No More Calorie Counting
Categories: Health, Healthy Eating
PrintThe question of "what to eat?" is a complicated one, and many people take comfort in a reductionist system that simply involves adding and subtracting numbers rather than looking critically at the food that we eat. But as a result of this system, I feel we're putting up yet another barrier in the relationship we have with our food.
My main complaint about calorie counting is that it reduces our purpose for eating to nothing more than a source of energy. The truth is that our foods provide so much more than just energy. We need it to build all the different parts of our bodies - our cells need fats for their cell walls, our body processes need proteins for enzymes, neurotransmitters and muscle, our enzymes need minerals in order to function, our cells need vitamins for cell functionality and energy production - the list is massive even without getting into phytonutrients. Yet from the caloric intake perspective, food is fuel; nothing more.
Now I'm not saying you won't lose weight if you restrict your calories. I'm sure there are thousands of success stories out there. We've all seen the Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers commercials where happy people hold up the giant pants they used to fit into. But the problem, as I see it, is that our fat-obsessed culture equates weight loss with health. Let me be clear about this: weight loss is not necessarily an indication of health. If you're overweight, and you start to make healthy changes in your lifestyle, weight loss will result. But when weight loss is the goal rather than health, the methods we use to achieve that weight loss are often detrimental to health.
Here's something to consider - if you're eating natural, whole, nutrient-dense foods and eating with attention rather than wolfing, restricting your calories becomes completely unnecessary. When you eat nutrient dense foods, your body tells you to stop once it's received the nutrients it needs (if you listen to it). The reason you can over-indulge in junk food is because your body isn't telling you to stop. It hasn't taken in enough nutrients, despite the fact that you've over-indulged in total calories. This means we don't stop eating until our stomach physically can't fit anymore. It's like the concentrated potency laundry detergent - you only need to use half as much of the concentrated stuff, just like you need less of good quality nutrient dense foods. Most people don't know their own bodies sufficiency signals but only know they're full by the expansion (or over expansion) of their bellies. As long as you're eating the right foods, listening to your own body's "I'm full" signals is the best way to ensure you are eating the right amount of food. It is not adhering to a questionable number created by someone who has never even met you.
And what's more, there is growing evidence that the simplistic "energy in = energy out" model isn't as effective as some would have you believe. Calorie counting assumes a direct relationship between calorie surplus or deficit and weight gain or loss. While this relationship can be direct at the beginning of a diet, it becomes null over the long term. As the body adjusts to the restricted calories it increases it's efficiency, thereby burning fewer calories in total. This gets referred to in dieting circles as the "plateau"; the point at which people stop losing weight despite continued calorie restriction. At this point, struggling to lose weight is fighting your body's natural survival mechanisms. And I don't think that developing an antagonistic relationship with one's own body is a very healthy place to be.
As well, studies have shown that certain nutrients influence weight regardless of calorie intake, including omega 3 fats and fibre. Other recent studies have looked into the ratio of macro-nutrient (protein:carbohydrates:fats) intake according to specific metabolic typing profiles. Again, the results show significant weight loss with no change in caloric intake.
But regardless of whether or not it works, I think counting calories brings an unhealthy relationship to food. Calories, the measure of our body's energy, suddenly become the enemy. Rather than being the sacred fuel that allows us to function and live, the calorie takes on the status of a "necessary evil". Is this really the way we should be looking at food? Food is fun! We should be savoring our food, not whittling it down to nothing more than a number to be scrutinized and bargained with.
So, instead of going on calorie restricted diets for limited periods of time I recommend making a whole lifestyle changes to achieve your best possible health, and therefore your ideal weight. Don't get too caught up in the numbers - calories or pounds. Here are five simple rules that, if followed honestly, will completely eliminate the need to count calories.
1. Eat nutrient-dense whole foods and avoid processed "empty calories".
2. Listen to your body's natural fullness mechanisms. It may take some effort to reacquaint yourself with these, but make the effort. Pause at certain intervals and ask yourself "am I full? Is my body asking for more?"
3. Eat consciously, slowly and chew your food well (this will help you with #2). Try to avoid distraction while eating (or at least turn off the TV).
4. Stop eating when you are 3/4 full. Avoid the temptation to finish everything on your plate just for the sake of starving children in Africa. If you need to loosen your belt after a meal, you've eaten way too much. You should come away from a meal feeling energized, not tired and lazy.
5. Wait awhile, walk a mile. Light exercise like walking a half hour or so after eating is good for digestion. It's a great habit to get into.
The Healthy Foodie is Doug DiPasquale, Holistic Nutritionist and trained chef, living in Toronto. You can email him with questions at dugdeep@gmail.com.
Recent Posts
- Think Opposites Attract? Not When Choosing Your Spouse (9/03/2010)
- Rev Up Your Run, Butt Toning Tips and More (9/03/2010)
- How To Get That Workout Rush (9/03/2010)
- Are You Using Your Intuition? (9/03/2010)
- Split Routines: Find the Weightlifting Program That's Right For You (9/03/2010)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jim Healthman 6-18-2008 @ 4:28AM
Doug,
Your post is a relief.
I am sick and tired of those marketers who promote Diet This and Diet That. My thought is that ONLY a rational or harmonious lifestyle is a solution to health and weight problem. I saw so many people jumping on the bandwagon of new panacea just to forget it in 2 weeks or 2 months?
Calories - who need to care about them?
First of all everyone is unique!
I can burn easily meat and fats. My wife feels better with carbohydrates.
Should we eat same?
However when we are on holidays, bush walking we eat same food and we feel better!
No one denies the social role of food in 21 Century!
So my thought - start working on your healthy lifestyle and you will lose weight without watching your calories!
The only thing to add is (and you explained that well!) - watch what you eat.
I saw a lot of examples of really FAT young ladies eating junk-burgers - NO NEED for that.
Just learn what is good for you, find, remember and use HEALTHY recipes.
I know that despite the abundance of Internet sources it is hard to find really good recipes.
I am a member (free) of Australian portal of Healthy Food - http://www.healthyfoodforlife.com.au
They provide some good recipes - I recommend an easy and inexpensive "Lemon Tuna" - just search this site for it.
Once again Doug - I absolutely agree with you - no need to COUNT calories. Build your lifestyle.
Reply
Bob 6-18-2008 @ 10:40AM
I agree with just about everything you said in the article and thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
Another way to address the problem holistically is not only to count calories, but also to count the other nutrients for which there are currently standards. So you get a measured holistic view.
When I wanted to lose weight 5 years ago, I read a lot of research in peer reviewed science journals on diets (well, my wife the Academic Reference Librarian found most of it). There was one diet that stood out because of the volume of research already done and the results (with much more done since).
The diet did not focus on weight loss. It focused on health and longevity and was given the short name Calorie Restriction (CR) with an emphasis on getting full nutrition. It has only two real rules, so you can pretty much eat anything you want if you follow the rules:
1. Get 100% of your nutritional needs as best we know them
2. Cut your calorie intake significantly.
I adopted the diet and have pretty much followed it with occasional lapses for 5 years. It worked wonders for my health - I lost the weight, kept it off, and have improved all sorts of "biomarkers", including the standard ones of cholesterol, HDL, LDL, triglycerides, blood pressure, etc.
Neither rule is easy, but the 1st one is hardest because you really do have to track what you eat and use software (some freely available) to compute all the different nutrients. My personal experience is that when I do not track nutrients (or actually just enter it days later without focusing on it), my calorie intake rises, other nutrient needs are not met, and my weight starts to rise.
Having said all that, there has been one significant negative that anyone should be careful. I and several others following the CR diet have had significant loss of bone density. This may occur in other weight loss diets, but it has been confirmed for CR in both human and mice studies recently. Others have not had the problem and there is one just-released study saying higher protein and calcium intake solves the problem (it was funded by National Cattlemen's Beef Association, The Beef Board, among others, however).
Reply
Sarah 6-20-2008 @ 2:20PM
I agree completely, food should be fun, not numbers. If you eat healthy and get all of your necessary nutrients, you feel better too; you have more energy, you sleep better and you crave junk less and less. The longer you do it, the easier it gets.
Reply
Jennifer 6-20-2008 @ 3:00PM
You're a nutritionist not a registered dietician.
Get someone qualified to write this article.
Reply
wjw 6-20-2008 @ 6:15PM
Good article. Great information and oh, so true. I have recently (for 4 months now) successfully followed a fast of 2 days per week. Read about it in a book about Ayurvedic medicine. The reason was to 'rest' my intestines and organ tracts. I have only lost about 5 lbs during that period of time. But I have lost several inches around my 'midrif' and I am totally pleased with that outcome. Your comments are appreciated!
Reply
Tspurn 6-20-2008 @ 10:12PM
This article was so gay, why do you even wright, you should probably quit while you are ahead there are some people that may have some bits of respect for the one hit wonder "wrighter" you should work on a farm or some type of industrial worksite where you don't need style or charisma to get one through the day.... well peace and love to all... Tspurn
Reply
Anna McDougald 6-20-2008 @ 11:28PM
Okay...counting calories sucks. Who wants to feel like they're "engineering" every meal? But calories DO count, when it comes to "portion sizes" People who need to lose weight but are used to eating large servings literally have trouble hearing their bodies yell SYOP!
A basin full of oatmeal laced with raw honey for breakfast, a mountain of pasta primavera for lunch, and thick slabs of cornbread smothered in chili for supper, just WON'T let the pounds on an inactive adult "melt away". The "new" food rules relating portion sizes to "handfuls", "palms" and "thumbs" make much more sense....The calories are still factored in, as to a certain extent, are the individual's requirementsm -- but the "Math" is out the window !
Reply