 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / November 2003Diet doubts over counting calories
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_836098.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery Diet doubts over counting calories Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers have claimed. A six-month study in America has found some calories cause people to put on more weight than others. The survey of 65 overweight and obese adults - 70% of whom had type 2 diabetes - found that those put on a moderate fat diet containing almonds lost more weight than those on a low-fat diet without almonds. But the total number of calories for both groups was the same. And other factors such as protein intake were also maintained at equal levels. The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with almonds fell by 14%, compared with 9% for the other group. Fat mass figures also fell by 10% more in the group on the almond diet. The results - published in the International Journal of Obesity - cast doubt on widely held beliefs about dieting. It has long been assumed that a key to losing weight is cutting calorie intake. The study's lead researcher Dr Michelle Wien, from City of Hope National Medical Centre in Duarte, California, said: "There may be qualities in almonds that helped the first group lose more weight." One possible explanation was that the fat in almonds may not have been completely absorbed. Story filed: 18:12 Thursday 6th November 2003 Duh. If you go by the logic that all you have to count is calories, then 70 calories of Doritos are as good for you as 70 calories of prunes. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see the garbage in that notion. I've been saying this on this newsgroup for a long time now. Don't just look at the calories, look at the nutritional content. Don't just count how many calories you will take in, think about how you will burn them up. > http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_836098.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery > > Diet doubts over counting calories > > Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers > have claimed. > Diet doubts over counting calories > The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with > almonds fell by 14%, compared with 9% for the other group. Barry Sears discusses this in "Enter the Zone". His theory is that eating facts tells the body to burn fats for fuel. If you only eat carbs, your body will be less prone to burn fats. Other benefits of eating fats: - Stimulate production of hormones that signal satiety - Taste good - Nuts are full of good vitamins etc A little goes a long way though. I have a small handful (e.g. 12 almonds) of nuts before each meal, and no other fats except what comes within other foods like lean meat. Tim Josling >> Diet doubts over counting calories >> The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > almonds) of nuts before each meal, and no other fats except what comes > within other foods like lean meat. Do not overlook walnuts. They are even fattier and have a lot of essential fatty acids that your body cannot produce. i 223/176/180 hello all was wondering what type of diet plan everybody was on. i am new to the group and am following weight watchers am starting back on the program after being off of it for a month and half maybe a bit more. trying to get some new ideas for meals to spice up my diet a little also in need of some different exercises as well. i do my work out s at home because i can't afford to join a gym right now although i would love to. also i am new to this board as well angie > > Diet doubts over counting calories > > The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tim Josling In alt.support.diet Anglea Woollcombe <icouldbeurse@hotmail.com> wrote: >hello all was wondering what type of diet plan everybody was on. i am new to >the group and am following weight watchers am starting back on the program >after being off of it for a month and half maybe a bit more. trying to get >some new ideas for meals to spice up my diet a little also in need of some >different exercises as well. i do my work out s at home because i can't >afford to join a gym right now although i would love to. I am not counting calories any more. Our ancestors didn't walk around memorizing calories of everything because they ate "naturally", and listened to their bodies and stopped when satiated. Calorie information *needs* to be put on all kinds of crap food because it's well, a manufactured product. I've learned to listen to what my body naturally needs. I used to need to count calories when I thought I'd go nuts without multiple helpings of something. But now, I eat a meal, I am done. I just shop around the perimiter of the grocery store. Not that I don't have my vices... I do. They are just not daily staples any longer. cm  SignatureDrop everything and do it my way :) > In alt.support.diet Anglea Woollcombe <icouldbeurse@hotmail.com> wrote: >>hello all was wondering what type of diet plan everybody was on. i am new to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > any longer. > cm do not forget that in the old days, people could not afford to overeat -- food was expensive. i >do not forget that in the old days, people could not afford to overeat >-- food was expensive. And/Or, in the not-so older days as well people raised most of their own food, and rationed it according to how much they had, not according to how much they "felt like" eating. cm Drop everything and do it my way :) >>do not forget that in the old days, people could not afford to overeat >>-- food was expensive. > > And/Or, in the not-so older days as well people raised most of their own > food, and rationed it according to how much they had, not according to > how much they "felt like" eating. and did a lot more manual labor in work and didn't sit in front of the TV... Signaturejmk in NC i count points i follow weight watchers i don't go to the meetings i just go on here one other news group and other message boards for support. it 's worked for me so far i have lost 30lbs only gaining 5lbs back but that is because i was off the program and today is my first offical day back on i did pretty good to am proud made good choices and feel good because of them. i'm going to be goo all week or at least try to be. that is my mini goal for the week to eat healthier and to journal and drink more water. angie > In alt.support.diet Anglea Woollcombe <icouldbeurse@hotmail.com> wrote: > >hello all was wondering what type of diet plan everybody was on. i am new to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > any longer. > cm > hello all was wondering what type of diet plan everybody was on. i am new to > the group and am following weight watchers am starting back on the program [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > angie Hi Ang, The Zone diet, Barry Sears. Three years of low-carbing, blood lipids are bang on, lost 20 lbs and kept it off easily. Wife has lost 30 lbs and is very near her goal weight. TC >> hello all was wondering what type of diet plan everybody was on. i am new to >> the group and am following weight watchers am starting back on the program [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > TC how do you maintain your weight? Is it easy? i > Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers > have claimed. > A six-month study in America has found some calories cause people to > put on more weight than others. That, if true, just argues for counting calories differently. Signature¤bicker¤ "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan People are, of course, welcome to place whatever irrelevant limitations on their ability to enjoy something that they wish. > > Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers > > have claimed. > > A six-month study in America has found some calories cause people to > > put on more weight than others. > > That, if true, just argues for counting calories differently. No, it suggests that counting calories does not work, period. Between 95 to 98% of those who try to lose weight by restricting fats and calories fail to succeed. TC > No, it suggests that counting calories does not work, period. Between > 95 to 98% of those who try to lose weight by restricting fats and > calories fail to succeed. > > TC Well gee, that makes me feel so special :-) SignatureWalking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 >> No, it suggests that counting calories does not work, period. Between >> 95 to 98% of those who try to lose weight by restricting fats and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Well gee, that makes me feel so special :-) Me too Laurie. Something tells me there are quite a few of us in the other 2 to 5%:) janice >>>Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers >>>have claimed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 95 to 98% of those who try to lose weight by restricting fats and > calories fail to succeed. Do you have a citation for that TC? I understand that that statistic is true for all "diets" -- including Atkins and others that do not include calorie counting. Signaturejmk in NC > >>>Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers > >>>have claimed. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > true for all "diets" -- including Atkins and others that do not include > calorie counting. I still think calories goes hand in hand cause I know dam well I would gain weight if I ate 3 large turkeys a day. Right now I'm stalled and I had to watch the calories cause I'm eating more than I did off Atkins. And I'm following it to the T and exercise everyday instead of every few days and I am in ketosis. > > > Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers > > > have claimed. > > > A six-month study in America has found some calories cause people to > > > put on more weight than others. > > That, if true, just argues for counting calories differently. > No, it suggests that counting calories does not work, period. No, it actually doesn't. An argument for counting calories not working would have to prove that there are no correlations between the number of calories in foods, not even on a category by category basis, and weight or health. A little basic logic helps keep these things clear, tc. > Between > 95 to 98% of those who try to lose weight by restricting fats and > calories fail to succeed. Which likely says more about psychology than biology. Signature¤bicker¤ "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan People are, of course, welcome to place whatever irrelevant limitations on their ability to enjoy something that they wish. > No, it suggests that counting calories does not work, period. Between > 95 to 98% of those who try to lose weight by restricting fats and > calories fail to succeed. Assumming that's an accurate figure: no diet has a high success rate. You need to stick with it and make it work. Also, it takes more than just "counting". You have to count accurately and honestly, and you need to make a good estimate at how much you burn/consume. (admittedly, this IS an estimate) Still, I'm proof that if you use calorie counting to become more aware of the quantity of food you eat, once you find numbers to take in that work for you it is very effective. AL > Still, I'm proof that if you use calorie counting to become more aware > of the quantity of food you eat, once you find numbers to take in that > work for you it is very effective. Ditto! Signature¤bicker¤ "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan People are, of course, welcome to place whatever irrelevant limitations on their ability to enjoy something that they wish. Now see, these types of articles are VERY MISLEADING. Counting calories is important to an extent. No, it's not the be all and end all to losing weight but it helps. This article said the total number of calories for both groups was the same. It did not say both groups continued to consume the same amount of calories as previously before the diet. So how much were their calories actually reduced here? It doesn't say. It also does NOT define what a "low fat diet" is. The standard low fat diet of 60g a day or 30% of your calories by the FDA is not low enough. It's quite high! > One possible explanation was that the fat in almonds may not have been > completely absorbed. Well DUH! Almonds contain fiber people. Fats bond to fiber and they all don't get digested, hence while you might be consuming through the mouth the same amount of calories, your body isn't. Again, very misleading article. Trent -- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join now @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health > From: diarmidlogan@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) > Organization: http://groups.google.com [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Story filed: 18:12 Thursday 6th November 2003 > Now see, these types of articles are VERY MISLEADING. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of 60g a day or 30% of your calories by the FDA is not low enough. It's > quite high! Quite high? I've been eating well, well beyond 60g a day and losing weight. I was on a low fat diet for many years (about 20), and all it did was make me hungry. I could eat several plates of pasta and be hungry an hour later. > > One possible explanation was that the fat in almonds may not have been > > completely absorbed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Trent But if what you say is true, then the article is correct. People who are eating almonds and the like -- by your reasoning -- are taking in more calories but digesting less of them. But then you'd have to deal with the fact that the "low fat" diet folks are also eating fiber (I assume), so the fiber must also be removing their low amounts of fat. What's the difference? > > Well DUH! Almonds contain fiber people. Fats bond to fiber and they all > > don't get digested, hence while you might be consuming through the mouth the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (I assume), so the fiber must also be removing their low amounts of > fat. What's the difference? LOL You might be interested in this study on the interaction between obesity genes and dietary fat. Perhaps this is one reason why there is so much disagreement about weight loss methods. There are hundreds of obesity-causing genetic defects and, like poker players, we are all dealt a different genetic hand, which accounts for the large variations in the way people respond to diet, exercise, weight loss drugs, etc. But people tend to think that what works for them will work for everybody, so we end up with confusion and strife. Nieters A, et al. "Polymorphisms in candidate obesity genes and their interaction with dietary intake of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids affect obesity risk in a sub-sample of the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort." Eur J Nutr. 2002 Oct;41(5):210-21; PMID: 12395215. Full abstract: http://tinyurl.com/w9or "BACKGROUND, AIM: In several genes coding for molecules involved in the regulation of body weight (fat mass) and thermogenesis, polymorphisms have been reported which possibly modify human obesity risk . . . Importantly, the results of the analysis of gene-diet interactions suggest that the allelic variants of candidate genes (leptin, TNFA, PPARG2) might strongly affect diet-related obesity risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results support some but not all previous reports about a risk-modulating effect of polymorphisms in genes affecting obesity risk. THE MOST IMPORTANT FINDING IS AN INDICATION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTERACTION BETWEEN ALLELIC VARIANTS OF PARTICULAR GENES AND FATTY ACID INTAKE-RELATED OBESITY RISK. These observations suggest that future studies on polymorphisms in obesity genes should take data on dietary habits into account." [emphasis added] Live Long and Prosper! DrumLib DrumLib's Health Research Review http://www.drumlib.com Vitamin Price Comparison http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm Disclaimer http://www.drumlib.com/terms.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.