Problems with CICO - article critiquing it, not dismissing it entirely.
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »The average person is eating a variety of foods. The differences might become very relevant in the context of monodiets, but are they relevant in the context of the person who is eating beef, soda, broccoli, bread, yogurt, cucumbers, egg salad, apples, and almonds?
In other words, if a person is eating a reasonable variety of foods, does it really matter if the calorie retention of average food "types" is somewhat variable? I've seen people speculating that the difference is meaningful, but never anything beyond speculation.
I don't believe it has been studied, honestly. Most of what I've seen is anecdotal. Many times with people who switch from more carb heavy diets - not refined carbs, just carbs - to higher protein ones with similar calorie levels, and do better with weigh tloss. Or who switch to smaller meals through out the day and lose weight - similar calorie levels, according to CICO.
That's not research, obviously, so I'll be interested to see how much of an impact it does make, years from now when hopefully we are having more studies on how these factors impact things.4 -
These types of posts can be frustrating. Some people just refuse to accept a concept that's worked for countless people. Instead of giving <insert any type of ci<co plan> a chance, the concept is researched and researched until a "flaw" in the armor is found. And then it's another excuse, "I just can't do that" rather than giving whatever ci<co plan a legitimate chance.
I do not, in any way, doubt that simply using CICO as it is now has worked for people. Or that people have figured out ways to make it work for them - like looking at what calories are assigned to their foods, and figuring out how little they have to eat until they are losing weight like they are supposed to, even though it might be lower (or higher) than what might be suggested by their activity level.
And absolutely, some folks try something, and it's hard, and they give up and assume it doesn't work. That's very human.
But my problem is that people are not clones. If CICO works for someone, assuming it works for everyone is no more valid than someone not being able to make it work and assuming that means it does NOT work for everyone. There is literally almost nothing in the human body that works that way. Blood pressure that is healthy in most people turns out to not be healthy for some others. Foods that raise blood sugar for some people have even been found to lower blood sugar levels in some others. We as a species have a lot of variation on how our bodies work.
That's one reason why I put this sucker up, honestly - we have differences, and this may impact our weight loss attempts. Because some people have made CICO work for them - again, yes, calories matter, both what we intake and how they are used - but knowing more information might be helpful to make weight loss more effective.
But also, people who have not been able to get CICO to work for them should not automatically be disregarded as just quitting, or just making excuses.
If this sort of research is true, and some of it seems to be, there can be absolutely valid reasons that CICO is not working for them the way it is currently approached, that have nothing to do with their will power, time they worked on it, etc... And acting as if everyone who can't make this work is simply 'not trying hard enough,' essentially, really dismisses a lot of people that you know nothing about. Just because they haven't had the same experiences as other people, doesn't make theirs invalid.
15 -
And that's gonna be it from me. Like I said, I was just putting this up for folks to check out, research more if they want to, and maybe it might help some folks if they are struggling with weight loss with the CICO model without adding in more data points, or maybe it'll not be of use at all. Responded a bit but it seems like this is already hitting activity levels I just don't have the energy to keep up with.
So enjoy the debate, and hope that some of ya'll may find this useful or interesting.7 -
These types of posts can be frustrating. Some people just refuse to accept a concept that's worked for countless people. Instead of giving <insert any type of ci<co plan> a chance, the concept is researched and researched until a "flaw" in the armor is found. And then it's another excuse, "I just can't do that" rather than giving whatever ci<co plan a legitimate chance.
I do not, in any way, doubt that simply using CICO as it is now has worked for people. Or that people have figured out ways to make it work for them - like looking at what calories are assigned to their foods, and figuring out how little they have to eat until they are losing weight like they are supposed to, even though it might be lower (or higher) than what might be suggested by their activity level.
And absolutely, some folks try something, and it's hard, and they give up and assume it doesn't work. That's very human.
But my problem is that people are not clones. If CICO works for someone, assuming it works for everyone is no more valid than someone not being able to make it work and assuming that means it does NOT work for everyone. There is literally almost nothing in the human body that works that way. Blood pressure that is healthy in most people turns out to not be healthy for some others. Foods that raise blood sugar for some people have even been found to lower blood sugar levels in some others. We as a species have a lot of variation on how our bodies work.
That's one reason why I put this sucker up, honestly - we have differences, and this may impact our weight loss attempts. Because some people have made CICO work for them - again, yes, calories matter, both what we intake and how they are used - but knowing more information might be helpful to make weight loss more effective.
But also, people who have not been able to get CICO to work for them should not automatically be disregarded as just quitting, or just making excuses.
If this sort of research is true, and some of it seems to be, there can be absolutely valid reasons that CICO is not working for them the way it is currently approached, that have nothing to do with their will power, time they worked on it, etc... And acting as if everyone who can't make this work is simply 'not trying hard enough,' essentially, really dismisses a lot of people that you know nothing about. Just because they haven't had the same experiences as other people, doesn't make theirs invalid.
What?? You mean "counting calories", CICO happens whether we count calories or not. You seem to be confusion those 2 terms/concepts.
CICO works for everyone, it is the only thing that dictates weight management.
The CO side of the equation is different for everyone though, that is true, which is why you need to tweak things as you go. even those with metabolic disorders are still subject to CICO, it is just that the CO side of the equation is affected by whatever is doing on with that person, this just means they neat to increase TDEE, or lower CI even more than you would expect.13 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I can't tell, is the article actually about CICO or is it about calorie counting as it's often practiced? Because the CICO equation takes all of these things into account already. I don't see how anyone can say it's a problem with CICO when they actually mean calorie counting. The two are separate, but related, things and I think it would help more people if we could keep them separate instead of conflating them every single time an article about calorie counting pops up.
Calorie counting can be imprecise and messy and takes some trial and error at times. But that does not change the calorie equation in your body. CICO has no inaccuracies. Calorie counting does. The two are not the same. And these discussions go round and round because they get all tangled up together.
QFT!3 -
This is tossing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Since counting calories and estimating calories burned isn't perfect, just dismiss it altogether? Nevermind that Just making reasonable estimates seems to produce good results. Why let the illusion of "perfect" that is impossible to achieve get in the way of the actual accomplishment of "good"?14
-
EDIT: It honestly feels like I have to add this in, even though I thought it was pretty clear from what was actually said in the article, but...
This is not an article about how CICO is irrelevant, or that calories are irrelevant, or that no one will ever lose weight following CICO methods.
This is an article about some of the inaccuracies that CICO currently has, both in measuring calories in foods, and measuring how many calories we get from them, due to all sorts of different factors. And about how sometimes, these inaccuracies can result in a lack of weight loss. It's about how CICO is one factor in weight loss, but that there are others that also impact it, to the point that if certain factors are present, it can really cause problems for some folks trying to lose weight when only using CICO.
An article, "Death of the Calorie," came out a couple days ago
When an article titles itself "Death of the Calorie" is not hard to get the impression that it thinks that the calorie or CICO is irrelevant. It's literally in the title.9 -
Again, I think that it's important to be clear about this because it helps people to understand what's going on and having more information can guide people in how to adjust their weight management plan with less struggle.
CICO is not the same as calorie counting. And conflating the two, as has happened several times in this thread, is why these posts go round in circles.
CICO is science. It's a description of what's happening in your body.
Calorie counting is a method of observing and affecting CICO in order to get a desired outcome.
Calorie counting is a verb. It's a thing you can do or use. CICO is a noun. It's a thing that's happening.
So, let's get an analogy going. If I came into this thread and said that gravity doesn't work the same for everyone I suspect that I would get a whole bunch of woos and a whole bunch of posts trying to explain why I'm wrong. But aha! Some people fall faster than others. Some are more likely to trip. Cats always land on their feet! People use different types of gravimeters and some of them don't work as well as others. Some people have faulty gravimeters or no gravimeter at all. They don't experience gravity the same way that others do so gravity is not the same for everyone.
That's preposterous, of course. Gravity on earth exerts the same force on everyone, whether they can measure it properly or not. Likewise, the CICO equation works the same way in everyone. There are many variables in that equation that make people different, but the long, drawn out, complicated equation works the same for everyone.
The problem is not that CICO is faulty but that calorie counting can be faulty. CICO is what it is. CICO does what it does. And understanding the difference between CICO and calorie counting can help people to understand where to turn their attention and energy when their plan isn't working. You can change your calorie counting methodology. You cannot change how CICO works.
23 -
These types of posts can be frustrating. Some people just refuse to accept a concept that's worked for countless people. Instead of giving <insert any type of ci<co plan> a chance, the concept is researched and researched until a "flaw" in the armor is found. And then it's another excuse, "I just can't do that" rather than giving whatever ci<co plan a legitimate chance.
I do not, in any way, doubt that simply using CICO as it is now has worked for people. Or that people have figured out ways to make it work for them - like looking at what calories are assigned to their foods, and figuring out how little they have to eat until they are losing weight like they are supposed to, even though it might be lower (or higher) than what might be suggested by their activity level.
And absolutely, some folks try something, and it's hard, and they give up and assume it doesn't work. That's very human.
But my problem is that people are not clones. If CICO works for someone, assuming it works for everyone is no more valid than someone not being able to make it work and assuming that means it does NOT work for everyone. There is literally almost nothing in the human body that works that way. Blood pressure that is healthy in most people turns out to not be healthy for some others. Foods that raise blood sugar for some people have even been found to lower blood sugar levels in some others. We as a species have a lot of variation on how our bodies work.
That's one reason why I put this sucker up, honestly - we have differences, and this may impact our weight loss attempts. Because some people have made CICO work for them - again, yes, calories matter, both what we intake and how they are used - but knowing more information might be helpful to make weight loss more effective.
But also, people who have not been able to get CICO to work for them should not automatically be disregarded as just quitting, or just making excuses.
If this sort of research is true, and some of it seems to be, there can be absolutely valid reasons that CICO is not working for them the way it is currently approached, that have nothing to do with their will power, time they worked on it, etc... And acting as if everyone who can't make this work is simply 'not trying hard enough,' essentially, really dismisses a lot of people that you know nothing about. Just because they haven't had the same experiences as other people, doesn't make theirs invalid.
I think this post makes a lot of sense if you replace "CICO" with "calorie counting" in every instance. But as it stands it's a little like saying "speed and velocity don't work for everyone." imo conflating the two concepts (cico and calorie counting) is how we get so many people claiming that calories aren't real or don't matter, which I think is not your intention.10 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Again, I think that it's important to be clear about this because it helps people to understand what's going on and having more information can guide people in how to adjust their weight management plan with less struggle.
CICO is not the same as calorie counting. And conflating the two, as has happened several times in this thread, is why these posts go round in circles.
CICO is science. It's a description of what's happening in your body.
Calorie counting is a method of observing and affecting CICO in order to get a desired outcome.
Calorie counting is a verb. It's a thing you can do or use. CICO is a noun. It's a thing that's happening.
So, let's get an analogy going. If I came into this thread and said that gravity doesn't work the same for everyone I suspect that I would get a whole bunch of woos and a whole bunch of posts trying to explain why I'm wrong. But aha! Some people fall faster than others. Some are more likely to trip. Cats always land on their feet! People use different types of gravimeters and some of them don't work as well as others. Some people have faulty gravimeters or no gravimeter at all. They don't experience gravity the same way that others do so gravity is not the same for everyone.
That's preposterous, of course. Gravity on earth exerts the same force on everyone, whether they can measure it properly or not. Likewise, the CICO equation works the same way in everyone. There are many variables in that equation that make people different, but the long, drawn out, complicated equation works the same for everyone.
The problem is not that CICO is faulty but that calorie counting can be faulty. CICO is what it is. CICO does what it does. And understanding the difference between CICO and calorie counting can help people to understand where to turn their attention and energy when their plan isn't working. You can change your calorie counting methodology. You cannot change how CICO works.
I understand the distinction, but I think this article is taking on both to a certain extent. It is saying not only that calorie counting is flawed, but that the idea of the calorie is flawed. It is saying that there is no such thing really as a calorie, that the 4-4-9 breakdown we use isn't accurate. That different carbs, protein, etc all have different energy levels associated with them and shouldn't be treated the same. That different bodies process energy differently so a calorie for one may not be the same as a calorie for another.
To me that goes beyond just questioning whether calorie counting can be accurate. It seems like it is taking to task using calorie as a unit of measurement at all.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Again, I think that it's important to be clear about this because it helps people to understand what's going on and having more information can guide people in how to adjust their weight management plan with less struggle.
CICO is not the same as calorie counting. And conflating the two, as has happened several times in this thread, is why these posts go round in circles.
CICO is science. It's a description of what's happening in your body.
Calorie counting is a method of observing and affecting CICO in order to get a desired outcome.
Calorie counting is a verb. It's a thing you can do or use. CICO is a noun. It's a thing that's happening.
So, let's get an analogy going. If I came into this thread and said that gravity doesn't work the same for everyone I suspect that I would get a whole bunch of woos and a whole bunch of posts trying to explain why I'm wrong. But aha! Some people fall faster than others. Some are more likely to trip. Cats always land on their feet! People use different types of gravimeters and some of them don't work as well as others. Some people have faulty gravimeters or no gravimeter at all. They don't experience gravity the same way that others do so gravity is not the same for everyone.
That's preposterous, of course. Gravity on earth exerts the same force on everyone, whether they can measure it properly or not. Likewise, the CICO equation works the same way in everyone. There are many variables in that equation that make people different, but the long, drawn out, complicated equation works the same for everyone.
The problem is not that CICO is faulty but that calorie counting can be faulty. CICO is what it is. CICO does what it does. And understanding the difference between CICO and calorie counting can help people to understand where to turn their attention and energy when their plan isn't working. You can change your calorie counting methodology. You cannot change how CICO works.
I understand the distinction, but I think this article is taking on both to a certain extent. It is saying not only that calorie counting is flawed, but that the idea of the calorie is flawed. It is saying that there is no such thing really as a calorie, that the 4-4-9 breakdown we use isn't accurate. That different carbs, protein, etc all have different energy levels associated with them and shouldn't be treated the same. That different bodies process energy differently so a calorie for one may not be the same as a calorie for another.
To me that goes beyond just questioning whether calorie counting can be accurate. It seems like it is taking to task using calorie as a unit of measurement at all.
to answer the bolded... that does not mean CICO isn't correct, as that means the CI or CO side of the equation could be different person to person. But, at no time is the energy absorbed for a calorie consumed greater than one calorie. If you don't absorb all the food, CI is less than you thought, or if it takes more energy to breakdown, that increases the CO, but doesn't change the fact that weight management still comes down to energy balance
As for the second part, they don't offer a better way to measure the energy balance in the body though, until that can be accomplished CICO is the best we have, and as we currently know it, Counting Calories and watching your weight confirms this (assuming you are tracking CI and CO accurately as you can)3 -
But my problem is that people are not clones.
I see this type of argument batted around here all the time. I am not sure why there is this need for people to be so different in the way their body works from the next person.
Your body requires energy to function. It doesn't matter if you are running a marathon or blinking an eye energy is being used. If you consume less food energy than your body requires to function your body MUST use the energy stores in your body to make up the difference.
I haven't seen anyone grow a solar panel on their back so in this very fundamental way... yes... we are very much clones.
The differences between us change the equations not the process. Worrying about them is majoring in the minors.17 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Again, I think that it's important to be clear about this because it helps people to understand what's going on and having more information can guide people in how to adjust their weight management plan with less struggle.
CICO is not the same as calorie counting. And conflating the two, as has happened several times in this thread, is why these posts go round in circles.
CICO is science. It's a description of what's happening in your body.
Calorie counting is a method of observing and affecting CICO in order to get a desired outcome.
Calorie counting is a verb. It's a thing you can do or use. CICO is a noun. It's a thing that's happening.
So, let's get an analogy going. If I came into this thread and said that gravity doesn't work the same for everyone I suspect that I would get a whole bunch of woos and a whole bunch of posts trying to explain why I'm wrong. But aha! Some people fall faster than others. Some are more likely to trip. Cats always land on their feet! People use different types of gravimeters and some of them don't work as well as others. Some people have faulty gravimeters or no gravimeter at all. They don't experience gravity the same way that others do so gravity is not the same for everyone.
That's preposterous, of course. Gravity on earth exerts the same force on everyone, whether they can measure it properly or not. Likewise, the CICO equation works the same way in everyone. There are many variables in that equation that make people different, but the long, drawn out, complicated equation works the same for everyone.
The problem is not that CICO is faulty but that calorie counting can be faulty. CICO is what it is. CICO does what it does. And understanding the difference between CICO and calorie counting can help people to understand where to turn their attention and energy when their plan isn't working. You can change your calorie counting methodology. You cannot change how CICO works.
I understand the distinction, but I think this article is taking on both to a certain extent. It is saying not only that calorie counting is flawed, but that the idea of the calorie is flawed. It is saying that there is no such thing really as a calorie, that the 4-4-9 breakdown we use isn't accurate. That different carbs, protein, etc all have different energy levels associated with them and shouldn't be treated the same. That different bodies process energy differently so a calorie for one may not be the same as a calorie for another.
To me that goes beyond just questioning whether calorie counting can be accurate. It seems like it is taking to task using calorie as a unit of measurement at all.
to answer the bolded... that does not mean CICO sin't correct, as that means the CI or CO side of the equation could be different person to person. But, at no time is the energy absorbed for a calorie consumed greater than one calorie. If you don't absorb all the food, CI is less than you thought, or if it takes more energy to breakdown, that increases the CO, but doesn't change the fact that weight managment still comes down to CICO
As for the second part, they don't offer a better way to measure the energy balance in the body though, until that can be accomplished CICO is the best we have, and as we currently know it, Counting Calories and watching your weight confirms this (assuming you are tracking CI and CO accurately as you can)
They aren't disputing the idea energy in vs energy out, but they do seem to be trying to say that calorie is not a proper measure of energy (it is titled "Death of the Calorie" after all). I am not defending their hypothesis. I don't agree with it. But I think the take that they're just questioning calorie counting is inaccurate. I think they are going after the very idea of the calorie, which I interpret as going after "C"I"C"O1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Again, I think that it's important to be clear about this because it helps people to understand what's going on and having more information can guide people in how to adjust their weight management plan with less struggle.
CICO is not the same as calorie counting. And conflating the two, as has happened several times in this thread, is why these posts go round in circles.
CICO is science. It's a description of what's happening in your body.
Calorie counting is a method of observing and affecting CICO in order to get a desired outcome.
Calorie counting is a verb. It's a thing you can do or use. CICO is a noun. It's a thing that's happening.
So, let's get an analogy going. If I came into this thread and said that gravity doesn't work the same for everyone I suspect that I would get a whole bunch of woos and a whole bunch of posts trying to explain why I'm wrong. But aha! Some people fall faster than others. Some are more likely to trip. Cats always land on their feet! People use different types of gravimeters and some of them don't work as well as others. Some people have faulty gravimeters or no gravimeter at all. They don't experience gravity the same way that others do so gravity is not the same for everyone.
That's preposterous, of course. Gravity on earth exerts the same force on everyone, whether they can measure it properly or not. Likewise, the CICO equation works the same way in everyone. There are many variables in that equation that make people different, but the long, drawn out, complicated equation works the same for everyone.
The problem is not that CICO is faulty but that calorie counting can be faulty. CICO is what it is. CICO does what it does. And understanding the difference between CICO and calorie counting can help people to understand where to turn their attention and energy when their plan isn't working. You can change your calorie counting methodology. You cannot change how CICO works.
I understand the distinction, but I think this article is taking on both to a certain extent. It is saying not only that calorie counting is flawed, but that the idea of the calorie is flawed. It is saying that there is no such thing really as a calorie, that the 4-4-9 breakdown we use isn't accurate. That different carbs, protein, etc all have different energy levels associated with them and shouldn't be treated the same. That different bodies process energy differently so a calorie for one may not be the same as a calorie for another.
To me that goes beyond just questioning whether calorie counting can be accurate. It seems like it is taking to task using calorie as a unit of measurement at all.
to answer the bolded... that does not mean CICO sin't correct, as that means the CI or CO side of the equation could be different person to person. But, at no time is the energy absorbed for a calorie consumed greater than one calorie. If you don't absorb all the food, CI is less than you thought, or if it takes more energy to breakdown, that increases the CO, but doesn't change the fact that weight managment still comes down to CICO
As for the second part, they don't offer a better way to measure the energy balance in the body though, until that can be accomplished CICO is the best we have, and as we currently know it, Counting Calories and watching your weight confirms this (assuming you are tracking CI and CO accurately as you can)
They aren't disputing the idea energy in vs energy out, but they do seem to be trying to say that calorie is not a proper measure of energy (it is titled "Death of the Calorie" after all). I am not defending their hypothesis. I don't agree with it. But I think the take that they're just questioning calorie counting is inaccurate. I think they are going after the very idea of the calorie, which I interpret as going after "C"I"C"O
I get that that is what they are saying, and that you don't agree. But if it isn't that, then what is it... and why does CICO, meet expectations (when meticulously tracking) with Fat/weight loss you would expect based on CICO, after accounting for metabolic differences?0 -
IMHO, people who expect a tool to work 100% right for everyone right out of the box tend to put down calorie counting. The formulas told me to eat 1600 cals, I did and it didn't work, ergo and heretofore calorie counting is a bad method. But there are plenty of successful folks here who say that the number the formula spit out didn't work for them, so they had to go through a little trial-and-error to figure out where they needed to be to achieve a deficit. I'm sure there are some people who are far more fidgety than most, who have internal variances like a super long intestine or digestive anomaly, a slight hormonal imbalance that won't show up on tests but drags down their TDEE a little, etc. The fact that you have to play around with the numbers, sometimes without knowing WHY you need to play around with the numbers, doesn't mean the tool is worthless.
And yes, the conflating of "calorie-counting" with CICO is frustrating. CICO just means your body can't store energy you don't feed it, and it must either burn or store the energy you do feed it. Calorie counting is a method of tracking CICO, and it can be more complicated for some people than others, and it can be psychologically wrong for some people. But no one tool is right for everyone.
ETA: I would bet dollars to donuts that people "who follow all the calorie counting rules and don't succeed" have either 1. Not given it enough time to see a long term trend 2. Are logging incorrectly or 3. Are expecting the formula to spit out the exact right number and are in the group of people who need to use some trial and error. Not to mention 4. A combo of those three reasons. But that's just my gut, nothing to back it up.14 -
Generally speaking and with the normal population (ie: people without a hormonal disorder and people not undergoing a stressful event), CICO hands down works for Fat Burning. What I want to say, is that under normal conditions CICO is pretty reliable. It's just when our bodies are "out of whack" that CICO rules do not work the same way.2
-
So refreshing to see a new perspective on CICO. It doesn't really take adaptive thermogenesis into account, either. I enjoyed seeing this. Lets open discussions for how it doesn't work for everybody! Nice job!17
-
monaraehill2 wrote: »So refreshing to see a new perspective on CICO. It doesn't really take adaptive thermogenesis into account, either. I enjoyed seeing this. Lets open discussions for how it doesn't work for everybody! Nice job!
I'm assuming you mean "calorie counting" rather than "CICO"?
Regardless, how does either CICO or calorie counting not take adaptive thermogenesis into account? AT lowers your TDEE, meaning instead of the typical number of calories a person of your size needs to be in a deficit, you will need to eat slightly less, and may require a little trial-and-error to find the right calorie goal. Right? So since your CO is slightly lower, your CI also needs to be slightly lower, because CICO.9 -
monaraehill2 wrote: »So refreshing to see a new perspective on CICO. It doesn't really take adaptive thermogenesis into account, either. I enjoyed seeing this. Lets open discussions for how it doesn't work for everybody! Nice job!
To the extent that adaptive thermogenesis exists (and it's often over-exaggerated), it is another aspect in both CICO and calorie counting. As @kimny72 said, some people simply take the number spit out to them by an equation as gospel, rather than using that as a starting point to see their own circumstances. There's no reason why someone with a lower CO can't use calorie counting as a weight control technique. They just need to take that into account while personally customizing.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »"What we do know...suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger... Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body."
Why does that suggest that counting calories is misleading?
Food is more than calories. That doesn't mean that "calorie" is a meaningless data point when it comes to food. I struggle to trust any food writing by people who are incapable of grasping that relatively simple concept.
I'm guessing it suggests calorie counting is misleading because of how CICO is used now.
Actually, it seems to be suggesting that calorie counting is misleading based on an approach that no one actually uses (not if they are sensible).
According to the article, calorie counting could give rise to inaccurate results if you (a) eat a not particularly varied diet (since you'd have to for the way things are off to be all in one direction), (b) be concerned with nothing but calories (not satiety, not nutrition -- common strawman, but not IMO how most real people do it), and (c) not adjust based on results.
Even if (a) and (b) were true, calorie counting would still work just fine if you only did (c).
And not only that, but even people for whom (a) and (b) are not true (most or all of us in this discussion), STILL likely will need to adjust based on results, because there are lots of other factors too. I lost FASTER than expected. I assumed it was because I was more active than my assumption going in, but maybe it was because I eat mostly whole foods, plenty of protein, and enjoy almonds. Maybe it was because I was trying to be so accurate I was overcounting things. Eh, whatever, it's irrelevant, and people who lose slower than expected can adjust too.
When people (like the article writer) don't get that, I can only shake my head.6
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
- 389 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
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions