Article: Why calorie counting makes you fat

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-120 0993/Why-calorie-counting-makes-fat.html

...And yet this website boasts plenty of people against that x)

Maybe some of what they say is right, and the calorie counting isn't PERFECT, but they can't say it's making everyone fat!

Just wanted to share.

oh please this kind of article pisses me off cause they don't do their homework, i have lost 70 lbs since october counting so how is that getting fatter?

If you read the article, it states that the calorie estimates for grams of carbs, fat, and protein are actually underestimates. So wouldn't that mean that we are eating less than we count?

As usual, bad reporting from the Daily Mail.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

If you read the article, it states that the calorie estimates for grams of carbs, fat, and protein are actually underestimates. So wouldn't that mean that we are eating less than we count?

 It says that, but they seem to have used another method also, because on the image some of the foods have been given higher calorie values and some have been given lower calorie values. :s

Original Post by amethystgirl:

If you read the article, it states that the calorie estimates for grams of carbs, fat, and protein are actually underestimates. So wouldn't that mean that we are eating less than we count?

As usual, bad reporting from the Daily Mail.

Was just going to point that out. I can hardly bring myself to take a scientific article seriously when it fails to perform even the most basic of calculations.

OK, the title of that article is stupid, but it did have some valid points.  Some of it is intuitive and obvious, but when we're constantly touting the mantra of calories in vs. calories out, these are things we have a tendency to forget or overlook.  When we process food before we eat it by cooking it or grinding it up, our bodies are going to be able to get more calories out of it than if we eat it whole and raw.  That makes a difference when you're trying to create a calorie deficit, especially when it's difficult to accurately calculate how many calories you burn.  Add that to other variations in how many calories each person can absorb from the same food, and it helps explain some of the differences in how easily different people gain and lose weight.

Check out this article about how your intestinal bacteria can have an impact on your weight:

http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=878

lmao some dummy talken about what they have no clue of.


Ive lost 87 pounds Calorie counting and still going

Original Post by laralives:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-120 0993/Why-calorie-counting-makes-fat.html

...And yet this website boasts plenty of people against that x)

Maybe some of what they say is right, and the calorie counting isn't PERFECT, but they can't say it's making everyone fat!

Just wanted to share.

I used to count calories every day religiously. It was tiring, draining and time-consuming. I could have spent the time on other more productive things. Right now I only occasionally check on my calorie intake. Most of time I simply forget about it. I feel much much MUCH more relaxed. Emotionally, I don't get mood swings as often as before. I am far less stressed over what I eat. 

When my stress level goes down, I stop eating emotionally. It makes me feel better of myself and I have started buying good, healthy food as oppose to worrying about how many calories I should have. 

Calorie count can be very deceiving too. I have read many articles about it. Many foods you eat require you to burn more calories than what's printed on the label because your body has to make certain enzyme to digest the food. That's why unrefined and unprocessed foods are generally healthier. They give your body an internal workout. 

I think the point is not to focus on how many calories you eat, but what kind of food you eat. :-)

I think just about everyone on here realizes that counting calories is not an exact science. Measurements may be slightly off, the food might not be prepared exactly the same every time, you may walk a few more steps from day to day, etc.  The point though is that it's close enough to lose weight.  For me and propbably for most people, it's pretty obvious that I eat less calories when I'm counting that when I'm not counting.  It's not like calorie count errors are making up a 500 calorie difference every day and I'm actually getting fatter.

The article did have some good food for thought though.

Daily Fail.

I thought it was very interesting, It seemed to encourage eating whole clean foods, which is exactly what I am trying to do. I am counting calories and losing weight. The fact that calorie science is not exact makes sense.

Thanks for sharing lara

Judy

I skimmed it and then stopped looking. Different things work for different people. This site and calorie counting has been my saving grace. I have more freedom and can pretty much eat whatever I want as long as it's in my calorie budget, which makes the healthy stuff easier to swallow, knowing I can have some ice cream is I'm good. :)

-69 since April and counting. <3

Original Post by kiltias92:

Daily Fail.

lol

Well I was ready to be pissed off at another dumb opinion that calorie counting is not helpful to weight loss, but that's not what it was about. I agree that the title is stupid, just to grab people's attention, but the points they make are all valid and actually do not support the title. Like the fact that many food labels are incorrect, and that the method of cooking and soft/vs hard to eat foods effect their ease of digestion, and so there's no way for us to accurately count every calorie.  

The article states at the end that calorie counting is good to use as a guideline, but that balance of foods is important too, and that's very true, so I think maybe some other responders here have not actually read the article.

Aside from this article, I think that there are some dangers with calorie counting as it can almost become addictive and having read a few opinions on here it does really need to be monitored as a few people on here (only a few luckily) seem to have taken it to an extreme whereby they have almost developed ED's from becoming obsessed with counting their calories.

On the whole though I agree, the article is pretty good even if the title is misleading - long live calorie counting!

Say a nutritionist sets up a 2000 calorie plan for someone based on data that 2000 calories will work well for a person of that weight, height, and age.  The data the nutritionist is using is based on faulty calorie calculations, but so what?? It's been proven that this amount works, whether we call it 2000 or 25,000 that the person is actually getting, it's all relative.  

The point the article made about soft, overcooked foods being more easily digested, and therefore causing more calories to "stick" is an interesting one.  But since we have so much REAL LIFE data to back up the fact that watching calories will cause weight loss (in my case, even if I only approximate), I think these differences are negligible and not worth worrying about.

I've always considered calorie counting as a learning tool.   I doubt that I will be calorie counting my entire life, however at the beginning of my efforts to lose weight it has been crucial.

A lot of us would agree that when we eat 'whatever we want', most of the time are not looking at the nutritional information of the food.  We know its 'bad' but do not look to see exactly how bad it is.  Once I decided to count calories, I paid a lot of attention to the nutritional label and content of food.  It's quite an eye-opening experience to say the least.

After calorie counting for a while, I can get a pretty good idea of a food has a lot of calories or not, and a pretty good estimate of what it has.  Rather than micro managing to an exact amount each day, I can eyeball the foods I've eaten to come up with an estimate that is fairly close to what I'd target in a day.

Furthermore, upon examining foods it becomes obvious that the unprocessed, whole foods are better for me.  Vegetables are low calorie and nutrient dense.  So migrating to eating whole foods, preferably organic foods is somewhat natural.

Counting calories certainly has its uses, however I am not obsessing over every single calorie just as I do not obsess over every single weigh in.   For those just starting out, calorie counting is a very useful tool.  For the 'pro' that has been at it for a while, its almost second nature.

Thanks for posting the article. :)

Well, other than the fact that the conclusion drawn by the title is the wrong way around (based on the content of the article), I thought it was a very GOOD article.  I had never considered that the softness of food would actually impact how many calories are absorbed!  Or that coarse foods require more energy to chew.  In that respect, it was a very informative article.  THANKS!

The missing equation is the science behind how many calories it takes to chew harder foods or digest them.  I think they are grossly overstating their case.  You burn more calories walking quickly than slowly - but not by much.  It is not until you run that there is a significant difference in  calorie burn vs walking.  Chewing food a few seconds more is not likely to burn enough calories, even over a long period of time to seriously impact weight.  Same with digestion.  They do not give facts or scientific data to back up the claim.  The "gain" is likely to be slight.

It's been a while since this post BUT I think I've just found out their reasoning behind the over-estimating part. This article is also about the same findings, but includes the calorie findings for alchol and fibre too. It says we currently underestimate fibre calories. Just thought I might as well sort out our confusion...

Anyway, I do agree the original article provides good tips. I was just making fun of the title in my post since the success of most of this website's members is based on calorie counting .