Why calorie counting is ridiculous

I agree with her on this. Nutrition is way too complicate to be simplified with calories in / calories out.
But since the major reason of obesity IS actually eating more than our body would need to, that's why counting calories work. It obviously wouldn't work if you were eating 4000 kcals everyday and still logging it. It works because once you realize how much you're eating and how much you actually need to eat, you simply try to eat less. So it's not actually counting calories that works - it helps, but what really works is eating less. I could eat 40 bananas in a day and it would be too much for me, I'd gain weight. But bananas are healthy...

And if you don't count calories for quite a while until you lose your weight, figure out how much you can eat for maintenance without gaining, get a good understanding of what that amount/type of food is before you get rid of the training wheels, then you will be like the majority who gain the weight right back.

I would not even consider stopping until I know I am ready to take off those training wheels, even if I have to log my food for 10 years, even if I have to log it for the rest of my life, I prefer that to EVER gaining it back.

That whole notion of diets & calorie counting not popping up until the 1970s is such bull. The author fails to note that with the evolution of technology, people around the world are getting lazier but still eating the same (and often more) quantity of foodstuffs. Our "pre-1970, non-calorie count[ing]" ancestors were certainly on the look for more foods and not concerned with diets, absolutely. For them, the main problem was getting more carbs, fat, and sugar into their systems, not less. That's why, in all of human history, the first person to go on a recorded weight-loss diet was England's William the Conquerer (he went on an alcohol-only diet, then died from injuries in a horse-riding accident, and he still had to be stuffed into his casket, so really, the first diet was the first failed diet as well).

Fad diets popped up in the 19th century. From 1895 until 1919, Fletcherism was a thing--and it was basically "chew more, less often--only if you're starving" and so while people were not counting their calories, they were taking in less empty drink calories, being more mindful eaters (taking time to really chew until food is basically liquid means feeling fuller longer), and completely reducing their intake (their CALORIES) to increase total wellbeing (dental hygiene, hair/skin/nails, as well as weight loss). Also, Weight Watchers started in the 1960s--I did all sorts of logging & counting on that program and "points" were just an involved way to count calories. In 1964, there was "the drinking man's diet."

People (mostly women) started counting calories in the 1920s to fit into the fashion of the time period. Even earlier, there was this physician named Lulu Hunt Peters who was a HUGE proponent of calorie counting/restriction as a means to lose weight (because she lost 70 pounds doing so--from her highest of 220 pounds) from 1918 until she died.

This entire site is proof that her opinion on calorie counting is completely off. All those people in the success forum must've gotten lucky.

It always seems to be the people who've never needed to count their calories that are the most adamantly against budgeting portions for the day by way of calorie counting. Telling people who got overweight from portion distortion to "listen to their bodies/minds" and "eat when they're hungry" or "just switch out BAD food for GOOD food" is really poor guidance. People will look at a package, see something positive that the company wanted to promote (made with whole grains, no added sugars, real fruit juice, gluten/fat/soy/dairy/sodium free, it's vegan/vegetarian, it's local/organic, etc) and think they can just eat a bunch, when that organic granola is 250 calories per 1/4 cup and they just ate a cup worth in one sitting (but it was "good' food that they ate when they're "starving" because they "listened to their body"). So now they ate 1000 calories and will continue on with regular meals for the day, thinking they made a choice that will reduce their weight. It's so easy to do--I know I've done it!

Calorie counting is working for me. No, I'm not going to log everything everyday for the rest of my life after I reach my goals, but counting calories helped me understand portions and made me read labels first and think before ordering at a restaurant. so when I've been in maintenance long enough, I can "listen to my body" because now I can actually trust my body.

End rant.

About the only thing right in that rant is that we eat too many "food-like substances". An Oreo is not food, Go-Gurt is not food, an apple is food.

Stick with real food and you probably wouldn't need to count your calories to keep from overeating as badly. (But you still couldn't just pig out all the time.)

I know right! A horse is food people! Not oreos.

Have not read the whole thing (yet), but cal counting is a good educational tool for beginners. But obsesseive cal counting for life, that is not healthy.

I know because I experienced a backlash after reaching my goal and feeling sooo tired of having numbers in my head all the time!

Only read OP, this may have been covered.

It's ridiculous crap like this that actually hinders the general weight loss community.


BRB while I go lose weight on 5,000 calories of vegetables a day.

Have not read the whole thing (yet), but cal counting is a good educational tool for beginners. But obsesseive cal counting for life, that is not healthy.

I know because I experienced a backlash after reaching my goal and feeling sooo tired of having numbers in my head all the time!

I would disagree. For those whose bodies don't naturally regulate eating at a healthy weight, counting calories is just as good an idea as keeping a financial budget.

For me personally, having pretty much reached my goal, I find that keeping track of my intake actually gives me more freedom than if I didn't. Whatever I eat, I have the confidence that it won't cause me to go off track and start gaining the weight back. So I don't stress about it.

I think calorie counting works if that's the kind of relationship you're willing to have with food.

Personally, having done it in the past, it's not remotely the kind of relationship I want. I've lost none of my 130lbs or so counting a single calorie, logging, measuring, etc. I prefer other ways to get my deficit in that are just much more sustainable to me. I also prefer a more intuitive way of eating, understanding real hunger vs cravings, satiation, etc. I don't want a weigh/measure/log relationship with food for the rest of my existence, and I'd prefer to eat more like human beings have for the majority of our history (hint: nobody knew what a "calorie" was).

THIS

Have not read the whole thing (yet), but cal counting is a good educational tool for beginners. But obsesseive cal counting for life, that is not healthy.

I know because I experienced a backlash after reaching my goal and feeling sooo tired of having numbers in my head all the time!

I would disagree. For those whose bodies don't naturally regulate eating at a healthy weight, counting calories is just as good an idea as keeping a financial budget.

For me personally, having pretty much reached my goal, I find that keeping track of my intake actually gives me more freedom than if I didn't. Whatever I eat, I have the confidence that it won't cause me to go off track and start gaining the weight back. So I don't stress about it.

This has also been my experience in counting calories. I actually feel greater freedom with my food intake and less guilt when I treat myself to something because I know with confidence what I can eat without ruining all my hard work.

It seems to me she is forgetting that people are WAY less active today than they were "pre-1970s".

Exactly ! This is what I was thinking.

Correlation does not equal causation. It's also true that French people tend to weigh less than Americans. So, speaking French makes you lose weight!:huh:

Corrélation n'est pas égal de causalité

See, I bet you lost, like, 5 pounds right there!

Pre-1970's were thin? Then why do I have vivid memories of when I was in elementary school in the 1960s with the Moms coming at the end of the day (most were stay at home back then) and probably 75% of them were morbidly obese?

Curious as to what country/area this was. My mom was considered "fat" when I was kid in the 1960's as were many other moms. But, she was 5'4" and weighed less than 150 lbs. I only remember knowing 2 women who were actually obese and they were both old ladies.

TBH, everyone was big to me in the 70s. I was little.

Great, another fitness coach spouting nonsense. I wish there was a minimum intelligence requirement for becoming a fitness coach.

The only thing two fitness coaches can agree on is that the third one is doing it wrong.

^^ lol agreed

Her response...

http://charlotteord.blogspot.ca/2014/02/more-blog-abuse.html

Where she uses a SS of someone's log totals...with a loss of 1/2lb...not context no individual entries etc.

She is a quack.

Thanks for posting that link - I'm curious - what kind of workout is her "someone with less than 40% body fat" doing that gives them a average net TDEE of -1641 calories? Average mind you! And the average caloric intake quoted is 2307.

Obviously a quack. - it's the old there are three types of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics.

In