This verge article says calorie counting is bad science?

tech_kitten

If I knew how to "just eat less without counting calories", I wouldn't have needed MFP in the first place. It seems as though my calories I think I need are too much since when I eat like I really want, then I gain about 1 lb/week, meaning I eat about 500 calories too much per day on average. So yeah, counting calories is a necessity for me or I go back to being overweight.

SKME2013

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&region=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.

Stop pushing your agenda in threads where it isn't relevant. Try one of the three hundred clean eating threads that are active, you don't need to turn this one into the same garbage debate.

Again...another no reader...

The headline of the article says "Still Counting Calories? Your Weight-Loss Plan May Be Outdated"

Just for the record, I count calories.

Stef.

Mr_Knight

I thought it was a pretty good article. As the legion of "Help" posts here shows, calorie-counting correctly is HARD for most people, most of the time. Throw in dubious exercise burn estimates and "eating back calories" and it's no wonder so many don't reach their goals.

Anytime people confuse accuracy with precision it's a recipe for failure.

hastingsmassage

Counting calories work...I lost 97 lbs in 10 months, now maintaining since October, it works for me.

Mr_Knight

Two things jumped out at me. The first was the comment about neglecting to log late night calories. That's human user error, not any inherent flaw in counting calories. Then there was the final recommendation:

Any system that only works is people do things "perfectly" is a bad system, and failure is inevitable. Calorie counting needs to be accepting of real world human behaviours or it won't be viable outside a small group of people.

And I would argue that MFP forums are living proof of that.

"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."

I agree with this.

_KitKat_

Two things jumped out at me. The first was the comment about neglecting to log late night calories. That's human user error, not any inherent flaw in counting calories. Then there was the final recommendation:

Any system that only works is people do things "perfectly" is a bad system, and failure is inevitable. Calorie counting needs to be accepting of real world human behaviours or it won't be viable outside a small group of people.

And I would argue that MFP forums are living proof of that.

"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."

I agree with this.

Most that calorie count with success do not do it "perfectly", we are working with estimates so weighing food and tracking weight are needed to learn what works and to developed the understanding of portion size and calorie density. While I would agree with you to a degree, overall a method can not be dismissed because of human error. Humans can cause error with everything, even if a medically accurate device was devised...humans would still mess it up by either not charging it, not cleaning it or something.

Weighing on a scale is vital, but if I do not understand portion and calorie density, it will tell me very little unless I ate the same diet daily.

WalkingAlong

I think MFP's 'starvation mode' message paired with the confusing 'net calories' concept is marketing genius because many people get paranoid that they're not eating enough, which makes them more beholden to calorie counting and activity logging.

stevencloser

Two things jumped out at me. The first was the comment about neglecting to log late night calories. That's human user error, not any inherent flaw in counting calories. Then there was the final recommendation:

Any system that only works is people do things "perfectly" is a bad system, and failure is inevitable. Calorie counting needs to be accepting of real world human behaviours or it won't be viable outside a small group of people.

And I would argue that MFP forums are living proof of that

Then maths as a whole is a bad system in your opinion. Why can't math accomodate for people who can't add numbers together?

lemurcat12

Most that calorie count with success do not do it "perfectly", we are working with estimates so weighing food and tracking weight are needed to learn what works and to developed the understanding of portion size and calorie density.

Right. It really doesn't have to be perfect. That's why forms of tracking that don't require adding up all the calories or estimating calories from exercise work fine. My guess is that something like MFP tends to appeal more to people who enjoy tracking more specifically (and thus for such people not only calories, but also macros and micros, etc.).

"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."

Without more, this seems like a bad alternative to me. First, NO ONE who tracks ignores the results on the scale. No one trying to lose who weighs him or herself is likely to ignore the results. I try not to worry about daily fluctuations, but if I weren't losing I'd be messing around with what I'm doing, not just saying that I hit my goal + exercise, so much be good. These articles sometimes seem to be about hypothetical people who are unlike any actual real people.

Second, even with tracking many people seem inclined to fool themselves (using entries where an 8 oz steak is 188 calories or some such), and it's pretty obvious that lots of overweight people (A) eat more than they think they do, and (B) are out of tune enough with calories and their food that they can either easily end up eating 900 calories and thinking it's a "healthy" diet or else even with tracking think they are eating 900 while really eating 1900. Given that--which is admittedly demonstrative of some of the human error possible with logging--if the same person were told to "just eat less" and check with the scale, I see no reason to think he or she would be more successful. With the logging, there are ways to demonstrate this and fix it if the person attempts to improve results.

Third, this is just a personality thing, perhaps, but "eating less" in a vague way without any kind of tracking (again, need not be dependent on calories) and weighing myself would not work for me. The scale goes up and down and you have to think in longer terms to be confident it's working. Yet you need some motivation to believe it might be working during the time in which the trend is established. I find having a plan and following it--tracking--helpful in accomplishing this.

maidentl

First, NO ONE who tracks ignores the results on the scale. No one trying to lose who weighs him or herself is likely to ignore the results. I try not to worry about daily fluctuations, but if I weren't losing I'd be messing around with what I'm doing, not just saying that I hit my goal + exercise, so much be good. These articles sometimes seem to be about hypothetical people who are unlike any actual real people.

Exactly! If I weren't losing weight with my current calorie intake I'd reduce it. "Just eating less" has never worked for me, that's why I keep track. And I do use a Fitbit but I don't have any delusions that it's 100% accurate either. I use it as a tool to note whether I have been less active than usual and to have a general idea of my TDEE. But again, if I ate what it told me to and didn't lose, I'd eat less.

Mr_Knight

First, NO ONE who tracks ignores the results on the scale. No one trying to lose who weighs him or herself is likely to ignore the results.

I disagree with this. The forums are littered with people who see a couple of days worth of bad weigh-ins and then pack it in and don't weigh again for a long time.

Turning a blind eye to unpleasant numbers is endemic on MFP.

Deipneus

From the article:

"In November 2010, then-president and CEO of Weight Watchers David Kirchhoff conceded that point and admitted that "calorie-counting has become unhelpful" for people trying to lose weight."

Does this mean that I have to put back the nearly 50 pounds I took off and have kept off for two years?

AlyssaJoJo

I really hate how easy they make it seem. Just eat less... I've heard those words from friends, family, strangers. If it was that simple I would have never gotten so over weight. I would have gained weight and just been all, " Oh well guess I just gotta eat less." and actually DO that.

For so many people so many factors go into eating. Emotions, boredom, etc. And to me just stepping on a scale never helped me mentally - actually it just hurt. I'd see the number, get depressed, and then eat more. I still struggle with my own personal issues, but MFP has really helped me take time to LEARN things about nutrition, activity, and my self that I would have never learned if I just used a scale and that's it. I'm not saying everyone needs to count calories, or everyone needs to do one thing, but to push off calorie counting as something that isn't an extremely helpful to a good portion of people is just ignorant. It's like the clean vs nonclean eating. Who cares? If you want to eat a poptart do it and shut up, if you want to eat an organic salad the same goes for you.

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!

treesloth

I am curious about something regarding how calories are computed. Maybe someone can answer this. Consider something like celluose, found in plant matter. Now, a naive way of computing calories would be simply to burn the item in question, measure the heat output, and convert to calories. But a human does not extract all of the calories that a fire does. For that matter, a human does not even extract the calories that a cow does. So how do the people that calculate calories determine the human-usable calories in a food item?

For the record, just in case my question is taken otherwise, I have no problem with counting calories. I do it, and it's been good to me. I've been curious about this point, though.

tennisdude2004

The gist of the article is correct - calorie counting in itself is not accurate, but the principle behind it is good and it works as a great barometer for people controlling there food intake - I should think most people losing weight following this system are probably actually digesting less calories than they think are.

As far as the accuracy of the gadgets - I think again anyone using any type of gadget for tracking calories burnt etc... Would take the info as approx anyway (I would hope)

WalkingAlong

First, NO ONE who tracks ignores the results on the scale. No one trying to lose who weighs him or herself is likely to ignore the results. I try not to worry about daily fluctuations, but if I weren't losing I'd be messing around with what I'm doing, not just saying that I hit my goal + exercise, so much be good. These articles sometimes seem to be about hypothetical people who are unlike any actual real people.

Exactly! If I weren't losing weight with my current calorie intake I'd reduce it. "Just eating less" has never worked for me, that's why I keep track. And I do use a Fitbit but I don't have any delusions that it's 100% accurate either. I use it as a tool to note whether I have been less active than usual and to have a general idea of my TDEE. But again, if I ate what it told me to and didn't lose, I'd eat less.

That's how I use a Fitbit, too. That and for motivation because what you track (accurately or not) you tend to improve just by giving it your mindful attention.

But so often here the advice is to 'eat more' if the poster says they're logging a deficit and not losing, because people put so much faith in the estimates. It's gotten better but you still see "My TDEE is 2150, my BMR is 1680, I weigh everything and take in 1500. And I haven't lost in a year." So often readers will assume that all this is accurate and pertinent and the problem is under-eating and 'busted metabolism', not inherent flaws of estimating all those values.

SezxyStef

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&region=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

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.”

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.

“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.”

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...????

“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.

No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.

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...

Deipneus

I am curious about something regarding how calories are computed. Maybe someone can answer this. Consider something like celluose, found in plant matter. Now, a naive way of computing calories would be simply to burn the item in question, measure the heat output, and convert to calories.

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.

bcattoes

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&region=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

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.”

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.

“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.”

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...????

“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.

No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.

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.

SezxyStef

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&region=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

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.”

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.

“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.”

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...????

“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.

No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.

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.

Technically overweight...no...

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...