Weight Loss Resources

Hundreds of articles about weight loss ...

search resouces

A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

Real Life Diet Questions Answered

Angela Dowden
Nutritionist

Posted 21 Jul 10

Does counting calories in the long run really work?

I'm asking this as I'm reading a book called Why do you overeat? When all you want is to be slim. In brief it states not to count calories... the book states calorie counting only works short term, reducing our food intake below the level we need will lead to weight loss in the short term. The problem is that in the long term our bodies adjust to the continued starvation and the weight loss slows or even stops altogether, then our bodies need less food to survive on a daily basis, so if we go back to eating the same food we ate before the low calorie diet we will actually put on weight. Calorie counting sends you into a vicious circle of eating less and less just to stay at the same weight. I just wanted your views on this?

Our expert says...

Thanks for your question. First I need to say that whilst I'm sure there are lots of good concepts in the book, the basic premise is not scientifically correct! Whilst reducing calories does depress metabolic rate whilst you are doing it, many scientific studies - notably those by Dr Susan Jebb of the Medical Research Council’s Human Nutrition Research unit - have shown that your metabolic rate recovers when you start eating larger amounts again. Even if you've lost and regained weight countless times, you can hold onto the knowledge that you will not have wrecked your chances of staying slim forever.

On a similar topic, whilst it's true that the body will try hard to hold on to its fat reserves if you reduce calories drastically, the concept of weight loss stopping altogether or even reversing  (so you put weight on) if you eat too little is completely false.

What does happen is that below a certain level of calorie restriction – about 1200-1400 calories - the EXTRA weight you lose becomes insignificant enough as to make the additional restraint and effort involved not worthwhile. You'll be hungry too, and end up throwing in the towel. That's why the optimum calorie intake for efficient weight loss is 1200-1500 a day.

Where I can agree is that it's NOT EASY to reduce calories and/or be more active, as we all must do if we want to lose weight! So to get and stay trim we need to calorie control our diets but try to find a healthy way of eating that we can stick to for life rather than always “dieting”. Some people are naturally very good at controlling calories without the need to count them. Our approach is to help people with getting the weight off, by making them aware of how fine the balance is  - it only takes a few extra calories a day to gain pounds steadily over time!

Naturally slim people have the inherent ability to balance their foods and exercise in a way that keeps them in energy balance so they neither gain nor lose weight. Some people respond to a dieting method that teaches them the tricks they need to naturally control calories without actually counting them. Others find calorie counting and the keeping of a food diary- the Nutracheck approach – the best way to manage weight. Whichever approach you use – and the Nutracheck way is proven by research – keeping the weight off is always a problem unless you change your habits for good.

Disclaimer
You are advised to seek medical advice before making any changes to your diet or lifestyle with an aim of weight loss. This website and the content provided should not be used by persons under 18, by pregnant or nursing women, or individuals with any type of health condition, except under the direct supervision of a qualified medical professional. The information contained in these articles, and elsewhere on this website, is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only, and is not intended to replace, and does not constitute legal, professional, medical or healthcare advice or diagnosis and may not be used for such purposes. Continue...