4 ms·
Yes? And even in that article there is the following paragraph which implies that the number of calories consumed is important: '"People who ate the ultra-proc
by Pius_IX 4y ago
Yes? And even in that article there is the following paragraph which implies that the number of calories consumed is important:
'"People who ate the ultra-processed food gained weight," says Dr. Stanford. Each group was given meals with the same number of calories and instructed to eat as much as they wanted, but when participants ate the processed foods, they ate 500 calories more each day on average. The same people's calorie intake decreased when they ate the unprocessed foods.'
I am *not* saying that 'losing weight is a matter of simple math' by counting calories as the article suggests. That is a a stupid thing to say and kind of a strawman. I am saying that 'investing time in tracking calories' (A thing the other guy implied being a waste of time) is a great tool in a tool-kit. I am also saying that eating whole foods is a great idea, but - by itself - not the ultimate solution either. I'd further say that eating healthy isn't just about losing weight, it is about a number of things for different people - some need to gain weight for example.
In addition to that, I think the article does a disservice to counting calories and is just generally written in a sloppy way. While obviously nothing it says is wrong, it also doesn't tell you a lot of other true things. For example that it can be quite easy for some people to eat enough healthy whole food to grow quite fat or at least to not lose weight (If that is the goal). It also doesn't mention that counting calories helped countless people lose a lot of weight.
But the most important flaw is that it doesn't tell you the intended target audience of the information.
Do I need to eat tons of McDonalds and be way overweight? Or do pasta and pesto twice a week count while eating lots of vegetables on the other days? Will I magically lose weight if I don't eat those two meals a week? What about if I lead a very active lifestyle and work in construction? What if I am a hobby athlete and just want to lose 10kg while already eating healthy whole foods? Depending on you personally the information in this article is probably useless.
I mean for gods sake, they use The biggest loser as an example, hardly relevant for most people (Outside the US? I don't know).
Also note that in the 3 reasons they list, only *1* is something you are actually able to control, and that one reason breaks down to *people eat less calories*. If they want to convince me that counting calories is a bad idea they should really find better arguments.
'putting the emphasis on improving diet quality and making sustainable lifestyle improvements to achieve a healthy weight.' as described in the article is such a non-committal take. No surprise, eating good food and making livestyle improvements (Whatever that is) is a good idea.
Reality is obviously way more complicated than a small essay on the internet can do justice. As such I personally kind of despise these articles, whether they be from Harvard Medical or Mens Healthy. Especially if they don't acknowledge this and instead write the article in a way that seems to imply that it contains all the information you need.
- mister_mister 4y agoIf experts from reputable sources won't change your mind, I don't think any post on HN will either. The points in the article are pretty clear. The gut biome, your metabolism, sleep, exercise , and stress all play role.
- bena 4y agoHe's got a valid criticism though. The article says one thing and then contradicts itself. Most of the advice is of the nature "This causes people to eat more". Being stressed causes you to eat more. Poor sleep causes you to eat more. There is some variance, but it's nowhere near significant enough to really matter in the face of the largest contributor: the number of calories you consume.
- mister_mister 4y agoThe criticism comes from someone who not a expert or even basic knowlegde of role of hormones in the body. Such as insulin on cells or thyriod t3 hormone on metabolism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3830935/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3830935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4044302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4044302/
- Pius_IX 4y agoMaybe I didn't explain myself very well, if so I am very sorry. English is obviously not my first language. The gut biome, your metabolism, sleep, exercise , and stress all play role. Yep. You can't control your gut biome and your metabolism as far as I know so while interesting, those are irrelevant for most people. Everybody will tell you that no stress, sleep and exercise are great. Combine all of these if you want to live a good, healthy life - great, but you probably didn't need an article for that. But wait, there are lots of people who do all those things (Whole food, no/little stress, sleep, exercise) and still don't lose weight. There are tons of reasons for that. Maybe they still eat way more than they should - people are horrible at estimating how many calories a meal has. Maybe they are sick, either in mind or body. Maybe they don't train as well as they think (A lot of people think that jogging for half an hour equals a whole meal, instead of one slice of bread). Maybe there is another reason out of the myriad of reasons that exist. But this article makes it seem like the most important thing is Put the focus on food quality and healthy lifestyle practices to attain a healthy weight. By the way, here are other 'experts from reputable sources' (The same journal) who pretty much say the same thing I do: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/calorie-counting-made-easy https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/calorie-count... (Explains how to count) https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/counting-on-calories https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/counting-on-c... (Describes how many you probably need) https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/dont-count-calories-but-be-aware-of-them https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/dont-count-calorie... (This one says exactly what I say - they aren't the only thing that counts, but you still better are aware of them.) https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/counting-calories-to-keep-your-heart-young https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/counting-calorie... (This one for whatever reason claims it keeps your heart young. I don't care enough to research that one) https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/simple-math-equals-easy-weight-loss https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/simple-math-e... (And this one is so badly written and claims the exact opposite as far as I can tell, that I very much doubt this is a 'reputable source'). Don't always believe what a single, hastily written and completely non-sourced (Not a single source/quotation in that article!!! How is that reputable??) in a weird online magazine claims. Even if the print Harvard on the top.