Article from the Atlantic on Calorie Counting

Options
«1

Replies

  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,068 Member
    Options
    stopped reading when i saw Dr. David Ludwig. guy is a quack
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    Options
    Does this mean I haven't lost ~35 pounds in the past 5.5 months by counting calories? My scale must be broken.

    Seriously though - counting calories doesn't work if you don't count them consistently and accurately. And though there is no official requirement, I think its safe to assume that if you're eating in a reduced (but safe, healthy) calorie range then you've also cut back on junk food, processed carbs, etc.
  • Veil5577
    Veil5577 Posts: 868 Member
    Options
    Horse puckey.

    It's a proven fact that calorie deficit is the ONLY thing that provides weight loss.
  • dmenchac
    dmenchac Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    Shoot I better put these 43 lbs back on then cause I did it wrong
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    Options
    In for the inevitable comparisons between 500 calories of sugary drinks and 500 calories of organic-free-range-grown-in-unicorn-manure broccoli.
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    People need to stop demonizing the insulin response.
    http://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/is-it-time-to-stop-blaming-insulin-for-fat-storage/
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    It's an interesting article. I didn't really see where it said we should forget about calories, just that calories is not the one and only thing to consider when trying to control weight. That is not an unpopular notion among nutrtion scientists.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I think Ludwig and before him Agatston and Atkins theories have a grain (lol) of truth in them, which is why they persist. But overall I think the reporter is right that "it's complicated".

    I don't see the issue with '100-calorie packs', though I don't use them. So it shows people a sensible portion. They don't need to be calorie counting to benefit from some help in that area. And what hurt is having a few Oreos now and then?

    Oh wait, it tells the fat cells to hoard all the calories and make you more hungry to get more fuel for the cells that missed out on the hoarded calories. I just don't see why the human body would evolve to hurt itself in that fashion. I know, we didn't evolve on sugar and white bread but it still doesn't make sense to me, from a species survival standpoint.

    The opposite makes more sense-- there are plentiful calories in the immediate environment so slow down the fat storage and use them for energy instead. Right?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Horse puckey.

    It's a proven fact that calorie deficit is the ONLY thing that provides weight loss.

    Outside of a loss of body parts, yes. But then, where did the article disagree with that?
  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,831 Member
    Options
    I just read the whole article -- and what it's saying is that it's complex -- more complex than an industry that makes its money off selling calories wants to recognize.

    He affirms that the laws of thermodynamics stand; calories consumed versus calories expended affects weight loss. But he also notes the complexities in it. It does make a difference to your body whether its 100 calories of chocolate chip cookies or 100 calories of beans.

    The issue is, as he points out at the beginning, is that media craves the sound bite. We don't want ambiguity but life is rife with ambiguity. To deny our bodies react differently to 100 calories of high fructose corn syrup compared to 100 calories of fresh blueberries is ostrich-head-in-the-sand thinking. (Although, truth be told, ostriches don't do this except in the cartoons.)

    It's analogous to the simplistic thinking folks use to discredit the impact of man's activities on climate change. The climate warmed before man was around so we must not be making a difference, eh? Wrong. 100 calories is 100 calories, also wrong.

    Yes, the phyics of it are that 100 calories = 100 calories, but not the nutritive effects of it.

    For some folks, changing from unhealthy processed foods to a healthier diet may work better than a person paying attention to cutting calories. For someone like me, however, who weighs twice what she ought from eating too much (in the wrong proportions) of healthy food, calorie counting is essential.

    See, it's ambiguous again and even the Atlantic and NPR tend to gloss over the ambiguities.
  • CHhbi
    CHhbi Posts: 8
    Options
    I've only been on my diet exercise routine for a month now and I've lost 8 pounds so far. But it's not only dieting and watching what I eat but eating less of it and healthier plus exercise. I think the article is trying to make a point that just counting calories in and of its self is not effective, you need to do more. I heard someone say years ago you need to do 3 things to loose weight and be healthy. Eat, Breath, and Move. If you leave out any 1 of the 3 it will not work.
  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,831 Member
    Options
    stopped reading when i saw Dr. David Ludwig. guy is a quack

    You're confusing Ludwig with Lustig, neither one of whom is a quack. The latter, however, may have been suckered into being somewhat of an alarmist shill by the media.
  • ren_ascent
    ren_ascent Posts: 432 Member
    Options
    The general community has sent the article out back to be shot like a rabid dog. I thought it contained some good information. Not that I don't think calorie deficits aren't the way to go to lose weight, because I do. I do think that people shoot themselves in the foot (not ALL people, those that go through the cylindrical motion of trying & failing, repeat) when they focus so hard they end up in unsustainable habits. I'm fairly confident that most people won't argue with using moderation in all things and make a lifestyle change; don't just go on a diet. The article does back that up in some forms. A full, balanced meal will stay with you longer and provide better than the same calorie count of oreos. That's what I got out of it and it's just common sense.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    The issue with these types of articles is this...

    They confuse weight loss with Health.

    weight loss comes from a calorie deficit...period. End of discussion.

    They complicate it by adding in the healthy eating part to weight loss...macro/micros...

    It is not complicated

    calorie deficit for weight loss/macros for health
  • 0somuchbetter0
    0somuchbetter0 Posts: 1,335 Member
    Options
    I didn't read carefully, but this reminded me of Gary Taubes -- haven't they been saying this stuff for years now?

    ETA: Shame on The Atlantic. I like that mag.
  • Sobus76
    Sobus76 Posts: 242 Member
    Options
    I dont think a lot of the people responding here read the article.
  • rosebette
    rosebette Posts: 1,659 Member
    Options
    I think many people are just reading a few paragraphs and misinterpreting what this article and interview are saying. I read the entire article, and I don't think it is saying "Calories in/calories out" doesn't work, but that we have an industry that has now taken the focus on calorie counting and then applied it to their junk -- Coke, 100 calorie oreo packs, etc. -- so that we can justify eating these foods and fit them into our diet. Whereas, the focus should be the quality of the calories we eat. Someone who eats 1800 calories a day, but 800 of them are sodas and oreos will end up weighing the same as someone who eats 1800 of lean protein, complex carbs, fruits, and veggies, but the first person might end up insulin resistant and unhealthy overall. Also, if you subscribe to the idea that some of these foods like soda and processed sweets are addictive, that first person who is "dieting" but still spending most of his calories on that stuff is setting himself up for failure. Also, the whole idea of Coke using exercising to now "justify" the consumption of their crap is very telling -- now, the food industry is further manipulating our desire for a "healthy" lifestyle to promote its products.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    They never stated that counting calories doesn't work!!!

    The article did state that for many people a weight loss strategy that relies solely on counting calories will lead to long term failure. I agree 100% with that. It's also very important for most people IMHO to change their eating habits (and no, this does not mean avoiding all junk food) and begin to exercise properly. Of course these lifestyle changes are most effective when combined with counting calories. But just eating whole foods and exercising is probably enough to for many to lose a good portion of their weight. And those habits may be more sustainable than just counting calories.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    The issue with these types of articles is this...

    They confuse weight loss with Health.

    weight loss comes from a calorie deficit...period. End of discussion.

    They complicate it by adding in the healthy eating part to weight loss...macro/micros...

    It is not complicated

    calorie deficit for weight loss/macros for health

    Not sure if you read the whole article, but they were not confusing weight loss and health. The article was about weight loss. While they do agree that a calorie deficit is needed, they do not agree that should be the end of the discussion.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Options
    I think Ludwig and before him Agatston and Atkins theories have a grain (lol) of truth in them, which is why they persist. But overall I think the reporter is right that "it's complicated".

    I don't see the issue with '100-calorie packs', though I don't use them. So it shows people a sensible portion. They don't need to be calorie counting to benefit from some help in that area. And what hurt is having a few Oreos now and then?

    Oh wait, it tells the fat cells to hoard all the calories and make you more hungry to get more fuel for the cells that missed out on the hoarded calories. I just don't see why the human body would evolve to hurt itself in that fashion. I know, we didn't evolve on sugar and white bread but it still doesn't make sense to me, from a species survival standpoint.

    The opposite makes more sense-- there are plentiful calories in the immediate environment so slow down the fat storage and use them for energy instead. Right?

    Not really, because that environment of plentiful calories has only recently occurred. We did not evolve in that environment at all. We evolved in times of feast and famine. So being able to store the most energy during feast times makes the most sense. This has only come to hurt us recently because the environment has changed. Prior to that it helped us to survive the famine times.

Categories