Counting Calories Doesn't Work

eri204

Since insulin is evil, why aren't they recommending low protein since protein is highly insulinogenic as well?

The authors aren't saying that insulin is evil. They are pointing to the *excess* amount of simple carbs that Americans consume, which probably leads to an excess of insulin levels, which in all likelihood can lead to an excess of overweight people.

This is obviously a grossly oversimplified op-ed piece designed (naturally) to attract non-science readers like me, but I imagine their response to your low-protein suggestion would involve either (1) the fact that the most
pronounced insulinogenic effects of protein are really only observed with consumption of whey protein (/whey protein isolates) so it's unclear what the benefits of a low-any-type-of-protein-diet would be; or (2) the fact that for most (all?) proteins, there is a countervailing glucogen release that, in essence, "balances out" the insulin effect. Simple carbohydrate consumption doesn't yield the same benefits, which I imagine is why carbs are targeted as being "scarier" than proteins in terms of their insulin effect. Just a thought.

bcattoes

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.

I'm not sure that you are saying something different than I, since I only mentioned fat and not weight, as did the section I quoted. Though it seems I did get a different overall meaning form the article than you. I believe it was saying that it was not just will power and calories that affected fat gain. That their hypothesis is that source of the calories may actually affected fat gain.

Though, my view may be influenced by other interpretations of these same studies that suggest similar hypotheses.

AlabasterVerve

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

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?

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 faults

This isn't new but here's a blog post by Stephan Guyenet who takes a look a some of the studies already done and concludes that the science is clear and it's the calories. By reading the comments you can tell his blog post is in direct response to Attia/Taubes/NuSi. It seemed like a fairly even handed summation even though he clearly has a problem with Taubes.

Fat vs. Carbohydrate Overeating: Which Causes More Fat Gain?

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/04/fat-vs-carbohydrate-overeating-which.html

From the comments:

"This post was not an attempt to "disprove" LCHF diets. It was specifically written to address the question of whether overeating by adding carb or fat to a typical diet causes different gain of body fat. This is relevant to the question of what caused the US obesity epidemic: was it extra calories, or was it carbs or fat having some sort of calorie-independent effect? There are people claiming it was carbs independent of calories, and that if we ate the same number of extra calories from fat, we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic. They appear to be wrong."

And

"Again, this post was designed to address a narrow question: can our increase in weight be attributed to the increase in calories that we know occurred, or is it due to some calorie-independent effect of the increase in carbohydrate or fat that also occurred? The former hypothesis is clearly supported by the available data.

You said "The real question is what happens when people dramatically increase their consumption of, say, refined carbs or sugar when they can control how much they eat, which is what happened in the real world". I agree, except you left out the additional question of what happens when people increase intake of added/refined fats.

One difficulty I have with NuSI and Taubes is that they often act as if we don't know anything about these questions and therefore we need new research, when in fact many studies have already been performed that are relevant. The studies are often ignored or criticized if they don't support pre-established beliefs.

In this case, I can tell you that a number of studies have already been done that are relevant to your question. In general, both refined carbohydrate foods and added fats tend to promote higher calorie intake as part of free-choice (not calorie controlled) diets, but the combination of both is the most potent. This is basically the same thing you see in rats, where diets high in fat and sugar in a large variety of tasty forms are the most fattening."

Acg67

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

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?

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 faults

This isn't new but here's a blog post by Stephan Guyenet who takes a look a some of the studies already done and concludes that the science is clear and it's the calories. By reading the comments you can tell his blog post is in direct response to Attia/Taubes/NuSi. It seemed like a fairly even handed summation even though he clearly has a problem with Taubes.

Fat vs. Carbohydrate Overeating: Which Causes More Fat Gain?

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/04/fat-vs-carbohydrate-overeating-which.html

From the comments:

"This post was not an attempt to "disprove" LCHF diets. It was specifically written to address the question of whether overeating by adding carb or fat to a typical diet causes different gain of body fat. This is relevant to the question of what caused the US obesity epidemic: was it extra calories, or was it carbs or fat having some sort of calorie-independent effect? There are people claiming it was carbs independent of calories, and that if we ate the same number of extra calories from fat, we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic. They appear to be wrong."

And

"Again, this post was designed to address a narrow question: can our increase in weight be attributed to the increase in calories that we know occurred, or is it due to some calorie-independent effect of the increase in carbohydrate or fat that also occurred? The former hypothesis is clearly supported by the available data.

You said "The real question is what happens when people dramatically increase their consumption of, say, refined carbs or sugar when they can control how much they eat, which is what happened in the real world". I agree, except you left out the additional question of what happens when people increase intake of added/refined fats.

One difficulty I have with NuSI and Taubes is that they often act as if we don't know anything about these questions and therefore we need new research, when in fact many studies have already been performed that are relevant. The studies are often ignored or criticized if they don't support pre-established beliefs.

In this case, I can tell you that a number of studies have already been done that are relevant to your question. In general, both refined carbohydrate foods and added fats tend to promote higher calorie intake as part of free-choice (not calorie controlled) diets, but the combination of both is the most potent. This is basically the same thing you see in rats, where diets high in fat and sugar in a large variety of tasty forms are the most fattening."

I did see that post and in fact posted that study he was talking about a long time ago here, addressing the same question. It is really the Taubes MO, he came up with GCBC from finding a single study which suggested the obese ate as much or less than the lean yet were fat and set off to cherry pick anything that might remotely support the notion that carbs were the culprit and uniquely lipogenic. Of course this was exactly what he chastised others for doing while creating the lipid hypothesis

tennisdude2004

Counting calories works? Yes and no.

The concept of eating in a calorie deficit definitely works.

The problem is that for some it's sustainable and for others it is not - as is the case with all healthy diets.

whiteheaddg

I'm at a loss as to why folks try to make it more complicated than it really is. I've weighed, measured, and counted for about three years now and have come to learn that ~2000 NET calories keeps me steady. When I want to bulk I net more than 2K, when it's time to lose I net less than 2K. I also track macros to ensure adequate protein/fat intake for muscular development, but I exclude NOTHING. carbs, sugars, wheat, caffeine, white rice, beans, alcohol...whatever...all good to go as long as the numbers add up.

All it takes is commitment and discipline. Unfortunately, that is usually the crux of the issue...not bread.

(note: comments assume no underlying medical condition)

hoyalawya2003

"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."

Let me get this straight. They say that counting calories doesn't work because people can't comply with maintaining a calorie deficit. BUT, existing research doesn't support their hypothesis either, because PEOPLE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE DIETS assigned in the research.

So, TL;DR: changing your eating habits is hard. :noway:

Earth shattering stuff; maybe I should write for the NYT. :ohwell:

bcattoes

"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."

Let me get this straight. They say that counting calories doesn't work because people can't comply with maintaining a calorie deficit. BUT, existing research doesn't support their hypothesis either, because PEOPLE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE DIETS assigned in the research.

I guess I need to re-read the article. While the second is true, I don't think the first sentence is what they were saying. At least, it wasn't ALL they were saying.

bcattoes

I'm at a loss as to why folks try to make it more complicated than it really is. I've weighed, measured, and counted for about three years now and have come to learn that ~2000 NET calories keeps me steady. When I want to bulk I net more than 2K, when it's time to lose I net less than 2K. I also track macros to ensure adequate protein/fat intake for muscular development, but I exclude NOTHING. carbs, sugars, wheat, caffeine, white rice, beans, alcohol...whatever...all good to go as long as the numbers add up.

All it takes is commitment and discipline. Unfortunately, that is usually the crux of the issue...not bread.

(note: comments assume no underlying medical condition)

I'm at a loss as to why some people think everyone is just like them.

weird_me2

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.

I'm not sure that you are saying something different than I, since I only mentioned fat and not weight, as did the section I quoted. Though it seems I did get a different overall meaning form the article than you. I believe it was saying that it was not just will power and calories that affected fat gain. That their hypothesis is that source of the calories may actually affected fat gain.

Though, my view may be influenced by other interpretations of these same studies that suggest similar hypotheses.

I think you probably need to re-read the original article then

"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. "

This article starts out telling the reader that it's not their fault they can't lose weight and that the general advice to take in fewer calories than they burn doesn't work over the long term. Their studies don't even back this up. Maintaining a constant calorie level will allow a person to maintain a constant body weight (if you believe the Ludwig rat studies). This doesn't mean that the body composition will be how a person wants it to be, but if they eat lower calories (and have the discipline to maintain this deficit) then they will be successful at losing weight no matter what the composition of their calories is, while the article seems to imply otherwise.

Most people won't read this type of article in depth or follow up on what the studies were actually about and then it's just another excuse to avoid personal responsibility. Losing weight and maintaining your loss is HARD for most people. If a person wants to succeed, then they either need to take responsibility and learn how to make the best choices for themselves, or they need to have a ton of willpower, which most of us seem to lack. No matter what route you take, you will still end up in the same place if you have that caloric deficit.

bcattoes

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.

I'm not sure that you are saying something different than I, since I only mentioned fat and not weight, as did the section I quoted. Though it seems I did get a different overall meaning form the article than you. I believe it was saying that it was not just will power and calories that affected fat gain. That their hypothesis is that source of the calories may actually affected fat gain.

Though, my view may be influenced by other interpretations of these same studies that suggest similar hypotheses.

I think you probably need to re-read the original article then

"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. "

This article starts out telling the reader that it's not their fault they can't lose weight and that the general advice to take in fewer calories than they burn doesn't work over the long term. Their studies don't even back this up. Maintaining a constant calorie level will allow a person to maintain a constant body weight (if you believe the Ludwig rat studies). This doesn't mean that the body composition will be how a person wants it to be, but if they eat lower calories (and have the discipline to maintain this deficit) then they will be successful at losing weight no matter what the composition of their calories is, while the article seems to imply otherwise.

Most people won't read this type of article in depth or follow up on what the studies were actually about and then it's just another excuse to avoid personal responsibility. Losing weight and maintaining your loss is HARD for most people. If a person wants to succeed, then they either need to take responsibility and learn how to make the best choices for themselves, or they need to have a ton of willpower, which most of us seem to lack. No matter what route you take, you will still end up in the same place if you have that caloric deficit.

Yes, but my take on this, and admittedly similar articles on this subject, is not that they are saying a calorie deficit is not needed, just that many people over simplify this concept to mean that the number of calories you swallow = calories in. It doesn't always. You will absorb less calories from some foods than others, meaning you can actually "eat" more calories of certain foods, since food calories are measured outside the human body.

Acg67

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.

I'm not sure that you are saying something different than I, since I only mentioned fat and not weight, as did the section I quoted. Though it seems I did get a different overall meaning form the article than you. I believe it was saying that it was not just will power and calories that affected fat gain. That their hypothesis is that source of the calories may actually affected fat gain.

Though, my view may be influenced by other interpretations of these same studies that suggest similar hypotheses.

I think you probably need to re-read the original article then

"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. "

This article starts out telling the reader that it's not their fault they can't lose weight and that the general advice to take in fewer calories than they burn doesn't work over the long term. Their studies don't even back this up. Maintaining a constant calorie level will allow a person to maintain a constant body weight (if you believe the Ludwig rat studies). This doesn't mean that the body composition will be how a person wants it to be, but if they eat lower calories (and have the discipline to maintain this deficit) then they will be successful at losing weight no matter what the composition of their calories is, while the article seems to imply otherwise.

Most people won't read this type of article in depth or follow up on what the studies were actually about and then it's just another excuse to avoid personal responsibility. Losing weight and maintaining your loss is HARD for most people. If a person wants to succeed, then they either need to take responsibility and learn how to make the best choices for themselves, or they need to have a ton of willpower, which most of us seem to lack. No matter what route you take, you will still end up in the same place if you have that caloric deficit.

Yes, but my take on this, and admittedly similar articles on this subject, is not that they are saying a calorie deficit is not needed, just that many people over simplify this concept to mean that the number of calories you swallow = calories in. It doesn't always. You will absorb less calories from some foods than others, meaning you can actually "eat" more calories of certain foods, since food calories are measured outside the human body.

Nope

"In short, the state of the scholarly literature is such that we need well-designed, well-controlled, large n, lengthy studies directly addressing the question of whether the carbohydrate content of the diet influences fat mass independent of total caloric intake and whether total caloric intake has an influence independent of carbohydrate content"

lillilanda

Wow, calorie counting doesn't work? My scale must be reading seventy pounds off. I wonder if it is still under warranty.