Explain diets that don't count calories to me

whethe ryou count them or not- eating fewer than burning causes weight loss!

Urgh, enough of hating one another's diets.

It isn't 'hating', it's understanding how they work. If you understand calories in < calories out, and some of the psychology/physiology behind the fad diets, then you can pick a diet or engineer a diet that works well for you, and make adjustments as you need. It benefits no one to believe they're losing weight (or doing anything else) as a result of something that does nothing for you.

Curious how you define "fad diets"?

"Fad" isn't strictly the right terminology, but it's what everyone's familiar with - the 'in again, out again' nature of a fad probably applies to every diet that's ever existed. But when I hear it, I automatically translate to:

Any diet that requires you to do things that are not proven to be necessary to lose weight. (assuming you're healthy)
Basically, 'arbitrary rule' diets.

Diets that emphasize cutting out certain foods, eating more of certain foods, altering meal timing, or anything else along those lines. These kinds of diets are destined to be "fads" because people eventually figure out that following their invented rules doesn't guarantee weight loss, and/or that you can lose weight without following the invented rules, or because following the rules is too hard. Then they move on - likely to the next set of arbitrary rules that promise weight loss.

Restrictive diets sound impossible to maintain life long. Better off to learn how to "get along" with all foods.

Other than the last 20 years or so (Internet, smartphones, etc.), how did people loose weight by counting calories when the tools weren't available to the masses to count those calories? Counting calories seems to be a must if a diet follows the US government provided food recommendations. I am not saying that if you stop counting calories and stop eating carbs you will loose weight. I am saying that it can a lot less stressful if the calories you are ingesting are good calories.

It was HARD! I was a kid in the 70s and 80s. I do remember people looking up stuff in books and keeping notebooks. Yeah, I'd lose weight that way to. Who would have time to eat anything?

There is a reason they say "results not typical"
I use MFP as a guide and learning tool to see where I overeat. I actually don't advise calorie counting but learning to be in touch with your body's needs, however if you don't EVER look at calories you wouldn't know what choices are best to satisfy hunger, so I have my clients use MFP to learn about calories and gain awareness.

diets like Atkins probably work without counting calories because of this here:
I can chow down and finish off a whole bag of doritos without batting an eyelash, BUT, and it's a BIG BUT, I cannot eat a whole plate of broccoli unless someone forced me to.
So the difference is, what, about 1000 calories?

I'm counting calories and carbs. My dietitian asked me lots of questions......when I'm eating chips can I have only one? How do you feel after eating a candy bar? Etc, etc, etc. She thinks some people do Better on low carbs and some low fat somewhat ever. But you have to count calories until you can judge calories because of experience. I eat 25% of my calories in carbs. Hopefully, fruit and vegetables. Sometimes dark chocolate peanuts.

I don't count calories, I count my carbs.
I am type2 diabetic and try to keep my carbs between 15-30 g per meal
I'm following the DASH plan (to lower blood pressure) and I also incorporate a 5:2 IF (2 days a week, the only days I count calories 200) My diet is probably 90+% clean, lots of fresh, raw, and cooked veg, fruit, lean proteins, nuts, seeds, good fats .. very little if any processed foods, and rarely eat Wheat products (due to food allergy, and tree nuts due to food allergy)
The result so far, great consistent weight loss, I rarely feel hungry except on my IF days .. and I have a lot more energy and stamina. I'm up to nearly 5 miles/day/walking, yoga and pilates :happy:

Its always interesting to see what my calories are, but i'm more concerned with the carbs/fat/sodium.

Everyone I know that has done the Atkins diet, has gained the weight back when they stopped. I would rather do it this way and keep the weight off

Most everyone I know who's lost weight ANY way has gained it back.
Most folks gain it back when they stop being diligent with WHATEVER approach they've used.

Most everyone I know who's lost weight ANY way has gained it back.
Most folks gain it back when they stop being diligent with WHATEVER approach they've used.

Good point, not to mention anecdotal evidence like that is unreliable.

That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.

The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.

Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?

Unless you know how many calories you are eating and using, I don't think you can really lose weight on any diet though.

This is not true. Many people lose weight without ever counting calories. They simply eat less than they were eating while gaining weight. It's possible to tell how many calories you need simply by whether you are losing, maintaining or gaining weight.

I kept my weight in check for many years without weighing anything (including myself) or counting calories. If my jeans got tight, I ate less until they fit right again.

I agree - my mum and brother have lost weight on Slimming World, without counting calories per se. Basically, in a calorie counting diet such as MFP, you find your own way to feel full on e.g. 1500 calories per day. You start from the very theoretical background to dieting, and work up. You tweak your own numbers until it works for you, and it's very trial and error. However, the SW, WW etc. do the hard work for you - they do the calorie counting and assesment of nutritional value etc., and offer you a diet structure, rather than a diet theory from which to build your own structure. Their structure leads to a diet that is broadly speaking in deficit, even if the dieter doesn't actually realise this is the case.
<bunch of text removed to save space>

I wasn't really refering to WW or SW either. I know nothing of SW, but WW is calorie counting of a sort. It just uses points instead of the actual calorie count.

I was refering to people who don't use any formalized system for weight control. Who just use nothing other than their body, the mirror and clothing as a guide.

Ahhh,

In that case, they do basically what we do, without the maths to prove it, e.g. cut down on portion sizes, switch sweet sugary snacks for fruit and carrot stick, switch whole milk to semi skimmed, lower carb intake etc. All of these serve to reduce calorie count, without actually measuring calories.

i.e. This:

I lost weight at the start without counting calories. Australian government had a "swap it" campaign on TV - eg. Switch to whole grain food, swap soda for water, get off the couch and play with your kids, leave the car at home and walk your kids to school etc. etc I decided WTH? Try it. I found with whole foods my portions got smaller but also I'd experiment with smaller portions of takeaway etc and found I could survive that lol. At a deficit but not sure how much. I walked 1/2hr per day. Lost 32lbs roughly and steadily until hubs bought me a smartphone the next Xmas then I found Mfp. Sometimes I wish I'd never found Mfp though tbh. On the other hand, I do also wonder how much further I'd have gone without counting calories. I was enjoying the thought of getting better nutrition and setting a better example for my kids which I feel is sustainable and still motivates me.

The best thing about Mfp and why I'm still here is my friends but everything else has been a see saw of love/hate.

Although I find MFP helpful for surprise calories and portion control - I switched a few things out of my diet and did more exercise for a couple of months prior to using MFP, but didn't lose any weight.

For those of you discussing whether or not Atkins caused you to lose weight without calorie deficit, I suggest you read this:
http://evidencemag.com/calories-count/

Basically, scientific research shows you can't lose weight without calorie deficit. Without measuring your calories before and during your Atkins diet, you have no evidence to suggest that you were losing weight without calorie deficit. Are there any actual clinical trials that show this effect? I'm all for challenging the "orthodoxy", but with clinically controlled, peer reviewed evidence. Anecdotal evidence along the lines of "I was on the Atkins diet and I lost weight but I don't think I cut my calories" doesn't hold much weight (haha) with those of a scientific mindset. Sure, Atkins works for some people, but the best scientifically supported explanation is that they were in calorie deficit, whether they knew it or not.

Though I didn't keep calorie counts at the time, I did eat that way every day and I can calculate now what I was eating. Lunch alone was almost 1500 calories. Every day. I mean, at Burger King the double whopper with cheese and bacon and no bun is over 1000 calories, and then I added a big dollop of full-fat mayo. And those are thin patties compared to what I normally ate.

Retrospective calorie counting is highly unreliable. In order to do a proper measurement you would need to weigh and log every food you eat. Overeaters are notorious in self-reported clinical trials for forgetting food they've eaten and underlogging, so hindsight estimations are not a good example and you would need contemporaneous logging for the most accurate count. In order to give this claim credibility, you need precision and consistency in your measurements of food, weight, TDEE, BMR etc., prior to, during and after the "diet" phase, which you cannot acheive to sufficiently accurate levels retrospectively.

Most everyone I know who's lost weight ANY way has gained it back.
Most folks gain it back when they stop being diligent with WHATEVER approach they've used.

Good point, not to mention anecdotal evidence like that is unreliable.

That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.

The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.

Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?

I was listening to Aragon in a pod cast talking about sugar and a few other things and he sort of hypothesized discreetly that there may be some truth in the last decade or so of the increase in protein correlating to slowing and stopping the obesity trend.......more protein and less carbs in a diet generally equates to more satiety. I thought it was interesting.

I've heard similar, although I beleive this is probably about satiety, as you say. If you eat more protein, you feel more sated, and you eat less food later, so the total day's calorie count adds up to less, if that makes sense? I think there may have been some studies about this, although I can't remember any links to them off the top of my head.

The diet I recommend most to people is find 300-500 calories that you eat and remove it... No counting calories involved.

or

Eat smaller portions of everything you already eat.


Both are simply, easy to maintain and a lot less complicated than tracking calories. Not everyone has the willpower or dedication to track everything they eat.

The diet I recommend most to people is find 300-500 calories that you eat and remove it... No counting calories involved.

or

Eat smaller portions of everything you already eat.


Both are simply, easy to maintain and a lot less complicated than tracking calories. Not everyone has the willpower or dedication to track everything they eat.

eh...this wouldn't work for most.

if you are eating 700 calories over maintenance and you cut 500 you will still gain...only way that works is if you are maintaining.

"DIETS" work due to calorie deficet...and most who don't count are in a deficet when they are on a DIET...doesn't matter which one.

That being said they don't teach you portion control, nutrition or why you are overeweight or how to maintain it once you get to your desired goal...

Calorie counting when done as a lifestyle does all that...pretty easy.