Explain diets that don't count calories to me

Calorie counting is a nice to have, but not required when carbs make-up for less than 25+% of your diet.

It's absurd to think that if it's protein or fats that suddenly excess calories are ok. Like I said, my mom gained weight when she tried Atkins.

And silly to think that if you add carbs, but don't eat more over all calories, that you'd magically gain weight (other than a couple of pounds of water weight).

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.

As someone who has been at this game for much more than 20 years, I can still only answer for myself. I ate less and moved more to lose weight. Same as now.

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

One diet where you do not have to count calories EVERY day is ADF or also called the Every Other Day Diet (book by Dr. Krista Varadi and all based on clinical trials)

With this diet you eat as a woman up to 500 cal and as a manup to 600 calories one day and the next you can eat what you want and how much you want - so no calorie counting on day 2. You will alternate between "fasting" and "feasting".

In general though, as research has shown, people do not tend to completely go overboad on their feeding days and so they create a weekly calorie deficit that should lead to weightloss.

Stef.

Well, here's my story: Before I changed up my diet, I was typically eating about 800-1200 calories a day, and was gaining, gaining, gaining. It was crazy. My diet consisted of lots of fruit and veggies, bread (whole wheat), pasta (whole wheat) and little meat/fat. My exercise routine included yoga, pilates, jogging and weight training - a 6 day, hour a day exercise schedule. And yet, I still gained over 100 pounds.

Then I was diagnosed with insulin resistance. I looked into it, found out my body stores all those carbs I was eating as fat, and switched it around to that I'm only eating about 60-70 carbs a day, and about 2500 calories - lost about 25 lbs in a month and a half so far. It's insane, because all that time, my Doctors were saying, "Eat less" and I was barely eating as it was. Now I eat more and am losing weight. *shrug* Who knows? LOL

The explanation is you lost weight due to a calorie deficit. Because that's always the explanation for weight loss.

While you may look back and picture it as an all meat and butter buffet, the truth is you reduced your calories. Without you keeping accurate records there's no way to know how many calories you were consuming a day. But your overall total reduction in calories is what led to the weight loss.

The response above is what I meant by orthodoxy.

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.

What's known now as "the Atkins diet" is actually not the same as what Atkins himself promoted in his first book (written in the 1970s) and his updated version (published in the 1990s). The new books and programs published after he died promote low-carb dieting with encouragements to avoid fatty foods and pigging out. They don't sound too different than more mainstream dieting approaches... they have the same low-carb foundation but also recommend being careful with calories. They are humble and cautious and attempt to be "fair-minded", "reasonable", "accommodating", and "non-confrontational" when it comes to mainstream medical and weight loss advice.

Not so with Dr. Atkins himself! He was a firebrand and took delight in poking the establishment in the eye. He hated the AMA and was a champion of alternative medicines like chelation therapy and homeopathic remedies. I started Atkins by reading the updated 1990s book and his advice with respect to fats and proteins was to throw caution to the wind.

And I did, by gum! I adopted his bully and chutzpah. I reveled in the audacity of it and flaunted my success to others as I ate all that greasy stuff. I went out of my way to find the least "healthy" food choices. My defiance was almost as delicious to me as my food. Looking back on it, I'm sure I was quite a jerk, haha!

Or. . . you know. . . can just be my mother, try a low carb diet and think that you can seriously increase your consumption of cheese, bacon, sausage and start to use massive amounts of creamy dressings on your many salads and wonder why you're now gaining weight. Because again: it's not the reduction of a particular food group, it's the reduction or calories that causes weight loss.

Ugh! I see this waaay too often!! Really frustrating!

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.