Diet doubts over counting calories

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.

Diarmid Logan said:

ananova.comsm 836098.htmlOpen ↗

Diet doubts over counting calories

Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers have claimed.

Diarmid Logan said:

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

In article said:

Diarmid Logan said:

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.

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

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!

Quoted message said:

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 @
groups.yahoo.comweightloss healthOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] (Diarmid Logan) Organization: groups.google.comgroups.google.comOpen ↗ Newsgroups:
alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-fat,alt.support.diet.low-calorie,alt.sup
port.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition Date: 7 Nov 2003 07:50:24 -0800 Subject: Diet doubts over
counting calories

ananova.comsm 836098.htmlOpen ↗

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

Trent Duke <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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!

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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?

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: tinyurl.comw9orOpen ↗
"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 drumlib.comdrumlib.comOpen ↗ Vitamin Price Comparison
drumlib.combestprice.htmOpen ↗ Disclaimer drumlib.comterms.htmOpen ↗