Counting Calories Doesn't Work
Replies
-
The article, and studies that support the claims, are sound and worth exploration.
Of course the following point will ensure that many people will automatically have an emotional, knee jerk dismissal, halting them from even considering alternative theories:But such theories have been generally ignored, perhaps because they challenge entrenched cultural attitudes.
And so be it. But I do think we need to be having a greater discussion beyond "just do it", because calorie counting has just as abysmal long term failure rates as any other type of program or "fad". Most people who try to lose weight fail, and the ones who fail more often than not fail to maintain that loss.
It really is time to get real. At this point telling everyone to eat cake and ice cream "in moderation" ain't cutting it. Sadly, almost nothing is.
That's great and all, but where does personal responsibility come in? Even the FDA food guidelines (used to be the food guide pyramid) suggest eating whole grains, fruits and veggies, lean protein and limited added fats and sugars. Weight Watchers encourages people to eat a certain number of fruits and veggies daily, lean dairy products, lean meats, etc. Even the "boxed" diet plans usually allow for the addition of fruits and vegetables to their meal plans. I think even doctors who are poorly educated in nutrition will usually point to the food guide pyramid or Weight Watchers for an example. So, with all of this information out there, isn't it the responsibility of the person who is attempting to control calories to educate themselves about making better choices than eating cake all day?
Until people learn to have realistic expectations of weight loss and maintenance and that there isn't some magic bullet that will make them instantly skinny, most people who try to lose weight are going to fail. No amount of educating will prevent this. It's not on the government or the scientists or anyone else to help people succeed. We can't teach personal responsibility.
There's definitely personal responsibility involved, but if you've been around MFP for a while you'll know that it's a very popular belief that what you eat doesn't matter - only how many calories. It's been claimed a million and one times that you can eat nothing but Twinkies or ice cream or sugar or whatever and still lose weight if you're under calories; it's pretty clear that the focus is NOT on eating like the above. This focus only on counting calories has taken us away from any notion of eating quality food.
The only thing that matters for weight loss is CICO. People on this site say it all the time because it's true. However, those same people will also tell you that meeting your macros and micros are important for health. No one claims that eating nothing but Twinkies or ice cream while eating at a calorie deficit is a healthy way to lose weight.0 -
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...
opinions =/= fact0 -
I can't believe I wasted my time reading that garbage!0
-
Actually, this article makes a lot of sense, and is probably right on almost every point. It's an interesting hypothesis -- initially, overeating causes fat gain. But then, that fat demands more energy to sustain, leaving less energy for the rest of your body's systems, causing increased hunger and (often) overeating. It's a vicious feedback cycle.
That being said, counting calories will work, but if it's the only thing you do it's going to be a long, hard road on the way to poor health. I think most of us implicitly understand that we're keeping calories in check while ALSO focusing on choosing healthy foods, cutting down on processed ones, exercising, etc etc.
^^^
Why are you even here then??0 -
Saying that counting calories doesn't work for weight management is kinda like saying balancing my checkbook doesn't work for financial management.
I can't argue with that. That about sums it up! (no pun
) 0 -
The article doesn't say that counting calories doesn't work. It's saying that the type of food you eat does matter. In other words you have to count calories and keep track of macros. You will gain weight if you take in more cals than you consume so you still have to count. But you will be more effective in your weight management if you avoid processed carbs.
Too bad the article just didnt say that. It did, but it had to go on and on and on about TL DR BS, Thermodynamics .... yada yada yada......processed carbs are bad.......blah blah blah.......now all of a sudden the AHA is recommending fat.....Booo Hoooo Whatever...... in order to just say what you said.0 -
Apparently we're all doing it wrong...
That's a really interesting article. But since a great number of MFP users limit total carbs or fast digesting carbs, it certainly does not mean "we're all doing it wrong".
Long held beliefs are not easily changed, but I would not be shocked to find that this one does eventually change. A similar article in NY TImes was equally thought provoking for me.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/?ref=health
This section in particular:He [Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian] has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.
Studies also show that calories from different foods are not absorbed the same. When people eat high-fiber foods like nuts and some vegetables, for example, only about three-quarters of the calories they contain are absorbed. The rest are excreted from the body unused. So the calories listed on their labels are not what the body is actually getting.
“The implicit suggestion is that there are no bad calories, just bad people eating too much,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But the evidence is very clear that not all calories are created equal as far as weight gain and obesity. If you’re focusing on calories, you can easily be misguided.”
Perhaps we don't know all that we think we know.0 -
For those who actually found the article interesting and not a waste of time you might be interested in these three studies that are being funded by Peter Attias and Gary Taubes NuSi. As someone who's responded extremely well to eating a low carb diet I'm interested in the findings. Either or if this alternate hypothesis has merit and deserves further research we'll find out soon enough.
Stanford University study
Effect of macronutrient composition on weight loss and chronic disease risk with maximum divergence between diets in a free-living setting
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/stanford-university-study/#.U3uL6yg1RaQ
Energy Balance Consortium Study
The effect of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure and fat balance – is it true that a calorie is a calorie?
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.U3uL7ig1RaQ
Boston Children’s Hospital Study
The impact of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure during maintenance of weight loss
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/boston-childrens-hospital-study/#.U3uL8Cg1RaQ0 -
Actually, this article makes a lot of sense, and is probably right on almost every point. It's an interesting hypothesis -- initially, overeating causes fat gain. But then, that fat demands more energy to sustain, leaving less energy for the rest of your body's systems, causing increased hunger and (often) overeating. It's a vicious feedback cycle.
That being said, counting calories will work, but if it's the only thing you do it's going to be a long, hard road on the way to poor health. I think most of us implicitly understand that we're keeping calories in check while ALSO focusing on choosing healthy foods, cutting down on processed ones, exercising, etc etc.
god thank you, finally a voice of reason to counter balance the far-too-many-loud-but-silly-voices of mfp.
I tend to agree with this article. I have been on MFP for over 3 years and although I have been successful at losing... it hasn't just been about counting my calories. I have noticed a huge difference in my weight loss when I change my intake of processed foods. I lose more at a consistent rate when I am eating lean proteins, fresh veggies and unprocessed grains. I also notice that I can FEEL the difference when I eat processed foods. I feel sluggish, my digestive system revolts against me and I tend to have cravings that have otherwise vanished. It's like if I eat potato chips... my body says, "OH YEAH! Let's eat all the chocolate in the house now too!" I seriously have to fight my cravings... it's just not worth the inner turmoil!
People have to do what works for them... but for me... the calorie thing isn't the be all end all... I think it's more about changing your way of thinking about food and exercise all together.0 -
For those who actually found the article interesting and not a waste of time you might be interested in these three studies that are being funded by Peter Attias and Gary Taubes NuSi. As someone who's responded extremely well to eating a low carb diet I'm interested in the findings. Either or if this alternate hypothesis has merit and deserves further research we'll find out soon enough.
Stanford University study
Effect of macronutrient composition on weight loss and chronic disease risk with maximum divergence between diets in a free-living setting
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/stanford-university-study/#.U3uL6yg1RaQ
Energy Balance Consortium Study
The effect of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure and fat balance – is it true that a calorie is a calorie?
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.U3uL7ig1RaQ
Boston Children’s Hospital Study
The impact of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure during maintenance of weight loss
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/boston-childrens-hospital-study/#.U3uL8Cg1RaQ
LOL I wonder why the current literature is no good? In the first allowing ad lib consumption of 2 of the 3 macros plus self reported intake, sure is a good way to eliminate confounders and will be super accurate. The 2nd one? Already done before
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=79182540 -
Yeah, as at least a couple have been saying, this article is grounded in scientific studies and makes a lot of sense. The TL;DR of the piece isn't that you won't cut weight by cutting calories, but that you need to have complete nutrition in addition to burning calories. Maintaining weight loss and not eating salty, fatty foods is dependent on a life style change, not a 6 month calorie-deficit bender.0
-
They gave a laundry list of reasons why what's been done before isn't good enough for them. As for the second study, if it's been done before then I guess they'll get the same results -- and that's not a bad thing right? But since the study design seems to be completely different to me (and longer than 3 days) maybe we'll learn something new. Like I said before I'm interested in seeing what they come up with.For those who actually found the article interesting and not a waste of time you might be interested in these three studies that are being funded by Peter Attias and Gary Taubes NuSi. As someone who's responded extremely well to eating a low carb diet I'm interested in the findings. Either or if this alternate hypothesis has merit and deserves further research we'll find out soon enough.
Stanford University study
Effect of macronutrient composition on weight loss and chronic disease risk with maximum divergence between diets in a free-living setting
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/stanford-university-study/#.U3uL6yg1RaQ
Energy Balance Consortium Study
The effect of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure and fat balance – is it true that a calorie is a calorie?
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.U3uL7ig1RaQ
Boston Children’s Hospital Study
The impact of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure during maintenance of weight loss
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/boston-childrens-hospital-study/#.U3uL8Cg1RaQ
LOL I wonder why the current literature is no good? In the first allowing ad lib consumption of 2 of the 3 macros plus self reported intake, sure is a good way to eliminate confounders and will be super accurate. The 2nd one? Already done before
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7918254
Since you didn't have anything disparaging to say about the 3rd Boston Children’s Hospital Study does that mean you think that one is worthwhile?0 -
They gave a laundry list of reasons why what's been done before isn't good enough for them. As for the second study, if it's been done before then I guess they'll get the same results -- and that's not a bad thing right? But since the study design seems to be completely different to me (and longer than 3 days) maybe we'll learn something new. Like I said before I'm interested in seeing what they come up with.For those who actually found the article interesting and not a waste of time you might be interested in these three studies that are being funded by Peter Attias and Gary Taubes NuSi. As someone who's responded extremely well to eating a low carb diet I'm interested in the findings. Either or if this alternate hypothesis has merit and deserves further research we'll find out soon enough.
Stanford University study
Effect of macronutrient composition on weight loss and chronic disease risk with maximum divergence between diets in a free-living setting
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/stanford-university-study/#.U3uL6yg1RaQ
Energy Balance Consortium Study
The effect of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure and fat balance – is it true that a calorie is a calorie?
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.U3uL7ig1RaQ
Boston Children’s Hospital Study
The impact of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure during maintenance of weight loss
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/boston-childrens-hospital-study/#.U3uL8Cg1RaQ
LOL I wonder why the current literature is no good? In the first allowing ad lib consumption of 2 of the 3 macros plus self reported intake, sure is a good way to eliminate confounders and will be super accurate. The 2nd one? Already done before
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7918254
Since you didn't have anything disparaging to say about the 3rd Boston Children’s Hospital Study does that mean you think that one is worthwhile?
Nope, since we've already been over that one due to the op ed he just wrote in the NYT over the weekend.0 -
The article, and studies that support the claims, are sound and worth exploration.
Of course the following point will ensure that many people will automatically have an emotional, knee jerk dismissal, halting them from even considering alternative theories:But such theories have been generally ignored, perhaps because they challenge entrenched cultural attitudes.
And so be it. But I do think we need to be having a greater discussion beyond "just do it", because calorie counting has just as abysmal long term failure rates as any other type of program or "fad". Most people who try to lose weight fail, and the ones who fail more often than not fail to maintain that loss.
It really is time to get real. At this point telling everyone to eat cake and ice cream "in moderation" ain't cutting it. Sadly, almost nothing is.
That's great and all, but where does personal responsibility come in? Even the FDA food guidelines (used to be the food guide pyramid) suggest eating whole grains, fruits and veggies, lean protein and limited added fats and sugars. Weight Watchers encourages people to eat a certain number of fruits and veggies daily, lean dairy products, lean meats, etc. Even the "boxed" diet plans usually allow for the addition of fruits and vegetables to their meal plans. I think even doctors who are poorly educated in nutrition will usually point to the food guide pyramid or Weight Watchers for an example. So, with all of this information out there, isn't it the responsibility of the person who is attempting to control calories to educate themselves about making better choices than eating cake all day?
Until people learn to have realistic expectations of weight loss and maintenance and that there isn't some magic bullet that will make them instantly skinny, most people who try to lose weight are going to fail. No amount of educating will prevent this. It's not on the government or the scientists or anyone else to help people succeed. We can't teach personal responsibility.
There's definitely personal responsibility involved, but if you've been around MFP for a while you'll know that it's a very popular belief that what you eat doesn't matter - only how many calories. It's been claimed a million and one times that you can eat nothing but Twinkies or ice cream or sugar or whatever and still lose weight if you're under calories; it's pretty clear that the focus is NOT on eating like the above. This focus only on counting calories has taken us away from any notion of eating quality food.
The only thing that matters for weight loss is CICO. People on this site say it all the time because it's true. However, those same people will also tell you that meeting your macros and micros are important for health. No one claims that eating nothing but Twinkies or ice cream while eating at a calorie deficit is a healthy way to lose weight.
Yes, and I'm sure everyone on this site has extensive research experience and has conducted all of the necessary studies in order to know it's true, and haven't just been buying into what other people are saying...I'm not saying it's NOT true, but it's yet to be proven to be 100% beyond doubt the only thing that matters for weight loss, as the article in the OP states. Sure, that's hypothetical still, but I see nothing wrong with something that discusses the idea that the reason CICO fails SO OFTEN is because people are freaking hungry doing CICO.
I wasn't talking about Twinkies, ice cream, etc. in terms of health - I was talking weight loss. no one probably eats that way, but you'll hear a lot of people say it's totally fine for weight loss (if that's your only focus) cause all that matters is CICO. But as this article and common sense suggests, what you eat will determine how successful you are at counting calories. If you're starving and feeling sickly I doubt you'll stick with counting calories for life, or until you lose all your weight, or keep it off for you. That suggests that WHAT you eat does matter, even in terms of weight loss.0 -
Billionaires Fund A 'Manhattan Project' For Nutrition And Obesity
by ELIZA BARCLAY
September 20, 2012 2:16 PM ET
i
Billionaires John and Laura Arnold are betting that the country's top nutrition researchers can get to the bottom of the obesity epidemic.
Courtesy of the John and Laura Arnold Foundation
Why would a billionaire energy trader-turned-philanthropist throw his foundation's dough behind a new think tank that wants to challenge scientific assumptions about obesity?
John Arnold, 38, whose move from Enron to a spectacularly successful hedge fund got him on the list of wealthiest Americans, isn't crazy about talking to the press. But certainly his decision with his wife Laura to back a newly launched operation called the Nutrition Science Initiative, or NuSI, is an intriguing one.
Obesity, and all the dietary confusion that swirls around it, is clearly a problem that isn't going away. But NuSI says large-scale scientific studies that tackle fundamental questions — like how food really affects fat, hormones and the brain — are what's needed to solve it more than anything else.
We're told by NuSI's president, Peter Attia, a Stanford and Johns Hopkins-trained doctor, that Arnold's interest in the cause started with a podcast featuring science journalist and NuSI co-founder, Gary Taubes.
*copied from a post i made a couple of year ago... at that time the Arnolds had already given NuSI $423 million to start the project.0 -
I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?0
-
I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?
The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.0 -
I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?
The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.
Hmmm i wonder if there's ever been overfeeding trials that the authors missed or vice versa and metabolic ward weightloss trials. Hmmm0 -
I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?
The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.
Actually, if you really read the article, the research only seems to suggest that it's the type of food that's the issue because of adherence. Eating fast digesting carbs > insulin spikes and drops > increased hunger, which makes it harder to stick with a reduced calorie diet. In the end, people can be successful eating mostly "junk" food if their willpower is strong enough. My BIL has lost nearly 200 pounds - the first 100 fairly quickly and the rest over time - all the while eating a diet mostly based on "fast digesting carbs", fatty meats and other "junk". He really won't touch most veggies or fruits and doesn't eat whole grains either. It's going on 10 years since the first 100 was lost and he's maintained all along. His want to lose weight was stronger than his want to overeat and his dislike of "healthy" stuff was strong enough that he was willing to suffer being hungry over eating "healthy".0 -
I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?
The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.
Actually, if you really read the article, the research only seems to suggest that it's the type of food that's the issue because of adherence. Eating fast digesting carbs > insulin spikes and drops > increased hunger, which makes it harder to stick with a reduced calorie diet. In the end, people can be successful eating mostly "junk" food if their willpower is strong enough.
From the article :Another study published by Dr. Ludwig and colleagues in The Lancet in 2004 suggested that a poor-quality diet could result in obesity even when it was low in calories. Rats fed a diet with rapidly digesting (called high “glycemic index”) carbohydrate gained 71 percent more fat than their counterparts, who ate more calories over all, though in the form of slowly digesting carbohydrate.0 -
I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?
The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.
Actually, if you really read the article, the research only seems to suggest that it's the type of food that's the issue because of adherence. Eating fast digesting carbs > insulin spikes and drops > increased hunger, which makes it harder to stick with a reduced calorie diet. In the end, people can be successful eating mostly "junk" food if their willpower is strong enough.
From the article :Another study published by Dr. Ludwig and colleagues in The Lancet in 2004 suggested that a poor-quality diet could result in obesity even when it was low in calories. Rats fed a diet with rapidly digesting (called high “glycemic index”) carbohydrate gained 71 percent more fat than their counterparts, who ate more calories over all, though in the form of slowly digesting carbohydrate.
Annnnnd does the much higher rate of occurrence of DNL in rats possibly have something to do with that, which would render it meaningless for humans0 -
After reading this i'm now convinced that my weight loss is probably due to some supernatural influences.
;-)0 -
Here's a link to NuSi's review of the literature. It's 13 pages and looks comprehensive to me, did they miss the studies you're referring to?I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?
The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.
Hmmm i wonder if there's ever been overfeeding trials that the authors missed or vice versa and metabolic ward weightloss trials. Hmmm
http://nusi.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Summary-of-Diet-Studies-Condensed.pdf0 -
I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?
The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.
Actually, if you really read the article, the research only seems to suggest that it's the type of food that's the issue because of adherence. Eating fast digesting carbs > insulin spikes and drops > increased hunger, which makes it harder to stick with a reduced calorie diet. In the end, people can be successful eating mostly "junk" food if their willpower is strong enough.
From the article :Another study published by Dr. Ludwig and colleagues in The Lancet in 2004 suggested that a poor-quality diet could result in obesity even when it was low in calories. Rats fed a diet with rapidly digesting (called high “glycemic index”) carbohydrate gained 71 percent more fat than their counterparts, who ate more calories over all, though in the form of slowly digesting carbohydrate.
From the study abstract:Despite having similar mean bodyweight (547.9 [SE 13.4] vs 549.2 [15.2] g), rats given high-GI food had more body fat (97.8 [13.6] vs 57.3 [7.2] g; p=0.0152) and less lean body mass (450.1 [9.6] vs 491.9 [11.7] g; p=0.0120) than those given low-GI food. The high-GI group also had greater increases over time in the areas under the curve for blood glucose and plasma insulin after oral glucose, lower plasma adiponectin concentrations, higher plasma triglyceride concentrations, and severe disruption of islet-cell architecture. Mice on the high-GI diet had almost twice the body fat of those on the low-GI diet after 9 weeks.
The study itself did not show that the diet affected the weight, it actually showed that they maintained the same weight - it merely showed a difference in the amount of body fat. This would seem to indicate that while the composition of calories can be important in determining how you look / how much body fat you have, the composition of calories does not change how much you weigh. Also, the study used "Partially pancreatectomised" rats to "hypoinsulinaemia/hyperglycaemia ", so, putting aside the fact that how rats are affected =/= show how humans will be affected, these rats were made to have a medical issue, so I don't see how their results could be relevant to a "normal" human.0 -
That's great and all, but where does personal responsibility come in?
A big part of personal responsibility means knowing your strengths and weaknesses. Being realistic about your goals, and the best way for you to achieve them.
The article isn't suggesting that personal responsibility isn't key. And I, someone who has lost well over 100lbs and counting, certainly would never suggest that personal responsibility isn't key.
But if you know that you have a serious problem with hunger and cravings that are exacerbated by consuming a certain kind of food, or over consuming a particular macro, it's your personal responsibility to create a road that helps you reach your goals.
And that's the bottom line. There are people who will never have any real trouble losing weight while eating everything in moderation. That's wonderful. But there are scores of people who do have genuine issues wrestling control of their weight while consuming more than negligible amounts of high glycemic carbohydrate foods. It doesn't mean that high GI foods are "bad", it just means that some people have a bad handle on them. Why make your weight loss road that much tougher just because your neighbor can have two Oreo cookies and be able to stop with no problem? What good does that do the people who have failed time and again at "everything in moderation"?
Also the article attempts to shine light on the mounting theories that while a "calorie is a calorie", calories from certain macronutrients, in certain people, don't react to the body equally. Whether one agrees, or not, it's worth a discussion IMO.0 -
hmmm...that's weird...i lost a good 25 lbs summer 2012..by counting calories ..with some light exercise.. 0
-
That's great and all, but where does personal responsibility come in?
A big part of personal responsibility means knowing your strengths and weaknesses. Being realistic about your goals, and the best way for you to achieve them.
The article isn't suggesting that personal responsibility isn't key. And I, someone who has lost well over 100lbs and counting, certainly would never suggest that personal responsibility isn't key.
But if you know that you have a serious problem with hunger and cravings that are exacerbated by consuming a certain kind of food, or over consuming a particular macro, it's your personal responsibility to create a road that helps you reach your goals.
And that's the bottom line. There are people who will never have any real trouble losing weight while eating everything in moderation. That's wonderful. But there are scores of people who do have genuine issues wrestling control of their weight while consuming more than negligible amounts of high glycemic carbohydrate foods. It doesn't mean that high GI foods are "bad", it just means that some people have a bad handle on them. Why make your weight loss road that much tougher just because your neighbor can have two Oreo cookies and be able to stop with no problem? What good does that do the people who have failed time and again at "everything in moderation"?
Also the article attempts to shine light on the mounting theories that while a "calorie is a calorie", calories from certain macronutrients, in certain people, don't react to the body equally. Whether one agrees, or not, it's worth a discussion IMO.
Great post! I'm the one you quoted and I agree with you completely. I disagree that the article was attempting to shine a light on the theory - to me, the blatant "counting calories doesn't work" headline and other quotes throughout just ruined the article for me. Cherry picking your results and data and hiding the "facts" with a short mention here and there doesn't help shed light on a problem. In essence, this article just seems like another excuse people can point at to excuse why they can't lose weight.
I personally practice IF and follow a high fat (40%), moderate protein (about 175-200 grams) and lower carb diet just because that is what is naturally filling to me. I don't disagree that macros are important, but I do disagree that counting calories doesn't work. Counting calories works, but it's up to the individual to figure out how to make that work for them. It's taken me years of dieting to figure it out, but I've never stopped trying and I don't want to ever stop. I alone am responsible for my success.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.
And....this is why I think its hilarious scientists bother trying to tell people what happened "hundreds of millions of years ago" when they can't figure out something like this, which can be tested and observed in real time. It's called logic, yet I'm considered a rube for being skeptical.0 -
Here's a link to NuSi's review of the literature. It's 13 pages and looks comprehensive to me, did they miss the studies you're referring to?I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?
The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.
Hmmm i wonder if there's ever been overfeeding trials that the authors missed or vice versa and metabolic ward weightloss trials. Hmmm
http://nusi.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Summary-of-Diet-Studies-Condensed.pdf
They do miss some, but get most of the ward trials. I find it interesting the knocks on study design on the trials that don't agree with their hypothesis, yet the trials they currently have underway suffer from the same faults0 -
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-cause-of-obesity/#more-31486
Harriet Hall, just because I like her and agree with most of her opinions. And it's a very recent post. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions