This verge article says calorie counting is bad science?

I have to say I know a couple of non-related people (total strangers and age differences) who keep very fit, and the MAIN way is the scale they get on every morning and it dictates their diet. #1. if she gains 2 lbs. she cuts back on how much she eats that day. #2. if she gains 5 lbs. at the end of the week she goes on a very strict diet for a week or until it is gone again. Neither lady waits until they have a person to lose, neither have bad health... and one is about 70 now and has done it all her adult life.

So maybe there is something to this scale and how much you eat? so you say well how do I know if I don't count the calories... HELLO look at it, surely you know by the time you are fit or close to it about how bad or good a meal is for you. Until you get fit or nearly there I think you need to count calories so you can learn about those things and learn to control your portions.

So I don't know I guess we need both ways... or like with all these diets out there and fitness gurus they do all work for some people, I guess find what works for you and just do it!

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.

As others say, how do you know when you're "eating less" if you're not measuring in some way? That was always my difficulty before I started counting.

When you lose weight or get smaller. I'm not saying calorie counting is not a good idea, but a lot of people do lose weight without it.

The article is mostly about all those gadgets that claim to know how many caloires you should eat or are eating. And yeah, a lot of those gadgets it mentions are pretty bad science. The margin of error on some is pretty ridiculous.

But even in regards to calorie counting I think the article has some valid points. They are correct that it's not totally accurate, even if the user is 100% diligent about entering what they eat/drink. 100g of golden delicious apple is not always going to contain same calories. Nor is 100g of t-bone beef steak, or 100g of brown rice or 100g of most other foods. So yeah, calorie counting is not an exact science. Surely most people already knew that.

As for the human factor and the tendancy to log incorrectly. Well, you only have to spend a little time on the forums to know that is true. But that doesn't make it bad science. That just means it's not the right tool for those that aren't willing to use it correctly.

This is what I came in to say - but said better. Thanks!

It's definitely more an article on the futility of the new gadgets, rather than the basic premise we all know and love. (!) Trying to draw the conclusion that calorie counting is therefore bad science is rather silly.

Of course, pen and paper is going to have its drawbacks - human error, available energy differences (the calories counted in a product are not, necessarily the calories that everyone is going to utilise, due to metabolism and digestion differences), calorie burn estimates, etc. etc. etc. But we know that, don't we? All the great guides we've got on this site state: Start with this basic premise, and then tweak up and down until it suits you, the individual.

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.

Yes, although there's also some judgemental bias going on. For the same calorific value an item of food with high fat will have automatically higher points than one with high amounts of simple carbs.

As others say, how do you know when you're "eating less" if you're not measuring in some way? That was always my difficulty before I started counting.

When you lose weight or get smaller. I'm not saying calorie counting is not a good idea, but a lot of people do lose weight without it.

Or also when you're less satiated, or just feel like you're eating less volume overall without compensating by eating more calorie dense foods.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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&region=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.