Rebuttal against a 'Calories don't count' argument

This is a rebuttal to the article floating around on the net about how calories don't count. Take a read, you may be convinced.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE FIRST

The Rebuttal

Below are a list of the pictures from the article, along with my reasons for why they do not disprove the calorie in versus out argument for weight gain.

 1. Injecting insulin will change where fat is stored not HOW MUCH. This is also not how insulin works in a human body in a non-injected state, where it would be more generalised. Regardless, insulin doesn't create extra energy storage, just changes its location.

2. Going have to semi-bow out of this one as I know nothing about Cushins. Although so what - if you don't have Cushins disease, then this doesn't apply.

3. The guy is obviously one of those people who has a very reactive metabolism - they do exist. I know a lot of people with these genetics who are the same. If they eat a hell of a lot more calories, their metabolism raises to almost match it.

This doesn't disprove calories in vs out or make it irrelevant. If this guy wanted to gain weight, he would have to eat more - far more, as his metabolism ramps up more than normal. If he wanted to lose weight, he would just have to eat less.

The same principles apply to everyone. You have to find out your own personal numbers. Personally, if I am looking to gain 1lb a week, I eat around 3000 calories, and if it is not working, I eat MORE until I am gaining 1lb a week. IF I want to lose weight, I eat around 1,800 a day to lose around 1lb a week. If that doesn't work, I exercise a little more. But I am patient with it as I know water weight fluctuates.

If you are not fortunate enough to have his genetics, you would have to find out how much YOU need to eat to gain a certain amount of weight/lose it. It's not always going to be a static number, but if you are not losing weight you should find a way of getting less energy in, or getting more energy out.

Also - with this guy, it was only n=1 and also only 3 weeks. In 3 weeks it would be possible to lose 5-6 pounds of water weight from glycogen stores, another couple of pounds of gut bulk and still gain fat. You can, for short periods of time like this, be gaining fat whilst the scale is going down. Let him try that for a full year and see how it works out.

4. Again, a case of genetic/disease related change in WHERE the fat is stored, not HOW MUCH. The amount of energy stored in the system hasn't been influenced, only the site of that storage. So again, doesn't mean calories are valueless (confused look as to why anyone would think it does).

5. see above

6. So what!!! Sure, low carb diets may have some role for SOME PEOPLE in regulating energy intake, as

in anorexics may start eating more energy and obese may start eating less energy. Doesn't mean they are the best diets for everyone and doesn't discredit counting calories, or portion control (or whatever method you wish to choose to use in order to regulate energy intake).

Low carb is not always the best way for everyone, even if I would conclude that it is a relatively good way for most people to go. For me, personally, it would be torturous hell - and science has shown that it doesn't provide a significant amount more of weight loss above and beyond what simple water loss (through glycogen depletion) would provide - along with potential muscle losses from the lower amount of insulin and lower muscle glycogen storage (that's right, insulin preserves muscle).

7. Read http://weightology.net/?p=265

8. The whole body is a calorie receptor. It responds to calories by increasing and decreasing certain hormones which can increase metabolism, change substrate oxidation and decrease amounts of food desired (satiation qualities). Leptin, Ghrelin, Insulin, HGH, IGF1, Cortisol, glucagon, adiponectin, thyroid etc etc etc - all respond to caloric intake.

Does changing what you eat have an effect on energy out and (indirectly) energy in? Sure, it can do. But it is usually not as large an effect as you think, and by NO MEANS discredits the use of calorie control exercises through direct means (calorie counting) or indirect (portion control, eating more satiating foods etc).

Fact is, if you eat the same foods but a higher quantity of them, you will gain more weight, and if you eat the same foods in lower quantities you will lose weight/gain less.

9. Umm, yes, not all macronutrients behave the same way in the body. Some have higher thermic effects and so calories are lost in the process of breaking it down. However, this doesn't violate the idea that calories count. It still applies that calories in vs out will determine how much energy is in the system. Thermic effect simply increases the 'energy out' side of the equation.

Anyway, to conclude that getting rid of carbohydrates is wrong. It is clearly biased towards a low carb diet for no reason at all. The whole reason the diet produces a lower caloric yield if we replace 55% carbs with equal amounts fat and protein is not due to the lower carb, it is due to the increase in PROTEIN, which has the highest thermic effect.

In fact, one could say that replacing fat with equal parts protein and carbs (I do not recommend) would produce a lower caloric yield still, as Fat has the lowest thermic effect of all.

Bottom line

The bottom line is, calories count, whether you count them or not. You could cut your calories in by cutting out an entire food group/macronutrient. But this usually leaves people craving what they have cut, leading to an eventual falling off the wagon. You could also use portion control, or count calories consciously, which could offer you more freedom in what you eat. But the idea that calories don't count is ludicrous, and wrong, as every scientific study EVER has shown.

Everyone responds to foods differently. Some can gain weight easily with a small excess, some can have a massive excess and still burn it off with their very reactive metabolisms. But the overall principle remains the same. If you want to get smaller, eat less of what you do. If you want to get bigger, eat more of what you do now. Use exercise as a way of improving health and energy expenditure.

The one which annoys me most is the insulin theory. The idea that insulin makes you gain weight. Well, guess what. If I pump my blood full of insulin and don't eat a thing, you can be sure I wont be gaining weight. Even if I ate 500 calories with my 'insulin blood', it is only possible to store 500 calories of fat (and that is if there was a 100% efficient conversion, which there is not).

For those who say, "Yeah, but if you had insulin in your blood and no glucose, you would go into a hypoglycaemic coma" - you are right. So the type 2 diabetics with high insulin levels must be using something for fuel. If they are using lower amounts of fat, that must mean they are using higher amounts of blood glucose (which makes sense as the blood glucose for type 2 diabetics is high). If more blood glucose is burned as fuel, less can be stored as fat, and thus the law of calories in vs out returns as the king.

Take home advice

The best pieces of advice I can give are;

1. Increase your PROTEIN intake (but there is a law of diminishing returns).

2. Find out how many calories YOU need to manipulate your weight in the direction you want.

3. keep a healthy balance of fats and carbs in your diet.

4. Eat an overall higher amount of MICRONUTRITION through better food choices, but don't feel you have to cut out what you love.

5. RESISTANCE TRAIN

6. Don't do too much cardio when you are on a restricted calorie diet. In fact, cardio is completely unnecessary when trying to lose fat. But if you like to do it, go ahead.

7. Eat foods that curb your hunger. Usually low calorie density foods like veggies will do this as well as fulfilling number 4. But find out what works for you.

8. Don't CRASH DIET. 1/2 a pound a week is still 26 pounds of weight loss a year. We all know that person who loses 20lb every time they diet, yet ironically weigh more and more each year.