Do I HAVE to count calories?

If you want to be in shape, yes. Yes, you do.

You do not need to count calories to be in great shape. Athletes 100 years ago did not even know what calories were.

Yes but there is this little thing called progress you know? There is no way an athlete from 100 years ago could compete with a modern athlete with science, nutrition and training methods on their side

It's too bad more people in this forum don't read modern science about not all calories being the same and non-nutritive chemical substances destroying our health.

I take great insult to that. And also wonder what your science sources are because they obviously aren't the same as mine. Because mine say calories are a unit of energy and therefore are all equal. Just like a mile is a mile regardless of who walks it.

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

We're not talking nutrition, we're talking energy. A calorie is a unit of energy. Every calorie has the same potential energy. Consume more potential energy than you use and your body will store it. Don't consume enough and your body will turn to said stores to get its energy. 70% of American's are obese because they consume more calories than they burn.

I'm not disagreeing that some foods provide more nutritional benefits than others, I'm just disagreeing that calories should be disregarded in favour of 'healthy eating' that makes your weight 'automatically stabilize'.

In terms of energy, calories are the same. Whether the body can use the energy is what makes all the difference. If a substance without nutrition is eaten it is either eliminated or stored as fat to keep it as far away from the body as possible. This kind of fat cannot be burnt off because the so called energy it contains cannot be used by the body. Therefore some people find it impossible to get rid of fat. The actual process is far more complex but I am simplifying it.

Then there are foods which actually stimulate the body to burn calories. When you eat high quality protein, 25% of the calories are used in metabolizing it. Carbs only use 10% and fat only 5%.

Cutting calories can actually slow the metabolism and cause weight gain even though there is a lack of energy. Conversely, eating large amounts of certain foods will stimulate the metabolism. Eating celery actually uses more energy than is contained in the celery.

I thought the people in this forum might have a bit of a clue about some of these things but instead, they choose to ridicule me.

Exactly. Preachy just don't cut it. I loathe cut and dry self righteous statements like that.

Preaching, like calories is not all alike. Some is useful and some is garbage. Preaching from a base of real knowledge can be very helpful. But a closed mind hears all knowledge as nonsense.

JUST STOP ALREADY DUDE.

Counting calories is definitely more effective, imo. You can lose weight without it but calorie counting makes it much easier once you get into the habit of it.

There are calories which build your body and there are calories which destroy your body. You can lose weight either way but there are many thin people who have one foot in the grave. If you want to count calories, at least count the right ones. How much you weigh isn't always an indicator of your health. I advocate eating properly and not worrying about calories. When you are healthy from eating properly you will have so much energy that your weight will automatically stabilize and it won't even seem like you're trying.

you don't know what you think you know.

If you want to be in shape, yes. Yes, you do.

You do not need to count calories to be in great shape. Athletes 100 years ago did not even know what calories were.

Yes but there is this little thing called progress you know? There is no way an athlete from 100 years ago could compete with a modern athlete with science, nutrition and training methods on their side

It's too bad more people in this forum don't read modern science about not all calories being the same and non-nutritive chemical substances destroying our health.

I take great insult to that. And also wonder what your science sources are because they obviously aren't the same as mine. Because mine say calories are a unit of energy and therefore are all equal. Just like a mile is a mile regardless of who walks it.

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

We're not talking nutrition, we're talking energy. A calorie is a unit of energy. Every calorie has the same potential energy. Consume more potential energy than you use and your body will store it. Don't consume enough and your body will turn to said stores to get its energy. 70% of American's are obese because they consume more calories than they burn.

I'm not disagreeing that some foods provide more nutritional benefits than others, I'm just disagreeing that calories should be disregarded in favour of 'healthy eating' that makes your weight 'automatically stabilize'.

In terms of energy, calories are the same. Whether the body can use the energy is what makes all the difference. If a substance without nutrition is eaten it is either eliminated or stored as fat to keep it as far away from the body as possible. This kind of fat cannot be burnt off because the so called energy it contains cannot be used by the body. Therefore some people find it impossible to get rid of fat. The actual process is far more complex but I am simplifying it.

Then there are foods which actually stimulate the body to burn calories. When you eat high quality protein, 25% of the calories are used in metabolizing it. Carbs only use 10% and fat only 5%.

Cutting calories can actually slow the metabolism and cause weight gain even though there is a lack of energy. Conversely, eating large amounts of certain foods will stimulate the metabolism. Eating celery actually uses more energy than is contained in the celery.

I thought the people in this forum might have a bit of a clue about some of these things but instead, they choose to ridicule me.

Excuse me here, but I must be very stupid. Explain to me how "bad" calories are stored as fat "far away from the body". Are we pulling little trailers around? How does this work? Isn't fat "attached" to the body? Part of it , so to speak.

Exactly. Preachy just don't cut it. I loathe cut and dry self righteous statements like that.

Preaching, like calories is not all alike. Some is useful and some is garbage. Preaching from a base of real knowledge can be very helpful. But a closed mind hears all knowledge as nonsense.

JUST STOP ALREADY DUDE.

VERY COGENT ARGUMENT

You know what? I've been reading the threads for over a year now, and there are people on here who have been on lots longer. You can spot an intelligent person and their ideas very quickly and also just the opposite. You seem to have read some blogs, read a few books, hashed it all together, and become an expert. You have lots of contradictions and confusion in your posts. Haven't you noticed that no one is agreeing with you? You keep saying people on here don't know anything, and it's just the opposite. I would advise you to read the threads and learn something before preaching to the masses. Best.

I was never that big of an advocate of counting calories. All food has calories and its just as easy to eat 2000 calories worth of crap as it is to eat the same in real food. So I started out counting fat and protein but dismissed calories and carbs (I was doing muscle work, I only felt I my protein/fat counts mattered *facepalm with Force*) Thing is, I was eating so many extra calories of carbohydrates on top of the bunch of calories I was eating to meet my protein goal that I was having Horrible results. Then I had my AH-HA!! Moment when I realized that protein, fat and carbs are all Made Of Calories! So calories DID matter!! (how bout that!) I started counting calories, and thanks to MFP I figured out how to Properly allocate those calories so that all my needs were being met and I finally started losing weight. The day I learned that every pound of fat in our body contains 3500 calories was a rather mind boggling one that put it in perspective. Seeing that extra 25 lbs as 87500 calories to be burned made counting calories make a lot more sense *L*

Whole grain corn isn't food? Interesting.

GMO ROUND UP READY CORN engineered by the Monsanto Corporation IS NOT FOOD
[/quote]
ANSOLUTELY RIGHT

You are talking about corn to be planted in the fields to raise cattle and other farm animals on..

I like how every thread here turns into a huge egotistical debate. No sarcasm, I'm an at home mom and it's like watching soaps!

To answer OP, NO you do not HAVE to count calories.

That said, if you're new to nutrition and weight loss, it's probably the best idea until you get a handle on how your body processes foods. If you follow a nutrition plan set up in blocks like the one for p90x, you count food groups rather than calories.. but if you're inexperienced, I definitely would suggest weighing your food (food scales are super cheap) until you get a good handle on portion sizes.

I like how every thread here turns into a huge egotistical debate. No sarcasm, I'm an at home mom and it's like watching soaps!

To answer OP, NO you do not HAVE to count calories.

That said, if you're new to nutrition and weight loss, it's probably the best idea until you get a handle on how your body processes foods. If you follow a nutrition plan set up in blocks like the one for p90x, you count food groups rather than calories.. but if you're inexperienced, I definitely would suggest weighing your food (food scales are super cheap) until you get a good handle on portion sizes.

Um no. This is completely wrong. :noway:

Counting calories is definitely more effective, imo. You can lose weight without it but calorie counting makes it much easier once you get into the habit of it.

There are calories which build your body and there are calories which destroy your body. You can lose weight either way but there are many thin people who have one foot in the grave. If you want to count calories, at least count the right ones. How much you weigh isn't always an indicator of your health. I advocate eating properly and not worrying about calories. When you are healthy from eating properly you will have so much energy that your weight will automatically stabilize and it won't even seem like you're trying.

In all seriousness, wherever you are reading this crap is lying to you big time.

You talk about research, but blogs and mass media books are not research. Start reading JISSN and searching PubMed. That's actual research, and you will not find data to corroberate this nonsense there.

If you want to be in shape, yes. Yes, you do.

You do not need to count calories to be in great shape. Athletes 100 years ago did not even know what calories were.

Yes but there is this little thing called progress you know? There is no way an athlete from 100 years ago could compete with a modern athlete with science, nutrition and training methods on their side

It's too bad more people in this forum don't read modern science about not all calories being the same and non-nutritive chemical substances destroying our health.

I take great insult to that. And also wonder what your science sources are because they obviously aren't the same as mine. Because mine say calories are a unit of energy and therefore are all equal. Just like a mile is a mile regardless of who walks it.

It's too bad you can't be bothered researching what happens to your body right after you eat. Your science would tell you a lot more if you looked at it once in a while. Imagine how insulted I feel about all these idiots attacking me. But that only serves to explain why 70% of Americans are obese.

We're not talking nutrition, we're talking energy. A calorie is a unit of energy. Every calorie has the same potential energy. Consume more potential energy than you use and your body will store it. Don't consume enough and your body will turn to said stores to get its energy. 70% of American's are obese because they consume more calories than they burn.

I'm not disagreeing that some foods provide more nutritional benefits than others, I'm just disagreeing that calories should be disregarded in favour of 'healthy eating' that makes your weight 'automatically stabilize'.

In terms of energy, calories are the same. Whether the body can use the energy is what makes all the difference. If a substance without nutrition is eaten it is either eliminated or stored as fat to keep it as far away from the body as possible. This kind of fat cannot be burnt off because the so called energy it contains cannot be used by the body. Therefore some people find it impossible to get rid of fat. The actual process is far more complex but I am simplifying it.

Then there are foods which actually stimulate the body to burn calories. When you eat high quality protein, 25% of the calories are used in metabolizing it. Carbs only use 10% and fat only 5%.

Cutting calories can actually slow the metabolism and cause weight gain even though there is a lack of energy. Conversely, eating large amounts of certain foods will stimulate the metabolism. Eating celery actually uses more energy than is contained in the celery.

I thought the people in this forum might have a bit of a clue about some of these things but instead, they choose to ridicule me.

Seriously dude where do you get this crap from? "stored as fat to keep it as far away from the body as possible." Really??? Cite your research for this garbage please. Give me one study that actually proves cutting calories can result in weight gain. That is complete nonsense. Also it is curious how everyone here is wrong but you... Funny that.

The Failure of Low Calorie Diets
The American Paradox

A study (1) published in 1997 shows that, between 1980 and 1990, Americans were consuming 4% less calories and 11% less fats than previously. As concerns fat-free foods, in ten years their consumption rose from 19% to 76%. In spite of this, during the same period, obesity in the US increased by 31%. The authors of this study, bewildered by this contradiction, called their study the « The American Paradox ».

This study simply confirmed the facts: contrary to what most nutritionists sustain, there is no correlation between obesity and calories.
Calories have nothing to do with gaining weight

In his comments on the SUVIMAX (2) study, French Professor Jacques Freg remarked that the information collected reveals that people do no actually consume large amounts of lipids (fats), contrary to what is commonly believed.


This French survey, which involved over 14,000 persons who were followed over an 8-year period (from 1995 to 2003), revealed that men consumed an average of 2200 calories per day and women consumed 1600. Not only was this figure lower than expected, it was also below daily recommended energy intake. In spite of a 6% reduction in calorie intake, the average weight of the people surveyed had increased by 30% during the period studied.

Another study, the ASPCC (3), carried out on a representative sample of French people and published in 1997, proves that people’s calorie intake is actually fairly low. The study shows that people consume fewer calories than the daily nutritional amounts recommended by nutritionists.

Professor Creff had already reported similar findings when he published statistics on the medical check-ups of obese people in the hospital where he worked, the Hospital Saint-Michel in Paris. He had in fact observed that over 50% of the people who are obese eat very little.

Several studies carried out on children (4 and 5 years old) reached the same conclusion: weight gain does not depend on caloric intake.

This is particularly noticeable among the Russians where 56% of the women over 30 are obese and they do not consume more than 1500 calories a day for a daily workload which normally demands enormous energy expenditure.

Statistics highlight the prevalence of obesity among farmers, artisans and factory workers. This is particularly surprising considering that these professions demand more physical effort than others. How can we still believe official nutritional recommendations which tell us that one of the mayor causes of obesity is the lack of physical exercise?
The energy factor does not determine weight gain

Globally, calorie consumption in Western countries is from 30 to 35% lower than 50 years ago. Paradoxically, obesity has risen by 400% during the same time lapse in these countries. In France, there are 4 times more obese people now than in the 1960s.

Approximately, 20% of the people in India have become obese in the past 20 years even if they have for the most part remained vegetarian, have moderate calorie consumption and have not really changed their lifestyles and eating habits.

Two questions come to mind: How can what we now know serve to improve people’s health through better eating habits? Me must first ask ourselves, however how dietitians can continue to ignore this evidence.

Contrary to long-held beliefs, the energy factor (calories) is not a key cause of weight gain. Thus, the principle behind low-calorie diets is totally false. We must accept more advanced findings and work from there to reverse the harm done to our societies by misguided beliefs; but first we must look back on our mistakes.
Looking back on our failures

Low-calorie diets recommended by most nutritionists and dietitians are not only totally useless, they are also dangerous. Statistics, such as those put forth by Prof. Van Gaal, show that less than 5% of the cases succeed.

This a ridiculous percentage and even more so, if we compare it to success figures of 15 to 25% for people who stop smoking and drinking, something which is known to be much harder to do.
Our bodies ajust to reduced calorie consumption

Low-calorie diets are useless since, as we reduce the amount of calories we consume, our bodies’ survival instinct automatically makes the best use possible of the energy we put at its disposal. Our bodies learn to optimize the amount of calories we feed them. This is why, when we go back to normal calorie consumption (something we necessarily have to do since we cannot under nourish our bodies forever) our bodies, which have learned to store fats, simply stock these ‘extra’ calories turning them into extra weight. Chances are that once we have taught our body to make do with low-caloric levels, it will gain even more weight when we go back to a more regular intake.

Prof. Brownell (6) has validated this phenomenon through tests carried out on animals alternating high-protein diets with low-calorie diets. The animals gained and lost weight but each time their diet changed, the results were even more marked than before. The results for first diet were rapid and considerable weight loss. However, with each new diet, it proved to be easier for the animals to gain weight (and to gain more weight than before) and harder to lose the new weight gained. This goes to show how our metabolism adjusts to reduced calorie consumption.


Caloric deficits can, in effect, reduce the amount of energy we burn by up to 50%. The problem is that, when we return (even if only temporarily) to our normal caloric intake, our bodies do not adjust by storing less fats. They continue storing fats as in ‘times of shortage’, that which makes us gain even more weight than before.

The « accordion » effect of continuous low-cal diets provokes increasing resistance to losing weight, as shown by numerous studies. (7). Additionally, low-cal diets are risky because they induce a deficiency in micronutrients (salts minerals, vitamins, oleo-elements, essential fatty acids) which are absolutely necessary for our bodies. Without them, our bodies become weak and suffer from chronic fatigue and our immunity system becomes more vulnerable to illness. Added to this is the fact that insufficient proteins tend to reduce our muscular mass, which is replaced by fat as we gain weight.
Nutritionists are unwilling to accept how misguided they have been

The low-cal principle has been the financial mainstay for numerous industries and people: the food industry, the pharmaceutical industry, public and private weight loss centers, health institutes and spas, thallasotherapy centers, nutritionists, dietitians, just to mention a few…Naturally, it is not easy to get the message across that what these industries and people are selling is not as miraculous as they say and that, what is even worse, it is useless and even dangerous for people’s health.

The issue, which is addressed at some medical conventions, is often carefully avoided by the press. Some well-know personalities have approached the subject directly or indirectly. Professor Arnaud Basdevant affirmed in a radio conference in 1990 that « the best way to gain weight is to follow restrictive diets.” In the 1993 Obesity Convention in Anvers, Professor Marian Affelbaum declared to her shocked colleagues: “Yes, we have been collectively fooled.” He assumed this fact to the point that he continued mentioning the issue when he retired.

Prof. W.Willett, one of the most eminent epidemiologists in the US, has been one of the few people to have had the courage to denounce the immense damage caused by low-cal recommendations. (8) In his opinion, these recommendations made by nutritionists “are not even worth the paper they’re written on.” He stated that “These recommendations have even contributed to spreading obesity.”
Counting calories is absurd

Counting calories, like most traditional dietary dogmas, is all theory and no facts. In effect it is a heads and tails approach, it is meaningless and totally ineffective.

The following seven reasons should make this clear:

- macro-nutrients: In order to count the number of calories contained in our food, we have to first determine macro-nutrient (carbs, fats and proteins) content. The problem with counting calories is that, the amount of factors that determine the macro nutrients contained in our foods make for wide variations in caloric content.

Anne Noël’s Charts*, for example, gives sausage meat chair à saucisse for a 100g of 14g g of proteins (14g x 4 Kcal = 56 Kcal) and 38g of lipids (38 x 9 Kcal = 342 Kcal) for a total of 398 Kcal.


Comparatively, the 10,000 delicatessens in France probably have 10,000 different ways of preparing sausage meat chair à saucisse. This means that the caloric content can vary from 15 to 20% from one preparation to another. For certain products, such as mince pie/potted pork rillettes, the amount of calories can vary up to 40% from one preparation to another.

The amount of calories contained in steak varies depending on the animal’s race/stock, what it has been fed on (natural or industrial feed), how it is bred (pasture or stable) and possible chemical treatments (antibiotics hormones…). Its true caloric content can thus vary from 15 to 30% as compared to theoretical chart figures.


As concerns fish, the amount of calories it contains depend on where it was caught (particularly if it industrially bred) as well as from one season to another.

Additionally, the amount of calories contained in our food is also modified by the way we cook it, it is higher or lower depending on if it is deep fried, grilled or boiled.

We can trhen conclude that the calories assigned are purely theoretical. They are therefore mistaken and, what’s more, they differ from one chart/table to another.

- Fibers : theoretical estimates never take into account the role played by fibers in the degree of absorption of the carbs and fats consumed. The fibers eaten with our meals can reduce the amount of calories absorbed.

- Intestinal absorption : Pr. G. Slama has shown that «starches are not interchangeable. ». Starches as for example fries and lentils, might have the same fat content, thus the same amount of calories. This, notwithstanding, does not imply that these calories will be absorbed to the same degree.
The same thing happens with lipid calories whose degree of intestinal wall absorption depends on where fatty acids are positioned on the glycerol molecule (triglycerides), as described by Pr. Serge Renaud in 1995.

- Fatty acids: saturated fatty acids are harder to burn and have a greater tendency to get stored as fat than mono-unsaturated fatty acids.


Comparatively, poly-unsaturated fatty acids (oméga 3), which are found in fish, are never sotored. Better yet, they stimulate metabolic mechanisms which aid weigh loss by increasing thermalgenesis and stimulatng lipolysis.

- Chronobiology : carb, fatty and protein absorption varies depending, not only on time at which we eat our meal, but also on the season (9, 10 et 11). This discovery has set the principles for a new science: chronobiology.

- Breaking up meals: eating the same amount of food (in terms of calories) split up in three to six different meals provokes different energy consumption levels. The more we break up the calories we consume in different meals, the more calories we burn.

- Chemical environment: theoretical estimates do not take into consideration the chemical environment of the food we eat as they enter our intestine, the order of entry nor the volume of their particles despite the fact that these factors condition food nutrients’ degree of absorption. For example, equal portions of sugar (saccharose) will have very little impact on blood sugar levels when eat after a meal whereas, when eaten before a meal, they tend to raise blood sugar levels.

This list, which is not exhaustive, should suffice to appeal to our common sense and convince us of the need to stop the absurd tendency to count calories as a means to losing weight.

If dietitians and nutritionists refuse to accept clear cut evidence to this effect, it is up to people to watch out for their own interests and health by being informed and informing others.
Scientific references:

(1) Adrian F. Heini “Divergent trends in obesity and fat intake patterns : The American Paradox”. The American Journal of Medicine 1997.


(2) Hercberg S. & coll. “Result of a list of a pilot study of the SUVIMAX project”. Rev. Epidemiol. Santé Publique 1995 ; 43 : 139-146


(3) Rigaud D., Giachetti I., Deheeger M., Borys JM., Volatier J.L., Lemoine A., Cassuto D.A., (1997) “Enquête Française de consommation alimentaire I. Energie et macronutriments. » (ASPCC) Cahiers Nutrition & Diététique, 32, 379-389


(4) Bellisle F. « Obesity and food intake in children : evidence for a role of metabolic and /or behavorial daily rythms » Appetite 1988, 11, 111-118


(5) Rolland-Cachera MF., Bellisle F. “No correlation between adiposity and food intake : why are working class children fatter ?” Am.J.Clin.Nutr., 1986, 44, 779-787
Rolland-Cachera MF., Deheeger M. “Adiposity and food intake in young children : the environmental challenge to individual susceptibility” Br.Med.J. 1988, 296, 1037-1038


(6) Brownell KD. “The effects of repeated cycles of weight loss and regain in rats” Phy.Behaviour 1986, 38, 459-464


(7) Louis-Sylvestre L. « poids accordéon : de plus en plus difficile à perdre » Le Généraliste, 1989 ; 1087 ; 18-20


(8) Science & Avenir (février 1999)


(9) Bellisle F, Rolland-Cachera MF, Deheeger M et Guilloud-Bataille M. “Obesity and food intake in children : evidence for a role a metabolic and/or behavorial daily rhythms” (Appetite, 1988, 11 : 111-118)


(10) Armstrong S, Shahbaz C and Singer G. “Inclusion of meal-reversal in a behavior modification program for obesity” (Appetite, 1981, 2 : 1-5).


(11) Halberg F. “Protection by timing treatment according to bodily rhythms. An analogy to protection by scrubbing before surgery”. (Chronobiologia, suppl. 1, 23-68, 1974).

THIS INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM AUTHORITYNUTRITION.COM

7 Proven Ways to Lose Weight on Autopilot (Without Counting Calories)
October 22, 2013 | by Kris Gunnars | 52,168 views | 64 Comments

Confused Woman Holding a Calculator“Eat less, move more.”

This is the message we receive from various health gurus and nutrition organizations.

They assume that the only reason people gain or lose weight is because of calories.

This is simply wrong, because our bodies are much more complicated than that.

Different foods affect hunger and hormones in different ways and all calories are NOT equal.

The truth is… there are many things you can do to lose weight, without ever counting a single calorie.

Here are 7 proven ways to put fat loss on “autopilot.”
1. Replace Your Grain-Based Breakfast With Eggs

Eggs in a Basket

Losing weight can be as simple as changing your breakfast.

Two separate studies have shown that eating eggs in the morning (compared to a breakfast of bagels) can help you lose fat without trying.

In one of these studies, 30 overweight or obese women ate either bagels or eggs for breakfast (1).

The egg group ended up eating fewer calories at lunch, the rest of the day and for the next 36 hours.

Put simply, the eggs were so fulfilling that the women automatically ate fewer calories at subsequent meals.

In another study, 152 overweight men and women were split into groups. One group ate eggs, the other ate bagels… both groups were on a weight loss diet (2).

After 8 weeks, the egg group had lost significantly more weight than the bagel group:

65% more weight loss (2 lbs vs 1.3 lbs).
61% greater reduction in BMI.
34% greater reduction in waist circumference.
16% greater reduction in body fat percentage.

The difference in weight loss wasn’t huge, but it clearly shows that simple things like changing one meal can have a small effect.

Another awesome benefit of eating eggs is that they are among the healthiest foods in the world. New studies show that they do NOT raise your bad cholesterol or give you heart disease, like previously believed (3, 4, 5, 6).

If you think you don’t have time to cook a healthy breakfast, think again. Preparing a breakfast with some eggs and veggies doesn’t have to take any longer than 5-10 minutes.

Just set your alarm clock a few minutes earlier… problem solved.

Bottom Line: Studies show that eating eggs for breakfast can help you automatically eat fewer calories, compared to a breakfast of bagels.

2. Using Smaller Plates Can Trick Your Brain Into Thinking That You’re Actually Eating More

Plate With Food

The human brain is the most complex object in the universe, gram for gram.

It tends to work in mysterious ways… and the control of eating behavior is incredibly complicated.

It is the brain that ultimately determines whether we should or should not eat.

Interestingly, there is one neat thing you can do to “trick” your brain into thinking that it has eaten more food.

This is using smaller plates.

The larger your plates or bowls, the less your brain thinks you have eaten. By using smaller plates, you trick your brain into feeling more satisfied with fewer calories.

It’s weird… but psychologists have been studying this and it seems to work (7, 8).

Bottom Line: It is possible to “trick” the brain into thinking that it has eaten more food by using smaller plates.

3. Eating More Protein Can Reduce Appetite, Increase Fat Burning and Help You Gain Muscle

For some strange reason, protein has gotten a bad rap.

Many people think that it can “leech” calcium from the bones and cause kidney disease.

However… this is complete nonsense, which is not supported by science.

A Little Girl Eating Meat

There is a lot of evidence that protein can increase fat burning and reduce hunger, leading to automatic weight loss.

In fact, studies show that protein boosts metabolism more than any other macronutrient (9, 10).

One of the reasons for that is that it takes the body more calories to digest and make use of protein, than it does fat and carbs.

Protein also increases satiety, leading to significantly reduced hunger (11).

In one study, increasing protein to 30% of calories lead to an automatic decrease in calorie intake of 441 calories per day (12).

Many studies show that increasing your protein intake can lead to automatic weight loss, even when eating until fullness (13, 14, 15, 16).

Protein can also help you gain more muscle, especially if you also lift weights. Muscle tissue is metabolically active, meaning that it burns a small amount of calories, even at rest (17, 18, 19).

The best way to get in more protein is to eat more animal foods like meat, fish and eggs… preferably at every meal.

Bottom Line: Increased protein in the diet can boost metabolism and reduce hunger. It can also increase muscle mass, helping you burn more calories around the clock.

4. Eating Foods With a Low Energy Density and Lots of Fiber Make You Feel More Full With Fewer Calories

Vegetables

Another way to feel more satisfied with fewer calories is to eat foods that have a low energy density.

This includes foods that have a high water content, such as vegetables and some fruits.

Studies consistently show that dieters who eat less energy dense foods lose more weight than those who eat foods with a high energy density (20, 21, 22).

In one study, women who ate soup (low energy density) lost 50% more weight than women who ate an energy dense snack (23).

Vegetables are also rich in soluble fiber, which has been shown to cause weight loss in some studies (24, 25, 26).

Another benefit of soluble fiber is that it gets broken down by bacteria in the digestive tract to produce a fatty acid called butyrate, which is believed to have significant anti-obesity effects… at least in rats (27).

Combining animals (high in protein) with a bunch of plants (low energy density) is a recipe for success.

Bottom Line: Choosing foods with a low energy density (like vegetables and some fruits) can help you feel more satisfied with fewer calories.

5. Cutting Carbs Can Make You Lose Weight Fast While Eating Until Fullness

Probably THE best way to start losing weight without calorie counting or portion control is to reduce your carbohydrate intake.

Studies consistently show that people who eat less carbohydrates, automatically start to eat less calories and lose weight without any major effort (28, 29).

In one study, 53 overweight/obese women were randomized to a low-carb group or a calorie restricted low-fat group, for 6 months (30):

Weight Loss Graph, Low Carb vs Low Fat

Women in the low-carb group lost twice as much weight (8.5 kg – 18.7 lbs) while eating until fullness, compared to the low-fat group (3.9 kg – 8.6 lbs), which was calorie restricted.

The best way to cut carbs is to reduce or eliminate major carb sources from your diet like sugars, sweets, sodas, as well as starchy foods like bread, pasta, potatoes, etc.

Getting into the range of 100-150 gram carbs per day can be useful. If you want to lose weight fast, then going under 50 grams per day can be extremely effective.

Another great benefit of reducing carbs… it lowers your insulin levels, which makes the kidneys start shedding excess sodium and water from the body, significantly reducing bloat and water weight (31, 32).

Bottom Line: Cutting carbohydrate intake can reduce appetite and cause automatic weight loss, without calorie counting or portion control. It also leads to significant reductions in water weight.

6. Making Time For Quality Sleep and Avoiding Stress Can Optimize The Function of Key Hormones

Doctor With Thumbs Up

Two things that often get ignored when discussing health (and weight) are sleep and stress levels.

Both are incredibly important for the optimal function of your body and hormones.

Inadequate sleep is one of the strongest risk factors for obesity… short sleep duration raising the risk by 89% in children and 55% in adults (33).

Poor sleep can increase hunger and cravings and cause a biochemical tendency for weight gain by disrupting hunger hormones like ghrelin and leptin (34, 35).

Excess stress can increase your levels of the hormone cortisol, which is known to increase belly fat accumulation and the risk of chronic, Western diseases (36, 37, 38).

For these reasons, it is very important to make time for quality sleep, as well as avoiding unnecessary stressors in your life.

Bottom Line: Poor sleep and excess stress can mess up important metabolic hormones like ghrelin, leptin and cortisol. Getting these hormones under control should reduce appetite and unnatural cravings.

7. Replacing Your Cooking Fats With Coconut Oil Can Boost Metabolism and Reduce Appetite

Coconuts

Coconut oil has some unique properties that can help reduce appetite and increase fat burning.

It is loaded with fats called Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCTs).

These fatty acids get metabolized differently compared to other fats… they go straight to the liver where they are either used for energy or turned into ketone bodies.

Two small studies show that eating these medium chain fats can make people eat fewer calories, one of them showing a reduction of 256 calories per day (39, 40).

These fats also appear to increase energy expenditure, one study showing an increase as high as 5% (41, 42, 43).

Consuming 30 mL (about 1 ounce) of coconut oil may cause significant reductions in BMI and waist circumference, a marker for abdominal fat (44, 45).

Now… I’m not suggesting that you gobble down massive amounts of coconut oil, but replacing your current cooking fats with it could have a noticeable effect (46, 47).
8. Anything Else?

By making a few simple changes that optimize hormones, reduce hunger and boost metabolism, you can lose a lot of weight without ever counting a single calorie.