This verge article says calorie counting is bad science?
Replies
-
They try to smarten it up by making foods that are calorie dense cost more and vice versa. I think it pertains to how the body digests the various macronutrients (thermic effect of food) and how some effect satiety differently.Isn't Weight Watchers counting calories though? They just have that fancy calculator that turns calories into "points". I know they do the veggies/fruits are no calories plan but every thing else is based off of calories. Unless I'm missing something.0 -
Here's the way I see it: counting is a useful tool for some people. While it certainly requires careful consideration (you can't look just at the calories, you also need to make sure you meet all your nutritional needs), and it's definitely not for everyone (I know a lot of people recovering from eating disorders need to avoid even looking at calories because it causes obsessive eating habits), it's a good way for those who like it.
HOWEVER, it's not necessary. Far from it. Tons of people don't look at a scale or count their calories yet maintain very good health. I know one lady who did it just by following the Canadian Food Guide serving recommendations every day. Another person I know just learned to carefully listen to when she was hungry and when she was full (learning to eat intuitively). My friend's brother just focused on 'eating less' by refusing second helpings and removing a few foods from his diet. Some of these methods would never work for me, some probably would work really well (I've been thinking about trying to do the Food Guide alongside calorie counting; it would be easier to maintain during the periods when it's difficult to record my foods on MFP). Different methods work for different people.
So it's certainly possible to eat less without counting calories. If the diet is varied, then yeah, some days you'll eat more calories than other days, but in the grand scheme of things you will likely have reduced your caloric intake in the entirety of your diet.0 -
Article: Admits the science isn't bad. Proclaims the science doesn't work. :grumble: :noway:0
-
Before I counted calories, I had no idea how much I was eating...I actually thought I didn't really eat that much and relative to most people I knew, I ate pretty "healthy" with lots of home cooking, etc. Calorie counting opened my eyes to how much I was actually eating...not only that, I was surprised to see that my choices were resulting in a less than balanced diet to be sure.
Absolutely this.
A lot of people (pretty much everyone who needs to lose weight, I'd guess) are bad at having a good understanding of how much they are eating, even if they understand how relatively calorie dense (or whatever word the anti-counting people prefer) various foods are, which IME even reasonably educated people often do not.
It would be idiotic to decide that to lose weight one had to eat precisely 1432.4 calories per day and keep sticking to that even if it wasn't working.* But that isn't what people do, and I know I for one can't just say "oh, I'll eat less" and not track and be successful. My tracking need not be calorie-based--I enjoy the calorie-based way more, but I've also lost successfully just by keeping careful track of what I ate and not counting--but just telling myself to eat less wouldn't work. If nothing else because it lacks the kind of feedback to keep me motivated and on plan.
Also, if you have a consistent measure, it really doesn't matter how accurate you are. So long as you are consistent you can increase or decrease. I mean, I don't really know how much I burn swimming or running or biking, but I know if I bike harder or longer than I did the week before, especially if I log what I did with a note or two. Similarly, I can easily eat less than I did last week with a measure, even if my counts are inaccurate as totals. Can I otherwise just say I'll eat less? No, I won't have a good enough sense without tracking in some way. Maybe that I have to do this is related to the fact I got fat in the first place, but presumably those are the people most motivated to count anyway. If you are thin enough without it, why bother?
*Although if you log at all carefully you should be close enough to be able to figure out a general goal at which you will lose).0 -
Counting calories will have to be done be it mentally, manually, or through some program like Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, South Beach, NutriSytem, etc. Someone, somewhere will have to count the calories so how could counting calories be bad?
Nope. I just eat. I don't count, measure, nothing.
I cook meat and vegetables, put half veggies, half meat on plate and eat until full.
Its called intuitive eating.0 -
Interesting article. I think Nestle means that trying to micromanage your levels of calorie intake and burn (like with a Fitbit or this site) is problematic and it's more important to look at the result than the absolute numbers. E.g., if your Fitbit says 2000 burned and your logging says 1700 taken in and you've been maintaining, forget the levels themselves because they're such rough estimates and realize that you are taking in what you burn and either eat less or move more, regardless of what your math tells you.
I agree.
Nothing is exact anyway..............it is all estimates.
A lot of Doctors are telling their patients to skip the scale and formal calorie counting...........make small adjustments and see how your clothes fit. If said clothes are getting tight, your eating too much or eating the wrong foods............if they are getting looser, then keep doing what your doing.
Intuition. Tap into it.0 -
Isn't Weight Watchers counting calories though? They just have that fancy calculator that turns calories into "points". I know they do the veggies/fruits are no calories plan but every thing else is based off of calories. Unless I'm missing something.
Back when I did weight watchers, points are calculated by a calorie to fat to fiber ratio (~50 calories to 1 point, lower if extra fiber, higher if extra fat). So 1 serving of a fiber rich fruit could very well be 0 points. If you had multiple servings, the calories would catch up and start adding points.
I don't know if it's done the same way now, but that was how it was back in the good old days. My mom even had a little manual slider, where you would set the calorie/fat/fiber values and get the points (no computer necessary).0 -
Counting calories will have to be done be it mentally, manually, or through some program like Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, South Beach, NutriSytem, etc. Someone, somewhere will have to count the calories so how could counting calories be bad?
Nope. I just eat. I don't count, measure, nothing.
I cook meat and vegetables, put half veggies, half meat on plate and eat until full.
Its called intuitive eating.
Good for you.
My intuitive eating led to clinical obesity.0 -
Without some calorie counting and understanding of what is in that food or that drink you cannot know the impact until it has had an effect - more or less pounds on the scale - jeans that just don't want to button - or a jacket that can't be zipped up. I would never eat a Big Mac but unknowing I got more calories from a 10 oz Pina` Colada or a garden salad with Blue cheese. Since I started calorie counting I am eating more than before, loosing weight and making better choices because I understand what is in the food I eat.0
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.
I see...you have not read the article...it is all about calorie counting, but then...to see the sense of it you would have to read it first...
Stef.0 -
If I knew how to "just eat less without counting calories", I wouldn't have needed MFP in the first place. It seems as though my calories I think I need are too much since when I eat like I really want, then I gain about 1 lb/week, meaning I eat about 500 calories too much per day on average. So yeah, counting calories is a necessity for me or I go back to being overweight.0
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
Stop pushing your agenda in threads where it isn't relevant. Try one of the three hundred clean eating threads that are active, you don't need to turn this one into the same garbage debate.
Again...another no reader...
The headline of the article says "Still Counting Calories? Your Weight-Loss Plan May Be Outdated"
Just for the record, I count calories.
Stef.0 -
I thought it was a pretty good article. As the legion of "Help" posts here shows, calorie-counting correctly is HARD for most people, most of the time. Throw in dubious exercise burn estimates and "eating back calories" and it's no wonder so many don't reach their goals.
Anytime people confuse accuracy with precision it's a recipe for failure.0 -
Counting calories work...I lost 97 lbs in 10 months, now maintaining since October, it works for me.0
-
Two things jumped out at me. The first was the comment about neglecting to log late night calories. That's human user error, not any inherent flaw in counting calories. Then there was the final recommendation:
Any system that only works is people do things "perfectly" is a bad system, and failure is inevitable. Calorie counting needs to be accepting of real world human behaviours or it won't be viable outside a small group of people.
And I would argue that MFP forums are living proof of that."You’re better off, argues Nestle, buying a scale to weigh yourself and judging whether to eat more or less by looking at whether you’re gaining or losing weight. It’s a breathtakingly basic approach, but until the technology to achieve true "scientific eating" matures, it’s the best option on the table."
I agree with this.0 -
Two things jumped out at me. The first was the comment about neglecting to log late night calories. That's human user error, not any inherent flaw in counting calories. Then there was the final recommendation:
Any system that only works is people do things "perfectly" is a bad system, and failure is inevitable. Calorie counting needs to be accepting of real world human behaviours or it won't be viable outside a small group of people.
And I would argue that MFP forums are living proof of that."You’re better off, argues Nestle, buying a scale to weigh yourself and judging whether to eat more or less by looking at whether you’re gaining or losing weight. It’s a breathtakingly basic approach, but until the technology to achieve true "scientific eating" matures, it’s the best option on the table."
I agree with this.
Most that calorie count with success do not do it "perfectly", we are working with estimates so weighing food and tracking weight are needed to learn what works and to developed the understanding of portion size and calorie density. While I would agree with you to a degree, overall a method can not be dismissed because of human error. Humans can cause error with everything, even if a medically accurate device was devised...humans would still mess it up by either not charging it, not cleaning it or something.
Weighing on a scale is vital, but if I do not understand portion and calorie density, it will tell me very little unless I ate the same diet daily.0 -
I think MFP's 'starvation mode' message paired with the confusing 'net calories' concept is marketing genius because many people get paranoid that they're not eating enough, which makes them more beholden to calorie counting and activity logging.0
-
Then maths as a whole is a bad system in your opinion. Why can't math accomodate for people who can't add numbers together?Two things jumped out at me. The first was the comment about neglecting to log late night calories. That's human user error, not any inherent flaw in counting calories. Then there was the final recommendation:
Any system that only works is people do things "perfectly" is a bad system, and failure is inevitable. Calorie counting needs to be accepting of real world human behaviours or it won't be viable outside a small group of people.
And I would argue that MFP forums are living proof of that0 -
Most that calorie count with success do not do it "perfectly", we are working with estimates so weighing food and tracking weight are needed to learn what works and to developed the understanding of portion size and calorie density.
Right. It really doesn't have to be perfect. That's why forms of tracking that don't require adding up all the calories or estimating calories from exercise work fine. My guess is that something like MFP tends to appeal more to people who enjoy tracking more specifically (and thus for such people not only calories, but also macros and micros, etc.)."You’re better off, argues Nestle, buying a scale to weigh yourself and judging whether to eat more or less by looking at whether you’re gaining or losing weight. It’s a breathtakingly basic approach, but until the technology to achieve true "scientific eating" matures, it’s the best option on the table."
Without more, this seems like a bad alternative to me. First, NO ONE who tracks ignores the results on the scale. No one trying to lose who weighs him or herself is likely to ignore the results. I try not to worry about daily fluctuations, but if I weren't losing I'd be messing around with what I'm doing, not just saying that I hit my goal + exercise, so much be good. These articles sometimes seem to be about hypothetical people who are unlike any actual real people.
Second, even with tracking many people seem inclined to fool themselves (using entries where an 8 oz steak is 188 calories or some such), and it's pretty obvious that lots of overweight people (A) eat more than they think they do, and (B) are out of tune enough with calories and their food that they can either easily end up eating 900 calories and thinking it's a "healthy" diet or else even with tracking think they are eating 900 while really eating 1900. Given that--which is admittedly demonstrative of some of the human error possible with logging--if the same person were told to "just eat less" and check with the scale, I see no reason to think he or she would be more successful. With the logging, there are ways to demonstrate this and fix it if the person attempts to improve results.
Third, this is just a personality thing, perhaps, but "eating less" in a vague way without any kind of tracking (again, need not be dependent on calories) and weighing myself would not work for me. The scale goes up and down and you have to think in longer terms to be confident it's working. Yet you need some motivation to believe it might be working during the time in which the trend is established. I find having a plan and following it--tracking--helpful in accomplishing this.0 -
First, NO ONE who tracks ignores the results on the scale. No one trying to lose who weighs him or herself is likely to ignore the results. I try not to worry about daily fluctuations, but if I weren't losing I'd be messing around with what I'm doing, not just saying that I hit my goal + exercise, so much be good. These articles sometimes seem to be about hypothetical people who are unlike any actual real people.
Exactly! If I weren't losing weight with my current calorie intake I'd reduce it. "Just eating less" has never worked for me, that's why I keep track. And I do use a Fitbit but I don't have any delusions that it's 100% accurate either. I use it as a tool to note whether I have been less active than usual and to have a general idea of my TDEE. But again, if I ate what it told me to and didn't lose, I'd eat less.0 -
First, NO ONE who tracks ignores the results on the scale. No one trying to lose who weighs him or herself is likely to ignore the results.
I disagree with this. The forums are littered with people who see a couple of days worth of bad weigh-ins and then pack it in and don't weigh again for a long time.
Turning a blind eye to unpleasant numbers is endemic on MFP.0 -
From the article:"In November 2010, then-president and CEO of Weight Watchers David Kirchhoff conceded that point and admitted that "calorie-counting has become unhelpful" for people trying to lose weight."
Does this mean that I have to put back the nearly 50 pounds I took off and have kept off for two years?0 -
I really hate how easy they make it seem. Just eat less... I've heard those words from friends, family, strangers. If it was that simple I would have never gotten so over weight. I would have gained weight and just been all, " Oh well guess I just gotta eat less." and actually DO that.
For so many people so many factors go into eating. Emotions, boredom, etc. And to me just stepping on a scale never helped me mentally - actually it just hurt. I'd see the number, get depressed, and then eat more. I still struggle with my own personal issues, but MFP has really helped me take time to LEARN things about nutrition, activity, and my self that I would have never learned if I just used a scale and that's it. I'm not saying everyone needs to count calories, or everyone needs to do one thing, but to push off calorie counting as something that isn't an extremely helpful to a good portion of people is just ignorant. It's like the clean vs nonclean eating. Who cares? If you want to eat a poptart do it and shut up, if you want to eat an organic salad the same goes for you.
All I can say is that I'm very well aware that counting calories is something I'll have to do for the rest of my life. I'm ok with that!0 -
I am curious about something regarding how calories are computed. Maybe someone can answer this. Consider something like celluose, found in plant matter. Now, a naive way of computing calories would be simply to burn the item in question, measure the heat output, and convert to calories. But a human does not extract all of the calories that a fire does. For that matter, a human does not even extract the calories that a cow does. So how do the people that calculate calories determine the human-usable calories in a food item?
For the record, just in case my question is taken otherwise, I have no problem with counting calories. I do it, and it's been good to me. I've been curious about this point, though.0 -
The gist of the article is correct - calorie counting in itself is not accurate, but the principle behind it is good and it works as a great barometer for people controlling there food intake - I should think most people losing weight following this system are probably actually digesting less calories than they think are.
As far as the accuracy of the gadgets - I think again anyone using any type of gadget for tracking calories burnt etc... Would take the info as approx anyway (I would hope)0 -
That's how I use a Fitbit, too. That and for motivation because what you track (accurately or not) you tend to improve just by giving it your mindful attention.First, NO ONE who tracks ignores the results on the scale. No one trying to lose who weighs him or herself is likely to ignore the results. I try not to worry about daily fluctuations, but if I weren't losing I'd be messing around with what I'm doing, not just saying that I hit my goal + exercise, so much be good. These articles sometimes seem to be about hypothetical people who are unlike any actual real people.
Exactly! If I weren't losing weight with my current calorie intake I'd reduce it. "Just eating less" has never worked for me, that's why I keep track. And I do use a Fitbit but I don't have any delusions that it's 100% accurate either. I use it as a tool to note whether I have been less active than usual and to have a general idea of my TDEE. But again, if I ate what it told me to and didn't lose, I'd eat less.
But so often here the advice is to 'eat more' if the poster says they're logging a deficit and not losing, because people put so much faith in the estimates. It's gotten better but you still see "My TDEE is 2150, my BMR is 1680, I weigh everything and take in 1500. And I haven't lost in a year." So often readers will assume that all this is accurate and pertinent and the problem is under-eating and 'busted metabolism', not inherent flaws of estimating all those values.0 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.
I see...you have not read the article...it is all about calorie counting, but then...to see the sense of it you would have to read it first...
Stef.
the article you posted no I didn't...I read the original one...but before I hit post I will have read your article...
But to be frank it will be time I will never get back because it doesn't matter what you eat...if you are in a calorie deficit you lose weight...you might not be hitting macro/micros but you will lose weight ...but it's not about the article you posted
It's about this part of your post“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
So in the article you posted...here is another quote
Agreed such as eating clean or cutting out carbs or going very low carb or sugara is bad etc have all been touted as the way to go...when those single things do not in themselves cause obesity.Dr. Frank B. Hu, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the new analysis, said: “In the past, too much emphasis has been put on single factors in the diet. But looking for a magic bullet hasn’t solved the problem of obesity.”
then this...really???? food is bad...please...the notion that it's okay to eat in moderation has helped a lot of people maitain hundreds of pounds of weight loss...what has cutting carbs/sugar/fats done...????“There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less,” he said. “The notion that it’s O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want.”
No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.“Both physical activity and diet are important to weight control, but if you are fairly active and ignore diet, you can still gain weight,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the study.
And just fyi the article you posted was not about calorie counting it is touting food choices are more important than counting calories...just as I figured...great 10mins of my life I won't get back
I will contiue to count my calories, drink my beer and long island ice tea, eat my chocolate and French fries and pop corn and chips in moderation and follow my 80/20 rule thanks...my macros and micros are awesome...if you want the details of those go ahead and look...0 -
They used to do that. Now, they just determine a caloric value for each ingredient and add up the ingredients in a given food in the appropriate amounts.I am curious about something regarding how calories are computed. Maybe someone can answer this. Consider something like celluose, found in plant matter. Now, a naive way of computing calories would be simply to burn the item in question, measure the heat output, and convert to calories.
It's entirely true that the calorie estimates have a wide +/- accuracy but that doesn't render them useless. (I know you didn't say that but the article implies it.) It does make it silly to obsess about grams of food, which some people do.0 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.
I see...you have not read the article...it is all about calorie counting, but then...to see the sense of it you would have to read it first...
Stef.
the article you posted no I didn't...I read the original one...but before I hit post I will have read your article...
But to be frank it will be time I will never get back because it doesn't matter what you eat...if you are in a calorie deficit you lose weight...you might not be hitting macro/micros but you will lose weight ...but it's not about the article you posted
It's about this part of your post“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
So in the article you posted...here is another quote
Agreed such as eating clean or cutting out carbs or going very low carb or sugara is bad etc have all been touted as the way to go...when those single things do not in themselves cause obesity.Dr. Frank B. Hu, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the new analysis, said: “In the past, too much emphasis has been put on single factors in the diet. But looking for a magic bullet hasn’t solved the problem of obesity.”
then this...really???? food is bad...please...the notion that it's okay to eat in moderation has helped a lot of people maitain hundreds of pounds of weight loss...what has cutting carbs/sugar/fats done...????“There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less,” he said. “The notion that it’s O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want.”
No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.“Both physical activity and diet are important to weight control, but if you are fairly active and ignore diet, you can still gain weight,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the study.
And just fyi the article you posted was not about calorie counting it is touting food choices are more important than counting calories...just as I figured...great 10mins of my life I won't get back
I will contiue to count my calories, drink my beer and long island ice tea, eat my chocolate and French fries and pop corn and chips in moderation and follow my 80/20 rule thanks...my macros and micros are awesome...if you want the details of those go ahead and look...
Aren't you technically still overweight though? I think I saw you post that in another thread, but I apologize if I'm mistaking you with someone else. And that's not meant as a slam. You look quite fit. But since we are talking about scientists here, your case in a clinical weight loss study might not be seen as a success.0 -
Technically overweight...no...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0
The above might interest you as well?
This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.
really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.
I see...you have not read the article...it is all about calorie counting, but then...to see the sense of it you would have to read it first...
Stef.
the article you posted no I didn't...I read the original one...but before I hit post I will have read your article...
But to be frank it will be time I will never get back because it doesn't matter what you eat...if you are in a calorie deficit you lose weight...you might not be hitting macro/micros but you will lose weight ...but it's not about the article you posted
It's about this part of your post“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
So in the article you posted...here is another quote
Agreed such as eating clean or cutting out carbs or going very low carb or sugara is bad etc have all been touted as the way to go...when those single things do not in themselves cause obesity.Dr. Frank B. Hu, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the new analysis, said: “In the past, too much emphasis has been put on single factors in the diet. But looking for a magic bullet hasn’t solved the problem of obesity.”
then this...really???? food is bad...please...the notion that it's okay to eat in moderation has helped a lot of people maitain hundreds of pounds of weight loss...what has cutting carbs/sugar/fats done...????“There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less,” he said. “The notion that it’s O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want.”
No disagreement here...but that doesn't mean that the kinds of food are important...for weight loss.“Both physical activity and diet are important to weight control, but if you are fairly active and ignore diet, you can still gain weight,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-author of the study.
And just fyi the article you posted was not about calorie counting it is touting food choices are more important than counting calories...just as I figured...great 10mins of my life I won't get back
I will contiue to count my calories, drink my beer and long island ice tea, eat my chocolate and French fries and pop corn and chips in moderation and follow my 80/20 rule thanks...my macros and micros are awesome...if you want the details of those go ahead and look...
Aren't you technically still overweight though? I think I saw you post that in another thread, but I apologize if I'm mistaking you with someone else. And that's not meant as a slam. You look quite fit. But since we are talking about scientists here, your case in a clinical weight loss study might not be seen as a success.
If you are speaking about the BMI scale it doesn't put me at overweight...I am in a healthy range...
So in a clinical study I would be considered a success...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions