Counting Calories Doesn't Work

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?

The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.

Actually, if you really read the article, the research only seems to suggest that it's the type of food that's the issue because of adherence. Eating fast digesting carbs > insulin spikes and drops > increased hunger, which makes it harder to stick with a reduced calorie diet. In the end, people can be successful eating mostly "junk" food if their willpower is strong enough.

Another study published by Dr. Ludwig and colleagues in The Lancet in 2004 suggested that a poor-quality diet could result in obesity even when it was low in calories. Rats fed a diet with rapidly digesting (called high “glycemic index”) carbohydrate gained 71 percent more fat than their counterparts, who ate more calories over all, though in the form of slowly digesting carbohydrate.

I can see how being obese can mess up your hormones and dis-regulate a persons metabolism... but, IMO it still begs the question. How did we get fat in the first place?

The article suggests it could be the type of food, specifically, fast digesting carbs making us fat. That eating a diet high in these foods can cause more fat gain than eating the same caloires of slower digesting carbs.

Actually, if you really read the article, the research only seems to suggest that it's the type of food that's the issue because of adherence. Eating fast digesting carbs > insulin spikes and drops > increased hunger, which makes it harder to stick with a reduced calorie diet. In the end, people can be successful eating mostly "junk" food if their willpower is strong enough.

From the article :

Another study published by Dr. Ludwig and colleagues in The Lancet in 2004 suggested that a poor-quality diet could result in obesity even when it was low in calories. Rats fed a diet with rapidly digesting (called high “glycemic index”) carbohydrate gained 71 percent more fat than their counterparts, who ate more calories over all, though in the form of slowly digesting carbohydrate.

Despite having similar mean bodyweight (547.9 [SE 13.4] vs 549.2 [15.2] g), rats given high-GI food had more body fat (97.8 [13.6] vs 57.3 [7.2] g; p=0.0152) and less lean body mass (450.1 [9.6] vs 491.9 [11.7] g; p=0.0120) than those given low-GI food. The high-GI group also had greater increases over time in the areas under the curve for blood glucose and plasma insulin after oral glucose, lower plasma adiponectin concentrations, higher plasma triglyceride concentrations, and severe disruption of islet-cell architecture. Mice on the high-GI diet had almost twice the body fat of those on the low-GI diet after 9 weeks.

Lol lies, there have been no metabolic ward trials that controlled caloric intake?

"UNFORTUNATELY, existing research cannot provide a definitive test of our hypothesis. Several prominent clinical trials reported no difference in weight loss when comparing diets purportedly differing in protein, carbohydrate and fat. However, these trials had major limitations; at the end, subjects reported that they had not met the targets for complying with the prescribed diets. We wouldn’t discard a potentially lifesaving cancer treatment based on negative findings, if the research subjects didn’t take the drug as intended."

Yeah. No evidence means its all speculation, and all medical professionals take that with a grain of salt. Everyone has a theory about how/why the body does *fill in blank*. The problem is, there are phenomenal possibilities of uncontrolled variables in a human body, especially in any given group of studied bodies. So basically the whole article is just obesity scare propaganda until we get any actual information on the topics covered and any studies testing their formulated hypotheses. They really discredited themselves with that paragraph.