13 ms·

Counting Calories? Your Weight-Loss Plan May Be Outdated

37 points by pavel 15y ago

russell 15y ago
Cut way back on refined carbs, esp. french fries and sugar. Cut back on red meat. I'm doing all that. I'm not losing weight, but my diabetes needs substantially less insulin. Peanut butter is helpful or at least neutral. Yea. Fruits and vegetables, very good. OK, I'm trying. Yogurt is good. Alas, beer bellies have bellies and winos are skinny.
- robchez 15y ago
  get rid of the carbs and sugar, amp up the red meat and lose the peanut butter. Keep fruits on the lowish side, eat whatever vegetables you want.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Your advice is pretty fringe. Peanuts are great, so long as you're not eating Sugar With Some Peanuts Butter. If you're recommending he doesn't eat fruit due to diabetes, I'll defer to the Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/fruits.html http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat...
kevin_morrill 15y ago
Keep in mind observational studies like this have a very hard time proving causation. Nothing in here sounds too far outside what I've seen documented in randomized control trials, but it's good to be aware of this. There's a great write up on this that's fascinating http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-...
kenjackson 15y ago
This write up in the NYTimes simply was poorly done. With a title like "Counting Calories?" -- implying counting calories doesn't work, they don't actually dispell it at all. Where's the data like, "People who eat fruits, veggies, and whole grains actually ate more calories, yet lost weight". And "among those who ate lots of french fries and potato chips, but yet fewer calories than others, gained the most weight." Of course I believe those who eat a lot french fries gain a lot of weight. It's a calorie dense food. As are chips. I'm not saying the title is inaccurate, but rather the article doesn't really substantiate it.
- mshron 15y ago
  I don't think the claim is that something other than net calories are what regulates your body fat, but instead that trying to limit intake through calorie counting isn't the right way to do it. That's what I took away, anyway.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    But they don't show that. Not even by a country mile. My general impression is that the people in this study who lost weight probably ate fewer calories than those who didn't. The fact that they don't even give one sentence to dispute that statement is troubling.
matmann2001 15y ago
What exactly about this is news?
robchez 15y ago
I really wish the count calories, calories in = calories out, calorie is just a calorie mantra would just go away and die. The idea that your body has no clue as to what type (fat, protein, carb) of you're eating is stupid. I have advised nearly everyone in my family as well as lots of friends and colleagues to weight loss success with the following simple rules: 1. Get rid of grains, legumes and sugars 2. Eat healthy fats (coconut oil, lard, tallow grass-fed butters) 3. Eat a decent amount of protein from meat sources. 4. Lower your carbs overall (this is sort of automatic as you will not feel as hungry if you eat plenty of fats and protein) 5. Eat to satiety Also, you don't need to go for runs, or exercise to lose weight. It's great for your overall health, but if you are overweight and the thought of exercise is stopping you, then forget it and just change your diet. As an aside, if anyone else wants further advice please feel free to ask. edit: formatting
- antidaily 15y ago
  Worked for me. Ive lost about 20lbs in the 6 weeks on the Tim Ferriss version of the "slow" carb diet, which is pretty easy to follow and offers a cheat day so you keep your sanity.
- csshelton 15y ago
  Why do you suggest forgoing legumes?
  - robchez 15y ago
    this has got to do more with health rather than weight loss i guess. legumes have 3 things that suck - lectins, protease inhibitors and phytates lectins - known to cause inflammation and have been show to cause gut permeability which is followed by auto-immune type diseases. protease inhibitors intefere with the breakdown of proteins into amino acids phytates have been shown to inhibit mineral absorption
    - dgrant 15y ago
      I call bull shit. This sounds like some Paleo-diet nonsense rather than the result of rigorous scientific study.
kenjackson 15y ago
I found the actual study and the actual study says something quite a bit different. It says that counting calories works, but in an indirect way: Some foods — vegetables, nuts, fruits, and whole grains — were associated with less weight gain when consumption was actually increased. Obviously, such foods provide calories and cannot violate thermodynamic laws. Their inverse associations with weight gain suggest that the increase in their consumption reduced the intake of other foods to a greater (caloric) extent, decreasing the overall amount of energy consumed. Their view isn't that counting calories doesn't work because the science is wrong, but because you're less inclined to follow through due to satiety issues associated with foods. To put it another way, you can't have a bag of chips, and counterbalance it by having a yogurt before going to bed. To me this reporting is sloppy. A much more accurate headline would be, "Eating the right foods will help you stick to your calorie counting diet".
tom_b 15y ago
hmmmm . . . . does that mean I have to gain back the 50lbs I dropped counting calories with LoseIt?
chipsy 15y ago
Two easy rules I've settled on for diet, mostly revolving around GI: 1. Regularly add vinegar(any kind) to most meals, or drink it diluted in water. This dramatically lowers effective GI of carbs so overconsumption is more difficult. It also has some (complex, but mostly positive) effects on body acidity and digestion. Vinegar has been documented for its properties since ancient Greek times, so it's one of the most proven aids around. 2. The _context_ in which things are consumed matters more than the _amount_. For this I mostly stick to a single rule: Meals should be either "carb meals" or "saturated fat" meals. Preferably neither, but never both. Saturated fat acts to raise effective GI and this is the main source of the "badness" in meals like pizza, "super" burritos, burger+fries, macaroni+cheese, etc. But sausage and sauerkraut, or cheese in a green salad are relatively low-impact combinations, despite having a nominally high level of sat-fat. Similarly, even drinking a can of Coke(massive sugar-carb dose, the worst kind) can be OK once in a while, but if you have Coke with lard-soaked fries or full-fat ice cream you're signing up for the sick train. There are tons of other contextual rules you can stack on for caffeine, gluten, the best types of fats, the best preparation methods, etc. but the sat-fat/carb one is the biggest bang-for-buck one I've found, and combining that with vinegar to mitigate the worst-case situations I can remain pretty flexible about what I'm eating.
- ciupicri 15y ago
  I've also heard about this context rule, but what's the explanation or the scientific study?
drdaeman 15y ago
Why it's always about weight loss? I've tried several apps from Android Market, and most of them (and, I'd say, all of them having an usable UI where I can actually try to count something) suggested me some sort of "low-carb" "healthy" recipes, even though my BMI is 17.6 (underweight).
xyzzyb 15y ago
Huge success using the Hackers Diet (counting calories) here. Its online weight tracker is tops. Walker made the book available as an ePub earlier this year: perfect for the iPad. http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/ http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/

37 points by pavel 15y ago

Cut way back on refined carbs, esp. french fries and sugar. Cut back on red meat. I'm doing all that. I'm not losing weight, but my diabetes needs substantially less insulin. Peanut butter is helpful or at least neutral. Yea. Fruits and vegetables, very good. OK, I'm trying. Yogurt is good. Alas, beer bellies have bellies and winos are skinny.

robchez 15y ago
get rid of the carbs and sugar, amp up the red meat and lose the peanut butter. Keep fruits on the lowish side, eat whatever vegetables you want.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Your advice is pretty fringe. Peanuts are great, so long as you're not eating Sugar With Some Peanuts Butter. If you're recommending he doesn't eat fruit due to diabetes, I'll defer to the Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/fruits.html http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat...

kevin_morrill 15y ago

Keep in mind observational studies like this have a very hard time proving causation. Nothing in here sounds too far outside what I've seen documented in randomized control trials, but it's good to be aware of this. There's a great write up on this that's fascinating http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-...

kenjackson 15y ago

This write up in the NYTimes simply was poorly done. With a title like "Counting Calories?" -- implying counting calories doesn't work, they don't actually dispell it at all. Where's the data like, "People who eat fruits, veggies, and whole grains actually ate more calories, yet lost weight". And "among those who ate lots of french fries and potato chips, but yet fewer calories than others, gained the most weight." Of course I believe those who eat a lot french fries gain a lot of weight. It's a calorie dense food. As are chips. I'm not saying the title is inaccurate, but rather the article doesn't really substantiate it.

mshron 15y ago
I don't think the claim is that something other than net calories are what regulates your body fat, but instead that trying to limit intake through calorie counting isn't the right way to do it. That's what I took away, anyway.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  But they don't show that. Not even by a country mile. My general impression is that the people in this study who lost weight probably ate fewer calories than those who didn't. The fact that they don't even give one sentence to dispute that statement is troubling.

matmann2001 15y ago

What exactly about this is news?

robchez 15y ago

I really wish the count calories, calories in = calories out, calorie is just a calorie mantra would just go away and die. The idea that your body has no clue as to what type (fat, protein, carb) of you're eating is stupid. I have advised nearly everyone in my family as well as lots of friends and colleagues to weight loss success with the following simple rules: 1. Get rid of grains, legumes and sugars 2. Eat healthy fats (coconut oil, lard, tallow grass-fed butters) 3. Eat a decent amount of protein from meat sources. 4. Lower your carbs overall (this is sort of automatic as you will not feel as hungry if you eat plenty of fats and protein) 5. Eat to satiety Also, you don't need to go for runs, or exercise to lose weight. It's great for your overall health, but if you are overweight and the thought of exercise is stopping you, then forget it and just change your diet. As an aside, if anyone else wants further advice please feel free to ask. edit: formatting

antidaily 15y ago
Worked for me. Ive lost about 20lbs in the 6 weeks on the Tim Ferriss version of the "slow" carb diet, which is pretty easy to follow and offers a cheat day so you keep your sanity.
csshelton 15y ago
Why do you suggest forgoing legumes?
- robchez 15y ago
  this has got to do more with health rather than weight loss i guess. legumes have 3 things that suck - lectins, protease inhibitors and phytates lectins - known to cause inflammation and have been show to cause gut permeability which is followed by auto-immune type diseases. protease inhibitors intefere with the breakdown of proteins into amino acids phytates have been shown to inhibit mineral absorption
  - dgrant 15y ago
    I call bull shit. This sounds like some Paleo-diet nonsense rather than the result of rigorous scientific study.

kenjackson 15y ago

I found the actual study and the actual study says something quite a bit different. It says that counting calories works, but in an indirect way: Some foods — vegetables, nuts, fruits, and whole grains — were associated with less weight gain when consumption was actually increased. Obviously, such foods provide calories and cannot violate thermodynamic laws. Their inverse associations with weight gain suggest that the increase in their consumption reduced the intake of other foods to a greater (caloric) extent, decreasing the overall amount of energy consumed. Their view isn't that counting calories doesn't work because the science is wrong, but because you're less inclined to follow through due to satiety issues associated with foods. To put it another way, you can't have a bag of chips, and counterbalance it by having a yogurt before going to bed. To me this reporting is sloppy. A much more accurate headline would be, "Eating the right foods will help you stick to your calorie counting diet".

tom_b 15y ago

hmmmm . . . . does that mean I have to gain back the 50lbs I dropped counting calories with LoseIt?

chipsy 15y ago

Two easy rules I've settled on for diet, mostly revolving around GI: 1. Regularly add vinegar(any kind) to most meals, or drink it diluted in water. This dramatically lowers effective GI of carbs so overconsumption is more difficult. It also has some (complex, but mostly positive) effects on body acidity and digestion. Vinegar has been documented for its properties since ancient Greek times, so it's one of the most proven aids around. 2. The _context_ in which things are consumed matters more than the _amount_. For this I mostly stick to a single rule: Meals should be either "carb meals" or "saturated fat" meals. Preferably neither, but never both. Saturated fat acts to raise effective GI and this is the main source of the "badness" in meals like pizza, "super" burritos, burger+fries, macaroni+cheese, etc. But sausage and sauerkraut, or cheese in a green salad are relatively low-impact combinations, despite having a nominally high level of sat-fat. Similarly, even drinking a can of Coke(massive sugar-carb dose, the worst kind) can be OK once in a while, but if you have Coke with lard-soaked fries or full-fat ice cream you're signing up for the sick train. There are tons of other contextual rules you can stack on for caffeine, gluten, the best types of fats, the best preparation methods, etc. but the sat-fat/carb one is the biggest bang-for-buck one I've found, and combining that with vinegar to mitigate the worst-case situations I can remain pretty flexible about what I'm eating.

ciupicri 15y ago
I've also heard about this context rule, but what's the explanation or the scientific study?

drdaeman 15y ago

Why it's always about weight loss? I've tried several apps from Android Market, and most of them (and, I'd say, all of them having an usable UI where I can actually try to count something) suggested me some sort of "low-carb" "healthy" recipes, even though my BMI is 17.6 (underweight).

xyzzyb 15y ago

Huge success using the Hackers Diet (counting calories) here. Its online weight tracker is tops. Walker made the book available as an ePub earlier this year: perfect for the iPad. http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/ http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/