Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, May-28-23, 08:43
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Is counting calories a waste of time?

Quote:
Is counting calories a waste of time?

There’s more to what you eat than kilojoules, writes Ben Spencer


When it comes to dieting, the calorie has always been king. Not only does every packet in the supermarket have calories listed on the side, but since last year every café and restaurant has had to print them on their menus. The tyranny of the calorie counters is upon us. And it’s all thanks to the first law of thermodynamics. Calories in, in the form of food and drink, minus calories out, in the form of exercise, equals energy stored, in the form of fat.

“A calorie is a calorie,” says Naveed Sattar, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “If you take on more calories, you’re going to put on more weight if you don’t run them off.”

The calorie, though, is under attack. Every week another expert joins a growing group of those who say that, for most people, calorie counting simply does not work as a weight-loss strategy. “The whole calorie counting industry is, in my opinion, a bit of a fraud,” says Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London. “It doesn’t tell people that while anyone can lose weight in the short term — whether you’re on a low-fat diet, a keto diet, a carnivore diet or a fresh-air diet — keeping that weight off in the long term is hard.”

That is backed up by the data. A review of weight-loss strategies led by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases in the US found that even if dieters are initially successful, half of the lost weight is regained within two years, and within five years more than 80 per cent is put back on.

Andrew Jenkinson, a consultant in weight-loss surgery at University College London Hospital (UCLH), says our obsession with calories ignores a central part of the way the body works. “The body tries to maintain a particular weight setting,” he says. It does this by adjusting the “basal metabolic rate” — the energy used to carry out unconscious body functions such as breathing, pumping the heart and maintaining temperature.

The energy used to run these functions is adjusted by the body as a way to conserve or expel reserves. “It can be changed by 600 to 700 kilocalories a day, depending on whether we’re on a really low-calorie diet or whether we’re overeating,” Jenkinson says. “If we overeat, our metabolism will increase and if we starve ourselves it will slow down.”

A calorie may be a calorie but the way the body responds to that calorie can differ markedly, depending on the performance of our metabolism.

The microbiome also plays an underestimated role. Different individuals share just 25 per cent, on average, of the bacteria in their gut. And this bacteria has a big impact on the way food is metabolised. Spector’s research has shown that even identical twins often have completely different reactions to the same food.

Hormones also make life difficult. “When you are dieting your body ramps up hunger and does everything just to get you started eating again,” Spector says. “Your appetite levels are going through the roof.”

Dr Chris van Tulleken, an infectious diseases doctor at UCLH, says modern diets make this harder. The additives and manufacturing methods used in ultra-processed food confuse the brain’s hunger-reward system, meaning we end up consuming more and more calories to make ourselves feel full. Self-control and willpower don’t come into it, he says, because modern food makes it almost impossible to regulate our eating habits.

“Wild animals don’t have any nutritional information available but there is no obesity at all among them,” he says. “Even when animals have abundant food, they don’t need to count calories to regulate their energy balance. The only reason we have to count calories is because of the weird food we eat that has subverted our evolved mechanisms.”

Van Tulleken says avoiding ultra-processed food helps the body regulate itself — but acknowledges this is very difficult because convenience products are cheaper, easy to consume and heavily marketed. “If you just eat real food, it all more or less takes care of itself,” he says. “But that is an impossibility for most people.”

Calorie counting is also difficult because dieters often fail to work out how much they have eaten. “It’s very hard to know what 30g of Coco Pops is and then how much milk to add,” van Tulleken says. “Our ability to count calories is diminishing. It may be subconscious bias because we feel ashamed and so we will try to give ourselves a better mark. It may be because we’re eating out more.”

Focusing on calories also misses the overall nutritional value of a food. As the British Heart Foundation website puts it: “The energy you get from 100kcals is the same whether it’s half an avocado or half a bar of chocolate.” Fat, sugar and salt are worth paying attention to — and should be clearly labelled — but you may have to squint to see the quantity of fibre, vitamins and minerals in a particular product.

Spector says so-called diet foods are a particular problem because they make a virtue of their low-calorie content but are full of artificial alternatives to sugar and fat. “Ultra-processed foods that call themselves ‘low calorie’ are a health hazard and should come with a warning. I think it’s indefensible. They are stacked with artificial sweeteners, flavourings and emulsifiers that are screwing us up — people are being conned.”

Sattar has a little more faith in the role of the calorie. “There might be some variance in the way people react — in their microbiome or to ultra-processed food — but if I measure my calorie intake for the week and then try to cut it, I will lose weight. If I have a big enough deficit in calories that I can’t make up by changing activities, I will lose weight.”

He admits that people find it hard to keep track of their intake, and that they find it difficult to stick to a low-calorie regime. “It is difficult, boring and hard work, and people usually don’t do it for long.”

Yet Sattar believes simple swaps — as long as they are sustainable — can make a difference. “Every time I used to have a cup of tea I’d eat four custard creams,” he says. That’s 240 calories, a few times a day. “Now I just have a finger of KitKat — 52 calories. I don’t need those extra calories but wanted that sweet kick. Another thing I do is, for my evening meal, I make sure a third of my plate is covered by salad, so it’s slightly less pasta or chips.” Another trick, he says, is to stop having sugar in coffee.

“By retraining your palate or retraining your behaviour you can really cut your intake, without counting calories.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-time-52bzhkj3p
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, May-31-23, 05:32
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,147
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/162/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Ho hum. How many times have I read this same article--well, for about four decades now? I believe Science is a good method for discovery, but not because they get the right answers: it's because they're continually finding out what doesn't work and asking new questions.

Like many others here, I've done it all diet-wise. Somewhere along the line, I adopted the Doctrine of Low-Carb Eating and kept the faith until it became a habit. By now, the only standard I aim for is good health and strength as I get older (and older...and older!) I'll never be 30 again, and I'll never be Martha Stewart in a bathing suit (with considerable cover-up) on the cover of Sports Illustrated (she had a lot of help with that photo!)

Whatever environmental or genetic factors may be part of the "obesity epidemic," I'm convinced that calorie counting isn't the method to solve it. Nutritious eating is, and even that won't change the course of nature in your individual body. You might be a big and heavy person after all.

I'm not giving anyone a free pass to be "fat." However, investigate the latest fad, whether surgery or injections or restrictive diet, and find out if it's a lifetime commitment you can make that keeps you healthy. Commitment over time will make the best of you.

Over and out with the lecture.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, May-31-23, 09:16
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,851
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Sattar has a little more faith in the role of the calorie. “There might be some variance in the way people react — in their microbiome or to ultra-processed food — but if I measure my calorie intake for the week and then try to cut it, I will lose weight. If I have a big enough deficit in calories that I can’t make up by changing activities, I will lose weight.”

Spoken like a true male of the species.

Reminds me of how my DH used to "cut back" on his ice cream intake for a week or two and lose 15 lb. He didn't cut out icecream - he merely cut back on it.

Meanwhile, I could cut out ice cream altogether and not lose an ounce, because female bodies are geared towards maintaining sufficient fat to sustain a pregnancy and nurse a baby. Our female bodies fight us every step of the way in trying to lose weight.

Quote:
He admits that people find it hard to keep track of their intake, and that they find it difficult to stick to a low-calorie regime. “It is difficult, boring and hard work, and people usually don’t do it for long.”

Yet Sattar believes simple swaps — as long as they are sustainable — can make a difference. “Every time I used to have a cup of tea I’d eat four custard creams,” he says. That’s 240 calories, a few times a day. “Now I just have a finger of KitKat — 52 calories. I don’t need those extra calories but wanted that sweet kick. [/B]

I had to google to find out what custard creams are - looks like they're what we'd call cream filled cookies in the US. So he cut out 4 cookies by eating a finger of kit kat (I'm assuming a Kit Kat is the same as in the US - and that by a finger of kit kat he means one section of it) But if 4 cookies was 240 calories, then 1 cookie would be 60 calories, so his 52 calorie finger of kit kat instead of simply cutting back to one 60 calorie cookie. He could have "simply" controlled his cookie intake and eaten only one cookie, since the difference between a finger of kit kat and one cookie is only 8 calories.

Quote:
Another thing I do is, for my evening meal, I make sure a third of my plate is covered by salad, so it’s slightly less pasta or chips.”

Slightly less pasta or chips.

SLIGHTLY less.

Quote:
Another trick, he says, is to stop having sugar in coffee.

Oh there we go, my key to losing weight: I'll simply stop having sugar in my coffee... just as soon as I start drinking coffee.

Quote:
“By retraining your palate or retraining your behaviour you can really cut your intake, [B]without counting calories.”
This is blatantly contradictory to his calculations on the calorie count of 4 custard creams as compared to 1 finger of kit kat. And also his claims that if he tracks his calories and then tries to cut them, he loses weight and if he has a big enough calorie deficit, he will lose weight.

He hasn't retrained his palate at all - he's changed his behavior by forcing himself to eat smaller portions of the carbs that he obviously loves since he won't give them up altogether.

After being off carbs for nearly 2 decades, I absolutely hate the taste of sugar and starch of all kinds, and therefor avoid them, and I don't count calories. We call it low carb, and it is indeed sustainable.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, May-31-23, 11:58
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
After being off carbs for nearly 2 decades, I absolutely hate the taste of sugar and starch of all kinds, and therefor avoid them, and I don't count calories. We call it low carb, and it is indeed sustainable.


I'm 2 decades in too, sustaining this unsustainable low carb diet. I do not struggle with temptation. It's become second nature.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, May-31-23, 23:42
Ambulo's Avatar
Ambulo Ambulo is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 3,171
 
Plan: LerC, TRE, IF
Stats: 150/120/120 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: the North, England
Default

I have been logging my food in Cronometer for almost a year, not in order to keep calories at a particular level, but out of curiosity.

Most days I am hundreds of calories in surplus according to Cronometer opinion of what a woman of my size, age and activity level should eat. Yet I am at my ideal weight and BMI 21. At 70 I take digestive enzymes to ensure I extract the maximum nutrition from my food; but I am not suffering from a wasting disease. When I pig out, I gain a few pounds. If I kept pigging out week after week I would pile the pounds on like I have in the past (40 above where I am now).

It is no coincidence that I am a few months away from my 10th anniversary of intermittent fasting/time restricted eating. CICO does not explain me.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Jun-01-23, 02:44
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulo
Most days I am hundreds of calories in surplus according to Cronometer opinion of what a woman of my size, age and activity level should eat.


I am also over by a few hundred the number of calories Cronometer thinks I should be eating. I use Cronometer for the nutrition info and ignore the calories. My BMI is in the "normal" range.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Jun-01-23, 07:48
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
After being off carbs for nearly 2 decades, I absolutely hate the taste of sugar and starch of all kinds, and therefor avoid them, and I don't count calories. We call it low carb, and it is indeed sustainable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
I'm 2 decades in too, sustaining this unsustainable low carb diet. I do not struggle with temptation. It's become second nature.

Ditto - I find these public service articles fascinating, as the identical message gets recycled every year by a different journalist replete with expert quotes providing different views. The reader is left with nothing of value. A finger of KitKat instead of four custard creams? I'm with Calianna and Jean, as cutting out sugars and starches is sustainable and a passport to improved health.

Quote:
“The whole calorie counting industry is, in my opinion, a bit of a fraud,” says Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London. “It doesn’t tell people that while anyone can lose weight in the short term — whether you’re on a low-fat diet, a keto diet, a carnivore diet or a fresh-air diet — keeping that weight off in the long term is hard . . . Ultra-processed foods that call themselves ‘low calorie’ are a health hazard and should come with a warning. I think it’s indefensible. They are stacked with artificial sweeteners, flavourings and emulsifiers that are screwing us up — people are being conned.”

Couldn't have put it better than Spector.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:38.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.