Counting calories is 'virtually meaningless'. Huh?!

An article on the DailyMail web site claims that counting calories is meaningless.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2398393/Counting-calories-virtually-meaningless-digest-food-differently.html#comments

I guess that the 44 lbs I lost since August 2012 by counting my calories with MFP is just an illusion. I am just hallucinating when I see my size 38 pants, down from 44. Oh! and all those people who keep on commenting on my weight loss, they're hallucinating too....!

Replies

  • explosivedonut
    explosivedonut Posts: 419 Member
    I imagined my 65 pounds lost, and my wife imagined her 80 pounds lost. Yup seems legit.
  • Escape_Artist
    Escape_Artist Posts: 1,155 Member
    :noway: Wait, I've been doing it all wrong?
  • jasonalvear
    jasonalvear Posts: 72 Member
    Lol, I agree. Ever since I actually started taking the time, which is very little, to track food, I have made the most progress than all of my life put together. I know some are capable of "eye-balling" things, but thank goodness for MFP for those of us whom are not blessed with that mutant ability, lol!
  • T0FatToB3S1ck
    T0FatToB3S1ck Posts: 192 Member
    Yup lost 110 pounds by not watching what I eat. Calories are just a conspiracy invented by the FDA so they can up the price of "healthy" foods.
  • jasonalvear
    jasonalvear Posts: 72 Member
    Yup lost 110 pounds by not watching what I eat. Calories are just a conspiracy invented by the government FDA so they can up the price of "healthy" foods.

    *mind blown*
  • fatfudgery
    fatfudgery Posts: 449 Member
    the DailyMail

    Well, there's your problem!
  • ginnycarroll77
    ginnycarroll77 Posts: 27 Member
    YUK....swallowed a bug,anyone know how many calories are in a bug
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Ok so it's not totally accurate. Sure seems to be more accurate than eyeballing my food though.

    Totally ridiculous.
  • T0FatToB3S1ck
    T0FatToB3S1ck Posts: 192 Member
    YUK....swallowed a bug,anyone know how many calories are in a bug

    Depends. What kind of bug 0_o
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Merely counting calories based on food labels is an overly-simplistic approach to eating a healthy diet – one that does not necessarily improve our health....................

    The calorie content of protein has also been exaggerated by up to 20 per cent because the current system does not take into account the extra energy used in chewing.

    Interesting that they are critical of the current "counting calories" system but don't propose a viable alternative.
  • jovalleau
    jovalleau Posts: 127 Member
    Daily Mail for the whoops!
  • quiltlovinlisa
    quiltlovinlisa Posts: 1,710 Member
    Meh, every system has flaws but however flawed this may be, it's working for me.
  • maillemaker
    maillemaker Posts: 1,253 Member
    Sure, counting calories is an inaccurate art. And sure, maybe different people metabolize foods differently. And sure, maybe the labels on the food aren't accurate.

    But if you are fat, odds are very good that you have not been keeping track of how much you eat at all. You probably don't even know how many calories are in those three slices of pizza you ate - you just ate them because they tasted good.

    Being oblivious to caloric intake is probably not going to result in eating a calorie deficit. Especially since being on a deficit is probably going to result in you being hungry and then eating until you aren't hungry anymore.

    Yeah, eating "natural" (note the quotes) foods will make it easier to avoid calorie-dense foods and thus make it harder to over-consume, but if you don't know what you are eating you still can't be sure you are hitting a deficit.

    If you are serious about weight loss, you need to keep track of what you are eating so that you at least have a ballpark idea of what sort of caloric intake you have. Otherwise you are just guessing.

    Another benefit of tracking what you eat is that it gives you a much better idea of what kinds of calories are in food. We used to buy giant tubs of cashew nuts from Costco for snacks. I'd eat three handfuls at a time for a snack.

    Turns out that 3 ounces of cashews has over 300 calories in it. That's about a handful. Three handfuls of cashews is almost 1000 calories - over half my daily caloric allowance! Needless to say I seldom eat cashews anymore. They just aren't tasty enough to blow 300 calories on a mouthful.
  • james6998
    james6998 Posts: 743 Member
    I guess i was wrong that 3500 calories= 1 lb of fat. :P
    So how do these people want to measure what would be a pound of fat?
  • LAW_714
    LAW_714 Posts: 258
    It would depend on what one means by 'meaningless'.

    If someone believes that they are measuring their calories such that they are precisely accurate to the nth degree to what they ate, well... it's not that precise. There's a real margin error. Can't be eliminated. Humans are involved.

    This on top of it's actually not a true measurement of how foods are metabolized in a biological system. Calories are a measure of how when burned they can raise the temp of 1kg or water by 1 degree Celcius. It's a measurement of the energy contained so it is a measurement of something, but that's not actually a measure for how cells utilize energy in a food... which gets a little esoteric and complicated, and who wants to figure out ATP per molecule? Calories may be an imperfect tool, but they are the most convenient tool to use and thus are quite useful. Relatively speaking, they work well enough, are better than nothing, and are a good source of information, so practically speaking, they are not 'useless'. They're greatly helpful.
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    When I think "Authoritative Nutrition Website", I think "The Daily Mail UK"
  • skullshank
    skullshank Posts: 4,323 Member
    Daily Mail for the whoops!

    just want to say that i love your profile pic.
  • scottaworley
    scottaworley Posts: 871 Member
    Man, between that sugar study and this I think I'll start reading the daily mail for nutrition advice.
    THANKS BRITAINS
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    The headline is typical media sensationalism, but the article's content is mostly correct.
  • cmcollins001
    cmcollins001 Posts: 3,472 Member
    What I heard yesterday, you might be able to lose weight counting calories, but you will most likely gain it all back soon, and probably more. To "properly" lose weight, eat 3 grams of lean protein for every pound you want to weigh...so if your goal is 200 lbs, then eat 600 grams of lean protein every day, eat only whole grains...but never after noon...and then some fibrous vegetables as much as you want. Apparently, it's the only way to be successful.

    So, I've been doing it all wrong.
  • jovalleau
    jovalleau Posts: 127 Member
    Daily Mail for the whoops!

    just want to say that i love your profile pic.

    Dayman!

    Aawwwwaaaaa!
  • jaqian
    jaqian Posts: 7
    DailyMail is a rag, don't pay any attention to it.
  • chezjuan
    chezjuan Posts: 747 Member
    The Daily Fail is virtually meaningless.
  • TimeWillTell2
    TimeWillTell2 Posts: 126 Member
    3 grams of lean protein for every pound - that's a lot of lean protein! For me it would be 390 grams.....I'll stick to counting calories too!
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Yeah, well I'm not eating my food raw. I'll stick to my "meaningless" 67 pounds lost.
  • chezjuan
    chezjuan Posts: 747 Member
    From the article:
    The calorie content of protein has also been exaggerated by up to 20 per cent because the current system does not take into account the extra energy used in chewing.

    I searched and searched and couldn't find the entry in the MFP database for "Cardio - Chewing Food." I really want to eat those calories back...

    And can I count bringing the fork to my mouth as heavy lifting?