Counting Calories Doesn't Work

NotJustADieter

What an idiot- has he not heard of basic thermodynamics. It's physics, not witchcraft.

Kenazwa

Amazing the number of scientific experts we have here on MFP jumping in to criticize peer-reviewed studies from JAMA.

LolBroScience

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.

BrainyBurro

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!!

athensguy

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.

yopeeps025

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.

in_the_stars

I had to stop reading when I saw - By DAVID S. LUDWIG.

NotJustADieter

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.

yopeeps025

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.

PikaKnight

Maybe its more about the fact that Calorie counting alone doesn't sell as many books as sensationalism

QFT

jodyblanchard

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.

Acg67

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 them

hill8570

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.

ndj1979

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….

ChrisM8971

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

blackcloud13

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!

krawhitham

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.

ndj1979

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….

ndj1979

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….

1princesswarrior

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.