Weight-Loss The value of a calorie

[Coach Palfrey]

There is much debate as to the value of calorie counting in weight loss and I'd like to get the opinion of everyone on the forum.

Whilst the traditional view states that calories in vs calories out results in a deficit and subsequent weight loss there is a counter argument that this simplified model can be counter productive.

Can the deficit model, as described above, be effective when the source of the calories varies so greatly?

Are we better off not counting calories and just maintaining sensible dietary choices?

Do RDA's for calorie totals become obsolete when a diet no longer matches the macro nutrient profile of the 'average' person?

 

[Jericho]

Nope, cause sensible dietary choices means knowing the calories you are eating, else it's not a sensible choice. Sensible choices can still lead to eating too many calories.

When we say calories in vs calories out, no one is suggesting 1500 calories of candy. I've used this analogy before. Calories in vs calories out is the trunk of the tree. You can and will lose weight with this model but it's not the end all be all. You are better off grabbing onto the other branches as well to get to the top. You need those branches of nutrition, of exercise, of stress management.

 

[Coach Palfrey]

Nope, cause sensible dietary choices means knowing the calories you are eating, else it's not a sensible choice. Sensible choices can still lead to eating too many calories.

When we say calories in vs calories out, no one is suggesting 1500 calories of candy. I've used this analogy before. Calories in vs calories out is the trunk of the tree. You can and will lose weight with this model but it's not the end all be all. You are better off grabbing onto the other branches as well to get to the top. You need those branches of nutrition, of exercise, of stress management.

In the grander scheme of things calorie counting is a dubious luxury that we have at this point in time. Even 100 years ago we did not have this information and obesity is of course at an all time high now.

I think that sensible dietary choices can take the place of calorie counting. I'd argue that a sensible dietary choice is based on macro nutrient profile rather than calorie total.

 

[Jeanette401]

100 years ago we also didn't have anywhere near the access to high calorie density foods, and in fact getting enough food was a big issue. Also, we didn't have anywhere near the number of sedentary jobs - there were a lot more people working the fields etc.

For many people, eating sensibly works. However, if it doesn't work, your options are to go on a restrictive plan such as paleo, low carb or what have you that restricts your calories simply by restricting your food choices, or counting calories.

It may be a luxury we didn't have 100 years ago, but I'm pretty sure going to CostCo and picking up a 3000 calorie chocolate cake for $5 was also a luxury we didn't have. Or dish washers. Or vaccum cleaners. Or... well, you get the point. There are a lot of luxuries we have today that weren't around 100 years ago, and many of them have had an impact on today's obesity levels.

Also - if calorie counting wasn't available 100 years ago, was macro nutrient profiling available? I mean, if someone can lose weight simply by eating sensibly, that's awesome. That's way simpler than counting calories, and they should stick with what works! But how are they going to figure out the macro-nutrient profiles without doing the same kind of tracking and learning that you'd get out of 'calorie counting'. Of course, I think any smart calorie counting should also involve counting macros - I'm not a big proponent of the 1500 calories a day of twinkies diet.

 

[Korrie]

In the grander scheme of things calorie counting is a dubious luxury that we have at this point in time. Even 100 years ago we did not have this information and obesity is of course at an all time high now.

So you think that calorie counting has something to do with the obesity epidemic??? The reason we are fatter than ever is because we are LAZIER than ever!

 

[Spinner19641]

I have never counted calories but have managed to both gain, lose and now maintain my weight without doing so.

As for what we eat. I think that can be very confusing. So many foods are marketed by telling us it's good for us and then we find out it's loaded with sugar or salt or some nasty additive or other.

I gave up in the end and settled for non processed foods - meat, eggs, vegetables, fruit, dairy, nuts, olive oils, clean jams/condiments - roughly following a 90/10 rule (10% of the time I eat whatever I want).

Seems to work and I am still too undisciplined to count calories. Life is easier for me this way - I don't generally gain/lose weight and I don't have to think about what or how much I am eating.

But other people seem to do just fine counting calories and eating processed foods. I don't think there is any right or wrong. People should do what works for them and if it isn't working they can keep trying approaches until it does.

I certainly don't think counting calories is the cause of the obesity problem. I suspect that has more to do with the low cost of highly processed food, that it is designed to be appealing, is easy to get 24/7 and it is human instinct to want to eat a lot. I know I could happily devour a whole box of donuts!!!

 

[Coach Palfrey]

I'm not suggesting that calorie counting is responsible for the obesity epidemic - just that maybe it isn't the most effective counter measure.

And macro nutrient profiling isn't necessary if your diet consists of foods available in nature - evolution has ensured that for us.

 

[Spinner19641]

I'm not suggesting that calorie counting is responsible for the obesity epidemic - just that maybe it isn't the most effective counter measure.

And macro nutrient profiling isn't necessary if your diet consists of foods available in nature - evolution has ensured that for us.

I'm not sure I know what 'macro nutrient profiling' is.

And I certainly don't know what the most effective counter measure to obesity is. In fact I find the 'obesity epidemic' confusing. I genuinely don't understand why it is happening and doesn't seem to be stopping despite many people trying.

I'm also not sure what 'obesity' is anymore. I'm not even sure if BMI is a valid measure (there are so many hardcore opposing views out there). And I don't know what size a person has to be before they run into health issues and therefore their weight may be a problem.

And the more I read the less I know!

All I know is what works for me. But to work that out I have had to ignore the scales, ignore calorie counting, ignore the BMI, ignore portion control rules, ignore the food marketers, walk past almost every aisle in the supermarket and pass up every tasty looking treat in a store.

Bah! It is a whole lot less fun than it used to be but it does work, I am never hungry and I am certainly not over or under weight.

But is that right for everyone? I doubt it. Food manufacturers & supermarkets would collapse for a start, unemployment would be even worse and we probably don't have enough baseline foods to feed everyone anyway! And other people have different priorities and are at different stages of life so my way would not suit everyone. There must be a middle ground somewhere...

 

[Jeanette401]

I'm not suggesting that calorie counting is responsible for the obesity epidemic - just that maybe it isn't the most effective counter measure.

And macro nutrient profiling isn't necessary if your diet consists of foods available in nature - evolution has ensured that for us.

So, this leads to an interesting question - where do you draw the line on 'foods available in nature'? Obviously I can't pick bread off of trees. Or high fructose corn syrup... but what about grinding almonds into a paste for almond butter? What about drying fruit? What about... tea? Isn't that essentially extracting part of what's available in nature? Milk is available in nature... what about cheese and yogurt? What about skim milk? Cream? What about rice? Does it have to be brown?

You certainly can bypass calorie counting if you just greatly restrict what you're allowed to eat (Well, for the most part, I have a feeling I could gain weight on a low-carb diet if I tried). However, to me that seems as extreme as recording every molecule of food that goes into your mouth.

I myself have lost weight without calorie counting - it's just that in the grand scheme of things, the way I did that wasn't actually any easier for me than calorie counting (low/moderate fat Atkins). I also try to restrict the amount of processed food I eat and get a good macro-nutrient balance. I envy the people for whom listening to their body works and works well - mine has room for more. Even my husband comments on it - when we go out to Indian food, he's stuffed, but not me. I can find room for more with no problem. Even though I don't normally eat large meals. Even though I try to drink plenty of liquid to fill me up. Even though.

I know I could happily devour a whole box of donuts!!!

Mmmmm, dooonuts.

 

[Spinner19641]

when we go out to Indian food, he's stuffed, but not me. I can find room for more with no problem. Even though I don't normally eat large meals.

I find that. Junk (ish) foods don't fill me up either.

I can only eat so much of the healthy stuff and I am genuinely full for hours but junk food I could just eat and eat and not feel full...sick maybe...but not exactly full.

Why is that?

 

[Jeanette401]

I'm not sure - supposedly both protein & fiber are more satiating than starch, sugar and fats... plus unprocessed food takes more time & energy to digest, so your system may be in less of a hurry to shuttle more into the system.

... I could eat like 3000 calories worth of brownies in a blink. No full feeling, just disgusted with myself, but not physically full. ... Also, I did a volume comparison recently - 400 calories could be 2 oatmeal raisin cookies from Subway, or a 6 inch ham sub loaded with veggies + oil & vinegar... but the cookies are soooo much smaller than the sandwich.

Also, I don't have to be very hungry to eat a potato chip... I have to be pretty hungry to eat celery. I think that may be a part of it as well.

 

[Coach Palfrey]

So, this leads to an interesting question - where do you draw the line on 'foods available in nature'? Obviously I can't pick bread off of trees. Or high fructose corn syrup... but what about grinding almonds into a paste for almond butter? What about drying fruit? What about... tea? Isn't that essentially extracting part of what's available in nature? Milk is available in nature... what about cheese and yogurt? What about skim milk? Cream? What about rice? Does it have to be brown?

I think you'd have to take a fairly strict hunter gatherer approach. Lean meat, fish and seafood. Fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds. And ideally in quantities that are likely available.

So not only available in nature but also the practical considerations involved in harvesting certain foods. For example, would you bother to refine foods on a daily basis?

 

[Jeanette401]

Ah, so you're basically advocating the paleo diet.

Like I said before, approaches like that can work - they just do so by restricting calories in a round about fashion rather than directly. Going paleo cuts out over half of the food available to modern man, and it makes it harder to process. Not to mention cook... man, I can't even imagine how to cook without my canola and olive oil, much less how to process them myself!

For me it's a whole lot easier to just restrict calories directly rather than to chop out most of the things I eat for the same end.

 

[Coach Palfrey]

Ah, so you're basically advocating the paleo diet.

Like I said before, approaches like that can work - they just do so by restricting calories in a round about fashion rather than directly. Going paleo cuts out over half of the food available to modern man, and it makes it harder to process. Not to mention cook... man, I can't even imagine how to cook without my canola and olive oil, much less how to process them myself!

For me it's a whole lot easier to just restrict calories directly rather than to chop out most of the things I eat for the same end.

Do you mean restrict as in "slow down the digestion of"? Because I comfortably eat 4000 kcals a day on Paleo.

 

[Jeanette401]

No, I meant that when I was on Atkins I ate fewer calories than I did when I was on the 'See food' diet. And that I'm quite certain I would eat fewer calories on Paleo - which seems to cut out 95% of my favorite foods (cheese and olive oil are an important part of my diet! ) which would definitely cause me to lose weight.

May I ask - how do you know that you average 4k calories a day on Paleo if you don't track calories? I ask about average because some days I eat 3k calories, but that's not the average # I eat on weight loss.

 

[Toddless]

Why didn't you just come out and say Paleo from the beginning? Or ever? That's mildly frustrating...

But I agree with certain tenets of the Paleo diet, namely that we should cut out heavily processed foods. I like to make the distinction between processed (things like cheese and oils) and heavily processed (things like oreos). I like to look at ingredients and if I feel like I could have made the food at home, it's not heavily processed. This includes things like certain cookies and donuts; if they're made with flour, butter, sugar.... A good rule to follow (for me) is to only eat foods your great grandparents would recognize as food.

 

[Coach Palfrey]

Why didn't you just come out and say Paleo from the beginning? Or ever? That's mildly frustrating...

But I agree with certain tenets of the Paleo diet, namely that we should cut out heavily processed foods. I like to make the distinction between processed (things like cheese and oils) and heavily processed (things like oreos). I like to look at ingredients and if I feel like I could have made the food at home, it's not heavily processed. This includes things like certain cookies and donuts; if they're made with flour, butter, sugar.... A good rule to follow (for me) is to only eat foods your great grandparents would recognize as food.

You're mildly frustrated that I have a Paleo diet?!

It's strange that you say you agree with certain tenets of the Paleo diet but you'd advocate certain cookies and donuts. The Paleo diet is simply one of a hunter gatherer. Therefore it doesn't include processed foods at all.

And the thread isn't about the Paleo diet - I was interested in finding out others opinions about calorie counting (I just happen to follow a Paleo Diet)

 

[Coach Palfrey]

May I ask - how do you know that you average 4k calories a day on Paleo if you don't track calories? I ask about average because some days I eat 3k calories, but that's not the average # I eat on weight loss.

I've been eating the same way for about ten years. My daily intake varies greatly depending on how I feel and what training I've been doing but I have worked it out as an average before. My point being that if I want to reduce my bodyfat level I don't use calorie deficit as the model - I simply make my diet less processed. It's something that works for me and others that I know and I was curious to get the opinions of others here.

 

[Jeanette401]

Certainly you can eat larger amounts/volume of food that's unprocessed. Not only is it generally less calorie dense, but it often takes more energy to digest and may have less calories absorbed.

But I think it's about what works overall as a plan. I did Atkins for years - and it certainly worked. On the other hand, when I think about which is harder for me, counting calories, or cutting out the majority of the foods I love... it's really easier for me to count the calories than it is to just cut out all processed foods.

I also try to make my diet less processed, but I'm not a hunter gatherer in real life I work at a computer, sitting at a desk, and for me, it's easier to just keep track of how much I'm eating than to worry about avoiding things a hunter gatherer wouldn't eat. Or stress out over what to make for dinner because I'd have to learn how to cook without some of my staples. Or figure out what the heck I can eat when I go out to eat with friends, or eat at a friends house... etc Calorie/macro counting just fits a lot better into my life.

 

[Jeanette401]

Also, I'd point out that there's a difference in what's commonly conceived of as a 'sensible' diet, and the paleo diet. Paleo is a lot more restrictive than say, 'Mostly plants' and 'Stuff I could make at home, and my grandma would probably recognize the ingredients.' It's also more restrictive than just 'foods available in nature'.

So there's a difference in saying that people can just lose weight by eating sensibly and saying that 'maintaining sensible dietary choices' = paleo.