Why counting calories could be making you fatter.
Options
Replies
-
Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
and
"...while a lemon muffin and a flapjack may contain the same calories, the body uses more calories to break down the flapjack, so you’ve notched up fewer after eating it."
I can't.0 -
\quiksylver296 wrote: »Soup is an easy habit to get into. 'It's a good lunch and fills you up more than just eating the ingredients on their own.
'This is because it has the added ingredient of salty water, which fills you up.'
This might be my favorite part. I'm just gonna drink salt water from now on. That sounds like an awesome new diet plan. (For those who might not recognize, total sarcasm. Do NOT do this.)
HA!! I saw that, too. WT Actual F?
0 -
EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
0 -
EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.0 -
Isn't he just saying that soup ingredients + water is more filling than soup ingredients alone? I think that's pretty non-controversial, and one of the reasons why many consider drinking plenty of water to be important for successful weight loss.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »
\quiksylver296 wrote: »Soup is an easy habit to get into. 'It's a good lunch and fills you up more than just eating the ingredients on their own.
'This is because it has the added ingredient of salty water, which fills you up.'
This might be my favorite part. I'm just gonna drink salt water from now on. That sounds like an awesome new diet plan. (For those who might not recognize, total sarcasm. Do NOT do this.)
HA!! I saw that, too. WT Actual F?
0 -
Isn't he just saying that soup ingredients + water is more filling than soup ingredients alone? I think that's pretty non-controversial, and one of the reasons why many consider drinking plenty of water to be important for successful weight loss.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »
\quiksylver296 wrote: »Soup is an easy habit to get into. 'It's a good lunch and fills you up more than just eating the ingredients on their own.
'This is because it has the added ingredient of salty water, which fills you up.'
This might be my favorite part. I'm just gonna drink salt water from now on. That sounds like an awesome new diet plan. (For those who might not recognize, total sarcasm. Do NOT do this.)
HA!! I saw that, too. WT Actual F?
Drinking water is good. Eating soup for 'salty water' to fill you up? No.0 -
I lost 121 pounds counting calories.....I guess I was doing it wrong!! *kicks can*
0 -
Depending on the foods, it can be significant. I am not sure how many less calories rare meat has vs well done, but there was a recent study released specifically on almonds. Almonds are apparently very hard for the body to digest, and some of the calories just aren't available. I believe that is said that 1/3 of the calories in almonds aren't digested/used by the body. Considering the standard 1 ounce serving of almonds has almost 200 calories, that means it is really only about 134 calories. That is not something to dismiss...I often eat an ounce of almonds, and some days eat even more.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
There was also an article on resistant starch and rice recently. Cooling rice after it is cooked lowers the calories by about 50%. And even if you later reheat it, the calories still stay lower.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. This stuff matters.
0 -
It's not just pasta and potatoes, it is rice as well. Chilling rice (even if you later reheat it) makes the starch resistant and lowers the calories by 50% (I believe that was the number..I'm writing this from memory. I just read this a few days ago.)tedboosalis7 wrote: »I'm not a chemist. Read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761 for the basics then try pubmed for the associated peer-review literature
I am very intrigued by the idea of resistant starch - seems potatoes aren't so bad after all if cooked then cooled then reheated. I will have to experiment with this.
It seems that "a calorie is a calorie" mantra is just wrong.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Depending on the foods, it can be significant. I am not sure how many less calories rare meat has vs well done, but there was a recent study released specifically on almonds. Almonds are apparently very hard for the body to digest, and some of the calories just aren't available. I believe that is said that 1/3 of the calories in almonds aren't digested/used by the body. Considering the standard 1 ounce serving of almonds has almost 200 calories, that means it is really only about 134 calories. That is not something to dismiss...I often eat an ounce of almonds, and some days eat even more.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
There was also an article on resistant starch and rice recently. Cooling rice after it is cooked lowers the calories by about 50%. And even if you later reheat it, the calories still stay lower.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. This stuff matters.
Not really. You just adjust your count accordingly.
It's majoring in the minors - if you count your calories, adjusting for TEF if it's not already been accounted for, and maintain a deficit, which will depend on individual needs and circumstances, you will lose weight. Everything else is window dressing.
Not really? So you think it is not significant that chilling starchy foods before eating can reduce calories by 50%? Maybe you have a fast metabolism and can eat enough that it truly doesn't matter...if so, you're lucky. I am not so lucky... 50% is very significant to me.
And how does mfp adjust the calorie count for how you cook your meat? Or your rice or pasta? Or the fact that 1/3 of the calories in almonds can't be used by the body? Oh, that's right...it doesn't. So it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible for the average person to simply "adjust their count" accordingly.
0 -
I find it hilarious how people will write articles with shock factor titles and then when you actually read through it, the article is very loosely related to what they actually wrote. Nothing they wrote supports any reasoning that counting calories can make you fat. The whole thing is talking about how full different foods make you feel. Are you freaking kidding me? The beautiful part was where they explained that a woman doesn't burn as much as a man and their first example was an extreme example of a very large muscular male burning 500 more calories watching tv than his "half his size" wife...oh no! How on earth did that happen!?
Nothing they wrote proves counting calories can make you fat...not even close. Half the thing is comparing fullness from lean meat to something like a pint of beer. Oy.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Depending on the foods, it can be significant. I am not sure how many less calories rare meat has vs well done, but there was a recent study released specifically on almonds. Almonds are apparently very hard for the body to digest, and some of the calories just aren't available. I believe that is said that 1/3 of the calories in almonds aren't digested/used by the body. Considering the standard 1 ounce serving of almonds has almost 200 calories, that means it is really only about 134 calories. That is not something to dismiss...I often eat an ounce of almonds, and some days eat even more.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
There was also an article on resistant starch and rice recently. Cooling rice after it is cooked lowers the calories by about 50%. And even if you later reheat it, the calories still stay lower.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. This stuff matters.
I assume you mean this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/08/03/158083010/if-almonds-bring-you-joy-enjoy-more-for-fewer-calories
That is great! I think that calorie counts sould be as accurate as possible. That said, some people will see this and assume they can eat almonds, rare steak, reheated pasta/rice and be on the road to health and vitality. I am not certain that is true. There is no gimic, just CICO.
And a calorie is just a calorie. The food may change, and thus the calories may change, but what calories exist are still just calories.0 -
No, most foods do not include an "allowance" for TEF. You are completely wrong about that.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Depending on the foods, it can be significant. I am not sure how many less calories rare meat has vs well done, but there was a recent study released specifically on almonds. Almonds are apparently very hard for the body to digest, and some of the calories just aren't available. I believe that is said that 1/3 of the calories in almonds aren't digested/used by the body. Considering the standard 1 ounce serving of almonds has almost 200 calories, that means it is really only about 134 calories. That is not something to dismiss...I often eat an ounce of almonds, and some days eat even more.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
There was also an article on resistant starch and rice recently. Cooling rice after it is cooked lowers the calories by about 50%. And even if you later reheat it, the calories still stay lower.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. This stuff matters.
Not really. You just adjust your count accordingly.
It's majoring in the minors - if you count your calories, adjusting for TEF if it's not already been accounted for, and maintain a deficit, which will depend on individual needs and circumstances, you will lose weight. Everything else is window dressing.
Not really? So you think it is not significant that chilling starchy foods before eating can reduce calories by 50% is insignificant? Maybe you have a fast metabolism and can eat enough that it truly doesn't matter...if so, you're lucky. I am not so lucky... 50% is very significant to me.
And how does mfp adjust the calorie count for how you cook your meat? Or your rice or pasta? Or the fact that 1/3 of the calories in almonds can't be used by the body? Oh, that's right...it doesn't. So it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible for the average person to simply "adjust their count" accordingly.
Nope. Because it won't in reality. Most foods already have an allowance for TEF built in.
It's a nice bonus, but it doesn't change the fundamentals.
And it is not just TEF we are talking about. In the case of almonds, it is that the body just can't access the calories at all...NOT that the body burns more digesting them. They are never absorbed in the first place.
0 -
Liftin4food wrote: »From the Daily Mail website this morning:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3011031/The-real-truth-calories-counting-making-FATTER.html
Fatter...no.... skinny and a little obsessed (if u let it make you that way) ...maybe0 -
EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Depending on the foods, it can be significant. I am not sure how many less calories rare meat has vs well done, but there was a recent study released specifically on almonds. Almonds are apparently very hard for the body to digest, and some of the calories just aren't available. I believe that is said that 1/3 of the calories in almonds aren't digested/used by the body. Considering the standard 1 ounce serving of almonds has almost 200 calories, that means it is really only about 134 calories. That is not something to dismiss...I often eat an ounce of almonds, and some days eat even more.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
There was also an article on resistant starch and rice recently. Cooling rice after it is cooked lowers the calories by about 50%. And even if you later reheat it, the calories still stay lower.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. This stuff matters.
I assume you mean this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/08/03/158083010/if-almonds-bring-you-joy-enjoy-more-for-fewer-calories
That is great! I think that calorie counts sould be as accurate as possible. That said, some people will see this and assume they can eat almonds, rare steak, reheated pasta/rice and be on the road to health and vitality. I am not certain that is true. There is no gimic, just CICO.
And a calorie is just a calorie. The food may change, and thus the calories may change, but what calories exist are still just calories.
It probably refers to the same study. I just didn't read that specific article.
The problem is some of the calorie count information people who count calories...or even those who don't count calories but use that information to make good choices...rely on is wrong.0 -
I actually think some of it makes sense. Not really sure why people are so upset. Surely it's obvious that some foods are better to eat as they fill you up or give fibre. I didn't read anything that I didn't already know but didn't really see what all the fuss is about either. The only thing I thought was poor was the headline which was misleading0
-
one frozen margarita would apparently take more than seven hours of sex to burn off.
Good to know.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Depending on the foods, it can be significant. I am not sure how many less calories rare meat has vs well done, but there was a recent study released specifically on almonds. Almonds are apparently very hard for the body to digest, and some of the calories just aren't available. I believe that is said that 1/3 of the calories in almonds aren't digested/used by the body. Considering the standard 1 ounce serving of almonds has almost 200 calories, that means it is really only about 134 calories. That is not something to dismiss...I often eat an ounce of almonds, and some days eat even more.EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »EvilShenanigansTX wrote: »Ummmm ....
"...a rare steak is harder to digest than a well-done one - so will be less calorific."
I can't.
It's true. Raw meat (rare steak is just a raw meat meat sandwich) is harder to digest and produces fewer net calories than cooked meat.
I get the concept, but I can't imagine that the difference would be that great. Not enough that people would notice any signifigant weight loss if they ate the same calories but in harder to digest foods.
There was also an article on resistant starch and rice recently. Cooling rice after it is cooked lowers the calories by about 50%. And even if you later reheat it, the calories still stay lower.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. This stuff matters.
I assume you mean this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/08/03/158083010/if-almonds-bring-you-joy-enjoy-more-for-fewer-calories
That is great! I think that calorie counts sould be as accurate as possible. That said, some people will see this and assume they can eat almonds, rare steak, reheated pasta/rice and be on the road to health and vitality. I am not certain that is true. There is no gimic, just CICO.
And a calorie is just a calorie. The food may change, and thus the calories may change, but what calories exist are still just calories.
It probably refers to the same study. I just didn't read that specific article.
The problem is some of the calorie count information people who count calories...or even those who don't count calories but use that information to make good choices...rely on is wrong.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/johannah-sakimura-nutrition-sleuth/true-false-does-reheating-pasta-help-you-lose-weight/
What say you to this?0 -
cocostandrews wrote: »Surely it's obvious that some foods are better to eat as they fill you up or give fibre.
I think it is obvious, but it's also obvious that people react somewhat differently to foods, so it's not always the same foods, and that not being physically hungry isn't necessarily the be-all, end-all when it comes to preventing overeating. I've never really had an issue with being hungry, but still managed to overeat my way to obesity.
Also, for a lot of us foods that our body digests really easily (specifically, fat) are also good for satiety, so focusing on TEF or calories our body can't access seems to miss at least some of what's important.
I eat potatoes/sweet potatoes (and lately, rice) cold or reheated a lot (when I bring them for lunch) and just cooked often also (when I have them for dinner), and I've found zero difference in how filling they are. Am I getting fewer calories from the reheated ones? Quite possibly, and since I don't need the calories really (if I lose a bit extra, great) that's fine with me, but I think approaching a diet as if a bunch of "hacks" like that will allow you to eat more than you digest is really not the best frame of mind to have, and rather than cook my potatoes a night ahead I'll continue just eating a reasonable amount of potatoes that fit within my calories (and to me which have always been quite satiating). On the other hand, if I happen to enjoy and can fill up on low calorie foods, great (I use veggies for this purpose), and if my starches (or almonds) sometimes have fewer calories than I assumed, also no complaints here. The Daily Mail/TV program seem to be trying to drum up interest by making people think there's some trick that will avoid the need to worry about calories (however one does it, whether by counting calories or portion size). Of course, the remainder of the article makes it clear that they aren't really saying calories don't matter at all.0 -
I didn't read the article, but when someone mentioned the bullet points, I checked those out:
TV show aired tomorrow night aims to explore science of calories
It's the type of calories we consume - and not the number - that's important
Eating the 'right' kind of calories can fill you up and stave off hunger pangs
Consuming the 'wrong' type will leave you hungry - and probably heavier
However it 's often easier to burn off calories than many of us realise
Show reveals a morning of housework burns as many calories as workout
#1...no idea what the show said
#2...I disagree with in general...unless you look at #3 and #4.
#3...Yup, filling up on protein and fat will keep you feeling full longer
#4...Yup, spending all your calories on sugar and sweets will leave you hungry...which could make you overeat
#5...eh...it depends
#6...could be, depending on how and what you're cleaning
so, my take on it, I don't see anything blatantly "wrong" with their bullet points.
Agree. While a strait calorie in calorie out will help you lose weight you can choose foods that are more nutrient dense that will fill you up and trigger hormones that tell your brain you are full. Thus less food cravings and eating enough while not eating too much is way easier.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions