5 ms·

The title does not mean that they think calories have no impact on nutrition. They state their stance more clearly midway through the paper: "We need urgently

by nkurz 6y ago

The title does not mean that they think calories have no impact on nutrition. They state their stance more clearly midway through the paper: "We need urgently to overturn calorie counting as the mainstay of nutritional advice and prevention of obesity. There is growing consensus that it lacks value as a practical tool in weight management. It is impossible to measure intake accurately, and too many variables influence calorie expenditure to make calorie counting useful. New research in humans suggests our bodies and metabolic rates can behave differently when given identical calories in different contexts." This seems accurate to me. What we're doing isn't working great, and it seems unlikely that if we had less emphasis on calorie counting that the obesity epidemic would be much worse. So let's try something else, and see if it works better!

bad_user 6y ago
Having calories on food packages helps though, even if it is reductionist, because it's a good surrogate for foods high in energy, low in nutrients, the kind of food that's designed to be overeaten. For whole food, I agree that calories don't matter because we can trust our satiety signals. For junk food designed to be overeaten, I find that information quite useful. Note that I do track my calories periodically. In spite of popular claims it isn't that hard, technically speaking and it doesn't have to be super accurate. The problem with calorie counting is one of mentality. Because you end up thinking about how many calories you have left, it ends up draining you emotionally and you can suffer binging episodes due to it. The brain is unpredictable and we can't necessarily control ourselves which is why we can get fat in the first place. I think everyone should try to measure their calories for educational purposes. If you do, the best app is Cronometer, by far. But to lose weight you need first of all long term compliance, so you need a strategy that can work long term. Counting calories doesn't work long term if you're too emotional and you can't help to treat those numbers as anything else than just data. Counting calories definitely doesn't work for me.
- to11mtm 6y ago
  >For whole food, I agree that calories don't matter because we can trust our satiety signals. For junk food designed to be overeaten, I find that information quite useful. One of the things I -really- appreciate with the newer labeling is that it shows both the calories per serving as well as total calories in the package. Giving both numbers helps people understand how much a binge really costs them. Speaking of which, since you mentioned satiety signals... Last night I wound up craving doritos like Stewie griffin eating pancakes. But some mindfulness helped me reach instead for some carrots, which quite frankly were a better crunch, and honestly I felt better after eating them.
- ctur 6y ago
  Seconding Cronometer as a good tool; it’s the best I’ve found, supports data export, and isn’t full of “social” features that obscure the key feature: easy and accurate calorie tracking. In particular it’s database is more accurate than the crowd sourced ones like MyFitnessPal.
  - bad_user 6y ago
    It's accurate indeed, it has useful info on vitamins and minerals. Some people use it for that and not for calorie counting. It also makes estimating home cooked meals doable because everything comes measured in grams. You just insert your recipe. Estimating home cooked meals in other apps like Myfitnesspal is super frustrating.
- joshspankit 6y ago
  I agree with you that it works “well enough”, but with one major thing that needs to be addressed: Gaming the calorie count through chemicals. Not only can they cause increased appetites, fat retention, and metabolic disfunction, but they can introduce other health problems as well, far more than the results of even an extra 1000 calories.
  - bad_user 6y ago
    Not sure about fat retention, I don't think there's any evidence for that. But I agree with the claim that companies are trying to game the numbers now and the products might not be healthy. Back in the day you had companies advertising low fat products as healthier, however humans have an innate desire for foods high in calories or salt, so they had to compensate with sugar or salt. Nowadays you have companies advertising low calories or low sugar products via use of artificial sweeteners. At least one artificial sweetener that I know of is carcinogenic. Sweeteners can also have a laxative effect since the whole point is that they aren't absorned. I have IBS-D symptoms and for me that's not good. These days, even if I have a preference for less sugar, whenever I feel the need for sweets, I'd rather have the sugar.
adrr 6y ago
Dieting is calorie counting in some way or the other. Eg: Weight watchers uses a point system. It’s trying to get calories consumed below calories needed.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Dieting is calorie counting in some way or the other. Atkins, and many similar low-carb diets, are not. > It’s trying to get calories consumed below calories needed. Even if you restrict “dieting” to “dieting for weight loss”, where that sentence is true, it's still not always some form of calorie counting. The goal of achieving a particular calorie balance is not always met through counting calories, even in rough proxy form. Dieting for weight loss can have lots of strategies.
  - conistonwater 6y ago
    Atkins and other low-card diets appear to try to use the increase in energy expenditure (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065, Figure 2, they do a meta analysis but conclude "the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless" so I'm not sure if the effect is real) due to the absence of carbs, and then just hope the person doesn't manage to increase the calorie consumption by a similar amount by eating too much---so it might still be called calorie counting, implicitly. I think you're defining calorie counting as specifically when the person following the diet counts the calories explicitly themselves.
  - adrr 6y ago
    You need to get your calories below your BMR in order to lose weight. Even on Atkins or any low carb diet, if you're consuming 3000 calories a day, you will not lose weight. Simple calorie counting could be deciding not eat a 36oz steak for dinner because of the high calories or skipping the 3rd piece of bacon for breakfast.
nkurz 6y ago
Too late to edit, but the title at the time I wrote this comment was "We need to overturn calorie counting as nutritional advice". It has since been changed to "Challenges and opportunities for better nutrition science", the title of the linked paper.
briefcomment 6y ago
I think there are two factors that go into maintaining good weight. 1. Calories 2. Metabolic rate The interesting thing is that some things you eat will increase your metabolic rate, and others will decrease it. And those effects will change depending on the context. Blindly under-eating calories runs a high risk of gradually decreasing your metabolic rate. That is bad for your weight in the long run, but, more importantly, bad for every other thing your body does. A high metabolic rate means your body is able to organize things and move them to where they need to be so as to not get bogged down with junk and to slow down the vicious feedback loop of bodily disorder that is aging (as far as we can tell) Probably the best indicator of when you have undergone a metabolism-shifting intervention is when your general sense of "well-being" changes. It's hard to pin down because the signals are likely very varied. When you eat standard commercial fried chicken, you feel pretty sluggish soon afterwards (most common food complaint I've noticed among friends). You may even get a head ache, and in some cases stomach distress. If you pay attention, you may notice that you feel a little more depressed, less creative, maybe emotionally numb. These are all signs of a slowed down metabolism. If you eat a tablespoon of sugar, you may feel a rush of well being. You may feel tingles on your tongue, a lightness in your head, feelings of playfulness, sociability. Those are all signs of a speeding up metabolism. You may also feel cloyingness on your tongue, maybe even slight nausea. Those are feelings of a slowing down metabolism. The same food can have different effects on your body based on the context. For sugar specifically, you can speed up your metabolism if you do not have other nutritional limiting factors. If you are deficient in minerals, vitamins, protein, etc. your body will not be able to speed up metabolism appropriately. It would be akin to drastically speeding up an assembly line conveyor belt (effect of the sugar as a fuel) without having enough people manning the belt, having borders of the appropriate size to help avoid messes, having enough of some other upstream component, etc. The end result is a bigger mess than before. The other important factor to consider is the effect of environment on your metabolism. This may be more important than food for some I think. Nutrition science is unlikely to come to a consensus, but you can help yourself by focusing on anything you can feel. Identify the feelings you like. Take the actions that appear to lead to those feelings. Realize that the same action can and will provide different feelings because of how context dependent everything is. Pursue "well-being" in the most granular fashion that makes sense to you at the moment. Probably, the most important change you can make to your mental model regarding nutrition, if it's not something you already do, is to realize that nothing is ever off-limits. You need to determine what will work for you in real time. Blanket indefinite approval or rejection of any food almost certainly ensures that you won't reach your potential.

by nkurz 6y ago

bad_user 6y ago

Having calories on food packages helps though, even if it is reductionist, because it's a good surrogate for foods high in energy, low in nutrients, the kind of food that's designed to be overeaten. For whole food, I agree that calories don't matter because we can trust our satiety signals. For junk food designed to be overeaten, I find that information quite useful. Note that I do track my calories periodically. In spite of popular claims it isn't that hard, technically speaking and it doesn't have to be super accurate. The problem with calorie counting is one of mentality. Because you end up thinking about how many calories you have left, it ends up draining you emotionally and you can suffer binging episodes due to it. The brain is unpredictable and we can't necessarily control ourselves which is why we can get fat in the first place. I think everyone should try to measure their calories for educational purposes. If you do, the best app is Cronometer, by far. But to lose weight you need first of all long term compliance, so you need a strategy that can work long term. Counting calories doesn't work long term if you're too emotional and you can't help to treat those numbers as anything else than just data. Counting calories definitely doesn't work for me.

to11mtm 6y ago
>For whole food, I agree that calories don't matter because we can trust our satiety signals. For junk food designed to be overeaten, I find that information quite useful. One of the things I -really- appreciate with the newer labeling is that it shows both the calories per serving as well as total calories in the package. Giving both numbers helps people understand how much a binge really costs them. Speaking of which, since you mentioned satiety signals... Last night I wound up craving doritos like Stewie griffin eating pancakes. But some mindfulness helped me reach instead for some carrots, which quite frankly were a better crunch, and honestly I felt better after eating them.
ctur 6y ago
Seconding Cronometer as a good tool; it’s the best I’ve found, supports data export, and isn’t full of “social” features that obscure the key feature: easy and accurate calorie tracking. In particular it’s database is more accurate than the crowd sourced ones like MyFitnessPal.
- bad_user 6y ago
  It's accurate indeed, it has useful info on vitamins and minerals. Some people use it for that and not for calorie counting. It also makes estimating home cooked meals doable because everything comes measured in grams. You just insert your recipe. Estimating home cooked meals in other apps like Myfitnesspal is super frustrating.
joshspankit 6y ago
I agree with you that it works “well enough”, but with one major thing that needs to be addressed: Gaming the calorie count through chemicals. Not only can they cause increased appetites, fat retention, and metabolic disfunction, but they can introduce other health problems as well, far more than the results of even an extra 1000 calories.
- bad_user 6y ago
  Not sure about fat retention, I don't think there's any evidence for that. But I agree with the claim that companies are trying to game the numbers now and the products might not be healthy. Back in the day you had companies advertising low fat products as healthier, however humans have an innate desire for foods high in calories or salt, so they had to compensate with sugar or salt. Nowadays you have companies advertising low calories or low sugar products via use of artificial sweeteners. At least one artificial sweetener that I know of is carcinogenic. Sweeteners can also have a laxative effect since the whole point is that they aren't absorned. I have IBS-D symptoms and for me that's not good. These days, even if I have a preference for less sugar, whenever I feel the need for sweets, I'd rather have the sugar.

adrr 6y ago

Dieting is calorie counting in some way or the other. Eg: Weight watchers uses a point system. It’s trying to get calories consumed below calories needed.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Dieting is calorie counting in some way or the other. Atkins, and many similar low-carb diets, are not. > It’s trying to get calories consumed below calories needed. Even if you restrict “dieting” to “dieting for weight loss”, where that sentence is true, it's still not always some form of calorie counting. The goal of achieving a particular calorie balance is not always met through counting calories, even in rough proxy form. Dieting for weight loss can have lots of strategies.
- conistonwater 6y ago
  Atkins and other low-card diets appear to try to use the increase in energy expenditure (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065, Figure 2, they do a meta analysis but conclude "the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless" so I'm not sure if the effect is real) due to the absence of carbs, and then just hope the person doesn't manage to increase the calorie consumption by a similar amount by eating too much---so it might still be called calorie counting, implicitly. I think you're defining calorie counting as specifically when the person following the diet counts the calories explicitly themselves.
- adrr 6y ago
  You need to get your calories below your BMR in order to lose weight. Even on Atkins or any low carb diet, if you're consuming 3000 calories a day, you will not lose weight. Simple calorie counting could be deciding not eat a 36oz steak for dinner because of the high calories or skipping the 3rd piece of bacon for breakfast.

nkurz 6y ago

Too late to edit, but the title at the time I wrote this comment was "We need to overturn calorie counting as nutritional advice". It has since been changed to "Challenges and opportunities for better nutrition science", the title of the linked paper.

briefcomment 6y ago

I think there are two factors that go into maintaining good weight. 1. Calories 2. Metabolic rate The interesting thing is that some things you eat will increase your metabolic rate, and others will decrease it. And those effects will change depending on the context. Blindly under-eating calories runs a high risk of gradually decreasing your metabolic rate. That is bad for your weight in the long run, but, more importantly, bad for every other thing your body does. A high metabolic rate means your body is able to organize things and move them to where they need to be so as to not get bogged down with junk and to slow down the vicious feedback loop of bodily disorder that is aging (as far as we can tell) Probably the best indicator of when you have undergone a metabolism-shifting intervention is when your general sense of "well-being" changes. It's hard to pin down because the signals are likely very varied. When you eat standard commercial fried chicken, you feel pretty sluggish soon afterwards (most common food complaint I've noticed among friends). You may even get a head ache, and in some cases stomach distress. If you pay attention, you may notice that you feel a little more depressed, less creative, maybe emotionally numb. These are all signs of a slowed down metabolism. If you eat a tablespoon of sugar, you may feel a rush of well being. You may feel tingles on your tongue, a lightness in your head, feelings of playfulness, sociability. Those are all signs of a speeding up metabolism. You may also feel cloyingness on your tongue, maybe even slight nausea. Those are feelings of a slowing down metabolism. The same food can have different effects on your body based on the context. For sugar specifically, you can speed up your metabolism if you do not have other nutritional limiting factors. If you are deficient in minerals, vitamins, protein, etc. your body will not be able to speed up metabolism appropriately. It would be akin to drastically speeding up an assembly line conveyor belt (effect of the sugar as a fuel) without having enough people manning the belt, having borders of the appropriate size to help avoid messes, having enough of some other upstream component, etc. The end result is a bigger mess than before. The other important factor to consider is the effect of environment on your metabolism. This may be more important than food for some I think. Nutrition science is unlikely to come to a consensus, but you can help yourself by focusing on anything you can feel. Identify the feelings you like. Take the actions that appear to lead to those feelings. Realize that the same action can and will provide different feelings because of how context dependent everything is. Pursue "well-being" in the most granular fashion that makes sense to you at the moment. Probably, the most important change you can make to your mental model regarding nutrition, if it's not something you already do, is to realize that nothing is ever off-limits. You need to determine what will work for you in real time. Blanket indefinite approval or rejection of any food almost certainly ensures that you won't reach your potential.