Calorie counting doesn't work according to a new study. Apparently.
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Once again, negative comments, has anyone done any research on this subject?. Typical.
The title is misleading. Being a person who had severe digestive issues for 6-12 months. I did my research on the subject. Gut health is probably the most critical part for the human body to function properly.
I agree. I had equivalent issues and found out through a nutritionist, doctor, and great PTs that the only way to fight these issues is with a good diet first - a nutritional program. Not just eating less than what you expend - there's a real difference there.
CICO, metabolics, dietary formulation (program), and training (program). Wish I followed it when I was in my 20s more. I know I have much to look forward to knowing what I know now.
You can't outrun a bad diet - maybe if you are in your 20s, but try hitting 40 and beyond. CICO just exemplifies the rest. Calories In (what kind of calorie) and Calories Out (what are you doing). That's a loaded monster right there.
Yes I have as I have family with issues and I wanted to help them out...so I did some research.
As for the bolded...nutritionist pft...I can get an online course and get a certificate in a weekend, Doctors receive appx 24 hours of nutritional education through out medical school unless they specialize, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430660/
And PT's well okay but they shouldn't be giving out nutritional advice as they are not RD's.
CICO...that's it...not the kinds of calories....quality is good but quantity is what leads to weight loss/gain.
The person I consulted had a Masters degree from an internationally-accredited university and over 10 years of success. All of them gave out the same advice in the end when you bottom-line it - you can't outrun a bad diet. Eat right and you will succeed - that's the long-term vision and it works. Works for me.
You can't outrun a bad diet. Plain and simple.
You can't outrun a bad diet means that the exercise you do won't burn enough calories to make all the extra calories you stuff into your face disappear.
And it doesn't matter if he's got a master's degree. Unless it's in nutrition he might as well be a plumber when it comes to nutrition.
@tedboosalis7 actually has the correct understanding of that statement.
He doesn't.
The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not. We can't jump from that and conclude that that means that a person can't run enough to overcome a high calorie count. If the runner doesn't simultaneously increase his consumption, he can reduce weight by increasing his running. He may be running more slowly than his competitors because of his bad nutritional choices, but he can overcome his calorie intake.
Bro, do you even Michael Phelps?
He is well known for eating crap like pizza, ice cream, pancakes, etc... In fact, in a interview I saw, he regularly eats pizza immediately after a swing to get energy.
So while the average person has to make more nutritionally conscience choices, if you are a proathlete or regularly engage in very high burning activities, you can outrun a bad diet. Heck, when I was in high school, it was a common occurrence for me to eat 3 big macs in one sitting, with a supersized coke. But I was playing ice hockey and soccer simultaneously.
As so called "junk food" goes, pizza is actually pretty healthy. Aside from the fact that they are usually loaded with sodium, pizzas have grains, meat, dairy, and vegetables. Sometimes, they even have fruit. For a person who is exercising and using a lot of sodium, even the large amount of sodium may not be a problem. I think a similar argument could be made for the Big Mac. But both are a little light on vegetables, so other meals should go heavy on fruits and vegetables to balance it out.
Actually, when I have pizza I tend to get lots of veggies on it. I'm not convinced there is more sodium than any other restaurant meal (I usually have pizza at Italian restaurants, thin crust), maybe there is because of the olives. There's no extra sodium when I make it myself, certainly.
The difficulty in fitting in pizza for me is that it tends to be high in carbs and fat and low in protein, so I have to have extra protein at other times of the day. (This is in part because I don't like meat on pizza, but even for those who do traditional pizza meat options are more fat than protein. If you like it with chicken that makes it easier, I suppose.)0 -
Calorie counting obviously DOES work, or the success stories here on this (calorie counting) site wouldn't even exist.
What I cannot stand are these arguments about a diet of 100% cake, 100% broccoli, 100% McDonalds, 100% carrots. NOBODY eats like that. Or at least less than 1% of the world's population does (Yes, I'm pulling that number out of my butt, just not literally). In the context of a BALANCED diet, all of these things are just fina and dandy.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
^^^ This is the most common interpretation of the phrase^^
0 -
It has been working for me but I can't wait to read the article0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
I've always understood it to mean that merely increasing exercise won't cause you to lose weight.
Which is not always true.0 -
My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"0 -
My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
If my doctor said this to me I would be finding a new doctor.0 -
My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
Counting calories is just a tool. Finding where you lose weight (a calorie deficit) is what makes you lose weight. Stuff like increasing protein and adding resistance training improve muscle retention and maintaining metabolic functions. Fat helps maintain hormone levels. Carbs/sugar are for energy.0 -
Tim Spector has a new book out. That's what all the brouhaha is about. Also, there are far too many flattering pictures of Tim Spector on the 'net. I think he's a publicity hound.0
-
My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
You did see the study I posted where it indicates GP's only get 23 hours of nutritional courses in their entire study period right?
GP's should not be giving advice on how to eat...go see an up to date Registered dietician who is up on the most current studies etc.
0 -
My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
You did see the study I posted where it indicates GP's only get 23 hours of nutritional courses in their entire study period right?
GP's should not be giving advice on how to eat...go see an up to date Registered dietician who is up on the most current studies etc.
23 is high for some. My friend is a pediatric cardiologist and received 0 credits in nutrition. She commonly states that she has people for that, lol.
0 -
This thread is hilarious. I'm just sitting here eating pumpkin seeds enjoying the banter.
0 -
My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
You did see the study I posted where it indicates GP's only get 23 hours of nutritional courses in their entire study period right?
GP's should not be giving advice on how to eat...go see an up to date Registered dietician who is up on the most current studies etc.
23 is high for some. My friend is a pediatric cardiologist and received 0 credits in nutrition. She commonly states that she has people for that, lol.
Yup 23 is the average...which is very scary considering the number of doctors monitoring people on VLCD....0 -
So he told you that if cutting calories isn't working as well as you wish, cut back more calories of specific types. I'd have laughed in his face and found another doctor on the way home.My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
0 -
-
My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
This actually makes very little sense. I'd find a new doctor.0 -
The Daily Mail lives on hype. The only mention of 'counting' calories comes from the article's title, not from the article. This is not published research. It has not been peer reviewed. It is bad science to not have others in the field verify your work. It becomes pseudo-science without this verification. Basically this guy just wants hype to sell copies of his book that comes out in a couple days.
Here's PBS News Hour's follow up:
Editor’s note: It has come to NewsHour’s attention that some claims in this article cannot be independently verified, as the noted study isn’t published publicly nor readily available in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, while mouse studies have found links between gut microbes, dietary changes and obesity, the evidence remains less clear in humans. As Robert Knight of the University of Colorado wrote in a recent review in the British Journal of Nutrition: “It remains a challenge to identify the key pathogenic microbiota and to establish a causal (rather than associative) relationship between specific microbes or community states and a given physiological or disease phenotype.”
That said gut microbes are currently poorly understood and it may be possible that some of 'our' cravings for certain foods come from chemical signals sent by gut bacteria wishing to eat.0 -
skysiebaby wrote: »
I think MFP removed my photo from the original post
hahaha let's keep it rolling
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.0 -
Well, yeah, counting the calories as they go by isn't going to do much. Restricting calories as you count them is what works.0
-
The Daily Mail lives on hype. The only mention of 'counting' calories comes from the article's title, not from the article. This is not published research. It has not been peer reviewed. It is bad science to not have others in the field verify your work. It becomes pseudo-science without this verification. Basically this guy just wants hype to sell copies of his book that comes out in a couple days.
Here's PBS News Hour's follow up:
Editor’s note: It has come to NewsHour’s attention that some claims in this article cannot be independently verified, as the noted study isn’t published publicly nor readily available in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, while mouse studies have found links between gut microbes, dietary changes and obesity, the evidence remains less clear in humans. As Robert Knight of the University of Colorado wrote in a recent review in the British Journal of Nutrition: “It remains a challenge to identify the key pathogenic microbiota and to establish a causal (rather than associative) relationship between specific microbes or community states and a given physiological or disease phenotype.”
That said gut microbes are currently poorly understood and it may be possible that some of 'our' cravings for certain foods come from chemical signals sent by gut bacteria wishing to eat.
And then Jesus spoke0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
If my doctor said this to me I would be finding a new doctor.
Quite often doctors say stuff like that (or recommend ridiculous calorie levels) because they assume their patients are incompetent loggers/counters or are lying. So telling them not to eat sugar if they are people who have been eating tons of sweets (or the dr assumes they do) is an easy way to make them cut calories if the dr suspects they aren't really eating the calories reported, as well as of course forcing them to eat a better diet, again if they are eating a poor one.
I'd find this offensive since I am not someone who logs poorly (at least not without being aware of it) and would be honest with my dr about my diet. However, I'm sure drs get jaded, and I've lied about other stuff, I admit.0 -
You can but it would violate the below policy as I stated on the last page.skysiebaby wrote: »
I think MFP removed my photo from the original post hahaha let's keep it rolling
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
0 -
skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
winning races<>out running a bad diet.
as I said interpretation is subjective.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
The bold is 100% false. If you read any of our post, you will see we start with calories (because the controls loss/gain/maintenance), but advocate getting 80-90% of your diet from nutrient dense foods.
Also, if I am a pro cyclist, I would include gummy bears in my diet, especially while riding as it's mainly dextrose (fasted converting sugar) which can help replenish glycogen fast. But that is just me personally.
Also, i haven't read the book, so if that is where you automatically draw our information from, it would be hard to put that in context. But my general context has always been about losing weight, particularly in the area of getting abs/flat stomachs.0 -
False dichotomy is false.skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
No one says it is "all science," but science dictates the results of the choice to eat too much.
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »My doctor told me yesterday that counting calories alone doesn't work. He said cut back on calories. If that's not working as well as you wish, cut back on sugars too. Then work on cutting back fat. He said to make cuts here and there until I find the combo that works.
That makes more sense to me then "counting calories doesn't work!"
If my doctor said this to me I would be finding a new doctor.
Why? It's solid advice. As we see on MFP every day, counting accurately is harder than it looks. The doctor is offering a simple alternative to fixing the realities of bad counting. Since most obese Americans are eating so much sugar that doing nothing but eliminating sugar is enough to drop out of a caloric excess, the advice is very much in line with a philosophy of "here's a simple way to go to a deficit".
0 -
It does make sense to me that if you eat foods that allow your gut bacteria to thrive which in turn causes your body to function at an optimal level that you may be able to manage a higher caloric maintenance. However, you still have a limit to your calories and if you find yourself overstepping that limit, you will gain weight as has been proven time and time again. This article would have done much better to leave the "calorie counting doesn't work" line out of it and maybe pursued the data from a different angle. I wonder if it ever occurred to them to put the two theories together, because obviously calorie counting DOES work.
Of course, "good for your gut" foods are generally lower calorie than "bad for your gut" foods such as Big Macs. All you need is for the cook at McD's to double your mayo portion accidentally and you've got a lot of extra calories. What happens if you eat a couple extra salad leaves? Not much. Did these participants weigh their food and log accurately? If they didn't, this test is basically null and void.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions