Counting Calories Doesn't Work

Options
12357

Replies

  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    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.

    I actually think that's precisely the point they're addressing in the article. From what I understood, their main point was that because being fat makes you want to overeat becuase you're not getting enough calories for the rest of your body to function, your body makes you want to eat more than you'd need to lose weight calorie counting alone. Being constantly hungry would make it pretty damn hard to stick with a weight loss program like calorie counting no? They say that you pretty much would have to stick it out on willpower alone that way, which is why so many people fail, because it's insanely hard to try and be hungry for months on end.
  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    It's clear that many of the responders here didn't read the article.

    It didn't say that calories in - calories out doesn't determine your caloric surplus/deficit and resulting weight gain or loss.

    If I'm reading it correctly, it's an OP-Ed talking about a hypothesis that certain foods may not be as satisfying along with a discussion as to why. Since the foods are not as satisfying, it leads to food seeking behavior along with a reduction of activity because the body feels it's still hungry.

    I don't know if the ideas are correct or not, but it's not arguing against thermodynamics.

    from the article:

    "If this hypothesis turns out to be correct, it will have immediate implications for public health. It would mean that the decades-long focus on calorie restriction was destined to fail for most people. Information about calorie content would remain relevant, not as a strategy for weight loss, but rather to help people avoid eating too much highly processed food loaded with rapidly digesting carbohydrates. But obesity treatment would more appropriately focus on diet quality rather than calorie quantity."

    so if they are right then somehow calories in vs calories out will not be important anymore and you can just eat the right "quality" of food, and not have to worry about quantity….

    It never said calories will be entirely useless; just that the FOCUS will be on quality rather than quantity. I'm sure eating thousands of calories of even the healthy food they suggest would still result in weight gain.
  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    There is not much that's contentious in this article. Effectively says eating crap is bad for you, and you can't rely SOLELY on counting calories to manage yourself.

    The real trick comes from the OP - "Counting Calories Doesn't work". Eye catching title to trigger a debate - but it's not the title of the actual article; and nowhere in the article is this blanket statement ever made!

    Unless you read a different article than I did, that statement is made in the first two paragraphs:

    "FOR most of the last century, our understanding of the cause of obesity has been based on immutable physical law. Specifically, it’s the first law of thermodynamics, which dictates that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. When it comes to body weight, this means that calorie intake minus calorie expenditure equals calories stored. Surrounded by tempting foods, we overeat, consuming more calories than we can burn off, and the excess is deposited as fat. The simple solution is to exert willpower and eat less.

    The problem is that this advice doesn’t work, at least not for most people over the long term.
    In other words, your New Year’s resolution to lose weight probably won’t last through the spring, let alone affect how you look in a swimsuit in July. More of us than ever are obese, despite an incessant focus on calorie balance by the government, nutrition organizations and the food industry."

    It's not saying calorie counting itself is the strategy that's flawed - it's saying that it hasn't helped a bunch of people lose weight; it's highly ineffective in achieving results. They back this up with the statistics of how few people manage or maintain weight loss.
  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

    The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….
    Some people aren't satisfied with the current eat-less-move-more-too-bad-so-sad-you-can't-stick-with-the-program-fatty way of thinking. And good for them for recognizing that there has to be a better, more effective way. It's great that people are willing to revisit the causes and treatments of obesity instead of insisting we already know it all and that there's nothing more to be learned. Especially when it's so easy to dismiss people with weight problems as being too dumb and lazy to eat less and move more.

    so people are obese for some other reason then over consumption of calories….? I am assuming non-medical condition types here ….

    Did you read the article at all? They're not arguing against the law of thermodynamics; they're saying that people are often failing to lose weight because calorie counting is hard because being overweight screws with your body systems governing use of energy and hunger cues - it makes you hungry, meaning it's hard to stick to calorie counting because your body is making you want to ear more than maintenance/deficit. So yes, they're obese because they consume too many calories, but they're not focusing on that - they're focusing on WHY they eat too many calories.
  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    if people stay "obese" then they are not eating less and moving more….I don't see why the fact that some people choose to not eat less and more more, or for some reason can't, would negate the fact that it does work.

    The problem is that people want to find a way to eat ding dongs and ice cream all day, sit on the couch, AND lose weight at the same time ….it is an overall symptom of the dumbing down and laziness that has infected our society….
    Some people aren't satisfied with the current eat-less-move-more-too-bad-so-sad-you-can't-stick-with-the-program-fatty way of thinking. And good for them for recognizing that there has to be a better, more effective way. It's great that people are willing to revisit the causes and treatments of obesity instead of insisting we already know it all and that there's nothing more to be learned. Especially when it's so easy to dismiss people with weight problems as being too dumb and lazy to eat less and move more.
    But there is no better, more effective way. The laws of physics are the bottom line that can't be broken like the speed of light being the upper limit for anything with mass,.
    Every(!) single diet that actually works is just "eat less calories than you burn" put in a nice package, in wrapping paper with a big bow on it. Calling it by a different name does not change that it works on the same premise.

    I'm pretty sure almost no one actually read this article....
    What's being said isn't that the law of thermodynamics is wrong, or that it's not about eat less than you burn - they specifically endorse that in the article itself. What they're saying is that being overweight makes you hungry for more calories than your maintenance/deficit because of how being fat, eating carbs, insulin, etc. all interact with the body's hunger cues, energy usage, etc. It's not about how you got fat/stay fat, it's about why.
  • weird_me2
    weird_me2 Posts: 716 Member
    Options
    The article, and studies that support the claims, are sound and worth exploration.

    Of course the following point will ensure that many people will automatically have an emotional, knee jerk dismissal, halting them from even considering alternative theories:
    But such theories have been generally ignored, perhaps because they challenge entrenched cultural attitudes.

    And so be it. But I do think we need to be having a greater discussion beyond "just do it", because calorie counting has just as abysmal long term failure rates as any other type of program or "fad". Most people who try to lose weight fail, and the ones who fail more often than not fail to maintain that loss.

    It really is time to get real. At this point telling everyone to eat cake and ice cream "in moderation" ain't cutting it. Sadly, almost nothing is.

    That's great and all, but where does personal responsibility come in? Even the FDA food guidelines (used to be the food guide pyramid) suggest eating whole grains, fruits and veggies, lean protein and limited added fats and sugars. Weight Watchers encourages people to eat a certain number of fruits and veggies daily, lean dairy products, lean meats, etc. Even the "boxed" diet plans usually allow for the addition of fruits and vegetables to their meal plans. I think even doctors who are poorly educated in nutrition will usually point to the food guide pyramid or Weight Watchers for an example. So, with all of this information out there, isn't it the responsibility of the person who is attempting to control calories to educate themselves about making better choices than eating cake all day?

    Until people learn to have realistic expectations of weight loss and maintenance and that there isn't some magic bullet that will make them instantly skinny, most people who try to lose weight are going to fail. No amount of educating will prevent this. It's not on the government or the scientists or anyone else to help people succeed. We can't teach personal responsibility.
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    Options
    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.

    I actually think that's precisely the point they're addressing in the article. From what I understood, their main point was that because being fat makes you want to overeat becuase you're not getting enough calories for the rest of your body to function, your body makes you want to eat more than you'd need to lose weight calorie counting alone. Being constantly hungry would make it pretty damn hard to stick with a weight loss program like calorie counting no? They say that you pretty much would have to stick it out on willpower alone that way, which is why so many people fail, because it's insanely hard to try and be hungry for months on end.

    On the bolded note, I think that part of the problem here is that people seemingly feel the need to punish themselves for the fact that they're overweight and/or obese and so set themselves up to fail by starting at 300lbs and eating only 1200 calories a day. Of course they're going to be hungry all the time and as such, they're likely to give up. But that doesn't mean that we're all going to be able to ignore calories in the future. I think it's less about calorie counting instead of food quality counting that is causing the failure problem and more of the poor understanding of how weight loss works that is happening.

    I think if people understood that 1) you don't need to punish yourself and 2) learn even some basics about how weight loss works so that you can 3) set reasonable calorie goals for yourself, we wouldn't need to be having these conversations. And this is absolutely coming from someone who started this whole thing on the 1200 calorie, I'm hungry all the time path.

    Edited because I got the bolding incorrect.
  • darkangel45422
    darkangel45422 Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    The article, and studies that support the claims, are sound and worth exploration.

    Of course the following point will ensure that many people will automatically have an emotional, knee jerk dismissal, halting them from even considering alternative theories:
    But such theories have been generally ignored, perhaps because they challenge entrenched cultural attitudes.

    And so be it. But I do think we need to be having a greater discussion beyond "just do it", because calorie counting has just as abysmal long term failure rates as any other type of program or "fad". Most people who try to lose weight fail, and the ones who fail more often than not fail to maintain that loss.

    It really is time to get real. At this point telling everyone to eat cake and ice cream "in moderation" ain't cutting it. Sadly, almost nothing is.

    That's great and all, but where does personal responsibility come in? Even the FDA food guidelines (used to be the food guide pyramid) suggest eating whole grains, fruits and veggies, lean protein and limited added fats and sugars. Weight Watchers encourages people to eat a certain number of fruits and veggies daily, lean dairy products, lean meats, etc. Even the "boxed" diet plans usually allow for the addition of fruits and vegetables to their meal plans. I think even doctors who are poorly educated in nutrition will usually point to the food guide pyramid or Weight Watchers for an example. So, with all of this information out there, isn't it the responsibility of the person who is attempting to control calories to educate themselves about making better choices than eating cake all day?

    Until people learn to have realistic expectations of weight loss and maintenance and that there isn't some magic bullet that will make them instantly skinny, most people who try to lose weight are going to fail. No amount of educating will prevent this. It's not on the government or the scientists or anyone else to help people succeed. We can't teach personal responsibility.

    There's definitely personal responsibility involved, but if you've been around MFP for a while you'll know that it's a very popular belief that what you eat doesn't matter - only how many calories. It's been claimed a million and one times that you can eat nothing but Twinkies or ice cream or sugar or whatever and still lose weight if you're under calories; it's pretty clear that the focus is NOT on eating like the above. This focus only on counting calories has taken us away from any notion of eating quality food.
  • beckytcy
    beckytcy Posts: 135 Member
    Options
    The article doesn't say that counting calories doesn't work. It's saying that the type of food you eat does matter. In other words you have to count calories and keep track of macros. You will gain weight if you take in more cals than you consume so you still have to count. But you will be more effective in your weight management if you avoid processed carbs.
  • Strokingdiction
    Strokingdiction Posts: 1,164 Member
    Options
    "What if it’s not overeating that causes us to get fat, but the process of getting fatter that causes us to overeat?"

    What a load of crap. This is putting the cart before the horse and the mental gymnastics the authors go through to reach this conclusion is hilarious. 'We eat more one day and the body stores free floating calories as fat which in turn makes us hungry, causing us to overeat. Viscous cycle...' ffs.

    I only needed to see that Ludwig was one of the authors before turning my brain off for the read. Thanks for the humor article, almost as good as something I'd find at Cracked.
  • Strokingdiction
    Strokingdiction Posts: 1,164 Member
    Options
    The article, and studies that support the claims, are sound and worth exploration.

    Of course the following point will ensure that many people will automatically have an emotional, knee jerk dismissal, halting them from even considering alternative theories:
    But such theories have been generally ignored, perhaps because they challenge entrenched cultural attitudes.

    And so be it. But I do think we need to be having a greater discussion beyond "just do it", because calorie counting has just as abysmal long term failure rates as any other type of program or "fad". Most people who try to lose weight fail, and the ones who fail more often than not fail to maintain that loss.

    It really is time to get real. At this point telling everyone to eat cake and ice cream "in moderation" ain't cutting it. Sadly, almost nothing is.

    That's great and all, but where does personal responsibility come in? Even the FDA food guidelines (used to be the food guide pyramid) suggest eating whole grains, fruits and veggies, lean protein and limited added fats and sugars. Weight Watchers encourages people to eat a certain number of fruits and veggies daily, lean dairy products, lean meats, etc. Even the "boxed" diet plans usually allow for the addition of fruits and vegetables to their meal plans. I think even doctors who are poorly educated in nutrition will usually point to the food guide pyramid or Weight Watchers for an example. So, with all of this information out there, isn't it the responsibility of the person who is attempting to control calories to educate themselves about making better choices than eating cake all day?

    Until people learn to have realistic expectations of weight loss and maintenance and that there isn't some magic bullet that will make them instantly skinny, most people who try to lose weight are going to fail. No amount of educating will prevent this. It's not on the government or the scientists or anyone else to help people succeed. We can't teach personal responsibility.

    There's definitely personal responsibility involved, but if you've been around MFP for a while you'll know that it's a very popular belief that what you eat doesn't matter - only how many calories. It's been claimed a million and one times that you can eat nothing but Twinkies or ice cream or sugar or whatever and still lose weight if you're under calories; it's pretty clear that the focus is NOT on eating like the above. This focus only on counting calories has taken us away from any notion of eating quality food.

    The only thing that matters for weight loss is CICO. People on this site say it all the time because it's true. However, those same people will also tell you that meeting your macros and micros are important for health. No one claims that eating nothing but Twinkies or ice cream while eating at a calorie deficit is a healthy way to lose weight.
  • KseRz
    KseRz Posts: 980 Member
    Options
    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...

    opinions =/= fact
  • asdowe13
    asdowe13 Posts: 1,951 Member
    Options
    I can't believe I wasted my time reading that garbage!
  • asdowe13
    asdowe13 Posts: 1,951 Member
    Options
    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.


    ^^^
    Why are you even here then??
  • PJPrimrose
    PJPrimrose Posts: 916 Member
    Options
    Saying that counting calories doesn't work for weight management is kinda like saying balancing my checkbook doesn't work for financial management.





    I can't argue with that. That about sums it up! (no pun :smile: )
  • KseRz
    KseRz Posts: 980 Member
    Options
    The article doesn't say that counting calories doesn't work. It's saying that the type of food you eat does matter. In other words you have to count calories and keep track of macros. You will gain weight if you take in more cals than you consume so you still have to count. But you will be more effective in your weight management if you avoid processed carbs.

    Too bad the article just didnt say that. It did, but it had to go on and on and on about TL DR BS, Thermodynamics .... yada yada yada......processed carbs are bad.......blah blah blah.......now all of a sudden the AHA is recommending fat.....Booo Hoooo Whatever...... in order to just say what you said.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Apparently we're all doing it wrong...

    That's a really interesting article. But since a great number of MFP users limit total carbs or fast digesting carbs, it certainly does not mean "we're all doing it wrong".

    Long held beliefs are not easily changed, but I would not be shocked to find that this one does eventually change. A similar article in NY TImes was equally thought provoking for me.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/?ref=health

    This section in particular:
    He [Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian] has studied the effects that different foods have on weight gain and said that it is true that 100 calories of fat, protein and carbohydrates are the same in a thermodynamic sense, in that they release the same amount of energy when exposed to a Bunsen burner in a lab. But in a complex organism like a human being, he said, these foods influence satiety, metabolic rate, brain activity, blood sugar and the hormones that store fat in very different ways.

    Studies also show that calories from different foods are not absorbed the same. When people eat high-fiber foods like nuts and some vegetables, for example, only about three-quarters of the calories they contain are absorbed. The rest are excreted from the body unused. So the calories listed on their labels are not what the body is actually getting.

    “The implicit suggestion is that there are no bad calories, just bad people eating too much,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But the evidence is very clear that not all calories are created equal as far as weight gain and obesity. If you’re focusing on calories, you can easily be misguided.”

    Perhaps we don't know all that we think we know.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    For those who actually found the article interesting and not a waste of time you might be interested in these three studies that are being funded by Peter Attias and Gary Taubes NuSi. As someone who's responded extremely well to eating a low carb diet I'm interested in the findings. Either or if this alternate hypothesis has merit and deserves further research we'll find out soon enough.

    Stanford University study
    Effect of macronutrient composition on weight loss and chronic disease risk with maximum divergence between diets in a free-living setting

    http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/stanford-university-study/#.U3uL6yg1RaQ

    Energy Balance Consortium Study
    The effect of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure and fat balance – is it true that a calorie is a calorie?

    http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.U3uL7ig1RaQ

    Boston Children’s Hospital Study
    The impact of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure during maintenance of weight loss

    http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/boston-childrens-hospital-study/#.U3uL8Cg1RaQ
  • moseler
    moseler Posts: 224 Member
    Options
    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.

    I tend to agree with this article. I have been on MFP for over 3 years and although I have been successful at losing... it hasn't just been about counting my calories. I have noticed a huge difference in my weight loss when I change my intake of processed foods. I lose more at a consistent rate when I am eating lean proteins, fresh veggies and unprocessed grains. I also notice that I can FEEL the difference when I eat processed foods. I feel sluggish, my digestive system revolts against me and I tend to have cravings that have otherwise vanished. It's like if I eat potato chips... my body says, "OH YEAH! Let's eat all the chocolate in the house now too!" I seriously have to fight my cravings... it's just not worth the inner turmoil!

    People have to do what works for them... but for me... the calorie thing isn't the be all end all... I think it's more about changing your way of thinking about food and exercise all together.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    For those who actually found the article interesting and not a waste of time you might be interested in these three studies that are being funded by Peter Attias and Gary Taubes NuSi. As someone who's responded extremely well to eating a low carb diet I'm interested in the findings. Either or if this alternate hypothesis has merit and deserves further research we'll find out soon enough.

    Stanford University study
    Effect of macronutrient composition on weight loss and chronic disease risk with maximum divergence between diets in a free-living setting

    http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/stanford-university-study/#.U3uL6yg1RaQ

    Energy Balance Consortium Study
    The effect of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure and fat balance – is it true that a calorie is a calorie?

    http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.U3uL7ig1RaQ

    Boston Children’s Hospital Study
    The impact of macronutrient composition on energy expenditure during maintenance of weight loss

    http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/boston-childrens-hospital-study/#.U3uL8Cg1RaQ

    LOL I wonder why the current literature is no good? In the first allowing ad lib consumption of 2 of the 3 macros plus self reported intake, sure is a good way to eliminate confounders and will be super accurate. The 2nd one? Already done before

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7918254