Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why I love calorie counting!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Omni View Post
    and likewise for your own opinions.
    Yes, we have all done this at one point or another. However, I have become more open-minded in my old age. It will forever be a learning process.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by john_e_turner_ii View Post
      Yes, we have all done this at one point or another. However, I have become more open-minded in my old age. It will forever be a learning process.
      A scientist once told me how depressing his profession can be, because no matter how watertight your hypothesis is and no matter how rigorously it is tested, at some point in the not too distant future it will be proven wrong.

      Once you fall in love with your hypothesis, then progress of knowledge is halted, because as we all know "Love is Blind".
      Last edited by Omni; 03-22-2013, 01:57 PM.
      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
        I guess that would have to depend on your definition of "works". How effective is it for losing weight in the real world, rather than in a laboratory? Is it a diet people can stick to, or do you blame the participants for "failing" when they drop out?

        Of course on a "twinkie only" diet, weight loss would be rapid, seeing they are not presently in production anywhere.
        If you search "Twinkie diet", you can read about Mark Haub, nutrition science professor at Kansas State. There's a bazillion links with all kinds of commentary. He lost almost 30 lbs in 10 weeks, so I guess a junk food diet can "work".

        But I'm not doing it, Otzi! Not even for science!

        And ChocoTaco, Mr. CICO himself, going on about my metabolism goaded me into crunching some numbers to see if my data actually support a faster metabolism on a more nutrient dense diet. At 1st pass it looks like the opposite. But I have to cook some local pastured pork chops, so I'll be back later.
        50yo, 5'3"
        SW-195
        CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
        GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by LauraSB View Post
          But I'm not doing it, Otzi! Not even for science!
          Chicken...bawk, bawk, bawk

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by john_e_turner_ii View Post
            Like I said, it wouldn't matter or change your opinion if I presented you a study. You have just as much access to all of the studies that any of us do. You pick the ones that support your position, and you ignore the ones that don't.
            How long does one have to be Primal to be as skilled at mind-reading as you? You are making an extraordinary claim - that multiple studies exist showing eating nothing but cake is an effective way to lose weight and keep it off permanently for real-world populations. I get tired of reading here that I need to give up my analytical faculties and accept clearly made-up research claims uncritically.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
              Nope. A calorie is always a calorie. What varies is the health of a person's metabolism. That often is determined by vitamin and mineral repletion and proper hormonal balances. Get your soluble vitamins and minerals (from whole foods, not supplements), avoid toxins, make sure you're eating enough but not too much, exercise regularly, sleep well. CW has this idea right. The OP's issue wasn't calories but rather lack of nutrition.
              Oh, Choco, my dear, a person could get whiplash watching you change your stance on things.

              First you fought me tooth and nail through the two monster calorie counting threads insisting that it was diet composition that mattered, not calories. If I would only see it your way and eat tons of sweet potatoes, the weight would fall off effortlessly.

              Then lately, you have been the ultimate hardline CICO advocate, acting like you invented the concept of calorie counting, all the while dismissing anyone who talked about metabolism and hormones as "just making excuses".

              Now, it does my heart good to see you working your way back toward some kind of middle ground. <snif>My baby's growing up.

              Originally posted by LauraSB View Post
              ChocoTaco, Mr. CICO himself, going on about my metabolism goaded me into crunching some numbers to see if my data actually support a faster metabolism on a more nutrient dense diet. At 1st pass it looks like the opposite. But I have to cook some local pastured pork chops, so I'll be back later.
              Hah!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                Oh, Choco, my dear, a person could get whiplash watching you change your stance on things.

                First you fought me tooth and nail through the two monster calorie counting threads insisting that it was diet composition that mattered, not calories. If I would only see it your way and eat tons of sweet potatoes, the weight would fall off effortlessly.

                Then lately, you have been the ultimate hardline CICO advocate, acting like you invented the concept of calorie counting, all the while dismissing anyone who talked about metabolism and hormones as "just making excuses".

                Now, it does my heart good to see you working your way back toward some kind of middle ground. <snif>My baby's growing up.
                My stance has been exactly the same for probably the past 18 months (after I stopped believing all the keto/low carb lies promoted by the religious wing of the Church of Paleo):

                1.) Eat real, whole foods.
                2.) If you're not losing weight, you're eating too much.

                How exactly is any of this different? I know the only point of your post is to try and start a fight and contribute nothing constructive to the topic at hand, but I'm still curious how you'll try and answer this.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  I know the only point of your post is to try and start a fight and contribute nothing constructive to the topic at hand, but I'm still curious how you'll try and answer this.
                  Untwist the knickers, kiddo. Just funnin' ya.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by otzi View Post
                    Another thought here on LauraSB's amazing success:

                    She was not counting calories in the traditional sense, she was tracking her calories--two completely different things! In a normal calorie counting scheme, one aims for a specific calorie target each day, clearly she did not do that, she followed her "inner grokkette" and ate what turned out to be approximately 1500 calories per day.

                    I think the problem with traditional calorie counting, is that if you aim to eat 1500 calories per day, you will, and often more, due to poor labels and misjudgment, but you will rarely eat under 1500 calories a day, because you have a target in mind.

                    Does that make sense?
                    Except that I did have a target in mind. I had a daily target and a weekly target and I knew that if I was going to make my weekly target, a bunch of my days had to be under-budget in order to make up for the inevitable days over-budget. I also knew that breakfast and lunch had to be as small as I could bear to make them, because having a little more calorie freedom at dinner was going to make my life a lot easier. Calories drove everything. They drove me to nutrient dense foods.

                    I suppose the explosion in days over 2000 calories that occurred in the last 4 months may be evidence that I gave into my "inner grokette". But I wasn't very happy with her. I kept thinking I really needed to get control of my appetite before my weight started drifting upward. During those long plateaus, I was sure I was headed for something bad. I was just so darn hungry. And then I'd get on the scale one morning and my weight would be down another pound.

                    I do agree that eating up to a specific target every single day isn't a good weight loss strategy. I don't think it's natural to eat almost exactly the same number of calories every day and it doesn't leave you any wiggle room for when you're starving.
                    50yo, 5'3"
                    SW-195
                    CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
                    GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                      The way I interpreted your graph, you eat more calories now but weigh less. If that is true, there are two explanations:

                      1.) You exercises more (or smarter) now, so your average daily calorie burn is higher.
                      2.) Your metabolic rate has increased due to nutrient repletion or optimized hormonal profiles, so your average daily calorie burn is higher.

                      Either way, if you're eating more than before and losing weight, even if it's slowly, you're burning more calories now than when you started.
                      I wasn't really buying that my data supported that I was burning more total calories now, so I went back to this graph:

                      I compared the 1st 3 months and the last 3 months.

                      Last April-June, I lost 29 lbs. If you figure 3500cal/lb, I was burning (my body was eating) 1103 cals of body fat per day. I was eating an average of 1400 food cals/day. So my total calories consumed was 2503. My average BMR during that time was 1482. 2503-1482=1021 calories burned beyond my BMR.

                      Dec-Feb of this year, I lost 6 lbs. I was burning 233 cals of body fat per day. I was eating an average of 1750 food cals/day. So my total calories consumed was 1983. My average BMR, due to being smaller, was 1299. 1983-1299=684 calories burned beyond my BMR.

                      Now I'm not saying this proves my metabolism is slower now. I'm just saying that when you factor in the rate of weight loss, there's nothing in the data I have that supports the conclusion that my metabolism is faster than it was before. I do think I might conclude that my metabolism is faster than average for a woman my size and age. When I use online calculators to determine maintenance calories, I get numbers in the 1500-1800 range for a lightly active person. I'm eating 1750 cals and losing 233 cals of body weight each day. In the beginning, I was losing weight faster than my calorie budget predicted I would, as well. Kind of crazy to think my whole life I thought my metabolism must just be slow.

                      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                      The only other option is you tracked your calories incorrectly.
                      Bite your tongue!
                      50yo, 5'3"
                      SW-195
                      CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
                      GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        Nope. A calorie is always a calorie. What varies is the health of a person's metabolism. That often is determined by vitamin and mineral repletion and proper hormonal balances. Get your soluble vitamins and minerals (from whole foods, not supplements), avoid toxins, make sure you're eating enough but not too much, exercise regularly, sleep well. CW has this idea right. The OP's issue wasn't calories but rather lack of nutrition.
                        I was not aware that CICO came with qualifiers or confounding variables, if this is the case then this makes CICO completely irrelevant to real world experiences.
                        How can we possibly apply CICO at distance to an individuals end result without a full medical examination, a raft of testing and a metabolic ward?
                        "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Omni View Post
                          I was not aware that CICO came with qualifiers or confounding variables, if this is the case then this makes CICO completely irrelevant to real world experiences.
                          How can we possibly apply CICO at distance to an individuals end result without a full medical examination, a raft of testing and a metabolic ward?
                          CICO works perfectly for me.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            And more power to you, but it doesn't seem to work for everyone, the issue is with the blanket rule philosophy.

                            Personally I don't count anything, never have, sometimes I gorge like a pig other times near on fast for days, my body maintains it's own paramaters as required.
                            "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Omni View Post
                              And more power to you, but it doesn't seem to work for everyone, the issue is with the blanket rule philosophy.

                              Personally I don't count anything, never have, sometimes I gorge like a pig other times near on fast for days, my body maintains it's own paramaters as required.
                              Well then, more power to you as well!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by LauraSB View Post
                                I do agree that eating up to a specific target every single day isn't a good weight loss strategy. I don't think it's natural to eat almost exactly the same number of calories every day and it doesn't leave you any wiggle room for when you're starving.
                                Maybe a weekly calorie budget could work better for some persons? So if a person eats too much for some days he could take a day off from eating to make sure that he maintain the weekly deficit… Anyway, the dieter must have some control about the amount of food he is eating, and counting calories is meant to make dieting easier and more predicable, but portion control works well also, if you eat the same things over and over again…
                                "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                                - Schopenhauer

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X