Why are calorie counting approaches so dominant in weight loss discussions?

[Lemonthyme]

An honest question. Why is everyone SO obsessed with counting every calorie on here?

I ask because there is a lot of evidence that it isn't an accurate thing. I work in the food industry so some of this comes from knowledge you might not have got wind of.

• Calories can be up to 20% out (either way) and be legal. Even if calories are more than 20% out, the product will not be recalled by anyone. Even if there's a howler on packaging, it normally takes a BIG issue to be recalled and, say 25%-30% more calories than it says? Nah, I could talk any retailer into letting that stay on the market.
• And if you think processed foods are hard to count, natural ones are too with seasonal variability, ripeness, storage, if something has been frozen or deep chilled all makes a difference. And those apps which work it out from photos? They can be wildly wrong.
• Takeaway calories where given are known to be even worse. They won't even be testing their products but relying on calculation models. Which are often crazily wrong.
• There is some fairly recent research that calories are not all absorbed depending on how it's consumed. The way calories are calculated is pretty blunt. It treats the body as though it's a furnace, it's not. Google this yourself but if you eat whole nuts vs. ground nuts, the pack calories will say the same thing. But in reality, you will not absorb all of the calories from whole nuts. Your body isn't good enough at breaking it down. Same goes for starches. Amylose particularly when cooked and cooled will convert in part to resistant starch which your body will treat like fibre but cooked potatoes eaten hot and cold will have the same calories on them but the body won't treat them that way.
• Our body adapts "calories out" when calories in are reduced. Sad but true. One of the reasons exercise is so important.
• Different macronutrients take more energy to process. Protein is particularly high. Carbs low.
• The foods you eat have impacts on your gut microbiome which impact the foods you crave, your mood and your appetite.
• And that's before you get into how differently our hormones react to x number of calories from sugary foods vs something with a higher satiety index.

I get that people want a number but calories seems like such a blunt tool. For those who use it, have you ever tried focusing on nutrition and more mindful eating or does that just not work for you? I'm not saying it doesn't work, because I did follow a calorie controlled diet in my 20s which did work, but I've also followed more intuitive approaches as I am now. I've just never encountered so many people evangelical about how calories must be counted. Every thread about 2-3 people will be stating with HUGE certainty that you MUST calculate your TDEE and be in a deficit of x amount.

Every time I shrug and think "well I'm not and I'm not prepared to do anything now to lose weight that I won't be doing in a year's time to maintain because otherwise I'll gain it all back."

Snacking can be bad for you but it greatly depends on the snack.

A lot of commercial snack foods are high in sugar, salt and fat and there are studies out there that suggest the calories consumed in the snack aren't compensated for in the next meal.

The Role of Snacking in Energy Balance_ a Biobehavioral Approach1,2

There are also other benefits to having ghrelin rise from time to time. Including metal alertness, changes in gut microbiome but also the psychological aspects that once you experience true hunger and realise it comes and goes in waves, then you realise it's not an emergency. The interesting things with GLP1 agonists is they don't allow the person to experience hunger in the same way. So people don't learn what that's like.

There are various studies about ghrelin benefits. Just have a google.

I think the point I'm trying to make is it is individualised. So you do you.

But also what I'm pointing out is calories are such bad approximations for what our body does anyway. So for some people being told "there's no other way than counting calories" is patently false and what you're eating and when will come into the equation.

Our bodies are incredibly complex with multiple hormones influencing what we eat, think and feel. Combine that with the fact we have a community in our guts as well and it's far far more complex from everything I've read than CICO.

I now eat to feed that community, much as it sounds odd. And in doing so, it's changed what I want to eat and how often I feel hungry. I've spent a weekend away this weekend and despite being around bread, cakes, puddings, crisps, wine, I wanted none of it. So in a way, it perhaps took some training of my body to get to this point. But one thing I'm not doing is counting any calories.

I know this is taking some people a bit to get their heads around. How could it possibly work? And perhaps it's my experience working in food that colours my judgement. But the idea of counting calories just goes with packets of foods which I know are horrendously inaccurate a lot of the time and while a lot of the science on UPFs is BS, it's been known for a very long time that a diet high in fruits and vegetables with meat, fish, pulses and nuts is going to be pretty good for you. As is limiting refined carbs. I just think sometimes it's easier to eat the stuff with refined stuff when you're counting calories because there's a number on the pack and that's a lot less hassle. I did it in my 20s. Bought weight watcher ready meals to eat because that had a number on them and that was less effort than working out the calories in my own dishes. But I see people in here buying the crap from the snack aisles because it's low calorie not because it will fill them or make them feel great. I just find all that depressing.

“I've spent a weekend away this weekend and despite being around bread, cakes, puddings, crisps, wine, I wanted none of it. So in a way, it perhaps took some training of my body to get to this point.”

or maybe you’ve got an eating disorder. We don’t know do we? You can’t trust mumsnetters who are evangelical about weight loss or healthy eating.

True. I might have. Just suggesting a different voice to the 80 odd percent I hear on here. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore.

If not eating cakes and being sober is seen as odd, perhaps the perception of normal is wrong.

who thinks it’s odd though? It’s like you had an imaginary argument set up in your head you’re determined to have, where you sit on top, triumphantly crowned as the oracle of weight loss whilst the fat lazy thick mumsnetters stumble about banging into each other, dribbling and parroting “calorie counting calorie counting calories counting”

OP I genuinely don’t understand your point?

Losing weight requires a calorie deficit. That’s a fact. So counting calories is an obvious way to monitor and achieve that. It might not be an exact science but it seems a really sensible way to monitor and track your eating.

Intuitive eating is never going to work for many people who just don’t have that natural instinct to only choose healthy low calorie foods and to stop eating when they are full etc.

It’s great that you have trained yourself to naturally avoid high calorie treats, well done. You are basically avoiding calories without counting them.

The calorie information we rely on might be incorrect but there isn’t much we can do about that is there?

ageing and hormonal issues are additional factors but the cico argument is still fundamental

I don’t know why you keep stating that a key barrier is having to stick to kcal counting long term - once ppl get to know the numbers and what it means to eat healthily (ie how to be full on healthier foods and presumably eat less kcal vs previous weight increasing diet) - they just know and if they want to maintain weight loss, they need to continue with the new learned habits. Weight regain isn’t because they suddenly forget how to count kcal or because it doesn’t work - it’s because it’s hard to stick to healthy eating - for most!!

Yes exactly - fasting for one day is like calorie counting, only OPs chosen metric is one day of seven rather than say 1500kcal per day for 7 days.

But surely the success of WLI’s is proof that CICO bluntly underpins all weight loss? I’m not talking about muscle/fat ratios, just weight. I mean, I don’t know of anyone saying they ate more on mounjaro etc and lost weight?

However, having lost fat myself through focusing on fasted cardio (which undoubtedly dulled my appetite, although I didn’t count calories as such) I do think exploring ways of eating less other than constantly inputting into MFP (which would make me lose the will to live) should be considered.

The reason I tried fasting 1 day was because when I hit perimenopause I had a level of insulin resistance. I first tried 5/2 which didn't work.

I find it fascinating that when I'm challenging the faith of calories that so many people really want to hang onto their beliefs rather than be open to alternative mechanisms. Why is that?

There are a lot of things that worry me about GLP1 agonists. One is that nobody reached obesity or being overweight because their naturally formed GLP1 was deficient. It's a hormone that hangs around your body for a very short time period naturally. The synthetic analogues last much longer.

So rather than fixing the food systems, the social norms and behaviours, we fix a hormone which wasn't the root cause. Then everyone treats this as the golden bullet.

But, from what I've read, what it does is slow down digestion and reduce desire for food. You can overeat on them but your desire to do so is dulled and often there are consequences of doing so which make you feel uncomfortable. I also believe it changes what foods you desire. So I'm not sure that proves CICO concepts. But that's just my opinion.

“I find it fascinating that when I'm challenging the faith of calories that so many people really want to hang onto their beliefs rather than be open to alternative mechanisms. Why is that?”

I think it’s because, @Lemonthyme , we don’t really understand what you’re saying. There’s no argument that finding a way that works for you as an individual (height/body type/age) to eat less (WLI’s, keto, intuitive etc etc) is the ideal way. But blunt calorie counting is obviously the easiest for most people.

Or are you saying that the energy in/energy out theory is wrong? I think you may have some trouble convincing people that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong!

For me personally it’s because I have lost weight via calories in/out. It’s worked every time and it’s really easy these days to track nutrients via and app to make sure you’re getting what you need. The inaccuracies you’ve mentioned no doubt exist but it doesn’t seem to impact me. I think people are aware of lots of the research out there around what causes people to over eat, but most pepper are simply unaware of the true calorific “cost” of the food they eat until they start counting and weighing. Your comment about people who stop counting putting the weight back on is interesting. We live in a society which is designed to make us overeat - you’re no doubt aware of this as you work in the industry. It’s hard for people to stay a healthy weight these days unless we’re actively watching and “depriving” ourselves of whatever new hot cross bun flavour has hit our shelves.

The first law of thermodynamics is not applicable to a human body. We are a complex symbiotic relationship between a human and billions of bacteria for a start. We are not a furnace. That's the point. The theory of CICO is treating the body like a furnace. Remember that experiment where you burn a peanut to see how much it raises the temperature of water? It's a perfect example. A body does not take a peanut and burn it. It takes a peanut and chews it, then mixes it with enzymes. How much energy is then absorbed into your gut from that peanut depends on several factors then how you respond to the different macro and micro nutrients will impact and be impacted by your hormones as well.

Which all adds up to the exact same weight of 100% peanut butter made only from peanuts and that one peanut will, in a test burning to raise the temperature of water will give the same result. Your body, will not.

Then what is "left" of that peanut which is not digested, because your mouth is not a high sheer mixer, feeds gut bacteria which then introduce other chemicals which are absorbed into your body and drive cravings, satiety, mood etc. That's why nuts for example, are not actually associated with weight gain:

Nuts, Energy Balance and Body Weight

It is far more complex than thinking of your body as obeying the first law of thermodynamics because your body isn't just one being. It doesn't obtain every nutrient possible from a food and the complex interplay of hormones, your microbiome and your mood all play a part.

And that's just before you get onto the high effort but very low accuracy of calorie counting anyway and the likelihood that it will push people towards more processed or preprepared foods to reduce workloads in calculating the calorie intake.

I think Japanese culture is interesting. They have a concept called "Hara hachi bu (腹八分目)" or "eating till 80% full". Additionally being obese is socially really unacceptable in Japan. They have a 4-5% obesity rate.

I find this post disingenuous. "Why don't you all just eat intuitively"? That's because an awful lot of people aren't thin when they eat intuitively. I had a dietician who was all about that. Trouble is with endocrine problems and a fat disorder it doesn't make me thin. And I don't even have any emotional food issues or educational issues. Saying "Don't bother, you'll be 30% out" is really unhelpful.

Obviously rigorous calorie-counting is not the only way to lose weight, and focusing on this may lead people into unhealthy eating behaviours, as you say.

But there is a LOT of research demonstrating that, basically, weight loss is the result of eating fewer calories than you need. Loads of reputable sources all over the internet, e.g.

www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/calories/art-20048065

ok, then, @Lemonthyme , going by your previous threads I’m obviously having a discussion with AI, but, ultimately, CICO is simple (if hard) and it works.

Why is it that people use the "oh you must be AI" as an insult?

I'm not AI. I'm probably somewhere on a neurodiverse spectrum somewhere but why does it make you feel better to assume I'm AI?

Seems a bit odd to me.

Oh and never use AI to find academic papers. There have been some hilarious F ups doing that. I think RFK jnr being the worst for it but also criminal cases citing case law that doesn't exist. 😬

I'm not saying "don't bother, you'll be 30% out" I'm saying that a lot of people see this as the only way and beat themselves up when it doesn't work.

To then have replies like:

"Are you weighing and measuring EVERYTHING or else you won't lose weight!"

Or:

"You must not be measuring everything!"

When it's actually not their fault.

I also think that diet quality is too easily overlooked in CICO approaches where this could be fundamental to both your mood as you lose weight and the efficacy of it all.

No one was arguing that the body is a simple furnace, calories are an approximation of the energy available to your body from food and yes of course the human body is more complex than a furnace.

You’ve also asserted as likely the idea that calorie counting will make people choose processed packaged food as its “easier” to calorie count. I don’t see any evidence for that assertion.

You also seem to be implying that you’d like the UK to be like Japan and have a lot of social opprobrium aimed at obese people, as a tool to force people to keep their weight down. Is that what you’d like to see in the UK?

Are obesity rates in Japan rising, falling or staying the same?

OP came here with a view that she's right and everyone else is stupid to not see her gospel. Nothing anyone can say will change her mind.

You keep switching themes and focus away from calories.

Yes, we need to eat healthily
Yes, it would be good to avoid processed foods
Yes, what we eat can affect our mood
Yes, strict diets are hard to maintain forever,
Yes, nutritional info is unreliable

But getting back to the main point of your thread - counting calories does actually work. There is no denying that, and you haven’t done anything to illustrate that it doesn’t work. If you are stuck on a desert island with nothing to eat you will lose weight. Because you are consuming fewer calories.

You haven’t given a single other example of how someone losing weight can achieve those results for sure.

Calculating TDEE and working out your numbers can be tricky but once you’ve found out what works for you then counting calories works.

I find it fascinating that when I'm challenging the faith of calories that so many people really want to hang onto their beliefs rather than be open to alternative mechanisms. Why is that?"

Probably the same reason you're so adamant you are correct and everyone else is wrong?

Ok fair enough I missed your reasoning for fasting.
I dont hang on to any belief, I go by the science which is clear - creating a calorie deficit leads to weight loss. That deficit can be achieved via intuitive healthy eating, counting and cutting back calories, various diet plans that manipulate macros, exercising more, fasting etc etc. All diets work if they are adhered to; hence the best diet is one that is sustainable for that individual. For some that means counting ci vs co.

Perhaps all the people on here who think I'm bananas or just throwing in insults (hey whatever makes you happy) might want to have a look at this. It's a bit of fascinating research published by the UK government in 2007. It shows all of the interacting mechanisms for a person's weight which could lead to obesity.

07-1177-obesity-system-atlas.pdf

Some of these things are controllable. Some are not. If you read my other posts and comments as well as on here, as well as a level of intuitive eating combined with eating satiating foods, I really recommend some behavioural science approaches. The reason being to hit as many of these factors as possible.

Yet I read comment after comment saying "You need to calculate your TDEE..."

(And of course, your body's TDEE will change as soon as you start to restrict calories.)

I know I might come across a bit wrong sometimes but I'm just curious how much research is increasingly pointing out that we have (at best) oversimplified weight loss for decades. Yet those messages are not permeating into MN and getting boiled down to "one thing".

Anyway. People aren't appreciating it, it's just making people angry. Not sure why.