Sugar Waffle's Journal, 30 Mar 16

Thanks for the heads up on the article, I read it. A lot I'd already heard, some I had not. I'd need to do some comparative research, with most things it's possible to find information on either side of the coin, depending on the studies and the way the data is interpreted. HOWEVER....the idea that there are inaccuracies in measuring calories in and also calories out, and that the way we burn calories varies from person to person, is something I agree with and I think can be backed up - from research and personal experience. I think that we ultimately need to figure out for ourselves what it takes to lose weight, or maintain what we have. Over time I've figured out basically what I need to eat in order to lose weight, and my success (or lack of it) can always be attributed to how well I've stuck with it, if I'm 100% honest with myself. It's estimates, yes, but over the long term not hard to figure out. My 2 cents....maybe 5 cents. :) 

Hey SW, I haven't read the article (I will though) but in my opinion calorie counting is an inexact science at best with lots of variation on input calories for the same ingredients and/or foods due to many factors. Same goes for calorie expenditures which are at best rough approximations based on assumed body weights, assumed intensity of effort, etc, etc. What calorie counting (both in and out) does do is give you a RELATIVE number that can be used to compare input and output of energy for an individual on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. As an engineer I have dealt with these types of approximations and inaccuracies in a lot of different chemical processes within closed or open systems - it doesn't bother me - in this case I just adjust the calorie input /output numbers until it works for my goals.  

Calorie counting is imprecise. What it gives you is a baseline from where to make adjustments. Nothing really new in the article. He does fall into the trap of protein's TEF. Protein actually averages 5.3 cals/gram. A value of 4 is used for estimation to account for it high thermic effect. You don't count it twice. 

I read it Colleen, and confirms what we already know. If you want to use CICO as a diet plan without a healthy dose of realism, beware!! 

I think Jim, CatHerder and I are saying the same thing...although calorie counting is imprecise, it is useful to establish a baseline or relative amount of calorie input and output for an individual. How the individual applies their data to their way of eating (and activity levels) may largely determine how effective their weight (fat) loss plan can become. 

I find it interesting that when I was eating over 2,000 cals a day and went for walks, my weight came right off. When I was younger, I'd over exercise and starve myself. I Never had energy and was miserable only to gain the weight back plus some. Now a days,(except this last food challenge I'm doing, only 2 weeks to go) I eat all of my favorite foods. I have not gained all the weight back. Getting back to the article: I was not surprised at the inaccuracy of the fitness tracking devices out there. I always thought it would cause more stress on a person if they didn't get their steps in for the day than enjoyment. My own experience: I do not follow any set diet any more. I eat what makes me feel healthiest and I enjoy every bite! :) Thank you for your comments! 

I just watched a webinar hosted by Pedram Shojai with Marc David and Emily Rosen titled: Transform your relationship with food. I really enjoyed it and will be using some of their ideas.  

Thank you for posting about Dr. Berardi. I don't read a lot of the "diet" websites simply because there is so much conflicting information out there and probably all of it is partially accurate-it's just hard for a layman to know WHAT is the accurate piece, and true for them. I read a few different posts and really like his POV (particularly on what is the BEST diet!) Re: the calories out edition - I found that to be really interesting and what I've always believed was true. All of it is an imperfect science. I do wear a fitness tracker and find that the calories out it records vary about 15-30% from what Fat Secret believes. Both know me to be a 60 year old female with the same height and weight. Obviously, at least one of the counts is wrong - perhaps even both. I try to view the tracker with the same approach as I do the scale - it's simply a tool, not a weapon.  

I found it rather alarming that an overweight person who loses a significant amount of weight may *always* have reduced caloric needs due to adaptive thermogenesis. I hope that's not truly permanent. That would be a cruel bodily punishment, especially combined with the effects of aging on caloric needs. 

I have not read this, but only the posts above. I use my fitbit and scale only as tools so I can compare day to day, what works, what doesn't. I also believe that not all calories are equal. 50 calories of beef vs 50 calories of potato chips will be used quite differently in your body. Good luck on your journey! 

@kpwcalories - this was from another post on the blog. I've read similar info elsewhere too "We don’t know how long this lowered energy expenditure lasts. Studies have shown that it can hang around for up to 7 years after weight loss (or more, 7 years is as far as it’s been studied). This likely means it’s permanent, or at least persistent." It DOES sound like it will eventually reverse but it may take a lot of time.  

Wow! That really tanks the "fat people have no willpower" perspective so many people have. 

One thing mentioned on the webinar was about how our thoughts influence our metabolism. I'd personally like to put that to the test. There are 13 weeks till July 1st. I will apply some of the suggestions I heard and see how close I get to my goal on that date. In 2 weeks I'll be back to my regular way of eating. I just love a challenge!  

This article sounds extremely reasonable. I think one thing we have all learned on this social site, is this is in NO WAY an exact science. We see a thousand versions of the same thing. Some on here have done well, like yourself, but it takes dedication not to revert back. I really think we all are trying to find a happy place with our natural desire for food. The food industry, especially Fast Food Industry, has made it difficult, with processed foods and drink, and everyone with a million different ideas on what is best. The one thing this site is great with, is making everyone comfortable with sharing a similar problem.  

I found a great article on scientificamerican.com when I was searching for Dr. Beradi's article on google, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/ <well worth a read.  

That's the one I read. About how nothing in tracking exercise or diet is constant. 

I like those articles on that website, only second to my primary and favorite website: AuthorityNutrition.com, an evidence based approach. 

Oh, for those who want to know more about the "The Calorie Fallacy," there's a book written by Dr. Libby about how modern society thinks they're physicists and applying a popularly parroted phrase and ignorantly applying it to an actively selective human body running on hormones. Hormones makes you fat, not just calories, beyond calorie counting. www.amazon.com/The-Calorie-Fallacy-Dieting-Nourishing-ebook/dp/B00QQUPLO8 

AuthorityNutrition.com is one of my favorites 

Dr. Mercola is pretty awesome too, and I've never heard of him before. It seems he's a celebrity holistic doctor that's famous to a select group of people. Some of the things he posts and writes about are on point, but just incase, do your due diligence before accepting it as fact. Here's an article about: Stop Counting Calories and Focus on Food Nutritional Value. The only annoying thing is that his website has a pop up that's always asking me to subscribe to him using my email. articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/07/nutritional-value-beats-calorie-count.aspx