Calories in, calories out

freerange

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/03/09/weight-watchers-finally-recognizes-calorie-counting-doesnt-work.aspx

For those that believe counting calories, and EVERYTHING in moderation is the end all to diet, read the above.

Galathea

Well, isn't that the reason why we track carbs, protein, fat, sodium and a lot of other things here too? Took them a long time to figure out that the nutrition counts too.
And you can bet, I will still have my choc, if it fits into my daily plan. So everything in moderation works for me.

jesshasredhair

Really great article! Been a fan of Dr. Mercola for a long time, even if i haven't heeded his advice as much as I aspire to :huh:

ShellyMacchi

well of course *LOL*
there has to be variety and balance.

if a person is only getting 1200 calories a day and still only eating chocolate cake to get those 1200 calories, they are doomed to crave and feel hungry and gain back anything they lose.

It's about healthy choices.. 'just' counting calories alone is not enough

christinet8504

I think (or hope) that most of us on MFP realize that if all you're eating is junk you're not going to get vary far. Thats why I love this site - it tracks EVERYTHING and encourages good food and a healthy/active lifestyle. BUT, that 100 calorie pack of cookies is a whole lot better than a whole BOX of cookies lol.

ShellyMacchi

I think (or hope) that most of us on MFP realize that if all you're eating is junk you're not going to get vary far. Thats why I love this site - it tracks EVERYTHING and encourages good food and a healthy/active lifestyle. BUT, that 100 calorie pack of cookies is a whole lot better than a whole BOX of cookies lol.

so true... so long as the 100 cal pack of cookies is a treat and not a daily staple *S*

sgk0411

makes sense to me.

crystal_sapphire

well yeah of course

jknops2

Well, I guess I am prodded in responding.


1. Mercola.com, another website who want to make money of your weight and health. If you want to trust them, it is you choice. I prefer the National Institute of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, etc.

2. There are two issues here, often confounded; weight and health.

3. For weight, calories in and calories out, basic physics, chemistry and biology. Nothing else matters, end of story. Of course if people cheat, you need to count the extra calories in, and that’s where the problem is.

4. Health, no question, diet matters. More fiber, more vitamins (to a degree), more nutrients, less saturated fat, less cholesterol, less simple sugars, are good for us. If Weight Watchers wants to combine weight and health, good for them, most of their users will benefit from that. Do note this is another company making money of weight loss, and for this company, it is making a lot of money of this. If you benefit from their structure, use it.

5. Having said that diet matters, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, health risk is being overweight. Lower your weight to a healthy range and you probably are getting more benefit from this fact alone, than anything else that you do in your diet. Recall the Twinkie diet:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Even on junk food, lowering you calorie input, you can lose weight AND get healthier.

6. So, yes, I stick to my story, eat in moderation whatever you want (but keep the servings small), lower your weight into a healthy range, and do choose healthy food whenever you can.

7. And note, for losing weight, you do not need to spend money; all you need is a website like this, count calories in and calories out. Get less in and you will lose weight. You do not need to pay companies like Marcola.com, Weight Watchers, etc.

8. And a final note, please do stay away from junk science like the Paleo diet, Blood Group diet, HCG diet, Homeopathy, etc. There is no evidence supporting any on them, at best they will help you, but none of their risk has been evaluated. And if they help you, it is a placebo effect. Drink a glass of water, stick a fork in your stomach, pretend you are a hunter/gatherer when you go to the grocery store, or whatever mimics their program, and pretend that you get the treatment. If you believe strongly enough, it will work, just as well as what they prescribe. And you will save a lot of money, with much less health risk.

jknops2

Mercola.com FYI:

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html

freerange

Well, I guess I am prodded in responding.


1. Mercola.com, another website who want to make money of your weight and health. If you want to trust them, it is you choice. I prefer the National Institute of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, etc.

2. There are two issues here, often confounded; weight and health.

3. For weight, calories in and calories out, basic physics, chemistry and biology. Nothing else matters, end of story. Of course if people cheat, you need to count the extra calories in, and that’s where the problem is.

4. Health, no question, diet matters. More fiber, more vitamins (to a degree), more nutrients, less saturated fat, less cholesterol, less simple sugars, are good for us. If Weight Watchers wants to combine weight and health, good for them, most of their users will benefit from that. Do note this is another company making money of weight loss, and for this company, it is making a lot of money of this. If you benefit from their structure, use it.

5. Having said that diet matters, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, health risk is being overweight. Lower your weight to a healthy range and you probably are getting more benefit from this fact alone, than anything else that you do in your diet. Recall the Twinkie diet:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Even on junk food, lowering you calorie input, you can lose weight AND get healthier.

6. So, yes, I stick to my story, eat in moderation whatever you want (but keep the servings small), lower your weight into a healthy range, and do choose healthy food whenever you can.

7. And note, for losing weight, you do not need to spend money; all you need is a website like this, count calories in and calories out. Get less in and you will lose weight. You do not need to pay companies like Marcola.com, Weight Watchers, etc.

8. And a final note, please do stay away from junk science like the Paleo diet, Blood Group diet, HCG diet, Homeopathy, etc. There is no evidence supporting any on them, at best they will help you, but none of their risk has been evaluated. And if they help you, it is a placebo effect. Drink a glass of water, stick a fork in your stomach, pretend you are a hunter/gatherer when you go to the grocery store, or whatever mimics their program, and pretend that you get the treatment. If you believe strongly enough, it will work, just as well as what they prescribe. And you will save a lot of money, with much less health risk.

Hmmm, junk science, like the ever evolving FDA and of course we all know they have no ax to grind. LOL you funny guy. Weight loss is the end all to health? Really? tell that to the millions of skinny diabetics.

I'll ask you the same question I ask all the conventional "science" believers, what diet plan do you follow?

beckajw

Jknops2--I agree with everything you said. In sum, calories in vs. calories out is all that matters for weight loss. However, if your calories come from junk, you never feel satisfied and eventually cheat. When it comes to health (and helping yourself not to cheat), eating nutritious, whole foods matters. I'm an 80/20 supporter. I eat healthy 80-90% of the the time and allow myself to "splurge", "cheat" (whatever word you like to use--I don't go over my calories), 10-20% of the time.

The twinkie diet was eye opening for me. I still have trouble processing it. It was not a surprise to me that he lost weight--he was dieting (taking in less calories than he was using), of course he was losing weight. What surprised me was that his "numbers" got better too. Although, I'm not ready to embrace the twinkie diet (and he isn't advocating that you do), it did give me something to think about and supports my 80/20 rule (for myself).

Freerange--I don't think you really read Jknops post.

jwstew007

That "Article-Advertisement" is a bit misleading, jknops2 said it all

I've eaten healthy and with in portions for a month and dropped 31 lbs, 1700 cals a day is what I aim for, and nutritionally i shoot for 45% Protein, 45% Carb, and 10% fat a day.

freerange

Jknops2--I agree with everything you said. In sum, calories in vs. calories out is all that matters for weight loss. However, if your calories come from junk, you never feel satisfied and eventually cheat. When it comes to health (and helping yourself not to cheat), eating nutritious, whole foods matters. I'm an 80/20 supporter. I eat healthy 80-90% of the the time and allow myself to "splurge", "cheat" (whatever word you like to use--I don't go over my calories), 10-20% of the time.

The twinkie diet was eye opening for me. I still have trouble processing it. It was not a surprise to me that he lost weight--he was dieting (taking in less calories than he was using), of course he was losing weight. What surprised me was that his "numbers" got better too. Although, I'm not ready to embrace the twinkie diet (and he isn't advocating that you do), it did give me something to think about and supports my 80/20 rule (for myself).

Freerange--I don't think you really read Jknops post.

Why don't you think so?

lowpost42

I live with someone who proves that cals in vs cals out (thermic science) is trumped by hormones and biochemistry.

If it's cals in vs cals out, why do animals that hibernate get fat even though what they eat and the amount they eat doesn't change? Or why do they get fat when food supplies are in abundance, but also when they're scarce?

I believe cals in vs cals out is a factor - and may be a bigger factor for the average, generally healthy human. But it's not one-size-fits-all. Not even one-size-fits-most.

dlaplume2

This it like one or the Derrrr moment.

we all know that the quality of the calroies is what matters. It is all how you apply them.
if you have 1500 calories alloted for the day, and you eat 1500 cal in two meals as opposed to 3 meals and 2 snacks, which one has the most nutritional value?

It is all semantics. calories count just as much as they did yesterday. All he is says or in this case reaffiming is that the quality of the calories do matter.

Keep on going everyone.
Nothing has changed.

freerange

Mercola.com FYI:

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html

I don't know the Dr, and have never been to his site before, I did however just read the link you provided. One thing I noticed there was no proof his claims are wrong, just illegal. The FDA has this way of making things illegal, without regard to if they are wrong or not, you do understand the difference,,,,,,,, don't you?

jwstew007

You do realize why it is illegal right?

If it works so well curing cancer then there should be no problem with providing proof.

freerange

You do realize why it is illegal right?

If it works so well curing cancer then there should be no problem with providing proof.

Realize or Know? Do you? Yes I know why it's illegal, and did it say curing or preventing? Do you trust everything the FDA tells you is ok to use?

freerange

You do realize why it is illegal right?

If it works so well curing cancer then there should be no problem with providing proof.

Has there been any proof provided that it doesn't work? Or is it illegal because the company has not jumped thru the FDA's hoops to prove it does?

jwstew007

"Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, bans unapproved claims for products that are intended for curing, mitigating, treating, or preventing of diseases."

I personally think they should ban a lot more crap that is advertised as healthy when it is not, It is ethically and morally wrong to intentionally mislead people.

FDA doesn't need to tell me when someone is selling snake oil