Article from the Atlantic on Calorie Counting

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.

Shoot I better put these 43 lbs back on then cause I did it wrong

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?

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.

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.

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

I dont think a lot of the people responding here read the article.

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.

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.

Nah sorry fact is our bodies are designed to pack on the fat if they can. We evolved in an environment where good was hard to come buy and hoarding fat for a rainy day is something our bodies do whenever we give them to chance to. However fact is .. as long as you calorie count the OCCASIONAL can of soda really isn't going to kill you just because it contains hfcs.

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.

I did

Tag line from the article

Counting calories is misguided. The focus belongs on real food.

Quote from Ludwig

LUDWIG: … Very few people can lose weight over the long term with low-calorie diets. And those who can't are blamed for lack of discipline and willpower.
.
.
cutting back on the foods that are over-stimulating our fat cells: the refined carbohydrates like grains, potato products, concentrated sugars, especially the refined grains. And by eating this way, we can basically ignore calories and let our body-weight control systems do the work.

NNAMDI: James, the last time you joined us we talked about the addictive power of foods, whether Oreos are really kind of maybe like crack cocaine.

But it’s just not a helpful way to think about food, given the fact that foods all around us are labeled with a calorie number that doesn’t fully tell us how that food will affect our metabolism and future hunger.
.
.
Eat real food, no added sugar, and you can really forget the numbers.

contradiction after contradiction

Inflamatory statements

With many references to Low Calorie diets...not "reasonable calorie deficits"...

rubbish article and I stand by what I say

weight loss is about calorie deficit end of discussion on weight loss...

Health start a new discussion without all the contradictions and inflamatory statements if you want to be taken seriously and not be called a quack.

@lindsey they can go together but they don't have to...for anyone who watches macros it comes into play but articles like this prevent others from getting educated...truely educated.

Well, I disagree with you Stef, I think that the calorie counting only mantra is an oversimplification and a dangerous one at that. But, for those that only care about the numbers on the scale, then it may be useful -- I'd just tell such people that that is a dangerous perspective and extremely limiting.

Overall, I thought the article was rather balanced and presented the issues with both quantity and quality in a good overall, practical way.

I thought the article makes some good points, but ultimately, saying that you just have to eat healthy foods to maintain a healthy weight is simply not true. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. However, as we all know, eating lean protein, whole grains, veggies, etc makes us feel more satisfied than the same amount of calories in empty sugar form. But still, kind of a dangerous headline message there. I am disappointed in them.