According to Dr. Berry and I agree.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We've come to a point that yes, counting calories has failed us. It's still around because failure makes money, thus it's heavily promoted. Kind of like medicine, they treat you, not heal you. 

Counting calories IF it works is very unreliable and inaccurate, as calories are but an estimation. It can lead to malnourishment and under eating. Cutting calories is also torture and people are bound to fail. The ghrelin hormone will make sure of that. Speaking of hormones, counting calories also dismisses the idea of hormonal/biochemical response to food, which is also a huge flaw. You're most likely to fail as most people will. 

It always about counting carbs. As in, how to eat as least as possible. 

Calorie counting also leads to the "a calorie is a calorie" fallacy. For all of us here, we know that is not true, again, hormonal/biochemical response to food. 

Can CICO work? Yes. I could also push my car to work if I really tried. 

As normal, I'm the dumbest guy in the room.

I started off not counting anything. I just ate til I was full and then ate when I was hungry which morphed into OMAD. The weight peeled off at a rapid rate.

I dropped down 92lbs in just shy of 9 months. The last month or so, maybe longer, I have switched my approach and have "semi-counted' grams of protein trying to hit a target for muscle growth. I shoot for 1 gram per pound of lean body weight which puts me around the 200-gram mark, give or take. I would say I eat like a horse to get to that mark, but it feels more like two horses. Most days I am around the .7 to .8 per pound mark as it hard for me to eat that much in one day. On Thursday I ate 4 eggs and a maybe 6-7 ounces of a leftover ribeye for breakfast (maybe 60-65 grams of protein). I ate another 4 eggs at lunch time (20-25 grams) and at supper I did all I could do to eat a 1/2 chicken. I simply could not do it. Like I said, two horses.

I still have love handles and visceral fat that 'could be lost'. I no longer have tons of fat to be burned so there may be some efficiency issues as well. I eat a lot of fat and maybe even at a higher percentage per ounce of meat than most. (I like it so I eat it, maybe even to excess). I'm on a zero-carb/zero-sugar approach with the exception of a glass a milk once a week maybe, once every two weeks. I drink only water.

The last month I have gained 8-9 pounds. The daily number fluctuates a pound or two each way, but it has been a solid 9-pound gain. I'm lifting harder and I am stronger now at 55 than 25. (always really weak for my size). On an occasional glimpse I see some muscle and some growth but definitely not 9 pounds in a month.

Although I feel like I am eating the right things I know I am eating the 'wrong' amounts and in turn my weight has increased. For the first time in ten months, I had to move my belt in the other direction. The weight, the eating and that entailed was not near the punch in the gut as letting the work belt out. That sucked.

I believe wholeheartedly that what I eat is more important that how much I eat, but the "how much" factors too. 

If I had the time or the inclination, I could convert the grams of proteins and fats to their respective calorie amounts and then use that number to define the deficit, maintenance and surplus lines that help sell 'CICO'. I can almost see maintenance and I can see surplus, but I don't think any of us ever really get into a deficit because a deficit is called starvation, and that takes time. Most everyone carries enough bodyfat to not go into deficit regardless of how much they eat.

I agree with Orweller, "calories" is one of the biggest and most profitable businesses in the world. I don't see much of that changing.

Scott

On 3/15/2025 at 7:07 AM, Orweller said:

Calorie counting also leads to the "a calorie is a calorie" fallacy.

Exactly. My body will do something much different with 2500 calories of steak than it will with 2500 calories of donuts, lol. I can lose weight with the one, but will get very fat with the latter.