs….0 -
It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.
It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.
If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.
I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.
from the article:
"If this hypothesis turns out to be correct, it will have immediate implications for public health. It would mean that the decades-long focus on calorie restriction was destined to fail for most people. Information about calorie content would remain relevant, not as a strategy for weight loss, but rather to help people avoid eating too much highly processed food loaded with rapidly digesting carbohydrates. But obesity treatment would more appropriately focus on diet quality rather than calorie quantity."
so if they are right then somehow calories in vs calories out will not be important anymore and you can just eat the right "quality" of food, and not have to worry about quantity….0 -
People in the modern food environment seem to have greater control over what they eat than how much. With reduced consumption of refined grains, concentrated sugar and potato products and a few other sensible lifestyle choices, our internal body weight control system should be able to do the rest.
Okay, I eat all the foods listed above so that aside aren't these two sentences all about calorie counting? Correct me if I'm wrong but to reduce consumption one must first know what one is consuming.
And in for the ensuing train wreck.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions