This verge article says calorie counting is bad science?
Replies
-
LOL me-ow. I believe in the BMI thread she said she's at the high end of the healthy BMI range.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.
I see...you have not read the article...it is all about calorie counting, but then...to see the sense of it you would have to read it first...
Stef.
the article you posted no I didn't...I read the original one...but before I hit post I will have read your article...
But to be frank it will be time I will never get back because it doesn't matter what you eat...if you are in a calorie deficit you lose weight...you might not be hitting macro/micros but you will lose weight ...but it's not about the article you posted
It's about this part of your post“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
So in the article you posted...here is another quote
Agreed such as eating clean or cutting out carbs or going very low carb or sugara is bad etc have all been touted as the way to go...when those single things do not in themselves cause obesity.Dr. Frank B. Hu, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the new analysis, said: “In the past, too much emphasis has been put on single factors in the diet. But looking for a magic bullet hasn’t solved the problem of obesity.”
then this...really???? food is bad...please...the notion that it's okay to eat in moderation has helped a lot of people maitain hundreds of pounds of weight loss...what has cutting carbs/sugar/fats done...????“There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less,” he said. “The notion that it’s O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want.”
No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.“Both physical activity and diet are important to weight control, but if you are fairly active and ignore diet, you can still gain weight,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the study.
And just fyi the article you posted was not about calorie counting it is touting food choices are more important than counting calories...just as I figured...great 10mins of my life I won't get back
I will contiue to count my calories, drink my beer and long island ice tea, eat my chocolate and French fries and pop corn and chips in moderation and follow my 80/20 rule thanks...my macros and micros are awesome...if you want the details of those go ahead and look...
Aren't you technically still overweight though? I think I saw you post that in another thread, but I apologize if I'm mistaking you with someone else. And that's not meant as a slam. You look quite fit. But since we are talking about scientists here, your case in a clinical weight loss study might not be seen as a success.
To the original article, I have no comment on the gadgets because I don't use them, but it seems to be saying "Well calories aren't precise and people are terrible at calorie counting." So? Why not try to get better. It works.0 -
LOL me-ow. I believe in the BMI thread she said she's at the high end of the healthy BMI range.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.
I see...you have not read the article...it is all about calorie counting, but then...to see the sense of it you would have to read it first...
Stef.
the article you posted no I didn't...I read the original one...but before I hit post I will have read your article...
But to be frank it will be time I will never get back because it doesn't matter what you eat...if you are in a calorie deficit you lose weight...you might not be hitting macro/micros but you will lose weight ...but it's not about the article you posted
It's about this part of your post“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
So in the article you posted...here is another quote
Agreed such as eating clean or cutting out carbs or going very low carb or sugara is bad etc have all been touted as the way to go...when those single things do not in themselves cause obesity.Dr. Frank B. Hu, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the new analysis, said: “In the past, too much emphasis has been put on single factors in the diet. But looking for a magic bullet hasn’t solved the problem of obesity.”
then this...really???? food is bad...please...the notion that it's okay to eat in moderation has helped a lot of people maitain hundreds of pounds of weight loss...what has cutting carbs/sugar/fats done...????“There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less,” he said. “The notion that it’s O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want.”
No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.“Both physical activity and diet are important to weight control, but if you are fairly active and ignore diet, you can still gain weight,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the study.
And just fyi the article you posted was not about calorie counting it is touting food choices are more important than counting calories...just as I figured...great 10mins of my life I won't get back
I will contiue to count my calories, drink my beer and long island ice tea, eat my chocolate and French fries and pop corn and chips in moderation and follow my 80/20 rule thanks...my macros and micros are awesome...if you want the details of those go ahead and look...
Aren't you technically still overweight though? I think I saw you post that in another thread, but I apologize if I'm mistaking you with someone else. And that's not meant as a slam. You look quite fit. But since we are talking about scientists here, your case in a clinical weight loss study might not be seen as a success.
To the original article, I have no comment on the gadgets because I don't use them, but it seems to be saying "Well calories aren't precise and people are terrible at calorie counting." So? Why not try to get better. It works.
Yes, I agree, it does for some people. And my remark was not meant to be catty. As I pointed out, that user looks quite fit.0 -
I've noticed that the vast majority of discussion on MFP is about the physical requirements to lose weight and/or get fit but most everyone who succeeds will tell you that it's mostly mental. That has certainly been true for me.For so many people so many factors go into eating. Emotions, boredom, etc.
All I can say is that I'm very well aware that counting calories is something I'll have to do for the rest of my life. I'm ok with that!
Like you, I'm not mourning over tracking food. I simply lack the intuitive judgement of some people to know when I've eaten enough. Just two days ago, I guessed I had eaten about 500 calories by lunch time. I added it up and it was 1,100. Do diabetics sit around and debate whether or not they should take an insulin injection? They do not, they accept it and move on. This isn't anywhere near that serious and so, like you, I don't waste time feeling sorry for myself.0 -
Technically overweight...no...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.
I see...you have not read the article...it is all about calorie counting, but then...to see the sense of it you would have to read it first...
Stef.
the article you posted no I didn't...I read the original one...but before I hit post I will have read your article...
But to be frank it will be time I will never get back because it doesn't matter what you eat...if you are in a calorie deficit you lose weight...you might not be hitting macro/micros but you will lose weight ...but it's not about the article you posted
It's about this part of your post“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
So in the article you posted...here is another quote
Agreed such as eating clean or cutting out carbs or going very low carb or sugara is bad etc have all been touted as the way to go...when those single things do not in themselves cause obesity.Dr. Frank B. Hu, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the new analysis, said: “In the past, too much emphasis has been put on single factors in the diet. But looking for a magic bullet hasn’t solved the problem of obesity.”
then this...really???? food is bad...please...the notion that it's okay to eat in moderation has helped a lot of people maitain hundreds of pounds of weight loss...what has cutting carbs/sugar/fats done...????“There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less,” he said. “The notion that it’s O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want.”
No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.“Both physical activity and diet are important to weight control, but if you are fairly active and ignore diet, you can still gain weight,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the study.
And just fyi the article you posted was not about calorie counting it is touting food choices are more important than counting calories...just as I figured...great 10mins of my life I won't get back
I will contiue to count my calories, drink my beer and long island ice tea, eat my chocolate and French fries and pop corn and chips in moderation and follow my 80/20 rule thanks...my macros and micros are awesome...if you want the details of those go ahead and look...
Aren't you technically still overweight though? I think I saw you post that in another thread, but I apologize if I'm mistaking you with someone else. And that's not meant as a slam. You look quite fit. But since we are talking about scientists here, your case in a clinical weight loss study might not be seen as a success.
If you are speaking about the BMI scale it doesn't put me at overweight...I am in a healthy range...
So in a clinical study I would be considered a success...
Oh, okay. Must be confusing you with someone else.0 -
In many ways everybody here is correct...except for the "bad food" person (zero to do with weight). I view calorie counting as a tool, I am also a control freak (don't tell my husband I admitted that). Counting gives me a sense of control and data to better make my decisions. It is the same as if I had a scale that was always 25 lbs off, it may not tell me my actual weight but it will show me if I am losing or gaining. Data works, for those that it doesn't it is not because of the data's fault. Do I think everyone should count. Nope...but if you tell me you eat very little and are gaining, I will recommend it...the data provides a reality check that many need.0
-
I have to say I know a couple of non-related people (total strangers and age differences) who keep very fit, and the MAIN way is the scale they get on every morning and it dictates their diet. #1. if she gains 2 lbs. she cuts back on how much she eats that day. #2. if she gains 5 lbs. at the end of the week she goes on a very strict diet for a week or until it is gone again. Neither lady waits until they have a person to lose, neither have bad health... and one is about 70 now and has done it all her adult life.
This.
Calorie counting obviously works.
But it's not necessary if you're pretty intune with your weight and realistic about your diet.
I've lost over a 100lbs, not calorie counting. I know that when my weight creeps up, or stalls, it's never a mystery. I can point 100% of the time to the culprit habits.
Human beings were losing weight long before the calorie was discovered. There certainly are other ways to manage weight without it.
But hey if you can do it, and don't mind the hassle, or even better, don't find it a hassle, there's no reason not to. It's a great tool for those who can fold it into their lives and feel good about that.0 -
Thank youDidn't rea the whole thing yet, but I saw the blurb "EVEN WEIGHT WATCHERS NOW ACCEPTS THAT CALORIE COUNTING'S A BAD IDEA."
Of course they think it's a bad idea. Calorie counting is free. Not really the best source to get expert opinions on the subject.
Edited to fix the quote from article.
The same weight watchers that started the point system that made the whole idea of energy impact (notice I avoided the use of the word calorie haha) some kind of rocket science...Only a genius with an advanced degree in Rocket science will decipher how to actually independently award a particular point to a food item.
{PointsPlus} = \max \left\{ \mathrm{round} \left( \frac{(16 \cdot \text{protein}) + (19 \cdot \text{carbohydrates}) + (45 \cdot \text{fat}) - (14 \cdot \text{fiber})}{175}\right) , 0 \right\} \text{PointsPlus} =\max \left\{ \mathrm{round} \left( \frac{\text{protein}}{10.9375} + \frac{\text{carbohydrates}}{9.2105} + \frac{\text{fat}}{3.8889} - \frac{\text{fiber}}{12.5} \right), 0 \right\}
where all units are grams. This formula is Equation 10 of [33] with the preferred weightings for the macronutrients entered
or
0 -
Counting calories will have to be done be it mentally, manually, or through some program like Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, South Beach, NutriSytem, etc. Someone, somewhere will have to count the calories so how could counting calories be bad?
Nope. I just eat. I don't count, measure, nothing.
I cook meat and vegetables, put half veggies, half meat on plate and eat until full.
Its called intuitive eating.
I think losing while not counting tends to be easier for people who have a base focused mostly on whole foods.
I've lost in the past on a low carb diet simply because it's very difficult for me to overeat on fat/protein.
Calorie counting becomes much more imperative for people who are in the "everything in moderation" camp, who are looking to have diets that consist of a lot of man made foods that are pretty high in calories for their volume. Most whole, natural foods are, by nature, high volume/lower calorie. It's tougher to get fat if you're eating a diet of vegetables, fruits, and lean meats. Which is why a lot of people, if they limited their intake, would lose weight without counting.
But if you want to fold in the pizza, chips, soda, cookies, cupcakes, elaborate past dishes, etc, on a regular basis counting, measuring, and weighing become more imperative. Of course some people can eat that way, people who are more intuitive eaters, or who have a high energy expenditure, but the average person can't.0 -
I think WW points is a useful too. I don't adore WW the corporation but I also don't think they believe they reinvented the wheel here. The formulas are in wikipedia. Having done plenty of both calorie and points tracking, I like the simplification of points and how by its nature it encourages me to eat healthier foods. It's not magic, it's just another tool.
I'd much rather see people pay WW for a simplified counting method with an education and social support component than pay say Beachbody or Jillian for miracle shakes and fat burner pills.0 -
"You’re better off, argues Nestle, buying a scale to weigh yourself and judging whether to eat more or less by looking at whether you’re gaining or losing weight. It’s a breathtakingly basic approach, but until the technology to achieve true "scientific eating" matures, it’s the best option on the table."
You can still do that with counting calories. And I would argue, you should, otherwise how will you know if you're eating more or less?
This. Also, amount =/= calorie content. I didn't know exactly how much higher in calories certain meals were until I started here.0 -
"Counting calories is bad. Just eat less!"
So how are you supposed to know if you're actually eating less if you're not counting calories? Different foods have different caloric densities.
^^^this!!^^^0 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.
So you jumped in .. just to announce you're out?0 -
half of the internet is click bait.
The other half is porn.0 -
Didn't rea the whole thing yet, but I saw the blurb "EVEN WEIGHT WATCHERS NOW ACCEPTS THAT CALORIE COUNTING'S A BAD IDEA."
Of course they think it's a bad idea. Calorie counting is free. Not really the best source to get expert opinions on the subject.
Edited to fix the quote from article.0 -
Didn't rea the whole thing yet, but I saw the blurb "EVEN WEIGHT WATCHERS NOW ACCEPTS THAT CALORIE COUNTING'S A BAD IDEA."
Of course they think it's a bad idea. Calorie counting is free. Not really the best source to get expert opinions on the subject.
Edited to fix the quote from article.
Weight Watchers is based on weighing and measuring your food and limiting the number of servings per day/week etc. Essentially, they have done the calorie counting for you.0 -
Unless you're eating a natural diet including nuts and nut butters (even natural), olive oil, coconut, avocado, animal fat, cheese, hummus, dates, dried fruit, etc. Congratulations on you for not needing to practice calorie counting, but even eating "clean" it is quite easy to go over your calories for the day.Counting calories will have to be done be it mentally, manually, or through some program like Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, South Beach, NutriSytem, etc. Someone, somewhere will have to count the calories so how could counting calories be bad?
Nope. I just eat. I don't count, measure, nothing.
I cook meat and vegetables, put half veggies, half meat on plate and eat until full.
Its called intuitive eating.
I think losing while not counting tends to be easier for people who have a base focused mostly on whole foods.
I've lost in the past on a low carb diet simply because it's very difficult for me to overeat on fat/protein.
Calorie counting becomes much more imperative for people who are in the "everything in moderation" camp, who are looking to have diets that consist of a lot of man made foods that are pretty high in calories for their volume. Most whole, natural foods are, by nature, high volume/lower calorie. It's tougher to get fat if you're eating a diet of vegetables, fruits, and lean meats. Which is why a lot of people, if they limited their intake, would lose weight without counting.
But if you want to fold in the pizza, chips, soda, cookies, cupcakes, elaborate past dishes, etc, on a regular basis counting, measuring, and weighing become more imperative. Of course some people can eat that way, people who are more intuitive eaters, or who have a high energy expenditure, but the average person can't.0 -
Unless you're eating a natural diet including nuts and nut butters (even natural), olive oil, coconut, avocado, animal fat, cheese, hummus, dates, dried fruit, etc. Congratulations on you for not needing to practice calorie counting, but even eating "clean" it is quite easy to go over your calories for the day.Counting calories will have to be done be it mentally, manually, or through some program like Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, South Beach, NutriSytem, etc. Someone, somewhere will have to count the calories so how could counting calories be bad?
Nope. I just eat. I don't count, measure, nothing.
I cook meat and vegetables, put half veggies, half meat on plate and eat until full.
Its called intuitive eating.
I think losing while not counting tends to be easier for people who have a base focused mostly on whole foods.
I've lost in the past on a low carb diet simply because it's very difficult for me to overeat on fat/protein.
Calorie counting becomes much more imperative for people who are in the "everything in moderation" camp, who are looking to have diets that consist of a lot of man made foods that are pretty high in calories for their volume. Most whole, natural foods are, by nature, high volume/lower calorie. It's tougher to get fat if you're eating a diet of vegetables, fruits, and lean meats. Which is why a lot of people, if they limited their intake, would lose weight without counting.
But if you want to fold in the pizza, chips, soda, cookies, cupcakes, elaborate past dishes, etc, on a regular basis counting, measuring, and weighing become more imperative. Of course some people can eat that way, people who are more intuitive eaters, or who have a high energy expenditure, but the average person can't.
Umm, what in the world are you talking about?
Where did I say anything about "eating clean"?
And clearly I just said that if the base of your diet is comprised of mostly fruits, vegetables, and lean meats, it's easier to lose without counting. I never said it was impossible to go over. Also never stated ALL natural foods have a high volume/lower calorie ratio, just many.
I don't even lose weight anymore from any kind of "clean eating", and get my deficit now from intermittent fasting, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
I merely pointing out that it's going to be easier for those with a base of whole foods, comprised mostly of fruits, vegetables, and lean meats, to potentially lose without counting than it will be for those looking to fold in "everything in moderation".
Unlike you, my post didn't deal in any absolutes.0 -
They used to do that. Now, they just determine a caloric value for each ingredient and add up the ingredients in a given food in the appropriate amounts.
It's entirely true that the calorie estimates have a wide +/- accuracy but that doesn't render them useless. (I know you didn't say that but the article implies it.) It does make it silly to obsess about grams of food, which some people do.
Thanks for the reply. That makes more sense, as a painstaking analysis of a single, homogeneous ingredient would be easier than for a finished product.
i would think that modern food production would help with the accuracy. Basically, a *lot* of raw material goes in, gets processed and mixed, which would have the effect of normalizing any outliers in the batch, allowing statistical methods to be relevant.0 -
I think the second article presented is relevant as it is also about about whether or not you should calorie count. It takes a slightly different angle, but it's not completely irrelevant to the topic.
I have wished for years there was a gadget like that which actually worked, alas, there simply is not.
Digital scales for the rest of this decade!0 -
Wow! Can you believe that?
I have been following this program for just a little under a hundred days and have lost almost 42 pounds.
Not to bad for a program that does not work or charge money.
You can eat what ever you want and all you have to do is be accountable for it.
While doing this you can also learn which foods have a lot of empty calories and which foods have good calorie value.
Can you also believe that my blood pressure went down with my heart rate.
That is not to say, I also have a more stable sugar count.
The easy part is al I have to do is stay under a set amount of calories each day.
I also have a job to eat out for seven days. Then I eat at home for seven and all I have to do is count calories.
I wonder who the big losers are?
I know that I am the big winner.0 -
Not true, not everybody eats the kind of food they supposedly weigh and measure.Weight Watchers is based on weighing and measuring your food and limiting the number of servings per day/week etc. Essentially, they have done the calorie counting for you.
Egusi soup or ewa agoyin the kind of foods I know and eat, has never been weighed and measured by ww
Using an esoteric, patented formulae, so as to hold the unwary captive, is the whole point.
Give a fish vs Teach how to fish0 -
The title is the best part. Article itself consists of a mauling of straw men supported by "authority" (if I were using this word more loosely, it would probably be censored). Quoting the head honcho of a fad diet company on nutrition? Just no.0
-
The title is the best part. Article itself consists of a mauling of straw men supported by "authority" (if I were using this word more loosely, it would probably be censored). Quoting the head honcho of a fad diet company on nutrition? Just no.
I'm not sure calorie counting classes as a fad diet?0 -
Thank you.The title is the best part. Article itself consists of a mauling of straw men supported by "authority" (if I were using this word more loosely, it would probably be censored). Quoting the head honcho of a fad diet company on nutrition? Just no.
They say a squirrel is a rat with good PR.
Weight watchers is just a fad diet company with good PR.0 -
Haven't we had a very long discussion on the same article just a few days ago, or is this the same one ?
Things kind of blur together with people posting on the same subject over and over again...0 -
What I read in the article focus on the fact that the tools used are not accurate, we see posts about not loosing weight no matter what that tend to prove that it is true for some.
Calorie counting can fluctuate depending on your source, I have verified the same food on different calculator and get different results. Same for exercise overestimation etc. That being said it does not make it a useless tool.
I use to count religiously calories and gradually reduce the tracking, why simply because after a year of doing it, I have learned portion control. I do not disagree about the scale being an indicator and adjusting depending on what it shows. It is a lot easier to adjust my food intake when the I see a small fluctuation than wait to have an excess of 20 pounds to loose. I know weight can vary from one day to the next due to water fluctuation and because of it I do adjust my sodium intake (sensitive to it). more often than not I know when I overeat while I am doing it. I cannot sit in front of a bag of chip, eat it and make myself beleive that there will be no consequences. There is a lot of common sense in loosing weight.
I found a lot of use in calorie counting to see what food were better for me, but again once you learn you have the knowledge to go on with your life without depending on a tool.
Whatever works do it and to each his ways of getting the results.0 -
Bad science-- except precise calorie counting works. If someone is not getting the results they want (and are not willing to spend 5-10 minutes a day tracking) then they have no right to complain.
With MFP the process is even easier.0 -
Well to be fair, this thread title is misleading. The Verge article says that calorie counting LEADS to bad science/bad gadgets, and they present some pretty great examples. i.e. the wearable gadget that claims to be able to auto track calorie intake, or the app that allows you to take a picture of your plate of food and then it estimates calories.0
-
50+ years is a long fad.
Thank you.The title is the best part. Article itself consists of a mauling of straw men supported by "authority" (if I were using this word more loosely, it would probably be censored). Quoting the head honcho of a fad diet company on nutrition? Just no.
They say a squirrel is a rat with good PR.
Weight watchers is just a fad diet company with good PR.0 -
50+ years is a long fad.
Thank you.The title is the best part. Article itself consists of a mauling of straw men supported by "authority" (if I were using this word more loosely, it would probably be censored). Quoting the head honcho of a fad diet company on nutrition? Just no.
They say a squirrel is a rat with good PR.
Weight watchers is just a fad diet company with good PR.
The time limit for fads is 52 years - I did hear WW is on it's way out next year, so it may not make the official diet grade!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions