Calorie counting

[jkc]

What is your opinion about calorie counting Mr. Staley? Personally I don't think it makes any sense. Nature equipped us with hunger to meet our caloric needs, not calculators. If you lived in a lab scientists could continually measure your caloric needs but in everyday life it's not possible to figure it out. What if I biked to the grocer instead og taking the car - then I would need to sit need and solve a couple of equations before my next meal. This could get pretty annoying in the long run...

[Charles Staley]

Fantastic question!

First, if you're happy with your bodyweight, I'd say just eat and don't worry about it.

If you're not happy with your bodyweight (meaning you'd like to lose or gain weight), I think a case can be made for counting calories. Here's why:

1) Most people aren't very good at relying on hunger as an accurate way to eat the ideal amount of calories, for a variety of reasons. One reason for this is that we often confuse physical hunger with emotional hunger? for example, when people are bored, sad, happy, stressed, whatever, they tend to interpret that as hunger.

2) Modern science has figured out lots of ways to disguise the amount of calories in what you eat. High-fructose corn syrup- present in almost all processed foods, is one example.

3) I think it's terribly useful to educate yourself as to how much energy various foods contain. Who's going to be more successful at maintaining their optimal weight: someone who has no idea how many calories are in a 4-egg omelette, or someone who has no idea?

I should point out that once you've done the work and developed a good sense of how many calories are in various foods, it's a knowledge that'll stay with you for the rest of your life? it's not something you have to study forever. Once you've educated yourself, you'll be like a human food calculator, and anytime you eat anything, you'll have a good intuitive sense of what you're eating (in terms of energy yield).


What is your opinion about calorie counting Mr. Staley? Personally I don't think it makes any sense. Nature equipped us with hunger to meet our caloric needs, not calculators. If you lived in a lab scientists could continually measure your caloric needs but in everyday life it's not possible to figure it out. What if I biked to the grocer instead og taking the car - then I would need to sit need and solve a couple of equations before my next meal. This could get pretty annoying in the long run...

[lukeBW]

Fantastic question!

First, if you're happy with your bodyweight, I'd say just eat and don't worry about it.

If you're not happy with your bodyweight (meaning you'd like to lose or gain weight), I think a case can be made for counting calories. Here's why:

1) Most people aren't very good at relying on hunger as an accurate way to eat the ideal amount of calories, for a variety of reasons. One reason for this is that we often confuse physical hunger with emotional hunger? for example, when people are bored, sad, happy, stressed, whatever, they tend to interpret that as hunger.

2) Modern science has figured out lots of ways to disguise the amount of calories in what you eat. High-fructose corn syrup- present in almost all processed foods, is one example.

3) I think it's terribly useful to educate yourself as to how much energy various foods contain. Who's going to be more successful at maintaining their optimal weight: someone who has no idea how many calories are in a 4-egg omelette, or someone who has a clear idea?

I should point out that once you've done the work and developed a good sense of how many calories are in various foods, it's a knowledge that'll stay with you for the rest of your life? it's not something you have to study forever. Once you've educated yourself, you'll be like a human food calculator, and anytime you eat anything, you'll have a good intuitive sense of what you're eating (in terms of energy yield).

Excellent response .... the reason obese people are obese is because they rely solely on hunger, the food industry employs 100's of scientists to come up with
new additives that will make you eat more or give you addictions both psychological and physical

[jkc]

Of 1):

I couldn't agree more. I've found that when I train for the 5k for for a 1.5BW squat I don't have these negative emotions that trigger hunger. Anot
her trick built into these training goals is that my goal will be negatively affected by a weight gain, so I will limit my junk food intake not because I want to loose weight but to increase my performance.

Of 2):

Aha. In my original post I made the assumption that you only eat from the clean food category. Take dates for an example - they make a great substitute for candy and I find that they give a feeling of fullness. I usually only eat 2 dates a time whereas ice cream can be consumed almost by the gallon!

At the moment I'm a bit overweight because of a running injury that messed up my training plan. Lack of training -> bad feelings -> comfort foods. The funny thing is that back when I was running the 5k at 20min I ate like a pig. I got my nutritious meals but on top of that I would have beer, candy and cookies in copious amounts :) And I was at 14% BF.

Right now I'm making the transition back to being an athlete. Because it rocks being one :D

[Tuesday]

Fantastic question!

First, if you're happy with your bodyweight, I'd say just eat and don't worry about it.

If you're not happy with your bodyweight (meaning you'd like to lose or gain weight), I think a case can be made for counting calories. Here's why:

1) Most people aren't very good at relying on hunger as an accurate way to eat the ideal amount of calories, for a variety of reasons. One reason for this is that we often confuse physical hunger with emotional hunger? for example, when people are bored, sad, happy, stressed, whatever, they tend to interpret that as hunger.

2) Modern science has figured out lots of ways to disguise the amount of calories in what you eat. High-fructose corn syrup- present in almost all processed foods, is one example.

3) I think it's terribly useful to educate yourself as to how much energy various foods contain. Who's going to be more successful at maintaining their optimal weight: someone who has no idea how many calories are in a 4-egg omelette, or someone who has no idea?

I should point out that once you've done the work and developed a good sense of how many calories are in various foods, it's a knowledge that'll stay with you for the rest of your life? it's not something you have to study forever. Once you've educated yourself, you'll be like a human food calculator, and anytime you eat anything, you'll have a good intuitive sense of what you're eating (in terms of energy yield).I don't necessarily agree that calorie counting is that important (and it is a minor disagreement to be sure), although it is true we can't escape thermodynamics and all the pounds of flab that come off will have to be burned. Consider, though, the second law of thermodynamics:
ΔE = E_in - E_out

The conventional wisdom is that ΔE gets big (we get fat) because E_in is too big (we eat too much) and E_out is too low (we don't exercise enough). The thing is, as Gary Taubes (see below) points out, there is no arrow of causality in that equation, but there is a lot of them in physiology.

Here's how some of them work. E_in and E_out are directly coupled, meaning if one goes up, so does the other; and if one goes down, so does the other. This means ΔE stays more or less the same. Meaning we exercise, we get hungry; we diet, our metabolism slows; we eat more, we become more active; and if we get lazy, we don't get as hungry. Thing is, though this is true, people still get fat.

If we exercise and cut calories (raise E_out and drop E_in), we can and do lose weight, but it freaking sucks. We're often tired and hungry and our athletic performance tends to suffer. And for the most part, the results don't stick for very long:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070411/diets-dont-work-long-term

(yeah, I know, the study presented in the article says "diets don't work" (emphasis mine) and so they advocate diet and exercise, but given the E_in/E_out coupling that's like saying the studies' participants couldn't take the suffering, so they need to suffer more and harder for longer)

Now, consider a precise definition of obesity, that it is a disease of excess fat storage. Once we call it that, we immediately wonder how we store fat. Turns out fat storage is driven by insulin. Since insulin is driven by serum glucose, which comes mainly from dietary carbohydrate (CHO), that means we get fat because we eat too much CHO.

I know there's more to it than that. There's differential insulin sensitivities of various tissues that are mediated by, among other things, genetics, exercise, and hormones, which may be why some people can eat high-CHO diets and not exercise but never get noticeably fat, while others stay obese on high-CHO starvation diets. And there's a variety of anabolic, catabolic, and satiety hormones to account for as well. But CHO/hyperinsulinism seems to be the 800 lb gorilla of the group.

Gary Taubes has a lot more to say on CHO and obesity in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories. It may be titled like a diet book, but it's a scholarly review of nutritional literature and is worth a read. He gave a lecture at UC Berkeley about a year ago on it, a video of which is available here (click the little eye icon to begin playing, you'll need RealPlayer):
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216
The direct link to the streaming video is here:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/stream.php?type=real&webcastid=21216
I thought it was well worth my time to watch.

There has also been a spate of recent research showing unusual success for weight loss with low-CHO diets -- they tend to be as good as or better than low-fat, high-CHO diets, depending on the population and the nature of the study. See a PubMed search for, among other possibilities: low carbohydrate weight loss. Some sample results:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18700873?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18654910?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18517106?ordinalpos=24&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Don't get me wrong, I think calorie counting does have its place, but I think most people will make bigger gains with less effort by adhering to a higher quality diet ("meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch, no sugar" goes one "prescription") than carefully tracking calories alone. If someone wants to eek out the last bit of performance or shed the last bit of body fat, then calorie/macro nutrient counting will help them get where they want to be. But considering the diminished returns, I wouldn't encourage the added hassle unless the athlete were getting paid to perform and already has their food choices down pat. And like you said, if someone's happy with their body composition, I agree they should keep on eating how they're eating and not change anything.

Oh, and as an added bonus, rapidly absorbed CHO gets most people a little high and makes them feel good. That's likely where the "eating for comfort" thing comes from as comfort foods are rarely low-CHO. Mashed potatoes, macaroni and cheese, ice cream, french fries, cookies, and grilled cheese sandwiches are all without doubt comfort foods, but steak or fish or eggs or spinach or broccoli rarely are -- at least to the obese.

[Charles Staley]

...someone who has a basic intuitive grasp of calories is likely better off than someone who doesn't. Once you develop this knowledge, you can let go of it? I don't currently count calories, but the time I've spent doing it in the past has benefitted me.


I don't necessarily agree that calorie counting is that important (and it is a minor disagreement to be sure), although it is true we can't escape thermodynamics and all the pounds of flab that come off will have to be burned. Consider, though, the second law of thermodynamics:
ΔE = E_in - E_out

The conventional wisdom is that ΔE gets big (we get fat) because E_in is too big (we eat too much) and E_out is too low (we don't exercise enough). The thing is, as Gary Taubes (see below) points out, there is no arrow of causality in that equation, but there is a lot of them in physiology.

Here's how some of them work. E_in and E_out are directly coupled, meaning if one goes up, so does the other; and if one goes down, so does the other. This means ΔE stays more or less the same. Meaning we exercise, we get hungry; we diet, our metabolism slows; we eat more, we become more active; and if we get lazy, we don't get as hungry. Thing is, though this is true, people still get fat.

If we exercise and cut calories (raise E_out and drop E_in), we can and do lose weight, but it freaking sucks. We're often tired and hungry and our athletic performance tends to suffer. And for the most part, the results don't stick for very long:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070411/diets-dont-work-long-term

(yeah, I know, the study presented in the article says "diets don't work" (emphasis mine) and so they advocate diet and exercise, but given the E_in/E_out coupling that's like saying the studies' participants couldn't take the suffering, so they need to suffer more and harder for longer)

Now, consider a precise definition of obesity, that it is a disease of excess fat storage. Once we call it that, we immediately wonder how we store fat. Turns out fat storage is driven by insulin. Since insulin is driven by serum glucose, which comes mainly from dietary carbohydrate (CHO), that means we get fat because we eat too much CHO.

I know there's more to it than that. There's differential insulin sensitivities of various tissues that are mediated by, among other things, genetics, exercise, and hormones, which may be why some people can eat high-CHO diets and not exercise but never get noticeably fat, while others stay obese on high-CHO starvation diets. And there's a variety of anabolic, catabolic, and satiety hormones to account for as well. But CHO/hyperinsulinism seems to be the 800 lb gorilla of the group.

Gary Taubes has a lot more to say on CHO and obesity in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories. It may be titled like a diet book, but it's a scholarly review of nutritional literature and is worth a read. He gave a lecture at UC Berkeley about a year ago on it, a video of which is available here (click the little eye icon to begin playing, you'll need RealPlayer):
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216
The direct link to the streaming video is here:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/stream.php?type=real&webcastid=21216
I thought it was well worth my time to watch.

There has also been a spate of recent research showing unusual success for weight loss with low-CHO diets -- they tend to be as good as or better than low-fat, high-CHO diets, depending on the population and the nature of the study. See a PubMed search for, among other possibilities: low carbohydrate weight loss. Some sample results:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18700873?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18654910?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18517106?ordinalpos=24&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Don't get me wrong, I think calorie counting does have its place, but I think most people will make bigger gains with less effort by adhering to a higher quality diet ("meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch, no sugar" goes one "prescription") than carefully tracking calories alone. If someone wants to eek out the last bit of performance or shed the last bit of body fat, then calorie/macro nutrient counting will help them get where they want to be. But considering the diminished returns, I wouldn't encourage the added hassle unless the athlete were getting paid to perform and already has their food choices down pat. And like you said, if someone's happy with their body composition, I agree they should keep on eating how they're eating and not change anything.

Oh, and as an added bonus, rapidly absorbed CHO gets most people a little high and makes them feel good. That's likely where the "eating for comfort" thing comes from as comfort foods are rarely low-CHO. Mashed potatoes, macaroni and cheese, ice cream, french fries, cookies, and grilled cheese sandwiches are all without doubt comfort foods, but steak or fish or eggs or spinach or broccoli rarely are -- at least to the obese.

[lukeBW]

Mashed potatoes, macaroni and cheese, ice cream, french fries, cookies, and grilled cheese sandwiches are all without doubt comfort foods, but steak or fish or eggs or spinach or broccoli rarely are -- at least to the obese.
Are you kidding me ??
fried fish, oysters, crawfish , scrambled eggs, creamed spinach, collard greens, green bean casserole, tuna casserole , prime rib , rib eye steak , ny strip , filet mingon
these are all comfort foods.. depends where you are from comfort foods have nothing to do with CHO

[RobertFontaine]

If I simply relied on my appetite I would not be eating enough to gain weight.

[John N.O. Main]

Would recommend anyone who needs to educate themselves, to use Fitday for a few weeks. This gives you a good grounding in what you are eating and the energy value.

You need to have some clue of what you are putting in if you are serious about lifting.