Before reading the link, I can state that people suck at counting calories. Those who are rigorous and accurate generally lose weight steadily.
I've talked to plenty of people during my process that claim to eat "1200 calories and can't lose weight" and then proceed to literally eat 3000 by not measuring, disregarding serving size, not counting their massive sugar bomb coffees, cooking oils etc.
Good article...thanks for posting. It makes a lot of sense about the microbes in the gut and how they contribute to how we digest food and use the calories. Also about how eating raw food, we don't digest as many of the calories because it's not as broke down. Interesting and makes sense. I know my dog is having bad trouble with being too skinny right now no matter how much I feed him. He's not digesting his food correctly. I'm having to feed him easy to digest, home cooked food to keep weight on him, plus probiotics to help the bacteria in his gut so he can break down the food and get nutrients from what he's eating.
Anyone who has lost weight for any extended period of time and dared to experiment with food choices and portions knows a calorie is not a calorie.
The secret then is to eat a lot of those foods that work for you.
For me, that means lots of fish and lots of raw veggies, keeping my processed carbs (bread, pasta, rice, cake, candy) and saturated fats (red meat, cheese and dairy) low.
I also load up on dried fruits and nuts and booze. Makes no difference to my weight.
The most interesting part I found was not that 'a calorie is not a calorie', and that the type of food matters just as much as how much.
It's how truly ineffective, inaccurate, and inaccessible those numbers are. In many ways, it makes a good argument to forget about calories, or food counting (even macronutrients) all together.
Possibly more loosely guided food choices, by volume/quality would be a better path for most/all outside a monitored scientific study.
