For you, does calorie counting w/o macro monitoring do the job?
So we're probably all aware that a calorie is not a calorie. That is, because of the way different foods get digested, and the way different individuals digest foods, the calorie content that we absorb from a food is not always the amount it objectively contains.
But does that discrepancy make a significant difference in weight for most people?
I was wondering if you've personally noticed foods or types of foods that you can eat much more of than the calorie count would indicate and still lose weight (or maintain). Or, conversely, if some foods make you gain even though the calorie count wouldn't suggest that.
For a few years, I was very disciplined with always eating protein with carbs and sugar, and not taking in too many carbs in one sitting. I also ate nuts most days and lots of good fats, like avocados and dark chocolate. Eating that way, the weight fell off me. When my lifestyle changed and I gradually fell into eating less good fats and protein, more sugar, and far more processed carbs than had been my norm (although still not that many), man oh man did the weight pile on! Much quicker than the actual calorie count would have suggested too. I think. I'm not sure bc I wasn't keeping close tabs on calories. What I know for sure though is that when I was eating in the former way, I easily maintained a size 4 eating 1700-2000 calories most days (and more on special occasions), and I would lose weight that I didn't need to lose if I ate less. Even with the same activity level, I'm pretty sure eating the same number of calories but in a high carb diet would make a size 8 my maintenance, if not a larger size.
Have you noticed a significant impact on your weight according to the type of calorie too? Or for you, is a calorie pretty much a calorie? Do you track macros or is tracking just calories alone highly effective for you?
Last edited by Chunkahlunkah; 09-11-2016 at 10:10 PM.
For me a calorie has always been a calorie. I think the macros control how satisfied I feel or how much water I retain. On lower carbs, I tend to lose steadily and higher carbs I lose in whooshes at the beginning and end of the month and stall in the middle of the month, but I always lose within my deficit. Although, I think if someone is happier with different macros, they should stick with what's easy for them. Though, I honestly think that slower weight loss has to do with water retention rather than macros.
With the absorportion of different nutrients, I think nutrition information on the back of packages already take this into account. And even if you don't absorb all the calories, that should be even better for weight loss since you're not getting all the calories that are being counted. You can't absorb more than what's available so as long as you count the original calories, it shouldn't matter. I think if anyone stalls due to absorption it would be because the nutrition facts are wrong for a product, because there is a 20% margin of error on nutrition facts. The third group is pretty much the non-vitamin nutrients. Sugar, calories, fat, sodium, etc.
"For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less."
I think the macros control how satisfied I feel or how much water I retain.
I can fully relate to that!
Quote:
On lower carbs, I tend to lose steadily and higher carbs I lose in whooshes at the beginning and end of the month and stall in the middle of the month, but I always lose within my deficit.
That's interesting how they cause different patterns of loss. I love hearing about how different people's bodies react to food.
It's also very interesting that your loss always matches the deficit too, b/c that seems to indicate that the potential "lower calorie absorption" on the low carb diet doesn't actually create a greater deficit for you, since that would then give a greater loss. Maybe it balances out bc there could be more fiber when eating high carb.
What I suspect with me but will have to be more disciplined with calorie counting to really know for sure, is that when I eat an average 1700 calorie diet that includes lots of nuts, fats, and protein, I'm losing maybe 200 of those calories since they don't get absorbed. Whereas when I cut back on those foods dominating my diet, let's say I lose maybe only 100 calories. It may not sound like much, but that works out to me getting 100 more calories a day even though I'm eating the same number of calories. So that would be an extra 10 pounds a year! Add to that how reducing those foods also descreases my satiety, then there's easily another 10 pounds from eating 100 more calories a day. So no wonder I felt like a gaining machine when I stopped eating my old way. :O
That's if all of this is generally accurate though, and I don't know for sure if it is. It's definitely something that I'm happy to know about though and could explain why I steadily gained even though I didn't eat much more, just differently.
I know that a huge part of my gain wasn't related to food though but was due to inactivity. I became very sedentary. The different foods probably only accounted for half of my nearly 50 pound gain, but I really don't know.
Last edited by Chunkahlunkah; 09-20-2016 at 09:39 PM.
Hmm, according to this source the calories listed for a food aren't from that old method stated in the original article, but actually do show the amount that the human body typically metabolizes instead. Idk which to believe. I've seen the information in the first article far more frequently, but frequency doesn't mean truth.
I definitely seen on Keto/Atkins forums that when the body becomes adapted to burning fat that the body needs more energy to convert fat into useable energy, but I always heard that second hand so I'm not sure how much validity it holds. I mean it definitely takes more energy to process fat versus carbohydrates. Maybe undigested food waste is also different between diets?
I wouldn't want to gang ten pounds a year XD. It might be a good idea to ask the low carb forum too.
For me, a calorie is a calorie. If I keep my calories at 1400-1500 I will lose, even if it is just ice cream. The difference comes in how it makes me feel, and how easy or hard it is to stick with the calorie count. The more sugar I eat, the harder it is to control myself.
For me, a calorie is a calorie. If I keep my calories at 1400-1500 I will lose, even if it is just ice cream. The difference comes in how it makes me feel, and how easy or hard it is to stick with the calorie count. The more sugar I eat, the harder it is to control myself.
Now I want ice cream.
Sugar does that to me too. Weight loss is so much easier for me when I restrict it.
I wonder if the type of food we eat matters less for weight loss, and matters more for maintenance or losing past a certain point...
While losing weight, we may be eating at a large enough deficit that not saving those "bonus" 100 or so calories doesn't hurt us. But in maintenance, those saved calories from diet composition could be what allows us to eat a higher amount and not gain.
The savings are so minimal though. I think for most people simply exercising away 100 calories or so a day would be the preferable option for providing a buffer against weight gain w/o requiring such dietary strictness.
A calorie is a calorie for me as well. Perhaps it's because I already eat a sensible diet in terms of what's in it, I need to watch out for snacking more than anything else. I try to combine protein types for at least two meals a day because I'm vegan and don't digest well, and I have to make sure I don't eat too much fat because I've been having trouble with that since having my gallbladder out (currently being checked out by gastroenterology). Both of those are pretty easy to do. I keep a general eye on what sorts of foods are more satiating and/or sustaining for me, that's useful knowledge to work with.
For you, does calorie counting w/o macro monitoring do the job?
It's definitely something that I'm happy to know about though and could explain why I steadily gained even though I didn't eat much more, just differently.
I've seen the information in the first article far more frequently, but frequency doesn't mean truth. 
