Calorie Counting App Has No Effect on Mental Health or Health Behaviors(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Calorie Counting App Has No Effect on Mental Health or Health Behaviors
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34427188/
77 comments
I feel like you almost need some kind of eating disorder these days. Our Bread, milk, meat is all unnatural and mass produced, there is a massive amount of sugar in everything. If you aren’t actively monitoring your food intake and making deliberate decisions to not eat your gonna be unhealthy.
I like the quote: “keep whatever addictions kill you the slowest”. I think a minor eating disorder is preferable to eating 100s of grams of sugar every day.
I like the quote: “keep whatever addictions kill you the slowest”. I think a minor eating disorder is preferable to eating 100s of grams of sugar every day.
> Our Bread, milk, meat is all unnatural
Please avoid this emotional appeal. All things are natural. What would be unnatural? Ectoplasm? Sorcery?
> there is a massive amount of sugar in everything
Not everything. This even lead to a somewhat humourous case against Subway's bread [0].
Other commenters have pointed out how flawed your mass production statement is as well, so I won't reheash.
* [0] https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/subwa...
Please avoid this emotional appeal. All things are natural. What would be unnatural? Ectoplasm? Sorcery?
> there is a massive amount of sugar in everything
Not everything. This even lead to a somewhat humourous case against Subway's bread [0].
Other commenters have pointed out how flawed your mass production statement is as well, so I won't reheash.
* [0] https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/subwa...
Moderation in eating isn't equivalent to a minor eating disorder. I agree though that some behavior you need to do today might have been seen as symptoms of a type of disordered eating in the past.
But by definition, if it's keeping you healthy, it mostly shouldn't be considered disordered.
I know in the past cutting up food into very small pieces was seen as a symptom of disordered eating because the thought was that you're intentionally slowing your eating so you eat less. Today's portion sizes in the US make it mandatory to break up a pre-prepared meal or a snack into smaller pieces so each bite isn't so calorically dense. In fact, in certain contexts, cutting up food is seen as proper and having manners. If you're eating a big piece of meat, you don't grab it in your hands and chew on it, generally. You cut it up into bite sized pieces.
But by definition, if it's keeping you healthy, it mostly shouldn't be considered disordered.
I know in the past cutting up food into very small pieces was seen as a symptom of disordered eating because the thought was that you're intentionally slowing your eating so you eat less. Today's portion sizes in the US make it mandatory to break up a pre-prepared meal or a snack into smaller pieces so each bite isn't so calorically dense. In fact, in certain contexts, cutting up food is seen as proper and having manners. If you're eating a big piece of meat, you don't grab it in your hands and chew on it, generally. You cut it up into bite sized pieces.
Really wish there was a polite and socially acceptable way to ask for a reasonable portion.
It's both fortunate and unfortunate that I come from a culture with rich delicious food and implicit pressure from elders to never deny an extra serving or leave food on the plate. It's hard saying no to a loving aunt or grandma. And most celebrations are marked by giving deserts and sweets.
The sugar only comes from eating packaged products. Buy groceries to make your own food and there's no sugar problem. Snack on vegetables and tree nuts.
Fair warning everybody: nuts are incredibly calorie dense.
Calories are not just calories. They're a useful rule of thumb but they're not a metric to live and die by.
Always remember that calorimetry is basically burning mass(nut) and measuring energy(nut) by how much it increased the temperature of some water.
Combustion is an extremely primitive hand wave over the VERY COMPLEX digestive system not to mention how we then go on to store that energy (glycogen vs fat) and then eventually burn that energy.
Drinking x ml of olive oil vs eating y g of nuts for equal calories will have different outcomes even though they're primarily both fats. Fiber is key and will affect energy absorption intake. Even chewing efficiency will affect how well you absorb that energy. Let's not forget that digestion itself takes energy.
Obviously if you eat an extra 2kcal of nuts a day you're going to see the effects of that, but calorie for calorie, I'd rather eat nuts than a big mac or ice cream (and expect to see less weight gain)
Or being healthy - I'd rather have whole almonds supplementing my meals than cottage cheese (from a pure calories perspective)
Always remember that calorimetry is basically burning mass(nut) and measuring energy(nut) by how much it increased the temperature of some water.
Combustion is an extremely primitive hand wave over the VERY COMPLEX digestive system not to mention how we then go on to store that energy (glycogen vs fat) and then eventually burn that energy.
Drinking x ml of olive oil vs eating y g of nuts for equal calories will have different outcomes even though they're primarily both fats. Fiber is key and will affect energy absorption intake. Even chewing efficiency will affect how well you absorb that energy. Let's not forget that digestion itself takes energy.
Obviously if you eat an extra 2kcal of nuts a day you're going to see the effects of that, but calorie for calorie, I'd rather eat nuts than a big mac or ice cream (and expect to see less weight gain)
Or being healthy - I'd rather have whole almonds supplementing my meals than cottage cheese (from a pure calories perspective)
It's fine.
Fair warning everybody: vegetables are packed with nutrients.
Unfortunately we have bred a good chunk of them away over the last century. Median 5 to 40% deline in mineral content as of this 2009 meta analysis, likely even worse now.
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/44/1...
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/44/1...
Mass production isn't inherently bad, and you're explicitly making an appeal to nature of questionable worth.
There's plenty to find fault with in the modern food industry: toxic or carcinogenic pesticides, antibiotic-resistant pathogens created by human abuse, contamination of water supplies and oceans with runoff, the role of government in creating various health crises by subsidizing high-carb/high-glycemic index foods simply because they're a cheap way to feed a population, ground subsidence due to unchecked dependence on slow-filling aquifers, native habitat destruction... off the top of my head.
But all of that doesn't make "natural", on its own, better for human nutrition.
There's plenty to find fault with in the modern food industry: toxic or carcinogenic pesticides, antibiotic-resistant pathogens created by human abuse, contamination of water supplies and oceans with runoff, the role of government in creating various health crises by subsidizing high-carb/high-glycemic index foods simply because they're a cheap way to feed a population, ground subsidence due to unchecked dependence on slow-filling aquifers, native habitat destruction... off the top of my head.
But all of that doesn't make "natural", on its own, better for human nutrition.
It does, white rice and white flour - for instance - don't exist. We're supposed to eat the whole grain with all the micronutrients. Industrialisation removed them for no reason, and enabled never-before-eaten substances like trans fats, and tablespoons of polyunsaturated fats (seed/vegetable oils). Then refined sugars come along, too.
So yes, you are not evolved to eat these substances. You do not need them. You can survive perfectly without them.
So yes, you are not evolved to eat these substances. You do not need them. You can survive perfectly without them.
> Mass production isn't inherently bad
Mass production is inherently corner-cutting, and, given that nutrition is an unsolved problem, natural is inherently wholesome in a way that artificial can, at best, only attempt to duplicate.
Mass production is inherently corner-cutting, and, given that nutrition is an unsolved problem, natural is inherently wholesome in a way that artificial can, at best, only attempt to duplicate.
In Germany we mass produce bread that essentially contains exactly the same things I'd put in it if I made it myself.
The entire point of bread is turning wheat seeds into a digestible food. Part of that is milling, part is baking, and a big part is the fermenting and the long natural yeast rise.
Mass produced bread never does this long natural yeast rise. Cheap versions use all kinds of chemicals to get the texture right, even the high quality variants use rapid rising yeast because natural yeast is way too slow. Only in a local bakery or at home will you find bread that is made in the healthiest way possible. The natural yeast fermented slow rise results in a much healthier product, bread that even gluten-sensitive people have no issue eating (and it tastes better)
Mass produced bread never does this long natural yeast rise. Cheap versions use all kinds of chemicals to get the texture right, even the high quality variants use rapid rising yeast because natural yeast is way too slow. Only in a local bakery or at home will you find bread that is made in the healthiest way possible. The natural yeast fermented slow rise results in a much healthier product, bread that even gluten-sensitive people have no issue eating (and it tastes better)
I usually buy sourdough rye bread in the supermarket because that's the cheapest form of bread and I like it. It contains no "chemicals" that the legislator deemed necessary for inclusion in the ingredient list, save some sodium acetate as pH regulator and preservative. Sure, the artisanal bread at my local bakery is tastier, but it also costs about ten times as much.
To my knowledge yeast doesn't touch gluten at all and only breaks down the starch. I really doubt that there are measurable health benefits of artisanal bread. Do you have any studies to back up that claim?
To my knowledge yeast doesn't touch gluten at all and only breaks down the starch. I really doubt that there are measurable health benefits of artisanal bread. Do you have any studies to back up that claim?
> I really doubt that there are measurable health benefits of artisanal bread. Do you have any studies to back up that claim?
There are clear health benefits of artisanal foods: they costs more, you buy less (for the same weight), you get less calories - you aren't obese.
/s
There are clear health benefits of artisanal foods: they costs more, you buy less (for the same weight), you get less calories - you aren't obese.
/s
Mass produced bread can be produced like that. There's nothing about the concept of mass production that forbids products from taking a long time to produce.
Maybe in the US, nobody mass produces bread like that.
Maybe in the US, nobody mass produces bread like that.
This. Even if something gets „mass-produced“, it doesn't mean it has to be bad. It just won't be the cheapest product on the market any longer.
Frozen vegetables are basically raw, untouched, pretty good for you food, and they are grown by pretty terrible corporations trying to make as much scummy money as possible, and it STILL only costs me about a buck a pound or less at the grocery store.
[deleted]
No, profit maximization is inherently corner-cutting
It's like the popular line,
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
My behavior definitely looks like an eating disorder sometimes. But holy hell, they're still putting unhealthy-at-any-level trans fats in regular food, and the label can say "0g trans fat"!
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
My behavior definitely looks like an eating disorder sometimes. But holy hell, they're still putting unhealthy-at-any-level trans fats in regular food, and the label can say "0g trans fat"!
It’s true, but an eating disorder doesn’t mean eating scantly, or even throwing up after every time you eat if that’s a choice you make. Eating disorders are compulsions, and those that suffer from them aren’t able to choose not to do them. This is similar to how alcoholism doesn’t mean drinking a lot. Alcoholism is a complete dependence on alcohol, making it nearly impossible to stop.
> or even throwing up after every time you eat if that’s a choice you make
I think that’s a misleading statement to make.
While this could be theoretically true, I imagine, in practice, no one would choose to throw up after every meal without having a disorder.
I think that’s a misleading statement to make.
While this could be theoretically true, I imagine, in practice, no one would choose to throw up after every meal without having a disorder.
Sure, but the point is that if you choose to do it, then your behavior is not a disorder, it's just a weird choice that you're making. Just like drinking heavily doesn't automatically make you an alcoholic.
I think the line of "choice" here gets blurred, which is exactly what disorder refers to in the usual context.
Note that this is calorie counting (i.e. just tracking calories consumed), not calorie restriction (trying to consume fewer calories). The study population was mostly normal weight (average BMI of 23.1).
You can read the full study here: https://sci-hub.se/uptodate/S2212267221007346.pdf
edit: Also: an interesting fact. 1 member of the (100-person) intervention group dropped out of the study because the app "made them feel bad" (p. 3) and was thus excluded from the results. One wonders if that would happen in a larger sample size--if 1% of people have to drop out because calorie counting affects their mood so badly, that'd be an important result.
You can read the full study here: https://sci-hub.se/uptodate/S2212267221007346.pdf
edit: Also: an interesting fact. 1 member of the (100-person) intervention group dropped out of the study because the app "made them feel bad" (p. 3) and was thus excluded from the results. One wonders if that would happen in a larger sample size--if 1% of people have to drop out because calorie counting affects their mood so badly, that'd be an important result.
Theres a really persistent lay theory that calorie counting, weighing yourself, etc. in itself causes eating disorder.
I think its used defensively to avoid health behaviors but thats a different issue.
I think this persistent popular idea is what this paper was trying to address.
I think its used defensively to avoid health behaviors but thats a different issue.
I think this persistent popular idea is what this paper was trying to address.
doesn't increase eating disorder incidence for undergrad women "who had not engaged in dietary self-monitoring in the past year and who were at low-risk for an eating disorder" and who were willing to sign up for this
Honestly, I wish there was some mechanism to somehow punish authors that title their papers like a buzzfeed piece. I'm really sick of seeing things like, "Diet has no effect on BMI" and then it turns out that what they meant was that you have a lot of freedom in what you eat as long as you stay around the same total calorie intake or whatever. There's no feedback mechanism to swat these things down and it shows.
You're not supposed to read just the title, you need to read at least the abstract. It clearly states in the abstract what the conclusions are:
"Conclusions: Among dietary self-monitoring naive undergraduate women with low-risk of an eating disorder, dietary self-monitoring via MyFitnessPal for 1 month did not increase eating disorder risk, impact other aspects of mental health, or alter health behaviors including dietary intake. The null results in our study may be due to the selection of a low-risk sample; future research should explore whether there are populations for whom dietary self-monitoring is contraindicated. "
Science is not easily summarized to sound bites that you can share as an image macro on social media. This is doubly true for something as difficult as nutrition.
"Conclusions: Among dietary self-monitoring naive undergraduate women with low-risk of an eating disorder, dietary self-monitoring via MyFitnessPal for 1 month did not increase eating disorder risk, impact other aspects of mental health, or alter health behaviors including dietary intake. The null results in our study may be due to the selection of a low-risk sample; future research should explore whether there are populations for whom dietary self-monitoring is contraindicated. "
Science is not easily summarized to sound bites that you can share as an image macro on social media. This is doubly true for something as difficult as nutrition.
So? That seems like exactly the population you’d want to study if your worry is that calorie counting will induce eating disorders.
Not claiming that the study itself is useless, it's important to understand how interventions affect completely healthy people, but my worry would be that it triggers eating disorders in high-risk group, that would affect wether we want to widely encourage calorie counting or just recommend it to those who specifically need it. The thread OP helpfully points out the fact that this study doesn't do much to answer that question.
Monitoring my calories was one of the best things I have ever done.
Weight, finances, like anything tracking it makes you aware. I started counting calories eight years ago (Jan 11, 2014) I do it at the end of each day. I did find that tracking my weight (or my spending) makes me modify my behaviour. Even eating the crap I do I am more aware it it's made my weight stabilize. I can even see a bump in the graph of my weight after I buy groceries or a dip when I go for bike rides in the summer. I also see patterns of same weight for multiple days then a weight change up or down; trends.
I'm not female and not obese but a slightly overweight middle-aged male with hypothyroidism (synthroid pill #1 Mar 12, 2013). So not the typical person most people would think of. But I never had an eating disorder just curiosity.
I'm not female and not obese but a slightly overweight middle-aged male with hypothyroidism (synthroid pill #1 Mar 12, 2013). So not the typical person most people would think of. But I never had an eating disorder just curiosity.
This may be a hot take, but I think the obesity crisis and that most people are overweight actually increases the prevalence of eating disorders.
People don't know what a genuinely healthy body and diet/fitness regimen look like, and thinness (even extreme, unhealthy thinness) is popularized and praised as a sign of beauty and willpower because so many people are trying to lose weight and so few are trying to gain.
People don't know what a genuinely healthy body and diet/fitness regimen look like, and thinness (even extreme, unhealthy thinness) is popularized and praised as a sign of beauty and willpower because so many people are trying to lose weight and so few are trying to gain.
I believe obesity is also type of eating disorder, just towards the opposite direction to something like anorexia. Binge-eating disorder is the term used in academic studies to understand some of the underlying psychology for a part of the obesity crisis.
Anorexic here. I think this misses it a bit. People with ED’s know what a healthy body looks like. You’re talking about a population that is unhealthily obsessed with food and their body in one way or another. Like I can name the calories and macros for basically any food off the top of my head. I know the calories burnt by most common exercises and what muscles they work. I don’t even need MFP to count anymore. It’s a fun party trick.
What complicates things is dysmorphia. I don’t “see” myself correctly. It’s really hard to explain but it’s kinda like something in my brain is wired wrong where my internal rendering of myself gets distorted. So then when I look at a healthy body and look at myself — even when that body is heavier than mine — my brain goes “ahh the path to go from where you are to there is to lose weight.” And I’ve had it as long as I can remember. My recovery has been learning to develop strategies to deal with when dysmorphia is particularly bad. Lotta sweatshirts, removing mirrors, and doing things in the dark along with safe foods that don’t trigger my anxiety on days when I feel disgusting.
I don’t want to look underweight. I see other underweight women and know that they’re unhealthily skinny.
What complicates things is dysmorphia. I don’t “see” myself correctly. It’s really hard to explain but it’s kinda like something in my brain is wired wrong where my internal rendering of myself gets distorted. So then when I look at a healthy body and look at myself — even when that body is heavier than mine — my brain goes “ahh the path to go from where you are to there is to lose weight.” And I’ve had it as long as I can remember. My recovery has been learning to develop strategies to deal with when dysmorphia is particularly bad. Lotta sweatshirts, removing mirrors, and doing things in the dark along with safe foods that don’t trigger my anxiety on days when I feel disgusting.
I don’t want to look underweight. I see other underweight women and know that they’re unhealthily skinny.
Thank you for your post.
I've often wondered how it is to deal with a mental problem that makes you perceive yourself one way (too fat) even though your conscious mind knows you're not that. Do you feel some kind of internal struggle when for example looking at your photos or in the mirror? It looks like you know the objective assessment (you're not only not too fat but even thinner than others) but somehow other part of your brain can't accept it. Do you experience this kind of struggle between conscious and unconscious thoughts? Do you feel the unconscious ones are winning or maybe switching off the conscious ones sometimes? Does conscious part win sometimes?
It's fine if you don't feel like elaborating. I am just very curious as I've read about anorexia and "you perceive your body as overweight even though you know it isn't" phenomena sounded like something I can relate to in a way although in way less serious areas (for example I know some social behavior are desirable and seen as friendly even though my mind tells me they aren't).
It's fine if you don't feel like elaborating. I am just very curious as I've read about anorexia and "you perceive your body as overweight even though you know it isn't" phenomena sounded like something I can relate to in a way although in way less serious areas (for example I know some social behavior are desirable and seen as friendly even though my mind tells me they aren't).
[deleted]
In my whole life I've known like two people with eating disorders (the not eating enough kind). Almost every single other person aside from those two eat too much, and I'd say mostly they eat way, way too much.
Now, those two people definitely had a problem, but knowing them it was one I knew couldn't begin to understand, and I can't imagine that any of the pithy things people say all they time to express concern about not "developing anorexic" if I (while carrying a slight gut myself) skip a meal would make any difference to them. You might as well being telling someone in the grip of an oxy addiction to "just say no".
Conversely almost nobody has ever told me I was eating too much. I never see it addressed in "movies with an important message" or any other pop culture PSAs. Nobody said anything during the COVID pandemic where people are literally dying of COVID from being overweight and not able to get enough oxygen with their damaged lungs to keep their whole body alive. Instead they euphemistically called it "co-morbidity" and left it at that. All this concern for eating disorders I think it's mostly just a smokescreen.
Now, those two people definitely had a problem, but knowing them it was one I knew couldn't begin to understand, and I can't imagine that any of the pithy things people say all they time to express concern about not "developing anorexic" if I (while carrying a slight gut myself) skip a meal would make any difference to them. You might as well being telling someone in the grip of an oxy addiction to "just say no".
Conversely almost nobody has ever told me I was eating too much. I never see it addressed in "movies with an important message" or any other pop culture PSAs. Nobody said anything during the COVID pandemic where people are literally dying of COVID from being overweight and not able to get enough oxygen with their damaged lungs to keep their whole body alive. Instead they euphemistically called it "co-morbidity" and left it at that. All this concern for eating disorders I think it's mostly just a smokescreen.
> In my whole life I've known like two people with eating disorders (the not eating enough kind).
I bet there were a lot more than two! Anorexia is extremely common. It’s also extremely easy to hide from friends and family (and to a lesser extent bulimia, at least for me).
I’ve struggled with anorexia and bulimia for about 20 years (since I was 14 or 15). I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve said anything publicly about it. Prior to me starting to talk with people other than my wife or a handful of other friends about my eating disorders, there were fewer than ten people who knew or could have possibly known that I was dealing with such things.
Anecdotally, I definitely knew more than five people who had told me about their eating disorders before I told anyone about mine, and since doing so I’ve found that a lot of other people have them.
Personally, I would like to see more discussion of this sort of thing, and would especially like if a little more attention could be paid to the occurrence of such disorders in boys/men (though it certainly doesn’t seem to affect them nearly as frequently and/or as severely). I honestly think it would have helped me get help earlier if I’d known that anorexia was something that boys dealt with too. For a long time I had myself convinced that I didn’t really have a problem, and I think that’s mostly because I’d always seen anorexia framed as something only experienced by girls/women.
I bet there were a lot more than two! Anorexia is extremely common. It’s also extremely easy to hide from friends and family (and to a lesser extent bulimia, at least for me).
I’ve struggled with anorexia and bulimia for about 20 years (since I was 14 or 15). I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve said anything publicly about it. Prior to me starting to talk with people other than my wife or a handful of other friends about my eating disorders, there were fewer than ten people who knew or could have possibly known that I was dealing with such things.
Anecdotally, I definitely knew more than five people who had told me about their eating disorders before I told anyone about mine, and since doing so I’ve found that a lot of other people have them.
Personally, I would like to see more discussion of this sort of thing, and would especially like if a little more attention could be paid to the occurrence of such disorders in boys/men (though it certainly doesn’t seem to affect them nearly as frequently and/or as severely). I honestly think it would have helped me get help earlier if I’d known that anorexia was something that boys dealt with too. For a long time I had myself convinced that I didn’t really have a problem, and I think that’s mostly because I’d always seen anorexia framed as something only experienced by girls/women.
Also, if you’re really set on only focusing on one of these things (which I think this is a bad idea): the health impact of being anorexic is generally much worse than being overweight.
As formerly obese person, I can't imagine anyone obese that doesn't know that they ate way too much. You'd have to have astrology nut delusion to not know that. There's no point in stating the obvious.
Every body is beach body ready etc.
Can't have anyone have their feelings hurt, lest they get the idea that getting into shape might not be a bad idea - instead of getting to live in the delusion that obesity is normal and to be embraced.
Can't have anyone have their feelings hurt, lest they get the idea that getting into shape might not be a bad idea - instead of getting to live in the delusion that obesity is normal and to be embraced.
Obesity is an eating disorder. It's one that's killed orders of magnitude more people than anorexia or bulimia ever have.
> People don't know what a genuinely healthy body and diet/fitness regimen look like
That's in large part because even healthy people can't agree on what that looks like. Regardless, many people don't seriously care about eating healthy because otherwise they'd simply use the internet and quickly find some diet that actually works (pretty much any of the "fad" diets are better than the Standard American Diet).
> thinness (even extreme, unhealthy thinness) is popularized and praised as a sign of beauty and willpower because so many people are trying to lose weight and so few are trying to gain.
This effect can't be totally discounted, but is it really that or is it because being fat actually kinda sucks? The average person is not attracted to obesity, and obesity can lead to trauma that then leads to things like anorexia. Ironically, obesity is also caused indirectly by poor mental health.
Contrary to this idea that thinness is somehow this societal evil, obesity is more normalized than it's ever been. That's only going to do the opposite of getting people healthy. When was the last time an unhealthy image of thinness was promoted in the mainstream? Besides the fashion industry, which most people don't take seriously or even pay attention to, I can't think of even one.
> People don't know what a genuinely healthy body and diet/fitness regimen look like
That's in large part because even healthy people can't agree on what that looks like. Regardless, many people don't seriously care about eating healthy because otherwise they'd simply use the internet and quickly find some diet that actually works (pretty much any of the "fad" diets are better than the Standard American Diet).
> thinness (even extreme, unhealthy thinness) is popularized and praised as a sign of beauty and willpower because so many people are trying to lose weight and so few are trying to gain.
This effect can't be totally discounted, but is it really that or is it because being fat actually kinda sucks? The average person is not attracted to obesity, and obesity can lead to trauma that then leads to things like anorexia. Ironically, obesity is also caused indirectly by poor mental health.
Contrary to this idea that thinness is somehow this societal evil, obesity is more normalized than it's ever been. That's only going to do the opposite of getting people healthy. When was the last time an unhealthy image of thinness was promoted in the mainstream? Besides the fashion industry, which most people don't take seriously or even pay attention to, I can't think of even one.
Is this something we need to prove a negative? Why do we assume counting calories and "dietary self monitoring" is a bad thing?
So I've worked on psychiatric units clinically, as well as in obesity-related clinics.
It's not uncommon to hear things from family and other social support figures along the lines of "if X starts weighing themselves or counting calories they'll develop an eating disorder". Or even, with individuals who are anorexic to the extent that it's life threatening, and they need to be weighed etc. to gain weight, family and support individuals say things like "so and so's eating disorder is caused by them weighing themselves and counting their calories. [The staff] should just stop that because it's making the problem worse."
This paper is providing some data pertaining to that.
I don't monitor this literature closely but last time I touched base with it these kinds of things (monitoring weight and calories) were associated with healthier outcomes. I think it depends on the context though a bit.
It's not uncommon to hear things from family and other social support figures along the lines of "if X starts weighing themselves or counting calories they'll develop an eating disorder". Or even, with individuals who are anorexic to the extent that it's life threatening, and they need to be weighed etc. to gain weight, family and support individuals say things like "so and so's eating disorder is caused by them weighing themselves and counting their calories. [The staff] should just stop that because it's making the problem worse."
This paper is providing some data pertaining to that.
I don't monitor this literature closely but last time I touched base with it these kinds of things (monitoring weight and calories) were associated with healthier outcomes. I think it depends on the context though a bit.
Why would it?
Most people eat too much or way too much. Eating disorders resulting in eating too little are rare in comparison and they stem from well known mental issues. Like, I don't even know how you could come up with a hypothesis that counting calories
increases risk of eating disorder.
The argument that most anorectic people count calories so there is correlation doesn't even work because most obese people don't so if anything "not counting calories increases risk of eating disorder" is a lot plausible observational hypothesis as there is way more obese people then anorectic people among those who don't count calories and way more obese people who don't count than anorectic people who do (both % wise and in absolute numbers).
The argument that most anorectic people count calories so there is correlation doesn't even work because most obese people don't so if anything "not counting calories increases risk of eating disorder" is a lot plausible observational hypothesis as there is way more obese people then anorectic people among those who don't count calories and way more obese people who don't count than anorectic people who do (both % wise and in absolute numbers).
> Like, I don't even know how you could come up with a hypothesis that counting calories increases risk of eating disorder.
You've said that the weight loss is caused by the mental illness. You're ignoring all the research showing that weight loss that precedes mental illness can then cause that mental illness.
The causation is complex, certainly more complex than your post suggests, and is self-reinforcing.
This is why re-feeding is a core part of treatment for people with anorexia.
You've said that the weight loss is caused by the mental illness. You're ignoring all the research showing that weight loss that precedes mental illness can then cause that mental illness.
The causation is complex, certainly more complex than your post suggests, and is self-reinforcing.
This is why re-feeding is a core part of treatment for people with anorexia.
I am not ignoring it. I just don't see how counting calories can cause any of that. If you want to lose weight in obsessive way you will do so with or without counting. Knowing how much you actually it is just a useful piece of information.
People at risk or susceptible to an eating disorder are more likely to attach self worth to cutting calories and will use dietary self monitoring to achieve their goals. It's good that a correlation in the opposite direction lacks evidence, according to this study.
This title is incorrect and inaccurate. Please rename to: "Introducing Dietary Self-Monitoring to Undergraduate Women via a Calorie Counting App Has No Effect on Mental Health or Health Behaviors: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial"
Title is from the conclusion of the study, your suggested title exceeds the character limit or I would have already used it.
Yes. I agree. It may be useful for the first days then people will loose interest in it because is hard to add every thing they eat.
And those apps are quite useless to count the real calories of a dish.
And those apps are quite useless to count the real calories of a dish.
It's not surprising that merely counting calories has no effect.
The idea that all calories are the same is flawed. In fact, obesity is the result of the wrong types of foods i.e. sugars which are metabolised differently by the body than other types.
Sugar triggers the insulin response which leads to overeating and detrimental fluctuations in cognitive capacity and concentration.
What would be more beneficial than calorie counting would be dietary education.
https://scitechdaily.com/not-all-calories-are-equal-a-dietit...
The idea that all calories are the same is flawed. In fact, obesity is the result of the wrong types of foods i.e. sugars which are metabolised differently by the body than other types.
Sugar triggers the insulin response which leads to overeating and detrimental fluctuations in cognitive capacity and concentration.
What would be more beneficial than calorie counting would be dietary education.
https://scitechdaily.com/not-all-calories-are-equal-a-dietit...
I think this would be too nuanced to think about while you're shopping at a grocery store, but every absorbed calorie is a calorie. Sugar is a very direct and easy source of energy that does not take much additional energy to be made into a usable form by the body. There's no additional food slowing or stopping the absorption of sugars. On the other hand, if you look at some complex fats and proteins, the body takes some energy to break it down or convert it into something usable. In addition, if you look at the complex make up actual foods like fruit, your body isn't able to exact every single calorie a nutrition label states. Ingesting 100 calories of sugar is going to give you pretty close to a net of 100 calories. If you ingest a fruit, your body has to break down the plant cells by chewing, the fibers have to be broken down, the stomach has to digest and crush and humans still aren't able to extract all of the nutrition in food. As you age, your ability to absorb or breakdown nutrients might even change. You probably won't be getting much energy from lactose if you're intolerant. But if you just read a nutrition label, it will say it's 100 calories of energy. Every absorbed calorie is a calorie and at the end of the day it is calories in vs calories out if you can control the psychological urges to eat or not eat. Humans aren't that simple, but CICO does work. Dietary education needs to have a foundation of CICO.
All calories aren't equal because of what happens next.
After consuming sugar, your insulin cycle leaves you wanting to consume more 20 minutes later.
After eating the calorific equivalent in an apple, your metabolic process is a smooth glide so you aren't triggered to consume more in the same way as sugar.
The mental health consequences are profound, because executive control of attention is a core component of self. Sugar interrupts concentration both on the high and the withdrawal.
After consuming sugar, your insulin cycle leaves you wanting to consume more 20 minutes later.
After eating the calorific equivalent in an apple, your metabolic process is a smooth glide so you aren't triggered to consume more in the same way as sugar.
The mental health consequences are profound, because executive control of attention is a core component of self. Sugar interrupts concentration both on the high and the withdrawal.
In clinical terms what you're describing is the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. This remains controversial in the field and hasn't been completely proven, but there is some experimental evidence to support it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-0658-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-0658-8
It is not possible to gain weight by eating your total daily calorie expenditure in pure sugar.
Yes, not all calories are metabolized the same, and sugar may lead to over eating, but at the end of the day, it’s a simple equation. You can’t gain weight without taking in more than you’re putting out.
Yes, not all calories are metabolized the same, and sugar may lead to over eating, but at the end of the day, it’s a simple equation. You can’t gain weight without taking in more than you’re putting out.
You aren't wrong in a technical sense, but this is far too reductionist. The type of calories and the way you consume them can't change the thermodynamics, but they can and do change your hunger, satiation and other bodily sensations that feed back into the thermodynamics by affecting your calories in and calories out. The simplest example is not needing a mid-morning snack because your choice of calories led to you being satiated for longer.
> What would be more beneficial than calorie counting would be dietary education.
Not sure I agree. I think only some basic education is really required. Once you start getting into the weeds about how not all calories are equal, it's easy to get overwhelmed and give up.
Generally, refined sugar is to be avoided. Not too many other carbs. That's about all the education the average person needs to be an effective calorie counter.
With calorie counting, you typically stay aware of your caloric intake before each meal, which is the biggest battle - not mindlessly eating. Better choices tend to naturally follow.
Not sure I agree. I think only some basic education is really required. Once you start getting into the weeds about how not all calories are equal, it's easy to get overwhelmed and give up.
Generally, refined sugar is to be avoided. Not too many other carbs. That's about all the education the average person needs to be an effective calorie counter.
With calorie counting, you typically stay aware of your caloric intake before each meal, which is the biggest battle - not mindlessly eating. Better choices tend to naturally follow.
The study is looking at whether it has an impact on mental health outcomes or the development of eating disorders. Not if calorie counting has an effect on weight loss.
Regarding sugar, simple refined sugars consumed on their own causes large fluctuations in energy levels, but not all sugars. Complex carbohydrates/sugars consumed with fibre are much more preferred overall, unless you're doing heavy exercise where your body needs more glycogen.
Triggering the bodies' insulin response is normal and isn't necessarily a bad thing, afterall it is always being triggered. Unless you continually eat highly processed simple sugars that isn't accompanied by movement (e.g. chocolate bars and lollies), you wont have a problem. A good example is moving from eating white breads to multigrain or rye breads which reduce the glycemic index of food, in combination with appropriate toppings.
I 100% agree that dietary education is extremely important, having been lucky enough to study nutrition in high school it has helped me greatly in life.
Regarding sugar, simple refined sugars consumed on their own causes large fluctuations in energy levels, but not all sugars. Complex carbohydrates/sugars consumed with fibre are much more preferred overall, unless you're doing heavy exercise where your body needs more glycogen.
Triggering the bodies' insulin response is normal and isn't necessarily a bad thing, afterall it is always being triggered. Unless you continually eat highly processed simple sugars that isn't accompanied by movement (e.g. chocolate bars and lollies), you wont have a problem. A good example is moving from eating white breads to multigrain or rye breads which reduce the glycemic index of food, in combination with appropriate toppings.
I 100% agree that dietary education is extremely important, having been lucky enough to study nutrition in high school it has helped me greatly in life.
> What would be more beneficial than calorie counting would be dietary education.
Both are needed in different ways. Stuffing yourself with avocado and nuts might be "healthy" but is also gonna be a calorie bomb that will lead to weight gains.
Calorie counting is simple (albeit somewhat tedious) and makes sense and naturally leads people to healthy food.
Both are needed in different ways. Stuffing yourself with avocado and nuts might be "healthy" but is also gonna be a calorie bomb that will lead to weight gains.
Calorie counting is simple (albeit somewhat tedious) and makes sense and naturally leads people to healthy food.
Careful, you're summoning the CICO cult
Why is understanding that it’s impossible to gain wright without eating above your TDEE a cult?
It’s basic thermodynamics.
It’s basic thermodynamics.
I think because it's a poor message to provide people who struggle with their weight and nutrition.
In fact, CICO completely neglects the nutrition aspect of what you eat.
So people tend to be somewhat cavalier and claim it's easy to lose weight, it's just CICO.
But that really isn't the whole story. As any actual qualified scientist in the field of nutrition will tell you.
Of course you absolutely would lose weight eating under your daily calorie requirements of anything at all.
However if you just ate sugar you'd probably began to lose even more weight in all the wrong ways as your body began to shut down and fail due to malnutrition!
FWIW: I've been a participant on food studies with actual scientists at my local Uni :-)
So the above is just what they share with me :-)
YMMV :-)
In fact, CICO completely neglects the nutrition aspect of what you eat.
So people tend to be somewhat cavalier and claim it's easy to lose weight, it's just CICO.
But that really isn't the whole story. As any actual qualified scientist in the field of nutrition will tell you.
Of course you absolutely would lose weight eating under your daily calorie requirements of anything at all.
However if you just ate sugar you'd probably began to lose even more weight in all the wrong ways as your body began to shut down and fail due to malnutrition!
FWIW: I've been a participant on food studies with actual scientists at my local Uni :-)
So the above is just what they share with me :-)
YMMV :-)
CICO != "Neglect Nutrition"
CICO = "eat 80% TDEE in hamburgers and birthday cakes and you'll be fine ;)"
Not knowing much about what constitutes a disorder my take is this. Eating is not a goal. It is a tool. Being healthy is the goal. So if you are healthy, your eating is fine
Based on the abstract, they did not show anything useful, they produce a null result, this just means that there weren't any effects large enough to be statistically significant for their sample. Weirdly, the still seem to draw a conclusion based on this null result which is really not correct. To draw the conclusion that they did they would have to show that the hypothesis that there is a clinically significant change can be discarded. Which is not mentioned in the abstract that they do.
US anorexia deaths per year: 145.[2]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1448478/
[2] http://web.simmons.edu/~turnerg/MCC/Eating%20Disorders/Hewit...