A series of 5 videos of beautiful scientific evidence, not conjecture or theory, explains all.
I’m doing Points Plus right now, and I’ve done the old system. And the very old (exchange) system.
Points Plus is the easiest of the three accounting methods, and probably the least restrictive. It seems to combine the nutritional science with a hefty dose of psychology and behavioral modification thrown in. For example, I can eat a candy bar with lunch, or I can have a piece of fruit. The candy bar may be six points, but the fruit is zero points, which means I have six more points for dinner or whatever. The lower point-value foods seem to be the ones that have the most bang for the buck, as it were. That piece of fruit will keep me feeling fuller longer than the candy bar will, and there is far more nutritional value in fruit than there is in candy. But if I want that candy, that’s cool too; I just have to account for it and hope it leaves me with enough points for dinner.
I have had the strange experience of having my opinion shaken by a post I made myself. Well, not exactly - I happened to come across exactly the same observation I made in the quoted post, but by a Gary Taubes advocate, or perhaps Taubes himself, I don’t recall. Except, this person looked at it from the opposite perspective: if the Calories in - Calories out hypothesis is true, then the human body must have this very accurate appetite control system, even in most overweight people. But those of us who have been overweight know that it is in fact terribly easy to overeat. Your body doesn’t say “woah, you’re only gonna need 2,253 Calories today, stop eating!” Therefore, says the pro-Taubes person, the Calories in - Calories out hypothesis is wrong, and excess Calories (beyond the small number converted to body fat) must be mostly eliminated in some other way, perhaps by increasing one’s disposition to engage in physical activity. It is suggested that the same thing works in reverse, that Calorie-restriction tends to make you less active, but I don’t know if they have any good studies to show that.
This struck a chord, because when I did the maths before posting that comment I must admit that I was surprised at the implication of a super-accurate appetite control system. I am now less sure that it is a simple as Calories in - Calories out. Put me in the “we don’t know, more research needed” camp.
Why must it?
There are plenty of things we’d *like *our bodies to have - immunity to cancer, accurate appetite control systems, X-Ray vision, etc. Our bodies simply aren’t that good.
But the question is, what are you overeating? Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean meat (all foods with low GI values and medium to low caloric density), or fatty fried foods, processed starches, and sugary drinks (foods with high GI values, high caloric density, and little micronutritional value)? It is trivial to suck down 600+ calories in the form of a Starbucks coffee-flavored drink and feel no satiety whatsoever. Add that to a small back of crisps (~300 calories), a baked potato with sour cream and cheese (500+ calories) and a couple of sodas (200 calories each) and you’ve reached or exceeded the caloric requirement for the average non-athlete without even including breakfast or dinner.
Stranger
While there might be some difference in the efficiency with which different Calories are digested, the biggest difference between diets is in how easy it is to stay on the diet. If all the foods you’re cutting are ones you really like, then you’re probably going to end up cheating on the diet, and no diet works if you don’t follow it.
The other point with carbs is that a lot of the carbs modern Americans eat deliver Calories and not much else-- This is what is meant by “empty calories”. If you eat 100 Calories of spinach, then you’re also going to get a bunch of protein, vitamins, minerals, and fiber that your body needs, and that’s a good thing. If you eat 100 Calories of white bread, though, you’re getting very little besides the Calories. And if you consume 100 Calories of sugar (including high fructose corn syrup), then you’re essentially getting nothing else at all (and possibly some other things you probably already get more of than you should, like caffeine). This won’t make much difference to weight specifically, but it will make a difference to your overall health.
This is where I was heading in post#8, although the point I was looking to draw out was that there are things that have measurable calories that we can’t even digest - a chunk of coal, for example. OK, not many people eat coal on a regular basis, but I’m betting that there are probably things that occur in our foods (cellulose/fibre, for example) that have calorie values when burnt, but not in the human digestive system.
I’m surprised it has not been mentioned, as I recall when the Atkins diet was at it peak of popularity, this was the explanation:
The various mechanism of hunger, fat storage and fat burning (forget the technical terms) are governed by different triggers. Atkin’s theory (which some anecdotal evidence seems to support) is that the mechanism that says “I’m starving, burn body fat!” is regulated by the levels of carbs in your diet/blood. Hence, you can eat substantial protein with some fat, the body will still think it is starving and go into"ketosis" and burn off body fat.
Of course there’s the downside. The body also gets rid of muscle mass if you starve too much. Muscle mass takes energy to maintain even at rest, so the starving body reducing muscle mass also reduces the calories needed to maintain the body even at rest.
If anyone remembers the “liquid protein diet” popular in Hollywood in the late 70’s(?) it died off after several adherents suffered heart problems; the heart is muscle, and starving yourself invites heart problems as that muscle deteriorates. This is IIRC why the Atkins recommends a minimal amount of calories anyway.
My experience was similar - the first time I tried the diet, I lost half a pound a day; plateaued at about 208lb, 30 pounds off and 3 inches off the pants size. Of course, it all went back on again when I went back to my normal eating habits, and a second round did not work as well - I suspect the body adapts to the diet after a time?
I haven’t seen anybody explain this yet, so I guess I’ll jump in. Carbs and calories are really two completely different things.
A calorie is a measure of energy–literally, it is the amount of energy it takes to raise one cubic centimeter (= 1 gram) of water one degree Celsius. When we talk about “calories” in food, you’ll notice that it’s always (or at least should always be) capitalized as Calorie. That’s because a Calorie is actually 1,000 calories; a Calorie is also known as a kilocalorie or kcal.
A carbohydrate, on the other hand, isn’t a measure of energy. It’s a type of chemical compound. Carbs are one way that energy is stored in food.
All carbs can also be measured in calories, but not all calories come from carbs.
An analogy might be to consider, oh, say, a box of tennis balls (meal). You have two pieces of information about the box: its weight (Calories) and how many tennis balls are in it (carbs). If you knew the weight of each individual tennis ball, you could tell how much they weighed, but that wouldn’t be the full weight of the box, because there would be the box itself, the packaging for the balls, etc. And while it’s the tennis balls that make *this *box heavy, another box full of something else (say, kittens) would also have weight, even though it didn’t contain any tennis balls.