Thoughts on this TIME mag article?
evastar
Posts: 32 Member
time.com/4071440/calorie-counter
We're all here to count calories. Just curious for thoughts about this article that say it's counter-productive
We're all here to count calories. Just curious for thoughts about this article that say it's counter-productive
0
Replies
-
Its not a link?0
-
Article quotes Lustig. Nuff said.5
-
I would say that it is dangerous. The facts are that to lose weight you need to burn more calories than you eat. We all know that nutrition matters as well, but to lose weight calories are still the very basic phyical equation that matters.1
-
I think it is complete BS!1
-
Article is from October 2015.
Quick skim...calorie data on packaging is inaccurate (up to 20% off) and calories out is nearly impossible to accurately gauge. So counting calories is a waste of time since we can't get perfect data.
Agree that it isn't going to be completely accurate, that's why so many here recommend weighing food and eating back less than 100% of the calories theoretically burned in exercise. Doesn't mean it is a waste of time...plenty of success here.
Followed by the insulin theory of weight gain which has been recently refuted. You can find the study in the debate forum I think.2 -
Hmmm, let me see, lost over -160# counting calories, maintaining @ 130# for 30 months, umm, yeah it works fine for me. So yeah, like sucampeN said, BS4
-
Article is from October 2015.
Quick skim...calorie data on packaging is inaccurate (up to 20% off) and calories out is nearly impossible to accurately gauge. So counting calories is a waste of time since we can't get perfect data.
Agree that it isn't going to be completely accurate, that's why so many here recommend weighing food and eating back less than 100% of the calories theoretically burned in exercise. Doesn't mean it is a waste of time...plenty of success here.
Followed by the insulin theory of weight gain which has been recently refuted. You can find the study in the debate forum I think.
It hasn't even only been recently refuted, it's never really been taken too seriously to begin with.0 -
Article is from October 2015.
Quick skim...calorie data on packaging is inaccurate (up to 20% off) and calories out is nearly impossible to accurately gauge. So counting calories is a waste of time since we can't get perfect data.
Thanks for the synopsis..it's so true, and frustrating how we really don't know how many calories we're burning, or even how many we're eating..
But the fact is, this is a huge, really long, tedium game of trial and error...you have to try your new system for weeks or months just to see if it even works..
With all that being said, I did lose 100lb somehow, and all that not knowing for sure still didn't prevent a hugely positive change in my life..so it was all worth it, and I'm sure the next 40lb will be too, no matter how inadequately informed I feel.
0 -
When I eat the calories given to me by MFP, weigh and log my food, exercise, and eat back some (but not all) of my exercise calories, my average weight loss over time matches the weekly weight loss goal I set.1
-
Article is from October 2015.
Followed by the insulin theory of weight gain which has been recently refuted. You can find the study in the debate forum I think.
Interesting. Didn't know that was refuted, will check it out. I also read similar articles that are more recent, regarding the gain-back of weight by past winners of Biggest Loser. Our body works so hard to keep us at the highest weight we've been, they think. Very interesting stuff.
Article: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?referer=
0 -
They lost me at Lustig.1
-
Article is from October 2015.
Followed by the insulin theory of weight gain which has been recently refuted. You can find the study in the debate forum I think.
Interesting. Didn't know that was refuted, will check it out. I also read similar articles that are more recent, regarding the gain-back of weight by past winners of Biggest Loser. Our body works so hard to keep us at the highest weight we've been, they think. Very interesting stuff.
Article: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?referer=
There are quite a few post here about this article. I read the whole article. One question I have is were the contestants of BL keeping track of CICO after the show ended. It did not say in the article. That is pretty important to know. If they went back to eating more calories than they were burning, they would gain. For some of us on maintenance, monitoring is crucial to our success. They knew they were gaining back weight, and they knew how they lost the weight. Were they eating @ maintenance, below, or above?
0 -
It makes a lot of sense to me because simply counting calories IS inaccurate and it doesn't address the variations in biochemistry. There are so many factors, biochemistry and genetics, physical activity, wide differences in calculating both food and exercise. I've read that they are finding that we need nearly twice as much exercise as previously thought to burn a single calorie. These inaccuracies make dealing with diet/exercise frustrating at best. I am learning to be less concerned about raw numbers and use them only as guidelines rather than gospel. I'm looking at how my clothing fits and how I look in the mirror. If I'm satisfied with how I look and my clothes fit well, I don't really care if I'm not on my exact target goal.3
-
It's accurate enough for the purpose of losing weight. I lost 50 pounds counting calories.0
-
There's some truth in that article but not everything. I take what works and dismiss what doesn't. Count calories and eat "right" foods to effectively curb hunger. Best of both worlds.0
-
Buy my book, it will tell you about magic food to make you thin!3
-
ljashley1952 wrote: »It makes a lot of sense to me because simply counting calories IS inaccurate and it doesn't address the variations in biochemistry. There are so many factors, biochemistry and genetics, physical activity, wide differences in calculating both food and exercise. I've read that they are finding that we need nearly twice as much exercise as previously thought to burn a single calorie. These inaccuracies make dealing with diet/exercise frustrating at best. I am learning to be less concerned about raw numbers and use them only as guidelines rather than gospel. I'm looking at how my clothing fits and how I look in the mirror. If I'm satisfied with how I look and my clothes fit well, I don't really care if I'm not on my exact target goal.
No to all of that.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/
The law of large numbers applies here. With any sufficiently big set of data, variance matters less and less. Meaning, unless you only pay attention to your calorie intake once in a blue moon, consistency and adjusting beats all that stuff.3 -
-
It's Lustig. Why would he want anyone to be able to lose weight without buying his book and coming to his clinic? Preferably again and again. Of course he would throw you out if you mentioned calories; it would demonstrate that you have a fundamental knowledge of the relationship between calories in and calories out so wouldn't fall for his BS.4
-
stevencloser wrote: »ljashley1952 wrote: »It makes a lot of sense to me because simply counting calories IS inaccurate and it doesn't address the variations in biochemistry. There are so many factors, biochemistry and genetics, physical activity, wide differences in calculating both food and exercise. I've read that they are finding that we need nearly twice as much exercise as previously thought to burn a single calorie. These inaccuracies make dealing with diet/exercise frustrating at best. I am learning to be less concerned about raw numbers and use them only as guidelines rather than gospel. I'm looking at how my clothing fits and how I look in the mirror. If I'm satisfied with how I look and my clothes fit well, I don't really care if I'm not on my exact target goal.
No to all of that.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/
The law of large numbers applies here. With any sufficiently big set of data, variance matters less and less. Meaning, unless you only pay attention to your calorie intake once in a blue moon, consistency and adjusting beats all that stuff.
Good read. Saving for future use.0 -
So I haven't read all the comments or the article for that matter but there's a lot to be said for mindful eating and not counting calories. I lost 100 pounds not counting calories and maintained for over 5 years. When I start counting 100percent I get obsessive and don't get any additional benefits. Everyone is different. Some people need to count calories to know when enough is enough. Others are good at mindful eating and some people can just figure what's better for them and not have an issue. There's no right or wrong way to lose weight. Yes you need a calorie deficit but how you achieve that is totally personal
2
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
- 176K 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