Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is counting calories all wrong?
Options
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »This will not end well. Fung is a quack but many here subscribe to his theories. He’s very polarizing around these forums.
Whether you choose to count calories or not, calories, and ultimately the energy balance that they contribute to, is what drives weight loss, gain and maintenance. You can be in a calorie deficit without counting calories and many who successfully lose weight following some of Fung’s suggestions are doing just that.
For many of us using MFP, accurately logging and managing our calorie intake - regarding of the foods you choose to eat, is the best way to ensure we are in a calorie deficit or, in my case now, eating at maintenance calories having met my weight loss goals and in maintenance for several years.
But buckle up this is going to be a bumpy thread.
I definitely will be keeping the gameplan i just find it odd that a doctor would put that out there
Ours would be a much better world in general, if education - even relevant education - kept people from being either sorely mistaken, or cynical/predatory. Sadly, education provides no such assured preventive.
Old person's grumble coming up....
The internet seems to have weakened people's common sense. I remember the simple advice of from my dear old Mum "if it sounds to good to be true.....".
Being gullible used to be a sign of not being very bright but just because something is in an email or a video on YouTube seems to hook intelligent people too and circumvent their natural cynicism.
Did you know that the word gullible has been dropped from the latest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary?
Vetting sources also seems to have gone out of fashion.
If you asked someone who they would go to for dietary advice people wouldn't normally say a nephrologist, a cardiologist or a chiropractor and yet people are sucked in because someone sends them a link or they see rave reviews on social media.
Ummm.
Remember "Snake Oil Salesmen"?
People have been scammed for centuries, the internet just makes it easier to do the scamming so we see more of it. But I don't really think people are more gullible, just exposed to more. Just like it's easier to do "mail fraud" these days when you don't need to use actual mail.
I really don't think folks were brighter or had more common sense "back in the day".
No because they weren't a thing where I live. The conmen were more likely selling cars or double glazing.
Sorry but I disagree.
I'm sure the huge volume of data people are exposed to now contributes but there's an almost child-like naivety which is now widespread rather than unusual. There's always been gullible people being taken advantage of course but it's the suspension of critical thinking just because something appears on a screen. It seems to lend a completely undeserved authority.
Back in the 80's there was a tabloid newspaper (The Sunday Sport) which was famous for their ridiculous stories such as WW2 bombers being found on the moon or a London Bus being found in the Antarctic - don't recall anyone being other than amused. Now I wonder if people would simply pass it on to their social media contacts...
My Dad used to describe the TV as "The Idiot's Lantern" for the way people would just watch it slack-jawed and just let the words and picture wash over them without any real thought process going on. Sure he would switch the phrase to the internet and social media in general now.
Don't think it helps that science is so poorly taught now. People simply don't learn the fundamental principles that would equip them to dismiss a lot of the nonsense pedalled in the weight loss arena.
Jumpstart your metabolism, different kinds of calories.... etc. etc.
I'm with Tacklewasher on this one. People have always been gullible. The difference is exposure, both to scams, and to publicity about people falling for them.
Look up Mark Twain's "Petrified Man" and especially aftermath (only one of his little fun hoaxes).
Consider "War of the Worlds" and how many believed it despite announcements during the broadcast that said it was a radio drama, not a news story. (My dad, a farm boy, boarded with a family in the city so he could work a factory job during the week, and head home to the farm on weekends. During the intial live broadcast, the family he lived with were all up and ready to run from the aliens . . . he couldn't have been more astonished.)
I could go on.
There's a reason P.T. Barnum said . . . well you know. But there's no evidence he actually did say it.
(This way to the Egress!! ==>)
Although to be fair, many people tuned in during the middle and may have missed the announcement, possibly because they were listening on a different station to the top-rated show, a ventriloquist act ... on the radio!
2 -
azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »What counting calories has taught me so far, I lost touch with proper portions sizes to a point when I calculate calories I need to cut back a lot of food off my plate or else I will mess up my daily calorie intake. For example, just had some of our family favorite pizza, its 424 calories a slice before mfp I easily would eat 4 slices now I counted calories I only can eat 2 slices. So its a whole new ball game when portioning food for my new ideal weight that is what I am trying to acquire. Not to mention how all the macros get screwed up with all the wrong types of food. My protein for the day is way too low eating bad food.
This is valuable lesson of course. That’s you are eating crap all day, in large amounts, and still missing a macronutrient. When you not getting it your body craves more food, so you are still hungry after 4 slices. But back to you original question, is dr Fung a quack? Find one from low carb vale where he shows studies of calorie reduction vs fasting. That’s the real gem. Systemic calorie reduction reduces metabolism. So you become less and less efficient at burning your fat stores. So how to optimize your fat burn to the max? You eat nothing! According to studies, there is a totally different hormone response to lowered calorie intake vs 0 calorie intake. With 0 calorie intake the fat stores are opened. So you achieve an efficient fat burning effect without lowering metabolism. On days you eat you don’t reduce calories. You don’t overeat of course , because that will put more fat in storage. Anyway that’s what I took away from his video and I’m experimenting with fasting myself, to try and get same effect as the studies.29 -
rfrenkel77 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »What counting calories has taught me so far, I lost touch with proper portions sizes to a point when I calculate calories I need to cut back a lot of food off my plate or else I will mess up my daily calorie intake. For example, just had some of our family favorite pizza, its 424 calories a slice before mfp I easily would eat 4 slices now I counted calories I only can eat 2 slices. So its a whole new ball game when portioning food for my new ideal weight that is what I am trying to acquire. Not to mention how all the macros get screwed up with all the wrong types of food. My protein for the day is way too low eating bad food.
This is valuable lesson of course. That’s you are eating crap all day, in large amounts, and still missing a macronutrient. When you not getting it your body craves more food, so you are still hungry after 4 slices. But back to you original question, is dr Fung a quack? Find one from low carb vale where he shows studies of calorie reduction vs fasting. That’s the real gem. Systemic calorie reduction reduces metabolism. So you become less and less efficient at burning your fat stores. So how to optimize your fat burn to the max? You eat nothing! According to studies, there is a totally different hormone response to lowered calorie intake vs 0 calorie intake. With 0 calorie intake the fat stores are opened. So you achieve an efficient fat burning effect without lowering metabolism. On days you eat you don’t reduce calories. You don’t overeat of course , because that will put more fat in storage. Anyway that’s what I took away from his video and I’m experimenting with fasting myself, to try and get same effect as the studies.
Last winter I did intermittent fasting. I had a "feeding window" for about 8-10 hours and I fasted overnight for 14-16 hours. I found that because I was going so long without protein my body was breaking down the muscle I made to feed the muscle I worked. I found that I didn't make progress over that winter because of the absence of protein. This winter I am just as lean but feeling stronger and gaining muscle. That is my experience. I won't go back to Intermittent fasting.7 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »rfrenkel77 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »What counting calories has taught me so far, I lost touch with proper portions sizes to a point when I calculate calories I need to cut back a lot of food off my plate or else I will mess up my daily calorie intake. For example, just had some of our family favorite pizza, its 424 calories a slice before mfp I easily would eat 4 slices now I counted calories I only can eat 2 slices. So its a whole new ball game when portioning food for my new ideal weight that is what I am trying to acquire. Not to mention how all the macros get screwed up with all the wrong types of food. My protein for the day is way too low eating bad food.
This is valuable lesson of course. That’s you are eating crap all day, in large amounts, and still missing a macronutrient. When you not getting it your body craves more food, so you are still hungry after 4 slices. But back to you original question, is dr Fung a quack? Find one from low carb vale where he shows studies of calorie reduction vs fasting. That’s the real gem. Systemic calorie reduction reduces metabolism. So you become less and less efficient at burning your fat stores. So how to optimize your fat burn to the max? You eat nothing! According to studies, there is a totally different hormone response to lowered calorie intake vs 0 calorie intake. With 0 calorie intake the fat stores are opened. So you achieve an efficient fat burning effect without lowering metabolism. On days you eat you don’t reduce calories. You don’t overeat of course , because that will put more fat in storage. Anyway that’s what I took away from his video and I’m experimenting with fasting myself, to try and get same effect as the studies.
Last winter I did intermittent fasting. I had a "feeding window" for about 8-10 hours and I fasted overnight for 14-16 hours. I found that because I was going so long without protein my body was breaking down the muscle I made to feed the muscle I worked. I found that I didn't make progress over that winter because of the absence of protein. This winter I am just as lean but feeling stronger and gaining muscle. That is my experience. I won't go back to Intermittent fasting.
I think you might have felt you weren't progressing or performing as well, which is a fine enough claim to make, but I fail to see how you can know the bolded statement without some lab tests.
It seems kind of unlikely that, at the the same level of protein, your body is just just letting protein pass through the gut or go who knows where and instead using protein already in muscles.6 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »I found that I didn't make progress over that winter because of the absence of protein. This winter I am just as lean but feeling stronger and gaining muscle. That is my experience. I won't go back to Intermittent fasting.
Not sure why you are blaming IF for lack of protein. You can eat as much protein as you body weight requires. . As far as I understand at least IF is not a bodybuilding tactic, it’s a body burning tactic.
1 -
I know it’s only been a week and a half but the weight seems to moving down very deliberately. Jan 21 BMI 24.8; Jan 30 BMI 23.3. Will see how long this pattern lasts. See attached
0 -
How much weight lost is that? My attempt at calculating it out comes to around 8lbs... In 9 days? That seems insane and far from healthy.4
-
Mostly water obviously. Define unhealthy weight loss and Please site the study.ladyreva78 wrote: »How much weight lost is that? My attempt at calculating it out comes to around 8lbs... In 9 days? That seems insane and far from healthy.
14 -
rfrenkel77 wrote: »
Mostly water obviously. Define unhealthy weight loss and Please site the study.ladyreva78 wrote: »How much weight lost is that? My attempt at calculating it out comes to around 8lbs... In 9 days? That seems insane and far from healthy.
Flag on the play: Requesting site for platitude, after making extraordinary claims on thread, without offering cites in support.
Politeness is nice, but penalty stands. Play resumes at previous post.
24 -
Posting my own numbers and making no claims, here is every weight in point from aria2 Fitbit scale. In the study dr Fung shows in low carb vale, people fasted every other day for 30 days. Exactly what I am doing. Don’t sense anything unhealthy about it.4
-
rfrenkel77 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »What counting calories has taught me so far, I lost touch with proper portions sizes to a point when I calculate calories I need to cut back a lot of food off my plate or else I will mess up my daily calorie intake. For example, just had some of our family favorite pizza, its 424 calories a slice before mfp I easily would eat 4 slices now I counted calories I only can eat 2 slices. So its a whole new ball game when portioning food for my new ideal weight that is what I am trying to acquire. Not to mention how all the macros get screwed up with all the wrong types of food. My protein for the day is way too low eating bad food.
This is valuable lesson of course. That’s you are eating crap all day, in large amounts, and still missing a macronutrient. When you not getting it your body craves more food, so you are still hungry after 4 slices. But back to you original question, is dr Fung a quack? Find one from low carb vale where he shows studies of calorie reduction vs fasting. That’s the real gem. Systemic calorie reduction reduces metabolism. So you become less and less efficient at burning your fat stores. So how to optimize your fat burn to the max? You eat nothing! According to studies, there is a totally different hormone response to lowered calorie intake vs 0 calorie intake. With 0 calorie intake the fat stores are opened. So you achieve an efficient fat burning effect without lowering metabolism. On days you eat you don’t reduce calories. You don’t overeat of course , because that will put more fat in storage. Anyway that’s what I took away from his video and I’m experimenting with fasting myself, to try and get same effect as the studies.rfrenkel77 wrote: »Posting my own numbers and making no claims, here is every weight in point from aria2 Fitbit scale.
I dont know, I'd consider those to be claims...5 -
It still amazes me how people eating zero calories periodically on a regular basis think they're somehow not reducing their overall caloric intake.
Fung would make PT Barnum proud with how many people he's hoodwinked with this sales pitch.23 -
rfrenkel77 wrote: »Posting my own numbers and making no claims, here is every weight in point from aria2 Fitbit scale. In the study dr Fung shows in low carb vale, people fasted every other day for 30 days. Exactly what I am doing. Don’t sense anything unhealthy about it.
No claims in here, then?rfrenkel77 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »What counting calories has taught me so far, I lost touch with proper portions sizes to a point when I calculate calories I need to cut back a lot of food off my plate or else I will mess up my daily calorie intake. For example, just had some of our family favorite pizza, its 424 calories a slice before mfp I easily would eat 4 slices now I counted calories I only can eat 2 slices. So its a whole new ball game when portioning food for my new ideal weight that is what I am trying to acquire. Not to mention how all the macros get screwed up with all the wrong types of food. My protein for the day is way too low eating bad food.
This is valuable lesson of course. That’s you are eating crap all day, in large amounts, and still missing a macronutrient. When you not getting it your body craves more food, so you are still hungry after 4 slices. But back to you original question, is dr Fung a quack? Find one from low carb vale where he shows studies of calorie reduction vs fasting. That’s the real gem. Systemic calorie reduction reduces metabolism. So you become less and less efficient at burning your fat stores. So how to optimize your fat burn to the max? You eat nothing! According to studies, there is a totally different hormone response to lowered calorie intake vs 0 calorie intake. With 0 calorie intake the fat stores are opened. So you achieve an efficient fat burning effect without lowering metabolism. On days you eat you don’t reduce calories. You don’t overeat of course , because that will put more fat in storage. Anyway that’s what I took away from his video and I’m experimenting with fasting myself, to try and get same effect as the studies.
You wouldn't just be "siting" the video that began this thread, I hope?
Here is an interval of simple calorie restriction (below), from the better part of a year that looks the same. I'm not seeing the lack of fat burning effect. (As an aside, this is my data, and I did lose unhealthfully fast for a time, accidentally, because MFP underestimates my calorie needs, even with accurate inputs. I don't recommend losing very fast, based simply on personal experience.)
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It still amazes me how people eating zero calories periodically on a regular basis think they're somehow not reducing their overall caloric intake.
Fung would make PT Barnum proud with how many people he's hoodwinked with this sales pitch.
Yes of course there is a calorie reduction, but without overall metabolic slowdown. Supposedly! I think you missed the whole point of intermittent fasting. I’m testing it on myself and will let you know how it goes.
17 -
rfrenkel77 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It still amazes me how people eating zero calories periodically on a regular basis think they're somehow not reducing their overall caloric intake.
Fung would make PT Barnum proud with how many people he's hoodwinked with this sales pitch.
Yes of course there is a calorie reduction, but without overall metabolic slowdown. Supposedly! I think you missed the whole point of intermittent fasting. I’m testing it on myself and will let you know how it goes.
A bit of reading... As far as I'm concerned, IF and just plain energy restriction without restricting eating window provide the same results... If IF suits your lifestyle, then great. If it doesn't (as in my case) then there is no reason to force myself to a way of eating that makes me miserable.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30470804
No statistical difference found for weight loss, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk factors between intermittent fasting and continuous energy restriction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30475957
Intermittent fasting may be equivalent to but not superior to continuous energy restriction for weight reduction and prevention of metabolic diseases
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29778565
Both intermittent and continuous energy restriction resulted in similar weight loss, maintenance and improvements in cardiovascular risk factors after one year. However, feelings of hunger may be more pronounced during intermittent energy restriction.12 -
rfrenkel77 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It still amazes me how people eating zero calories periodically on a regular basis think they're somehow not reducing their overall caloric intake.
Fung would make PT Barnum proud with how many people he's hoodwinked with this sales pitch.
Yes of course there is a calorie reduction, but without overall metabolic slowdown. Supposedly! I think you missed the whole point of intermittent fasting. I’m testing it on myself and will let you know how it goes.
Oh, and BTW: I'm the one who posted the "calorie restriction weight loss" chart above, with my daily weights from Libra.
Currently, in maintenance, I burn 20%-30% more net calories daily than most calorie-needs "calculators" (so called) estimate for my size, age, and activity level. That's based on bodyweight/food-log data from most of a year that it took to lose 50ish pounds, and nearly 3 years since then of maintaining a healthy weight.
So I'm not seeing that metabolic damage you're warning us about. I'm not saying other things don't happen to other people; but I'm not seeing the dire consequences of simple calorie restriction personally.
But everybody's different, I guess.11 -
Funnily enough, this turned up in my inbox yesterday: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/metabolic-damage/
Metabolic damage isn't really everything I thought it was...6 -
rfrenkel77 wrote: »
Mostly water obviously. Define unhealthy weight loss and Please site the study.ladyreva78 wrote: »How much weight lost is that? My attempt at calculating it out comes to around 8lbs... In 9 days? That seems insane and far from healthy.
Flag on the play: Requesting site for platitude, after making extraordinary claims on thread, without offering cites in support.
Politeness is nice, but penalty stands. Play resumes at previous post.
Bwahahaha Now I have to clean my keyboard of coffee-spit......
4 -
rfrenkel77 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It still amazes me how people eating zero calories periodically on a regular basis think they're somehow not reducing their overall caloric intake.
Fung would make PT Barnum proud with how many people he's hoodwinked with this sales pitch.
Yes of course there is a calorie reduction, but without overall metabolic slowdown. Supposedly! I think you missed the whole point of intermittent fasting. I’m testing it on myself and will let you know how it goes.
I did IF for around 6 years. My weight changes/maintenance weight was consistent with my calorie intake. Nothing extra happened from the IF aspect. I also have around 7 years of twice-a-year blood work panels/health evals and there was no noticeable differences between my tests while doing IF, and my tests during my non-IF times.
I enjoyed IF for a time and there's nothing wrong with experimenting with it, just realize it doesn't do anything magical
5 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Funnily enough, this turned up in my inbox yesterday: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/metabolic-damage/
Metabolic damage isn't really everything I thought it was...
Thanks for posting that link, it's a good read for a lay-person like me.
So metabolic "damage" isn't damage at all, just the bodies natural adjustments to weight changes/age etc.
I like how the author states continually that there's nothing to fix because it isn't broken.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions