Counting Calories Doesn't Work

Well if it's wrong, then I don't wanna be right.... LOL!!
Everyone is going to have their own opinions, but personally I think counting calories works :-)

My husband sent it to me this morning. I laughed.

I didn't even finish reading it all since I already found a couple of completely wrong sentences (scientifically speaking).

Woke up to this gem on Facebook and thought some of you might enjoy reading it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html

Apparently we're all doing it wrong...

As proven by them tickers! Lol

Actually, this article makes a lot of sense, and is probably right on almost every point. It's an interesting hypothesis -- initially, overeating causes fat gain. But then, that fat demands more energy to sustain, leaving less energy for the rest of your body's systems, causing increased hunger and (often) overeating. It's a vicious feedback cycle.

That being said, counting calories will work, but if it's the only thing you do it's going to be a long, hard road on the way to poor health. I think most of us implicitly understand that we're keeping calories in check while ALSO focusing on choosing healthy foods, cutting down on processed ones, exercising, etc etc.

god thank you, finally a voice of reason to counter balance the far-too-many-loud-but-silly-voices of mfp.

Woke up to this gem on Facebook and thought some of you might enjoy reading it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html

Apparently we're all doing it wrong...

As proven by them tickers! Lol

haha, my thoughts exactly

Lol the Taubes notion of obesity is mentioned

"A recent study by one of us, Dr. Ludwig, and his colleagues published in JAMA examined 21 overweight and obese young adults after they had lost 10 to 15 percent of their body weight, on diets ranging from low fat to low carbohydrate. Despite consuming the same number of calories on each diet, subjects burned about 325 more calories per day on the low carbohydrate than on the low fat diet — amounting to the energy expended in an hour of moderately intense physical activity."

Yet there was no significant difference in weight lost between all three of the diets despite a supposedly higher cal burn, then when looking at figure 3, well clearly not all the subjects saw increases on low carb. And low carb diet also had higher protein intake, which in no way could be a confounder

^Exactly. All three macros levels were different on all three diets, so to claim that the difference is due to carbs alone is just bad science.

Actually, this article makes a lot of sense, and is probably right on almost every point. It's an interesting hypothesis -- initially, overeating causes fat gain. But then, that fat demands more energy to sustain, leaving less energy for the rest of your body's systems, causing increased hunger and (often) overeating. It's a vicious feedback cycle.

That being said, counting calories will work, but if it's the only thing you do it's going to be a long, hard road on the way to poor health. I think most of us implicitly understand that we're keeping calories in check while ALSO focusing on choosing healthy foods, cutting down on processed ones, exercising, etc etc.

Does the fat itself demand more energy, or does the entire body need more energy even at rest for people who are bigger? We all calculate our BMRs here, it's really not a surprise to anyone that larger people have higher BMRs. But there are guys here who are damn near pure muscle who have the same BMR as someone with a BMI of 40, so is it really the fat to blame?

Actually, this article makes a lot of sense, and is probably right on almost every point. It's an interesting hypothesis -- initially, overeating causes fat gain. But then, that fat demands more energy to sustain, leaving less energy for the rest of your body's systems, causing increased hunger and (often) overeating. It's a vicious feedback cycle.

That being said, counting calories will work, but if it's the only thing you do it's going to be a long, hard road on the way to poor health. I think most of us implicitly understand that we're keeping calories in check while ALSO focusing on choosing healthy foods, cutting down on processed ones, exercising, etc etc.

Exactly this!

It does say that it works for 1 in 6 individuals, which means there are other things that work for other individuals.

Also, this:

"As it turns out, many biological factors affect the storage of calories in fat cells, including genetics, levels of physical activity, sleep and stress."

Just simply "counting calories" probably won't work for most people. Once you start paying attention to where your calories come from, your macros and your activity as well as your sleep, stress, hormones..etc., that's when you might find something that "works" for you. And some people may even find that the act of counting calories isn't necessary for them to lose weight/maintain weight loss. And really, you shouldn't have to count them for the rest of your life. At some point, you should be able to eat without having to know the exact numbers.

I didn't even finish reading it all since I already found a couple of completely wrong sentences (scientifically speaking).

Which ones, did you find incorrect.

Saying that counting calories doesn't work for weight management is kinda like saying balancing my checkbook doesn't work for financial management.

Cutting back on carbs is the only way I am able to cut back on calories, but not for the reason you'd think. Obviously if you eat less of any macronutrient, you'll eat fewer calories unless you increase a different macro. But for me, eating fewer carbs means I'm less hungry. I can eat an 1,800 calorie diet with a higher carb ratio and be starving all the time, or I can eat the same number of calories with less carbs and more fat and protein and feel fine.

I wouldn't begin to say that this is true for everyone, but it works for me.

Actually, this article makes a lot of sense, and is probably right on almost every point. It's an interesting hypothesis -- initially, overeating causes fat gain. But then, that fat demands more energy to sustain, leaving less energy for the rest of your body's systems, causing increased hunger and (often) overeating. It's a vicious feedback cycle.

That being said, counting calories will work, but if it's the only thing you do it's going to be a long, hard road on the way to poor health. I think most of us implicitly understand that we're keeping calories in check while ALSO focusing on choosing healthy foods, cutting down on processed ones, exercising, etc etc.

This is what I was thinking when I was reading it, that some points made sense. Idk if there is science behind the points to back them up. But one thing that really stood out to me is when they reported that, "Only one in six overweight and obese adults in a nationwide survey reports ever having maintained a 10 percent weight loss for at least a year. (Even this relatively modest accomplishment may be exaggerated, because people tend to overestimate their successes in self-reported surveys.)" That begs the question of what those other 5 people where doing to KEEP the weight off. Or were they one of the people that didn't contemplate moving over to maintenance mode. Furthermore, if they started obese and only lose 10% of their body weight, did they fall off the wagon in that year? Cause I've "dieted" about a 100 times since I was 14 and I've ALWAYS fallen off the wagon. That doesn't mean that if I had kept up with it, that it wouldn't have worked.

I think what they should be looking at is WHY so many overweight or obese people have trouble staying on a plan? I'm MORBIDLY OBESE and so far, calorie counting is simple, but takes lots of planning and some days its hard to get it all done. Some days I go over. Some days I gain weight, but you gotta keep trucking on. I used to be one of those obese people that couldn't maintain a 10% weight loss because I stopped trying. Doesn't mean it wasn't working.