Doesn't Counting Calories Count?
Options
Replies
-
JPW, we'll have to agree that not counting calories doesn't work for you. There are many possible underlying issues that can work to prevent a natural weight maintenance even with low-carb. You may have some of them.
I would disagree that anyone is claiming that low-carb is 'magic' or something. Even the experiment where the man intentionally over-ate a significant amount to prove that CICO doesn't work, showed he gained weight. He gained significantly less than expected on low carb (and almost exactly as expected on high-carb), but he did gain. You can gain weight eating any diet. But, I still disagree that you (or at least most people) need to count calories to lose or maintain weight. Watch the video, if you need to see why from someone smarter than I am.
I'm not arguing with the fact that it can work, I'm arguing with the "will work for most" part. There are simply too many factors to make a declarative statement like that. That's not based on my own personal experience, but on what you'll see on every message board dedicated to diabetes, heart disease, PCOS, arthritis, lymphedema, TTC, and every other place where people discuss how lc has worked for them. At best, you could state that for a perfectly healthy, young, and most likely male individual, there's a good chance it will work. It just happens that a perfectly healthy, young, and most likely male individual also has the easiest time losing weight using any weight loss method.0 -
Let's take a look at low-carb plans/gurus and see how they align with calorie counting:
- William Banting: No counting calories {often considered the original low-carb diet, before calories were understood or known for most foods}
- Robert Atkins: No counting calories {1. Don’t count calories}
- Gary Taubes: No counting calories {see any of his books}
- Jeff Volek: No counting calories {"I’ve effortlessly maintained my weight over 20 years without counting, I never count calories."}
- Peter Attia: No counting calories {“Should I be counting calories?” In a word, no.}
- Jonathan Bailor: No counting calories {see video in original post or his book}
- Typical ketogenic diet: No counting calories {Most people do not need to count calories on that diet, because they naturally start consuming a healthy amount of calories.}
I could probably go on, but what's the point. The basic fact is that traditionally, low carb diets do not require counting calories. Many of them advise against it. While you can certainly count calories (if that's your thing), it is not part of most traditional low carb diets.
While, I accept that many people will have to count (due to whatever behavioral or biological conditions which low-carb doesn't correct), that doesn't mean counting calories should be the default condition or advice around here.1 -
I do not count my calories much. I note them because it is part of the MFP program to do so. My concern is carbs and keeping them low. At the end of the day when I know I am done eating some times I see just a little over 1000 or 1200 calories. Some people get upset or ask why so low. It is because I am full. I have no desire to eat more. I might not be losing weight very fast this way but I never go hungry.
Watching the video. I wonder how a person is to stay low carb and get that many servings of even low starch vegetables into your diet. This would thrill me because I LOVE vegetables.1 -
shadesofidaho wrote: »Watching the video. I wonder how a person is to stay low carb and get that many servings of even low starch vegetables into your diet. This would thrill me because I LOVE vegetables.
His version is low-carb but most likely not low enough to be ketogenic. It would be hard to stay under 20g (even net) while eating that many servings of veggies.0 -
I followed Jonathan Bailor's suggestions for about 6 months last year but I think I heard all the parts about cramming as many vegetables into you as possible, understood (perhaps not his fault, I'm happy to blame me) that protein was pretty well free slather as well and, other than butter and BPC I didn't hear a high fat message. My weight stayed stable, but I had seen all of the recipes using almond flour and xylitol to make cakes and desserts, and over used those too. I think that's why, on LCHF, I have avoided *anything sweet*. I'm afraid of my own addictive and over-consuming nature, so I suppose that has a bearing in all of this too. Well, for me it does. Not stating anyone else's journey.0
-
GrannyMayOz wrote: »I followed Jonathan Bailor's suggestions for about 6 months last year but I think I heard all the parts about cramming as many vegetables into you as possible, understood (perhaps not his fault, I'm happy to blame me) that protein was pretty well free slather as well and, other than butter and BPC I didn't hear a high fat message. My weight stayed stable, but I had seen all of the recipes using almond flour and xylitol to make cakes and desserts, and over used those too. I think that's why, on LCHF, I have avoided *anything sweet*. I'm afraid of my own addictive and over-consuming nature, so I suppose that has a bearing in all of this too. Well, for me it does. Not stating anyone else's journey.
The Calorie Myth? Yeah, it's definitely not a fat-promoting book. He's big on massive amounts of vegetables (10+ servings, as I recall) by any means necessary (and a big fan of green smoothies), and very much on the "only from whole food sources" (ie - the fat on a cut of meat) side when it comes to fats. His method is very much leaning more toward protein and vegetable-based carbohydrates. At least he's not entirely "low fat."0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »The Calorie Myth? Yeah, it's definitely not a fat-promoting book. He's big on massive amounts of vegetables (10+ servings, as I recall) by any means necessary (and a big fan of green smoothies), and very much on the "only from whole food sources" (ie - the fat on a cut of meat) side when it comes to fats. His method is very much leaning more toward protein and vegetable-based carbohydrates. At least he's not entirely "low fat."
Yes, that's the one Dragon. I guess he's similar to Paleo really and in some ways he perhaps readied me to hear the LCHF message when the time was right. I love LCHF for so many reasons but one of the reasons is that it's rather the 'I'm a rebel' statement in the food world
It shouldn't be, of course, but at the moment it is.
0 -
I try to post in the low carb threads in the main forums. Partly because I want to defend the low Carber and partly because the arrogance of the CICO people just gets me every time. Plus it's fun to poke the tiger once in awhile and I was brought up by a family of debaters.
Santana - great job on the loss.
I do it mainly to fight their disinformation, like the lifter who tries to play the "no carb" card when she pops into a thread, so it has to be explained like talking to a 2 year old that low and no are two different words.
Or the guy who knows everything and everyone else is an idiot for even questioning something he may do.
The one from the shirtless mafia?0 -
Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I try to post in the low carb threads in the main forums. Partly because I want to defend the low Carber and partly because the arrogance of the CICO people just gets me every time. Plus it's fun to poke the tiger once in awhile and I was brought up by a family of debaters.
Santana - great job on the loss.
I do it mainly to fight their disinformation, like the lifter who tries to play the "no carb" card when she pops into a thread, so it has to be explained like talking to a 2 year old that low and no are two different words.
Or the guy who knows everything and everyone else is an idiot for even questioning something he may do.
The one from the shirtless mafia?
Yeah, him. The arrogance in his posts make me want to "nuh, huh" every time, even when I agree with his message, lol.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
I keep trying to come up with something witty but I think it ultimately boils down to this.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).
That's what it seems like to me. It's an "enabler." But I might be slightly biased.
0 -
[/quote]
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).[/quote]
LOL! Agreed!0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).
I think that's what it comes down to. They want to eat crap and "get fit" and rather than just owning that they're doing that, they cry "If it fits in my macros!!" Except macros isn't the same as calories, macros are the breakdown of calories. I'm biased as well, though.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).
That's what it seems like to me. It's an "enabler." But I might be slightly biased.
There's another rabid anti-lc thread out there now. Someone asked how to stay below 50, got 2 pages of people yelling at her that it's dangerous to eat that few carbs, that she must not have understood her dietitian, etc etc. I always get the feeling, especially with the ones that go out of their way to seek those threads out, that it's more of a compulsion with them - they cannot mentally handle anyone doing anything differently than they do, or it somehow makes them insecure about their own choices. There's no other reason to explain why they're so unwilling to drop it.1 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).
That's what it seems like to me. It's an "enabler." But I might be slightly biased.
There's another rabid anti-lc thread out there now. Someone asked how to stay below 50, got 2 pages of people yelling at her that it's dangerous to eat that few carbs, that she must not have understood her dietitian, etc etc. I always get the feeling, especially with the ones that go out of their way to seek those threads out, that it's more of a compulsion with them - they cannot mentally handle anyone doing anything differently than they do, or it somehow makes them insecure about their own choices. There's no other reason to explain why they're so unwilling to drop it.
They accuse everyone else of "demonizing foods" or "depriving themselves". Here's a D-word for them of which they are guilty: DENIAL. Every time they begin their knee-jerk accusations, all it makes me read is: "I feel guilty, because I know I'm triflin'. Must defend myself. Duck and roll! Put on the helmets! This is not a drill! I'm under attack! They're going to take my sugar away from me! Don't let them out alive!"
At which point I renew my decision to stay the heck away from the Litterbox. They are going to make me roll my eyes to the point they will get stuck.
0
