I am currently pursuing my masters in philosophy. Today in class I had an interesting thought I thought I'd share, for those of you who have time to read my meanderings.

The common mantra for weightloss is simple:

IF you consume less calories than you burn, THEN you will lose weight.

However, just head over to the Calorie Counters forum and you'll find people tediously and religiously counting every calorie in and every calorie out. You will read posts from people who have simply stopped losing - they are eating as minimal as possible, they are exercising, yet not losing.

But, according to the old-fashioned words of wisdom, the CAUSE for this IS simply too many calories.

You are simply eating too much. That is the cause. But is this really true?

Then, when this happens, we just get entirely angry and frustrated. What more could we possibly do??? We ARE following the words of advice.

In class today we were discussing Causation. Scientists, in particularly, like to find ONE cause, the ULTIMATE cause for why something is the way it is.

In reality, there are many many causes that we don't have any understanding of yet.

For example, is it 'simply' calories in, calories out, despite the fact that our bodies are made up of entirely compex cellular processes.

In the end, what I want to understand, is how far is science leading us into the wrong direction with their simple explanation for weight loss - which is then passed onto healthcare professionals and becoming even more simplified?

Because, when we do what 'they' say, we eat WAY less, and we still don't lose weight.... then we become entirely frustrated, because we don't understand.... we give up.... and are eventually back at square one.

Also, science is terrible at admitting when it is wrong. Look at the Atkins diet. I am not going to speak to the validity of the Atkins diet, but it was refuted wholeheartedly by the scientific-medical community. Why? Possibly because it was a diet that fell outside of their explanation for weight loss, yet seemed to cause people to lose weight.

The point is, our bodies are complex. We don't understand the complexity of losing weight on a cellular level fully, not to mention the fact that every individual has unique genetic structures and possibly uses energy in different ways.

so before we say, for example, 'skinny people naturally consume less calories and want less food, thus we should strive to be like them', we need to consider that this answer is oversimplified and there is a whole gamut of biological processes happening beneath the surface that cannot be reduced to one simple explanation.

The majority of people who claim they cannot lose fall into 3 catergories. Those who are fudging the numbers, those who are not counting properly, and those who eat better 90% of the time and then totally blow it the other 10% of the time totally negating the progress they have made. It really is as simple as calories in equals calories out.

I understand the logic.

However, what I want to point to is how complex we are and how science has given us one, singular weight loss solution - for EVERYONE: Eat fewer calories.

Its not as simple as calories in, calories out. If you simply look at extreme eating disorders, where calories are extremely low for a long period of time - the body literally stops, but does not die. It preserves.

I know this is referred to as starvation mode, and I understand why the body has learned, evolutionary-wise, to do this.

My point is to not make people upset by doubting weight loss - it is rather to see weight loss much more individualistically and complexly

In my mind, weight loss is physical, but it is also psychological. I think the psychological aspect of losing weight is completely disregarded and we only focus on: Calories in, Calories out.

There are other factors to consider too....food intolerances. Low-calorie foods may not be tolerated by some because of the ingredients in these foods. Some people with gluten intolerances or celiac disease are obese because of grains. They actually become carb-addicted. But, also their bodies do not absorb these grains (wheat, barley, rye) like people who do not have this. So, low-calorie isn't always the way to go. Taking the gluten out of their diet is what they need. It is complex for sure when you start individualizing things. I don't think we all meet a certain criteria for certain diets.

I think caloriecounting works, it makes you aware of what you're eating and how much you're burning. If you are interested in the science you could look up "why a calorie is not a calorie" in a search engine, you get lots of articles about the topic, I've found them very helpful.

Edit. I forgot to say, I recommend Joel Fuhrman's book "Eat to Live", it has extremely useful information on nutrition, all based on scientific studies which are listed in the back of the book.

I agree with you.... calorie counting is not the beat all, ends all. I follow my diet, count my calories, and still sometimes... where does that plateau come from I ask you? That evil, mean plateau that so many of us get frustrated by even though we're doing everything by the book?

To me, calorie counting is a path... a WAY of doing it... but everybody's path is different... and has different dips and bumps depending on their bodies, their metabolism, their cellular structure... whatever! As with math (which is also a science), each person's body has different and small, but important, variables.... some of them unknown.

I absolutely agree with the original post on this one.

If weight loss was simply, always, calories in vs. calories out...weight loss would not be such a huge "struggle". Sure, part of the challenge is mental and learning self control and to tolerate deprivation, but if we all knew that no matter what, without a doubt, we would lose weight if we used more calories than we consumed...eventually we'd all get down to it and would all have weight loss success stories.

Everyone is different. To say that everyone can lose weight following the same very basic principle is a little ridiculous. So many things come into play. It's unfair and often unsafe to preach the same weight loss theory to everyone. It's impossible for all of our bodies to work the same way.

I also agree that it's easier for those conducting scientific studies to find one, clear, simple answer and stick with that. Multiple answers and explanations don't look great in science textbooks, after all, and are hard to explain. And they can often contradict each other.

Kudos...

Maybe it's just that "calories in vs. calories out" itself is more complicated than that oversimplified mantra implies. Achieving a negative calorie balance is a lot more complicated than simply restricting your calories, as your metabolism can be influenced by different factors like medication, dietary issues, illness, and starvation. Maybe it's true that if you achieve a negative calorie balance, you will lose weight, but it's getting to that balance that's not as simple as the phrase implies?

I think a lot of it also comes down to your metabolism, genetics and stravation mode. I also believe strongly in the 'set point' theory. I've struggled with bulimia w anorexic tendencies and lost 50 lbs in 3 months eating 300 calories a day. However I've lost the same amount of weight eating 1200-1400 hundred calories of whole foods, it just came off a lot slower. In either case I bottom out at about 130 and my body refuses to go any lower. I think calories in calories out works..but a lot of other factors also come in to play.

Why doesn't it seem like calories in vs. calories out always works? Because weight loss is not a linear process. When we simplify it as a math problem, we ignore external and internal influences that sway the scale. Forestroad hit the nail on the head. The amount of water we are retaining, the amount of undigested food in our stomachs, a high sodium day, a low sodium day, retaining water from sore muscles, hormones, metabolism, genetics... the list is endless. All these things have an impact on the scale.

In other words, while it is as simple as calories in vs calories out, it's also not as simple as that. Most studies that do not focus on calories (rather low carb vs high carb, or Mediterranean foods vs Paleo-driven diets) also do not take into consideration how many calories are being consumed during these studies. To me, the most valid studies are those that control calorie intake while focusing on restriction of certain types of foods. When there isn't a focus on caloric intake, the study results are invalidated...we don't know if people lost weight because it was truly lower carbs or really just lower calories.

I don't really care how people lose weight, as long as it's sustainable and something they can live with for the rest of their lives. There are plenty of successful low-carbers, there are plenty of successful calorie counters. I'm not sure there is one maintainer that didn't run into slower weight loss or a plateau at least one point during their journey... and from what I have read, most adjust their calories, or macronutrient (carb/protein/fat) ratios, or activity level. Or a combination of all three.

I have tried so many diets from Atkins, south beach diet, weight watchers, nutrisystem, and now Im back counting calories. the reason why all the other diets failed was they were to restrictive for ME.

Atkins- made my anxiety go threw the roof, I have never succeeded at doing induction. Carbs have serotonin and thats what I need to keep my anxiety in check. Plus eating meats and low carb stuff gets boring

South beach diet-wasnt flexible enough for ME. It still gives you a list of things that you can eat and things you should avoid. I like being able to eat things that I like in moderation.

weight watchers-my calories were way to low. They say you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but if you eat something thats high in fat your points go way up, even if the calories for that food are not high. I was starving on this diet.

Nutrisystem- cost way to much money and the food was nasty.

Calorie Counting- it offers me the flexibility that I need in my life. This is what has worked for me in the past and is working now.

I honestly think it is as simple as if you eat more calories then your body needs you will gain weight but as far as weight loss its confusing. You don't have to starve yourself to lose weight, you just have to monitor how much food you eat. You also shouldn't have to cut out a certain food group in order to lose weight but it does work for some. Most people need flexibility with there diet or else they feel overwhelmed and deprived. The OP used calorie counting group as a example, some might say they followed there diet to the T and did not lose weight but there is no way to back up there claim unless you are physically there and monitoring every bite they put into there mouths.

I am glad that there are several different diet plans out there and yes there is no one diet that will work for everyone. I do beleive that every diet WORKS in the end but its just up to the person to figure out if that diet will fit in with there lifestyle and if thats something they can stick with for the rest of there life.

EXACTLY!
I know this from experience I can eat more calories and lose weight if Im gluten free.

If I have strict low calorie in high calorie out but include gluten I dont have a loss and sometimes I even have a gain.
I have to work a LOT harder with gluten in my diet than I do without it to lose weight.


I think anyone who says its absolutely calorie in vs calorie out and NOTHINg else is arrogant and uninformed. And that includes the scientist and the dieters. YES calorie in calorie out plays a crucial role but not every person will lose just by cutting calories and ingesting less than they burn.
The body is a complex machine. And I personally have 3 major health things that hinder weight loss and so simple cal in vs cal out doesnt work for me 100% but I do calorie count and use the body bugg as great tools but that approach alone will not get me healthier or thinner. Its a combination of things.

Trying to reduce things to *one* cause, and thinking our knowledge is near complete (when it's sooooooooooooooo not) are big problems with current health science. It boggles the mind that these problems are so prevalent.

Hey, can we stop the hate on the science for the sake of some of us scientists? Not ALL science says its simply calorie in vs calorie out. A lot of things I've read stress the importance of nutrition, good food vs junk food, etc.

Its not as simple as calorie in vs calorie out, if it was that simple we'd all be our goal weight without any ups and downs. Its many factors, metabolism, sodium, gluten, etc, and no one (not even science) has figured it out. I could reduce my calories all I want, but unless I exercise, my metabolism just STOPS and I'll gain weight.

I think that a lot of these things have to do with genetics - I'm not saying there's an "obesity" gene, I'm saying that some people are prone to gain weight when they eat certain foods, and some aren't. I'm Italian - carbs were never a problem for me (I actually really can't stand pasta) but I do best and feel better when I'm on somewhat of a Mediterranean diet - lots of fresh veggies, olive oil, lean protein (but very little of it) - is this because my family is from the Mediterranean? Who knows. Something I wish someone would look into.



I think that a combination of science and possibly some anthropology could figure that out, but stop hating on science

Oh, science can take honest critique, or else it isn't science. No one is hating.