Counting Calories Doesn't Work

kalmf

Wow! I am always shocked at the level of defensiveness on some MFP boards, especially when a new theory is being floated.

The authors don't appear to be presenting their work as cold hard facts. They themselves acknowledge it: "If this hypothesis turns out to be correct...."

They do not seem to be saying, "Stop calorie counting you bunch of ninnies! Regardless of what success you may feel you have had, you're wrong, you've been wasting your time because we are scientists and we know better!"

It doesn't seem to say that at all.

I found it to be a fascinating article. I also count calories like many here because I need some sense of order. I have no idea how much I have exercised unless I count reps, steps, minutes,etc. and calorie counting helps me keep track of food in a similar way, imperfect thought it may be.

I think many of us are willing to consider that a calorie of kale might perhaps have a slight edge over a calorie of Southern Comfort. Perhaps this is just opening up to the next level. That's exciting to me.

AlabasterVerve

In addition, the food industry — which makes enormous profits from highly processed products derived from corn, wheat and rice — invokes calorie balance as its first line of defense. If all calories are the same, then there are no bad foods, and sugary beverages, junk foods and the like are fine in moderation. It’s simply a question of portion control. The fact that this rarely works is taken as evidence that obese people lack willpower, not that the idea itself might be wrong.

Great article; I thought this paragraph summed up the debate nicely. I hope the research continues as the "eat less, move more" prescription hasn't proved to be sustainable for the majority of the morbidly obese population.

And the concluding paragraph from the JAMA article:

Ultimately, weight loss requires consuming fewer calories than expended. A common interpretation of this thermodynamic principle deemphasizes the importance of dietary composition and instead places focus on behavioral methods to establish a negative energy balance. Although reduced energy intake acutely decreases fat mass, predictable physiological and behavioral adaptations progressively lessen the ability of most people to maintain voluntary energy restriction. According to an alternative view, the metabolic effects of refined carbohydrate (consumed in greater amounts now than in the 1970s, with adoption of the low-fat diet) and other environmental factors cause the adipocyte to take in, store, and trap too many calories. Subsequently, energy expenditure declines and hunger increases, reflecting homeostatic responses to lowered circulating concentrations of glucose and other metabolic fuels. Thus, overeating may be secondary to diet-induced metabolic dysfunction in the development of some forms of obesity. If so, treatment focused on dietary quality, rather than advice to eat less, could help address this sequence of events at the source and produce better long-term weight loss. Mechanistically oriented trials with well-differentiated diet groups and comparative effectiveness studies addressing this controversy are under way.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695

in_the_stars

I read it.

Just noticed it was Ludwig AND Friedman that wrote the article. Friedman is vice president of research at the Nutrition Science Initiative. NuSI? lol

establishingaplace

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!

Unless you read a different article than I did, that statement is made in the first two paragraphs:

"FOR most of the last century, our understanding of the cause of obesity has been based on immutable physical law. Specifically, it’s the first law of thermodynamics, which dictates that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. When it comes to body weight, this means that calorie intake minus calorie expenditure equals calories stored. Surrounded by tempting foods, we overeat, consuming more calories than we can burn off, and the excess is deposited as fat. The simple solution is to exert willpower and eat less.

The problem is that this advice doesn’t work, at least not for most people over the long term. In other words, 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. More of us than ever are obese, despite an incessant focus on calorie balance by the government, nutrition organizations and the food industry."

Archon2

But what if we’ve confused cause and effect? What if it’s not overeating that causes us to get fat, but the process of getting fatter that causes us to overeat?

Nonsensical.

Also, the obvious answer is: the system is dynamic in that:

- you don't burn the same amount of calories each day
(exercise levels, metabolic rate changes, complexity of food/ease of digestion, . . .)

- Sure, the bigger (fatter or more muscular) the more energy you will need to maintain that size
(Obviousness, even fat cells need energy to keep going...)

- You get bigger by taking in more than you need (on the average, over the course of time, body size and needs adjusted for...)
(excess is stored)

What is this article supposed to be saying? That there are physiological reasons for wanting to acquire fat? Well, duh. Spock would not be impressed.

ndj1979

In addition, the food industry — which makes enormous profits from highly processed products derived from corn, wheat and rice — invokes calorie balance as its first line of defense. If all calories are the same, then there are no bad foods, and sugary beverages, junk foods and the like are fine in moderation. It’s simply a question of portion control. The fact that this rarely works is taken as evidence that obese people lack willpower, not that the idea itself might be wrong.

Great article; I thought this paragraph summed up the debate nicely. I hope the research continues as the "eat less, move more" prescription hasn't proved to be sustainable for the majority of the morbidly obese population.

And the concluding paragraph from the JAMA article:

Ultimately, weight loss requires consuming fewer calories than expended. A common interpretation of this thermodynamic principle deemphasizes the importance of dietary composition and instead places focus on behavioral methods to establish a negative energy balance. Although reduced energy intake acutely decreases fat mass, predictable physiological and behavioral adaptations progressively lessen the ability of most people to maintain voluntary energy restriction. According to an alternative view, the metabolic effects of refined carbohydrate (consumed in greater amounts now than in the 1970s, with adoption of the low-fat diet) and other environmental factors cause the adipocyte to take in, store, and trap too many calories. Subsequently, energy expenditure declines and hunger increases, reflecting homeostatic responses to lowered circulating concentrations of glucose and other metabolic fuels. Thus, overeating may be secondary to diet-induced metabolic dysfunction in the development of some forms of obesity. If so, treatment focused on dietary quality, rather than advice to eat less, could help address this sequence of events at the source and produce better long-term weight loss. Mechanistically oriented trials with well-differentiated diet groups and comparative effectiveness studies addressing this controversy are under way.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695

if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….

AlabasterVerve

if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….

Some people aren't satisfied with the current eat-less-move-more-too-bad-so-sad-you-can't-stick-with-the-program-fatty way of thinking. And good for them for recognizing that there has to be a better, more effective way. It's great that people are willing to revisit the causes and treatments of obesity instead of insisting we already know it all and that there's nothing more to be learned. Especially when it's so easy to dismiss people with weight problems as being too dumb and lazy to eat less and move more.

ndj1979

if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….

Some people aren't satisfied with the current eat-less-move-more-too-bad-so-sad-you-can't-stick-with-the-program-fatty way of thinking. And good for them for recognizing that there has to be a better, more effective way. It's great that people are willing to revisit the causes and treatments of obesity instead of insisting we already know it all and that there's nothing more to be learned. Especially when it's so easy to dismiss people with weight problems as being too dumb and lazy to eat less and move more.

so people are obese for some other reason then over consumption of calories….? I am assuming non-medical condition types here ….

stevencloser

if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….

Some people aren't satisfied with the current eat-less-move-more-too-bad-so-sad-you-can't-stick-with-the-program-fatty way of thinking. And good for them for recognizing that there has to be a better, more effective way. It's great that people are willing to revisit the causes and treatments of obesity instead of insisting we already know it all and that there's nothing more to be learned. Especially when it's so easy to dismiss people with weight problems as being too dumb and lazy to eat less and move more.

But there is no better, more effective way. The laws of physics are the bottom line that can't be broken like the speed of light being the upper limit for anything with mass,.
Every(!) single diet that actually works is just "eat less calories than you burn" put in a nice package, in wrapping paper with a big bow on it. Calling it by a different name does not change that it works on the same premise.

AlabasterVerve

if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….

Some people aren't satisfied with the current eat-less-move-more-too-bad-so-sad-you-can't-stick-with-the-program-fatty way of thinking. And good for them for recognizing that there has to be a better, more effective way. It's great that people are willing to revisit the causes and treatments of obesity instead of insisting we already know it all and that there's nothing more to be learned. Especially when it's so easy to dismiss people with weight problems as being too dumb and lazy to eat less and move more.

so people are obese for some other reason then over consumption of calories….? I am assuming non-medical condition types here ….

Did you bother to read the articles before discussing them? Dumb and lazy indeed...

Ultimately, weight loss requires consuming fewer calories than expended. A common interpretation of this thermodynamic principle deemphasizes the importance of dietary composition and instead places focus on behavioral methods to establish a negative energy balance.

scubasuenc

The fact that only 1 in 6 people are able to maintain a weight loss is because as soon as they have lost the weight and end the diet they return to the same old habits that made them gain weight in the first place.

The only way to maintain weight loss is to make permanent dietary changes. That doesn't necessarily mean giving up certain foods. It means learning to eat at the maintenance calorie level and getting the necessary macros.

Calorie counting can can and does work work, there are plenty of people here on MFP that prove that.

ndj1979

if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….

Some people aren't satisfied with the current eat-less-move-more-too-bad-so-sad-you-can't-stick-with-the-program-fatty way of thinking. And good for them for recognizing that there has to be a better, more effective way. It's great that people are willing to revisit the causes and treatments of obesity instead of insisting we already know it all and that there's nothing more to be learned. Especially when it's so easy to dismiss people with weight problems as being too dumb and lazy to eat less and move more.

so people are obese for some other reason then over consumption of calories….? I am assuming non-medical condition types here ….

Did you bother to read the articles before discussing them? Dumb and lazy indeed...

Ultimately, weight loss requires consuming fewer calories than expended. A common interpretation of this thermodynamic principle deemphasizes the importance of dietary composition and instead places focus on behavioral methods to establish a negative energy balance.

I was not referring to the article, I was referring to your comment…

care to answer or are you just going to throw around lame insults???

PennyVonDread

if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….

Some people aren't satisfied with the current eat-less-move-more-too-bad-so-sad-you-can't-stick-with-the-program-fatty way of thinking. And good for them for recognizing that there has to be a better, more effective way. It's great that people are willing to revisit the causes and treatments of obesity instead of insisting we already know it all and that there's nothing more to be learned. Especially when it's so easy to dismiss people with weight problems as being too dumb and lazy to eat less and move more.

so people are obese for some other reason then over consumption of calories….? I am assuming non-medical condition types here ….

Did you bother to read the articles before discussing them? Dumb and lazy indeed...

Ultimately, weight loss requires consuming fewer calories than expended. A common interpretation of this thermodynamic principle deemphasizes the importance of dietary composition and instead places focus on behavioral methods to establish a negative energy balance.

Just because someone chooses not to be thin or healthy (because it's their life, it's their right) doesn't make them stupid or lazy. There are a lot of hard working fat people who raise families, work labor intensive jobs, and have college education. It's called bodily autonomy. Not everyone who is fat even has a problem existing in their fat bodies. Just because the American medical groups are waging a war on obesity doesn't mean the people inhabiting fat bodies are on board, or care, or are obligated to care, or are even unhealthy to begin with because not all fat people are horribly diseased and not all people who are fat are lazy and don't exercise.

I don't think it's fair to lay personal attacks on the lifestlye choices of people who don't support healthism or try to look like you.

YesIAm17

I may be one of the sharpest but definitely not THE sharpest tool in the shed so take my 2 cents for what it's worth (surely not a dime).

Overall conclusion of the article, based on what is actually stated and sort of reading between the lines, is that CICO is fact and works but in order for SOME people to stick with it and get the most efficient results possible they may need to adjust their MACROS accordingly. Or, in other words....

Counting Calories Doesn't Work.... for some people... unless they track and adjust their macros accordingly... because otherwise they have too much trouble sticking with it.

It looks to me to be true, but also incredibly and very intentionally misleading so as to make it sensational enough to drive traffic (make money) to their website, and attempt to make the authors look smarter (build their resume). Or, in other words...

Let's totally agree with known science but word it and present it in a controversial way that makes it sound like we disagree and are presenting some new genius breakthrough.... so we can make money.

Circinus_

It's not the second law of thermodynamics you're after -- that one states that the change in entropy in a closed system is never negative. Very little to do with digestion.

It's the first law you're after. Even so, calories in/calories out is still a misunderstood concept. The amount of energy your body can extract from food via digestion is not exactly equal to what you put in your mouth, same idea with calories expended. But it's a decent first-order approximation.

Circinus_

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….

Well, yeah. The article hypothesizes that, when eating these 'quality' foods, one naturally feels satiated when full and hungry when actually in need of food. That was where they were arguing that the body's natural systems take over. So then, you wouldn't have to consciously worry about the quantity. I'm sure this holds true for many people -- regardless of conflicting scientific evidence for the rest of the article, there's relative consensus among scientists regarding "hunger hormones."

athensguy

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!

Unless you read a different article than I did, that statement is made in the first two paragraphs:

"FOR most of the last century, our understanding of the cause of obesity has been based on immutable physical law. Specifically, it’s the first law of thermodynamics, which dictates that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. When it comes to body weight, this means that calorie intake minus calorie expenditure equals calories stored. Surrounded by tempting foods, we overeat, consuming more calories than we can burn off, and the excess is deposited as fat. The simple solution is to exert willpower and eat less.

The problem is that this advice doesn’t work, at least not for most people over the long term. In other words, 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. More of us than ever are obese, despite an incessant focus on calorie balance by the government, nutrition organizations and the food industry."

The advise doesn't work because people don't follow it, not because eating at a deficit won't make you lose weight. People trying to lose weight fail to get to a deficit, and people trying to maintain can't easily keep calorie balance when they're hungry all the time.

Iwishyouwell

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.

eldamiano

I got bored of this article when it started to get technical, particularly as I lost weight when eating at a calorie deficit and the fact that this is how everybody else loses too. That's all you really need to know.

I actually think the author was bored while writing it to be honest.

Diets are built upon the theory that you need to not only eat at a deficit, but also need to eat certain foods, hit specific macro targets, or eat in a boring monotonous pattern. This is of course a myth. I think that is what the author is getting at somewhere. Well done chum for pointing that out if you are.

stealthq

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

As someone who has both been published in peer reviewed journals and has been one of the peers doing the reviewing, I can assure you that an article simply being in a peer reviewed journal does not guarantee it isn't complete crap.

I can also assure you from the reading I've been doing (because none of my fields of specialty are nutrition) that the majority of the papers I've read in nutrition-related sciences seem to be rather light on correct study design and scientific method. It's almost as if most of the authors (and therefore their peers) were educated primarily as clinicians or nutritionists or similar, and not as research scientists.

Oh, wait ...