iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
JJ Virgin

GET UPDATES FROM JJ Virgin

Do Calories Really Count?

Posted: 08/14/11 12:16 AM ET

Study Shows Food Quality, Not Calories, Determines Your Fat-Burning Abilities

Remember that professor who lost 27 pounds on the "Twinkie Diet" and argued it didn't matter how you lost weight if you just reduced your calories? A new study from Harvard University knocks that bogus theory on its poorly-supported head.

The study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, followed 120,877 men and women between 12 and 20 years to explore how multiple factors influenced weight loss or gain over a four-year period.

Let's get the bad news out of the way first. Participants gained an average of three and a half pounds every four years, resulting in almost 17 additional pounds over 20 years time.

Some conclusions weren't surprising. Non-exercisers, for instance, became fatter than exercisers. Likewise, TV-watchers and poor sleepers (fewer than six hours or more than eight) saw their scale numbers increase.

And wine-drinkers, listen up: one daily glass didn't trigger weight gain -- though other forms of alcohol did.

Most interestingly, however, this study destroys common food dogmas that junk-food manufacturers and so-called health experts have nonsensically argued for eons. You hear this prescription often: everything in moderation, reduce your calories, ditch the higher-fat foods, and oh yeah -- a calorie is a calorie, period.

Research blows these myths to bits. "What you eat makes quite a difference," said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the study's lead author. "Just counting calories won't matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you're eating."

He also dispelled the oft-repeated claim that there are no bad foods. "There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less," he said. "The notion that it's ok to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want."

Tell that to your fast food addicted friend the next time she devours a McDonald's cheeseburger and milkshake while smugly repeating the mantra "everything in moderation."

So which foods made the "bad" list? No mystery here. French fries topped it, followed by processed meats, sugary drinks, refined grains and other junk foods. Similarly, the study showed refined grains -- which manufacturers sometimes market as healthy foods -- can actually slow your metabolism and stall fat burning.

The study also concluded that dairy as a whole does not affect weight loss or gain -- people who ate yogurt lost almost a pound every four years. Study co-author Dr. Frank Hu attributes this to yogurt's beneficial bacteria, which keeps you full and raises your metabolic rate so that you burn fat more efficiently.

The good guys included -- no surprise here -- fruits, vegetables and high-fiber grains.

The take-home message from this study: It's not the calories, but rather where those calories come from, that determine whether you burn or store fat.

Let me give you two meals to drive that point home. One consists of wild salmon and steamed garlic spinach; the other includes pizza and ice cream. Both contain exactly 500 calories. Which would you bet helps you burn fat?

No contest. The high-quality protein, omega-3 fats and fiber in the nutrient-dense salmon/ spinach combo keeps you satiated, supports the maintenance and/or development of muscle and triggers your fat-burning hormones.

The carb-heavy pizza and ice cream, on the other hand, will spike your insulin and crash your blood sugar levels, leaving you hungrier, tired, nutrient-deprived and prone to weight gain.

This study supports my belief that your body is a chemistry lab and not a bank account. Calories do matter, but they hardly constitute the whole fat-burning picture.

If you want to be healthy, ditch the sound-bite nutrition clichés for lean protein, high-fiber starches, good fats and plenty of non-starchy vegetables.

Source
http://calorielab.com/labnotes/20110721/counting-calories-is-not-necessarily-best-for-weight-loss-say-researchers/


©2011 JJ Virgin & Associates, Inc. Nutrition and Fitness Expert JJ Virgin is the author of Six Weeks to Sleeveless and Sexy and the co-star of TLC's Freaky Eaters reality series. Visit her at http://www.jjvirgin.com to grab her free audio: Top Ten Hottest Tips to Get Slim and Sexy Fast

 

Follow JJ Virgin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JJVirgin

Study Shows Food Quality, Not Calories, Determines Your Fat-Burning Abilities Remember that professor who lost 27 pounds on the "Twinkie Diet" and argued it didn't matter how you lost weight if you ...
Study Shows Food Quality, Not Calories, Determines Your Fat-Burning Abilities Remember that professor who lost 27 pounds on the "Twinkie Diet" and argued it didn't matter how you lost weight if you ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 163
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
IMOPINIONH8D
because I want it empty...
09:05 AM on 10/01/2011
I dont drink soda,use sugar to sweeten drinks or foods, dont eat cow, I havent in about 5 years. I've never counted a calorie or a carb. I've lost nearly all my fat and I've never felt better.
11:25 PM on 09/26/2011
I can't believe all of these intelligent people who follow Huffington Post are argueing about whether calories count in an effort to lose weight. As an advid low carber, who sings the praises of eating only meat, dairy and non-starchiy vegetables every chance I get, I know calories COUNT. Yes, they do. In fact, that is the definition of being fat - you took in more calories than you burned, very simple. Every low carb doctor argees with this statement.

I don't believe we should be arguing about the First Law of Themodynamics. The argument should be what makes it EASIER to lose weight. There have been a lot of diet studies comparing a low fat diet to a low carb diet. These studies make the low fat dieter restrict the number of calories they eat and thus they must count them. But guess what, the low carbers can eat however much they want. That's right these medically run studies do not require the low carbers to restrict their calories at all. Even so, almost all, if not all, of these studies find that the low carb dieters lose more weight . This happens even though they were not required to count their calories. They simply restricted their calories naturally. That sounds a lot easier to me than having to restrict your urge to eat more and to count calories to make sure you don't over eat. (To be continued.)
08:38 PM on 09/23/2011
Calorie Restricted Diet Without Exercise May Lead to Bone Loss
People who lose weight through cutting Calories alone may be losing bone density, and increasing their risk of osteoporosis while those who combine diet and exercise does not seem to produce the same effect, according to a report in the Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. http://bestweight-loss-diet.com/calorie-restricted-diet-without-exercise-may-lead-to-bone-loss/427/
12:54 PM on 08/18/2011
I'd like to defend the author in that she made some of her own conclusions based on her knowledge base, but also differentiates between the types of diets eaten rather than only using the conclusions of the nurses study which if looked at in terms of support for the article may not have been the optimum choice. The nurses study is basically a breakdown of the standard american diet rather than what the effects of food choices are on weight over time. For instance, how can you say there is a correlation between the consumption of red meat and weight gain when the data clearly has no control for eating meat independent of carbohydrates. There is no data that I can see that makes these distinctions, and that is clearly the point the author is trying to make in her article. I mostly agree with the authors supposition, but would ask her to cite the effects of different diets over time rather than the intake of foods without regard for the combinations in which they were consumed. If viewed from this perspective she may also make other notable suppositions about the detrimental significance of consuming whole grains in the presence of unhealthy fats.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freedom Rush
freedom is the oxygen of the soul
11:01 PM on 08/16/2011
quality ingredients cost a lot of money, and for every day Janes and Joes, that's a big concern. BUT keeping quality in mind will force one to either improvise (home grown food) or cut back on portions (weight control). it's not a pretty solution, but it works in my household.
08:00 AM on 08/18/2011
Your solutions will be good for the world.

Don't forget that frozen fruits and vegetables are often more nutritious than fresh produce (as long as they contain no added sugar or other additives). The nutrients are frozen in time and don't lose their nutrient value in transportation and storage.

In tougher times, I often find myself grabbing frozen instead of fresh.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freedom Rush
freedom is the oxygen of the soul
09:17 AM on 08/18/2011
Excellent tip Neva! The stores carry frozen organic fruits and veggies too. Pricey, but again, worth it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Obama cares about all of U.S.
02:55 PM on 08/16/2011
French fries can be OK.

I am a big guy who, when active, burns a lot of calories.

We cut up potatoes into Steak fries, coat them in EV Olive Oil and cook them under

the oven broiler. Add a pinch or two of sea salt when done. YUM !!!
04:42 PM on 08/16/2011
Use sweet potatoes, too, cooked in coconut oil. They're fabulous.

This whole article underlines the point made by those that live a Paleolithic lifestyle-- quality is indeed better than quantity. What's the point of eating food if you're eating junk in little itty-bitty amounts?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freedom Rush
freedom is the oxygen of the soul
11:04 PM on 08/16/2011
butternut squash fries tooooooo :-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
williamg
Obamacare = law of the land...forever
10:06 PM on 08/15/2011
"Our findings with regard to sugar-sweetened beverages are consistent with the results of prior observational studies and short-term interventions. Consumption of 100%-fruit juice was associated with weight gains of smaller magnitude, possibly because these beverages may be consumed in smaller servings than are sugarsweetened beverages or in different patterns (i.e., single rather than multiple servings)"
.

Once again, this is all about calories. They are simply saying that consuming beverages that are sugar-laced tend to be consumed in larger quantities than fruit juice. Larger quantities = more calories consumed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
polishlogician
No sugar tonight in my tea..
11:53 AM on 08/17/2011
fruit juice is sugar-laced...it doesn't have magical, super-nutritious sugar...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
williamg
Obamacare = law of the land...forever
09:52 PM on 08/15/2011
From the study in the New England Journal of Medicine, that this article is based on:
.

"Overall, our analysis showed divergent relationships between specific foods or beverages and long-term weight gain, suggesting that dietary quality (the types of foods and beverages consumed) influences dietary quantity (total calories)."
.

As you can see, the foundation of weight loss, or weight gain is all about calories consumed. The study simply points out that certain foods are more calorie dense, while others have less calories.

But at the end of the day, its about calories consumed. Period.

Heck the study starts off with this:
.

"Because efforts to lose weight pose tremendous challenges, primary prevention of weight gain is a global priority. Since weight stability requires a balance between calories consumed and calories expended, the advice to “eat less and exercise more” would seem to be straightforward."

And what does the study show? People that ate less calories, and exercised more, lost or maintained their weight. People that ate more calories, and exercised less, gained weight.
.

Study here: http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/NEJMoa1014296.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
williamg
Obamacare = law of the land...forever
09:59 PM on 08/15/2011
It also shows that eating certain foods (healthy) will influence the other foods you eat. Generally, they will encourage you to eat other healthy foods (or less unhealthy foods) which will reduce your overall calorie consumption.

It also found that eating unhealthy food, encourages eating more unhealthy foods, which leads to great calorie intake.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Obama cares about all of U.S.
02:57 PM on 08/16/2011
I find that if I focus on eating the healthy food ( esp. superfoods like kale, cherries, etc....)

that I don't really have much appetite for less healthy ( usually calorically dense) foods.
photo
iRock
and that's all that needs to be said...
09:35 PM on 08/15/2011
Calories matter for weight gain and weight loss.

But quality calories matters more if you ask me. You don't have to count calories if you eat small meals of healthy food frequently throughout the day. Just. Eat. Real. Unadulterated. Food. ... You'll be fine. You'll lose weight as long as you have it to lose and are exercising and your body tissues will be healthier.

counting calories sucks unless you're trying to do something very specific with your body. i.e. get down to a specific body fat percentage.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:04 PM on 08/15/2011
How ridiculous. Give me the link to the actual research rather than the crap at Calorie Lab. The same source also had an article about whether or not Bert and Ernie are gay.

As a registered dietitian, I actually understand human metabolism. I also understand what is meant by "high quality protein." It simply means that the protein source contains all of the essential amino acids. Wild salmon is high quality protein but so is bacon or balogna or the cheese and sausage on that loathesome and shameful pizza.

Do I think it's possible or even likely that a healthier diet may lend itself to weight loss because of its nutrient density? Yes, probably. Our bodies need vitamins and minerals for the metabolic processes that take place in them. Do I know that small changes and fewer calories is how most people actually lose weight? Yes.

This article will just confuse more people who will think, "but I eat healthy, how can I not be losing weight?" Because calories DO count.
05:06 PM on 08/15/2011
"Do I know that small changes and fewer calories is how most people actually lose weight? Yes."

You couldn't possibly "know" this. It isn't true.

The five-year failure rate of eating "fewer calories" is 95% and rising. Of that ninety-five percent, roughly two-thirds will regain more weight than they initially lost, and all of them will be at greater risk of future weight-gain, not to mention the deleterious effects of weight-cycling.

I suspect the rest of your "knowledge" is of about the same caliber.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:28 PM on 08/15/2011
You're really insulting my general knowledge?
1. People lose weight by eating fewer calories than their bodies need. (not necessarily JUST cutting calories, but usually a combination of physical activity and calorie restriction.)
2. People make permanent changes by making small, managable changes to their lives.
I actually DO know this.

How DO people lose weight then? I'm assuming you're an expert if you're so certain of my ignorance. Do share your expert credentials.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
williamg
Obamacare = law of the land...forever
06:51 PM on 08/15/2011
Samknox, you see, the study this author based her article on, actually said the EXACT things that reganrd actually wrote.
06:54 AM on 08/18/2011
I have listened to many dietitians over the years -- often overweight dietitians -- promote calories in and calories out.

Then I went on Atkins' diet. The weight loss was so amazing (without additional exercise or less food) that anyone could figure out that he was on to something. It is not healthy, of course, to eat almost all protein, so since then I have always worked at lean protein, fruits and vegetables, falling off the wagon once in a while -- sometimes too often.

Menopause reinforced that it is not as simple as calories in and calories out. (I workout almost every day in one way or another).

Of course, calories count, but hormones play an obvious and very significant role. I believe dietitians don't more beyond calories in and calories out because they are not trained sufficiently in biochemistry and endocrinology.
07:26 PM on 09/22/2011
I agree with most of what you say, especially about the inadequate training of dieticians, to which I would add physicians. However, if you found you were eating a diet of almost all protein then you certainly were not following the Atkins protocol. Anyone who follows Atkins rigorously is eating a diet made up of high volumes of vegetables in which fats and proteins come second and third.
01:12 PM on 08/15/2011
Very misleading article. Unfortunately, it's this kind of thing that makes people more and more confused. Agree with w84it, both calories AND food quality count.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mkthinker
12:26 PM on 08/15/2011
I wish that if a writer referenced a study and misrepresented the findings they would be sued. It used to be that editors took care of fact checking and that journalists had to protect their reputations. It seems that one downside to the new media landscape is that safeguard that the editors provide is no longer and there are so many more writers that personal reputation doesn't really matter as much. Maybe that is why people seem to increasingly be very sure of completely wrong information about all kinds of topics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
williamg
Obamacare = law of the land...forever
07:00 PM on 08/15/2011
So true.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
w84it
12:17 PM on 08/15/2011
Both count. Quantity and quality.
07:27 PM on 09/22/2011
If you get the right macronutrients in you it becomes impossible to eat too much because of satiety.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Anderson LMHC
Licensed Psychotherapist, Weight Control Expert
11:12 AM on 08/15/2011
Your article is misleading people. It's nonsense. It looks like you are completely misreading the reports you refer to. They don't say that calories don't count or that the calories from one kind of food are worse than others, or that they have anything to do with "fat burning". These reports only talk about people's habits, and actually support the conclusion that people who prefer calorie laden food are more prone to being overweight. Your conclusions are erroneous.

Calories count. I've helped thousands lose weight permanently by training clients to undereat, reducing their caloric consumption, regardless of the kind of calories. We eat what we like in the right amounts. I have never had a single client not lose weight this way. I lost 140 lbs. 25 years ago with a practical method to limit the calories, have kept it off, and my clients all lose weight this way. As long as people listen to your misinformation, they will put off doing what they need to do to solve their weight problem. Please study the science more carefully.

William Anderson, LMHC
Author of 'The Anderson Method - Secrets of Permanent Weight Loss'
12:33 PM on 08/15/2011
And you're misleading your readers by claiming that you're trying to do anything but peddle your own hooey. Please read the above article more carefully before you decide to cut in with a "word from our advertisers."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Anderson LMHC
Licensed Psychotherapist, Weight Control Expert
05:28 PM on 08/15/2011
I and countless others have been led astray by this "news and information" entertainment industry you seem to have so much trust in, much to our detriment. Their stock and trade is dispensing this endless stream of diet nonsense. What would they do if people found the truth and actually solved their weight problem? Thank God I discovered what I did, not "hooey", but the truth, the scientifically provable way to lose weight permanently, no ifs, ands, or buts, and I am happy to lead people to it. It's endorsed by medical experts, among them, a President of The Academy of Clinical Thyroidologists. Check it out the website, www.TheAndersonMethod.com and blog, http://theandersonmethodblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/can-eating-every-two-hours-really-help-me-lose-weight/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
williamg
Obamacare = law of the land...forever
06:56 PM on 08/15/2011
No, you should read the ACTUAL STUDY:

http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/NEJMoa1014296.pdf