Just think about the calorie measurement itself, it isn’t accurate. Would you rather eat an avocado with 120 calories or fruity loops with the sand calories? Imagine eating fruity loops for a whole month and not avocados. It isn’t about calories, it’s about the quality of the food. Everything natural is going to be 20 times more beneficial to you than processed. We were made from the Earth and so were natural foods. It’s like skincare or hair care. Biotin is naturally found in shea butter but we spend $1000’s on chemicals for short term results. It’s about sustainability
What he is saying that some people react in a way to processed foods that they end up overeating calories… eating whole foods is helping you to stay in a calorie deficit by keeping your blood sugars in check.. also, these foods are naturally less calorie dense than junk.. that simple
Typical “make an outlandish claim and watch the clicks come in” tactics. I’ve lost 15 kg in 4.5 months by calorie counting. Before that, I didn’t even know anything about calories and I only lost half a kg in a similar amount of time. It doesn’t need to be accurate down to the letter. It’s just a great way to let yourself know what you’re putting in your body. Like the fact that some small snacks have the same number of calories as some entire meals that I was having. I don’t plan on counting calories forever, just a few months of doing it has opened my eyes as to what foods to avoid or have less of.
@jankowalski523 I'm glad you asked. Because calories in food labels are derived via the Atwater system that approximates the metabolisable energy in the food based on its macronutrient content. They already did the dirty work of measuring the actual calorie content of nutrients, as well as measuring that which was not metabolised (feel free to google it). Practically every study that compares different diets whilst equating calorie content sees no difference in weight loss between groups. Including comparisons between low insulin and high insulin groups, so your hypothesis that insulin was a causal factor doesn't hold up. Bodybuilders use CICO to consistently and reliably manipulate their body fat . There are also studies that find people who did not lose weight whilst calorie counting were actually just underestimating their calorie intake. In terms of nutrition, you can think of calories as the energy your body metabolizes vs the energy it expends, thanks to the Atwater system
@jankowalski523 do you understand statistics? Approximations are accurate over large sample sizes, because they are averages of large sample sizes. If you have calculated a calorie deficit of 7700 over a week, who cares if it ends up really being 7500? That won't even show up as a difference on the scale Yes, the Atwater system measures the calories of poo and includes that in its calculation. There are ways to measure whether or not you've gained fat or muscle, but I don't need to bother measuring it myself. What an intellectually dishonest response. I can literally send you study references, but I bet you would refuse to read them. I'm sorry but steroids don't make carbons appear out of thin air, I thought that was obvious. Saying they take steroids makes no difference, they still use CICO. In order to put on more mass, they need to eat more calories than they expend, and to lose fat they need to eat less calories than they expend. Also not all bodybuilders take steroids. I technically bodybuild, I bulk and cut each year, and I lost 5kg last month through CICO and I'll lose 3kg next month with it too. I'm sorry but you've been fooled to think that insulin is the primary driver. This is the problem with those who focus on biochemistry - you look at single mechanisms and ignore literal outcome data. Again, a high insulin diet and a low insulin diet cause ZERO difference in weight loss when calories are equated. You must be biased beyond belief to believe CICO doesn't work. It's the nutritional equivalent of not believing in evolution
@jankowalski523 You just proved to me that you did not take the time to research the Atwater system, a crucial point of our discussion. Let me quote a source on a paper for the derivation of energy values of food: "Atwater has clearly shown that by applying appropriate factors, which allow for metabolic losses, to the contents of protein, fat and carbohydrate food, the physiologically available energy value of that food can be calculated with outstanding accuracy, The results are in excellent agreement with data from measurements by bomb calorimetry on food." To answer your question about poo - they are accounted for as part of the "metabolic losses" mentioned above. You talk about studying science like a school child does. It doesn't matter what you or I studied (that's an Appeal to authority logical fallacy). If you know it, prove it and use the science logically in this discussion. Your point about counting is ridiculous. What else could they count? Clearly nothing else works as well as calorie counting, because every single bodybuilder, and I mean literally 100% of them, count calories and eat at a deficit in order to CAUSE fat loss for their shows. This is ironic because you are the one using simple biochemistry mechanisms to try and explain complex systems, while CICO refers to all energy that your system takes in, and compares it to energy your system uses. i.e. it ignores mechanisms and looks at the bigger picture. You have also conveniently ignored my comment referring to studies. Honestly I'm losing faith in your ability to have a logical conversation, if you do not show evidence of critical thinking relative to my points then I will refuse to continue speaking because you would have proven you prefer delusion over truth
@jankowalski523 TH-cam deleted my long response so I can't be bothered to type it all again. Long story short - you proved that you didn't Google the Atwater system because you asked these dumb questions again. Google the Atwater system and learn what it is. Stop talking about what you've studied as if that makes a difference, that's an Appeal to Authority fallacy. You conveniently ignored my point about studies, probably because you're scared that I will actually send you some. If you're curious about the truth I will gladly send you some studies that back me up, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time speaking to a delusional person
I counted calories during the summer of 2019, cut out sugar, processed foods, bread, etc... I lost 20lbs. We know it's not "all about the deficit". It's about the change. It works with the right knowledge
@@illunation how can people believe this sort of stuff? honestly it is mind boggling how someone who claims something stupid with no evidence what so ever gets traction. it is unreal.
@@illunationlook up lipogenesis. Body fat (glycogen) is how your body stores excess glucose (sugar/carbs). Calories per se (an energy unit) don't translate to fat. There is no such metabolic process
This is the main thing about this "Doctor" he thinks that everyone who count calories eat only burgers and mars bars. Counting calories and eating "good" foods or at least 80% of your calories come from that source is the way to go. Losing weight in most cases is such a simple process and jerks like him over-complicate it.
When I was 16 I had been obese for multiple years. I learned in chemistry class that a calorie is just energy and I knew that energy and mass are inherently related and so I searched how many calories were in a pound of fat. I used tools online to find my BMR and for my height searched what underweight and overweight would be, and I chose the number exactly between the two as my target goal. I calculated how many calories I'd have to eat over the course of a school summer to lose 30lb and every day during that summer I ate that exact number of calories. Sure enough, when school started back up I weighed EXACTLY 30lb less - my math worked out perfectly correct despite me expecting it to be off by a few pounds Counting calories 100% works. Years later I got into body building and would cycle between cutting and bulking and used the same lesson over and over dozens of times to manage my weight. It works
I studied myself and my results and calorie counting has been 100% successful. I lost 20 pounds in a year and it’s been easy to keep it off by continuing to count. Obviously I’m eating healthy and working out too, but I couldn’t do it without counting the calories.
I stopped calorie counting after watching Tim Spectors podcast and started eating more naturally, ie cutting out allot of processed foods. I put on weight but actually my clothing fits better and I'm happier, I sleep better. Calorie deficits make me frustrated, tired and at some point I will give up, lower calorie options are full of junk
It always will. The number of calories you consume, has to be less than what your body burns. Psychology and NEAT plays a massive part, but the equation doesn't change .
Source : trust me bro 😂😂😂 I myself have counted calories and no it’s not the sexiest thing in the world and it’s a weird lifestyle change but it does work ,I counted calories for 3 months on My app , then estimated my calories a month post that and was able too maintain weight too a good extent , obviously it’s extremely difficult too have a 6 pack all year round but I only wanted it for the 3 months of summer because I had never had it before , it was something new for me , Anyways the point is that it does work, it’s just not meant too be a strategy that you use for the rest of your life . If your normal eating habits aren’t good you’ll never be able too maintain it even for the month after
I lost 20kgs counting calories. It’s quite obvious that using some form of quantifying how much food you eat will affect your weight. Whether or not it is 100% accurate is irrelevant.
I believe the message was more that calorie counts of food and energy expenditure isn't an exact science = a myth of what we commonly know and see as per nutritional information...and that what was commonly believed "a calorie is a calorie" is incorrect. I'd give this man more credibility than anyone in the comment sections tbh
@@noloveforthehaters not how its being applied. when applied to poeple its being applied as an estimate, burning food to heat water is used to get numbers to estimate the energery a person would get from food. a calorie is a calorie if you were doing a chemistry expierment on the heat energy got from burning fuels.
Of course being in a calorie deficit will help you lose fat. Yes, you may be hungry, but you're asking your body to use it's own stores for energy! Of course it's going to let you know about it. Consistently and regularly eat nutrient dense food with a low energy density, whilst staying under a given caloric target. That's it.
Oh come on lol! Calorie counting isn’t a 100% accurate but it clearly works as most pro athlete and bodybuilders do it! Do it for a few months, learn roughly how many calories are in what food you eat then go from there.
My niece has recently lost 4.5 stones by counting calories and daily exercise. She has never been on a diet and has adjusted her diet to reduce meal portions and minimise junk food. She recognises these changes are life-long to sustain the weight loss. This example, along with significant scientific evidence completely contradicts what Tim is saying!
@@carriefloss9937 Yeah I lost a couple of stone too using calorie counting and was surprised how easy it was for me to stick to. I don’t do it anymore as I learnt in those few months what I can eat and how much of it I can eat. Calorie counting is a good learning tool and promotes discipline. For me anyway, everyone’s different I guess.
I think you completely missed the point. It’s not that you can’t lose or maintain weight by calculating calories, it’s that the calorie source you choose completely changes the way your body works. From energy levels to hunger and appetite and yes also to your bodies metabolistic expenditure of calories. Conventional wisdom says two packs of Oreo’s have the same calories as a plate of homemade sweet and sour chicken wings, so if I limit myself to one or the other per day I should be fine. But this is a lie. If you completely left out the Oreo’s and only ate the fresh chicken dish you metabolism would be working better, you’d have more energy and natural move and think more, you’d have less hunger and appetite to the point where you could eat whenever and wouldn’t have to count. If you compare these to choices it may very well be that your eating close to two plates of chicken wings per day without even noticing and still achieving the same or better results than your crappy Oreo diet with significantly less calories. Calorie counting completely neglects this idea of your bodies biological adaptation to the source of the calories. It is at best misleading. Yes it does work, but it also has the potential to put you in a much worse predisposition to start with. Why crawl when you could walk.
@@carriefloss9937 Yh, now tell her to get to 10 percent body fat or less and then maintain that whilst also 'counting calories'. Calories may work ar first, but will stop at some point. The body's metabolism will adapt to a point where it slows down enough that it burns fewer calories or the same as what your niece is consuming. Otherwise, a person should theoretically lower calories until they can weigh absolutely nothing? The body doesn't quite work that way
It’s his view only - significant scientific evidence suggests that a reduction in calories and regular exercise contributes to weight loss and long-term health benefits
@user-cf8bz4gb9v what causes the eventual weight gain isn’t the calorie restricted diet. If you’re eating at a deficit, you will not gain weight unless you’re already at a very low body fat percentage and your muscle building offsets the fat loss, or you’re at a very low body fat perfentage and not hydrating properly so you’re retaining water. That’s why you need to have a brain before reading clinical studies. Imagine that your goal is to weigh 150lb, and you are actually weighing 300lb. Imagine that in order for you to lose .5-2lb per week you need to eat 3000 calories. Eventually 3000 calories will become your maintenance calories, and if your metabolism slows down because your food choices are not optimal and you don’t exercise and you dont drink enough water, 3000 calories will become a surplus. But if instead once you hit a plateau with 3000 cals, you modify your diet and create a new deficit, you will keep losing weight. Btw people should stop chasing certain weights. They should only chase body fat percentages. Everyone should be at an optimal body fat percentage (one that reduces health risks, and one that enables you to keep building muscle and strength). That’s very easy to do if you PROPERLY track calories and macronutrients.
So true! I don't diet and focus more on eating wholesome foods. Never needed to go on a weight-loss diet and have maintained a consistent weight range throughout my life. Thanks for sharing this!
Interesting...I have been counting calories and maintaining a caloric deficit for 4 months and down 36 pounds, so it seems like it works pretty well. Also, the overwhelming majority of science says that a calorie deficit is explicitly responsible for weight loss.
Correlation doesn’t equate to causation. You might have changed what you eat in order to reduce the calories, and then it would be the new food you are eating that is causing the weight loss, and not ther reduction in amount of calories. Another person might also reduce their caloric intake but find that they are not losing weight. This would then be due to that person eating the same bad food, even though calories are reduced. There is ample evidence that it is the mass of food (weight), instead of calories (energy) that determines our body’s response to intake.
He didn't debunk the calorie deficit theory. What he did was debunking the method for counting calories, but not the general principle that says you need to eat less than you burn to lose fat. He said that ultra-processed food should be avoided.
I lost 8 stone counting calories (all healthy food as-well) so it must do something positive 😂 You need to balance the right foods alongside counting the calories. Tim is saying eating the right food will make you crave food less, which is true, but if you are a greedy foodie (like me) you will still want to shovel everything in to your pie hole.
The point about calories is that a metabolicaly healthy body manages It for us. It's all about hormones and energy partitioning. Fat is a survival mechanism that went overdrive, because of modern societal conveniences. As soon as we get healthy counting calories becomes pointless.
The problem with these guys is they always need to say something shocking to sell their book. Of course it's fair to say that just counting calories for a finite period of time doesn't help, because you a) stop at some point and go back to the diet that got you fat in the first place and b) will find it brutally hard to sustain if you're eating mostly unwholesome processed crap. But he is clearly aware in most of his advice that you fundamentally need an energy deficit to lose weight, because no amount of fancy biology will defy basic physics. What he should be saying is that wholefoods make calorie deficits much easier to achieve, and conveniently also contain a range of healthy micronutrients. But then "eat some damn vegetables" is probably an unhelpfully brief summary when you want to sell things.
What most people need to realise, is that calorie counting itself isn't the process, it's a tool OF the process. Being in a caloric deficit is what you need to do to lose bodyfat, but calorie counting is purely just a tool to assure that your in that deficit. Same goes as bring In a surplus. Calorie counting is just a tool to make sure you're eat more than your maintenance.
What do you define as a long term study? There's literally hundreds, if not thousands, of studies that prove a caloric deficit, and therefore calorie counting, works.
This is kind of a strawman argument though, very few people who advocate for calorie counting say that is the ONLY thing you should do - we know that not all calories are equal, that certain types of food are more satiating and others are less satiating, with ultra-processed foods largely falling into the latter camp. It is perfectly possible to track both quantity and quality simultaneously, and the fact remains that maintaining a calorie deficit is precisely what one should do if one wants to lose weight-and making sure that those calories are coming from nutritious, less-processed foods is how one can maintain that weight loss.
So sick of this clickbait type of content that pretends calorie counting is the actual problem. They ALWAYS say something that isn’t actually rooted in the calorie counting being the problem.
Always these guys in the most average shape telling us counting calories doesn’t work. Believe it or not, counting calories doesn’t also mean eating all the junk you want. Why do they throw the baby out with the bath water? How about eating whole foods AND tracking calories and macros?
hmmm... listening carefully to what he's saying and his main point is some studies show we react differently to different meals with the same calorie count. So one might make you feel hungrier than another later on. He does not say, however, say what does work for losing weight, does he? He says to eat healthy food (we know that) but you can't just eat heaps of healthy food, can you? None the wiser really.
Just because the method is not something that people enjoy it doesn’t mean that the law of thermodynamics is not real, how bizarre to think this way, this huy might be super smsrt and all but this is BS……
The idiots in the comment section saying cico works have never been trully fat. And by trully fat imean viscerally fat with an insulin belly, fatty liver, leaky gut, and above 25% of bodyfat . Its all about metabolism and hormones, specially testosterone, insulin and the most important thing: fat cell count. With a low fat cell count, being very insulin sensitive and above 800 ng/dl test you wont get fat no matter how much calories you eat. Period. YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT, ( in the form of muscle, water, etc ) but you wont gain fat. On the other side, a person with low test, high insulin resistance and high fat cell count you wont loose fat even on a cslorie restriction, only water weight, maybe a little of subcutaneous but not visceral belly fat which is what fat people want, to loose real fat, not weight. And loosing visceral fat with calorie restriction is completely useless since calorie restriction lowers testosterone, increeaes cortisol and will plateau very early.
Yes, if you think there’s a fixed calorie count for everyone, you’re wrong. BUT CICO does work when it’s relevant to the actual individual and their metabolism.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
So his main point isn’t really about calories. He’s saying stop eating processed food and start consuming fresh, quality products - which is fair.
which likely will result in a calorie deficit lol
@jankowalski523 what lol
@jankowalski523 because science has proven this over and over you are a fool if you think otherwise this idiot is just trying to sell you his garbage
Just think about the calorie measurement itself, it isn’t accurate. Would you rather eat an avocado with 120 calories or fruity loops with the sand calories? Imagine eating fruity loops for a whole month and not avocados. It isn’t about calories, it’s about the quality of the food. Everything natural is going to be 20 times more beneficial to you than processed. We were made from the Earth and so were natural foods. It’s like skincare or hair care. Biotin is naturally found in shea butter but we spend $1000’s on chemicals for short term results. It’s about sustainability
@@clementeen it’s about calories, you consume too much “clean” food you will gain weight
What he is saying that some people react in a way to processed foods that they end up overeating calories… eating whole foods is helping you to stay in a calorie deficit by keeping your blood sugars in check.. also, these foods are naturally less calorie dense than junk.. that simple
Also whole foods tend to have more fibre which fills you up more resulting in less calories being consumed in the long run.
Typical “make an outlandish claim and watch the clicks come in” tactics. I’ve lost 15 kg in 4.5 months by calorie counting. Before that, I didn’t even know anything about calories and I only lost half a kg in a similar amount of time. It doesn’t need to be accurate down to the letter. It’s just a great way to let yourself know what you’re putting in your body. Like the fact that some small snacks have the same number of calories as some entire meals that I was having. I don’t plan on counting calories forever, just a few months of doing it has opened my eyes as to what foods to avoid or have less of.
@jankowalski523 Calorie counting works 100% of the time when done right. No exceptions.
@jankowalski523 I'm glad you asked. Because calories in food labels are derived via the Atwater system that approximates the metabolisable energy in the food based on its macronutrient content. They already did the dirty work of measuring the actual calorie content of nutrients, as well as measuring that which was not metabolised (feel free to google it).
Practically every study that compares different diets whilst equating calorie content sees no difference in weight loss between groups. Including comparisons between low insulin and high insulin groups, so your hypothesis that insulin was a causal factor doesn't hold up.
Bodybuilders use CICO to consistently and reliably manipulate their body fat .
There are also studies that find people who did not lose weight whilst calorie counting were actually just underestimating their calorie intake.
In terms of nutrition, you can think of calories as the energy your body metabolizes vs the energy it expends, thanks to the Atwater system
@jankowalski523 do you understand statistics? Approximations are accurate over large sample sizes, because they are averages of large sample sizes. If you have calculated a calorie deficit of 7700 over a week, who cares if it ends up really being 7500? That won't even show up as a difference on the scale
Yes, the Atwater system measures the calories of poo and includes that in its calculation.
There are ways to measure whether or not you've gained fat or muscle, but I don't need to bother measuring it myself.
What an intellectually dishonest response. I can literally send you study references, but I bet you would refuse to read them.
I'm sorry but steroids don't make carbons appear out of thin air, I thought that was obvious. Saying they take steroids makes no difference, they still use CICO. In order to put on more mass, they need to eat more calories than they expend, and to lose fat they need to eat less calories than they expend.
Also not all bodybuilders take steroids. I technically bodybuild, I bulk and cut each year, and I lost 5kg last month through CICO and I'll lose 3kg next month with it too.
I'm sorry but you've been fooled to think that insulin is the primary driver. This is the problem with those who focus on biochemistry - you look at single mechanisms and ignore literal outcome data. Again, a high insulin diet and a low insulin diet cause ZERO difference in weight loss when calories are equated.
You must be biased beyond belief to believe CICO doesn't work. It's the nutritional equivalent of not believing in evolution
@jankowalski523 You just proved to me that you did not take the time to research the Atwater system, a crucial point of our discussion. Let me quote a source on a paper for the derivation of energy values of food:
"Atwater has clearly shown that by applying appropriate factors, which allow for metabolic losses, to the contents of protein, fat and carbohydrate food, the physiologically available energy value of that food can be calculated with outstanding accuracy, The results are in excellent agreement with data from measurements by bomb calorimetry on food."
To answer your question about poo - they are accounted for as part of the "metabolic losses" mentioned above.
You talk about studying science like a school child does. It doesn't matter what you or I studied (that's an Appeal to authority logical fallacy). If you know it, prove it and use the science logically in this discussion.
Your point about counting is ridiculous. What else could they count? Clearly nothing else works as well as calorie counting, because every single bodybuilder, and I mean literally 100% of them, count calories and eat at a deficit in order to CAUSE fat loss for their shows.
This is ironic because you are the one using simple biochemistry mechanisms to try and explain complex systems, while CICO refers to all energy that your system takes in, and compares it to energy your system uses. i.e. it ignores mechanisms and looks at the bigger picture.
You have also conveniently ignored my comment referring to studies.
Honestly I'm losing faith in your ability to have a logical conversation, if you do not show evidence of critical thinking relative to my points then I will refuse to continue speaking because you would have proven you prefer delusion over truth
@jankowalski523 TH-cam deleted my long response so I can't be bothered to type it all again.
Long story short - you proved that you didn't Google the Atwater system because you asked these dumb questions again. Google the Atwater system and learn what it is.
Stop talking about what you've studied as if that makes a difference, that's an Appeal to Authority fallacy.
You conveniently ignored my point about studies, probably because you're scared that I will actually send you some.
If you're curious about the truth I will gladly send you some studies that back me up, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time speaking to a delusional person
I counted calories during the summer of 2019, cut out sugar, processed foods, bread, etc... I lost 20lbs. We know it's not "all about the deficit". It's about the change. It works with the right knowledge
You cannot trick the laws of thermodynamics, a calorie deficit is the only thing that matters when your goal is to loose fat, period.
@@illunation how can people believe this sort of stuff? honestly it is mind boggling how someone who claims something stupid with no evidence what so ever gets traction. it is unreal.
@@James_36 i couldnt agree more with you...
It worked because you cut out glucose/carbs and frankenfoods, not because of calories
@@illunationlook up lipogenesis. Body fat (glycogen) is how your body stores excess glucose (sugar/carbs). Calories per se (an energy unit) don't translate to fat. There is no such metabolic process
but what if you can be in a caloric deficit while eating whole foods and no processed-foods? would not that be the optimal scenario?
This is the main thing about this "Doctor" he thinks that everyone who count calories eat only burgers and mars bars. Counting calories and eating "good" foods or at least 80% of your calories come from that source is the way to go. Losing weight in most cases is such a simple process and jerks like him over-complicate it.
@@Stoian1992 🙌
My experience, whenever I eat all whole foods, I couldn't help but be in a calorie deficit.
@jankowalski523 they were in constant Calorie deficits because starvation was a huge issue - this is so dumb
When I was 16 I had been obese for multiple years. I learned in chemistry class that a calorie is just energy and I knew that energy and mass are inherently related and so I searched how many calories were in a pound of fat. I used tools online to find my BMR and for my height searched what underweight and overweight would be, and I chose the number exactly between the two as my target goal. I calculated how many calories I'd have to eat over the course of a school summer to lose 30lb and every day during that summer I ate that exact number of calories. Sure enough, when school started back up I weighed EXACTLY 30lb less - my math worked out perfectly correct despite me expecting it to be off by a few pounds
Counting calories 100% works. Years later I got into body building and would cycle between cutting and bulking and used the same lesson over and over dozens of times to manage my weight. It works
You missed the point.
@@heed. he didn’t
@@James_36 The point of this video is 500cal from a Snickers bar are no where near the same as eating 4 apples despite having the same caloric value.
@@CaimAstraea no it isnt
I studied myself and my results and calorie counting has been 100% successful. I lost 20 pounds in a year and it’s been easy to keep it off by continuing to count. Obviously I’m eating healthy and working out too, but I couldn’t do it without counting the calories.
I stopped calorie counting after watching Tim Spectors podcast and started eating more naturally, ie cutting out allot of processed foods. I put on weight but actually my clothing fits better and I'm happier, I sleep better. Calorie deficits make me frustrated, tired and at some point I will give up, lower calorie options are full of junk
I did Mini cut -1000 Calories per day and it absolutely works….
That’s not mini 😅 I wish I could cut that much
@jankowalski523 idk bro but it worked Just try, there Are plenty other people where it works
It always will. The number of calories you consume, has to be less than what your body burns. Psychology and NEAT plays a massive part, but the equation doesn't change .
Body doesnt ”burn” anything. Even less so calories. Mass in, mass out. ☝️
Hmm “MIMO” 🤘🙌
Source : trust me bro
😂😂😂
I myself have counted calories and no it’s not the sexiest thing in the world and it’s a weird lifestyle change but it does work ,I counted calories for 3 months on My app , then estimated my calories a month post that and was able too maintain weight too a good extent , obviously it’s extremely difficult too have a 6 pack all year round but I only wanted it for the 3 months of summer because I had never had it before , it was something new for me ,
Anyways the point is that it does work, it’s just not meant too be a strategy that you use for the rest of your life . If your normal eating habits aren’t good you’ll never be able too maintain it even for the month after
I lost 20kgs counting calories. It’s quite obvious that using some form of quantifying how much food you eat will affect your weight. Whether or not it is 100% accurate is irrelevant.
I believe the message was more that calorie counts of food and energy expenditure isn't an exact science = a myth of what we commonly know and see as per nutritional information...and that what was commonly believed "a calorie is a calorie" is incorrect.
I'd give this man more credibility than anyone in the comment sections tbh
No, a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of measurement. That's like saying a centimetre isn't a centimetre.
@@noloveforthehaters not how its being applied. when applied to poeple its being applied as an estimate, burning food to heat water is used to get numbers to estimate the energery a person would get from food. a calorie is a calorie if you were doing a chemistry expierment on the heat energy got from burning fuels.
Of course being in a calorie deficit will help you lose fat. Yes, you may be hungry, but you're asking your body to use it's own stores for energy! Of course it's going to let you know about it.
Consistently and regularly eat nutrient dense food with a low energy density, whilst staying under a given caloric target. That's it.
Oh come on lol! Calorie counting isn’t a 100% accurate but it clearly works as most pro athlete and bodybuilders do it! Do it for a few months, learn roughly how many calories are in what food you eat then go from there.
My niece has recently lost 4.5 stones by counting calories and daily exercise. She has never been on a diet and has adjusted her diet to reduce meal portions and minimise junk food. She recognises these changes are life-long to sustain the weight loss. This example, along with significant scientific evidence completely contradicts what Tim is saying!
@@carriefloss9937 Yeah I lost a couple of stone too using calorie counting and was surprised how easy it was for me to stick to.
I don’t do it anymore as I learnt in those few months what I can eat and how much of it I can eat.
Calorie counting is a good learning tool and promotes discipline. For me anyway, everyone’s different I guess.
I think you completely missed the point. It’s not that you can’t lose or maintain weight by calculating calories, it’s that the calorie source you choose completely changes the way your body works. From energy levels to hunger and appetite and yes also to your bodies metabolistic expenditure of calories. Conventional wisdom says two packs of Oreo’s have the same calories as a plate of homemade sweet and sour chicken wings, so if I limit myself to one or the other per day I should be fine. But this is a lie. If you completely left out the Oreo’s and only ate the fresh chicken dish you metabolism would be working better, you’d have more energy and natural move and think more, you’d have less hunger and appetite to the point where you could eat whenever and wouldn’t have to count. If you compare these to choices it may very well be that your eating close to two plates of chicken wings per day without even noticing and still achieving the same or better results than your crappy Oreo diet with significantly less calories. Calorie counting completely neglects this idea of your bodies biological adaptation to the source of the calories. It is at best misleading. Yes it does work, but it also has the potential to put you in a much worse predisposition to start with. Why crawl when you could walk.
@@carriefloss9937 Yh, now tell her to get to 10 percent body fat or less and then maintain that whilst also 'counting calories'.
Calories may work ar first, but will stop at some point.
The body's metabolism will adapt to a point where it slows down enough that it burns fewer calories or the same as what your niece is consuming.
Otherwise, a person should theoretically lower calories until they can weigh absolutely nothing? The body doesn't quite work that way
@@Rudebo he didnt miss the point, he literally said it right at the start, you are the ones twisting it to mean something else
It’s his view only - significant scientific evidence suggests that a reduction in calories and regular exercise contributes to weight loss and long-term health benefits
@A C There is a video of Tim Spektor eats in a day. If you watch. - It's like 1800 calories if that.
@user-cf8bz4gb9vhahahahhaha grow a brain
@user-cf8bz4gb9v says the guy neglecting science and the truth in order to justify his failures. Keep coping.
@user-cf8bz4gb9v what causes the eventual weight gain isn’t the calorie restricted diet. If you’re eating at a deficit, you will not gain weight unless you’re already at a very low body fat percentage and your muscle building offsets the fat loss, or you’re at a very low body fat perfentage and not hydrating properly so you’re retaining water. That’s why you need to have a brain before reading clinical studies. Imagine that your goal is to weigh 150lb, and you are actually weighing 300lb. Imagine that in order for you to lose .5-2lb per week you need to eat 3000 calories. Eventually 3000 calories will become your maintenance calories, and if your metabolism slows down because your food choices are not optimal and you don’t exercise and you dont drink enough water, 3000 calories will become a surplus. But if instead once you hit a plateau with 3000 cals, you modify your diet and create a new deficit, you will keep losing weight. Btw people should stop chasing certain weights. They should only chase body fat percentages. Everyone should be at an optimal body fat percentage (one that reduces health risks, and one that enables you to keep building muscle and strength). That’s very easy to do if you PROPERLY track calories and macronutrients.
@A C based on what evidence? people gain weight because they dont stick to their deficit - fact
So true! I don't diet and focus more on eating wholesome foods. Never needed to go on a weight-loss diet and have maintained a consistent weight range throughout my life. Thanks for sharing this!
Interesting...I have been counting calories and maintaining a caloric deficit for 4 months and down 36 pounds, so it seems like it works pretty well.
Also, the overwhelming majority of science says that a calorie deficit is explicitly responsible for weight loss.
Correlation doesn’t equate to causation. You might have changed what you eat in order to reduce the calories, and then it would be the new food you are eating that is causing the weight loss, and not ther reduction in amount of calories. Another person might also reduce their caloric intake but find that they are not losing weight. This would then be due to that person eating the same bad food, even though calories are reduced.
There is ample evidence that it is the mass of food (weight), instead of calories (energy) that determines our body’s response to intake.
He didn't debunk the calorie deficit theory. What he did was debunking the method for counting calories, but not the general principle that says you need to eat less than you burn to lose fat.
He said that ultra-processed food should be avoided.
I'm lean. I don't give a fuck about losing weight. I just want to be in good health, and I wonder if intermittent fasting works for slim people.
I lost 8 stone counting calories (all healthy food as-well) so it must do something positive 😂
You need to balance the right foods alongside counting the calories. Tim is saying eating the right food will make you crave food less, which is true, but if you are a greedy foodie (like me) you will still want to shovel everything in to your pie hole.
It’s not good spending your life calorie counting. He’s right it’s quality of food.
If you eat quality food in a surplus, you will gain weight, dummy
The point about calories is that a metabolicaly healthy body manages It for us. It's all about hormones and energy partitioning. Fat is a survival mechanism that went overdrive, because of modern societal conveniences. As soon as we get healthy counting calories becomes pointless.
The problem with these guys is they always need to say something shocking to sell their book. Of course it's fair to say that just counting calories for a finite period of time doesn't help, because you a) stop at some point and go back to the diet that got you fat in the first place and b) will find it brutally hard to sustain if you're eating mostly unwholesome processed crap. But he is clearly aware in most of his advice that you fundamentally need an energy deficit to lose weight, because no amount of fancy biology will defy basic physics. What he should be saying is that wholefoods make calorie deficits much easier to achieve, and conveniently also contain a range of healthy micronutrients. But then "eat some damn vegetables" is probably an unhelpfully brief summary when you want to sell things.
hes just another online scammer, absolute rampant these grifters are
What most people need to realise, is that calorie counting itself isn't the process, it's a tool OF the process. Being in a caloric deficit is what you need to do to lose bodyfat, but calorie counting is purely just a tool to assure that your in that deficit.
Same goes as bring In a surplus. Calorie counting is just a tool to make sure you're eat more than your maintenance.
@jankowalski523 Being in a caloric deficit is healthy if you are overweight. What on earth are you talking about?
What do you define as a long term study? There's literally hundreds, if not thousands, of studies that prove a caloric deficit, and therefore calorie counting, works.
I'd like him to debate hany rambod on how to get someone into shape 😂
What does Dr Tim Specter think of HUEL?
This is kind of a strawman argument though, very few people who advocate for calorie counting say that is the ONLY thing you should do - we know that not all calories are equal, that certain types of food are more satiating and others are less satiating, with ultra-processed foods largely falling into the latter camp. It is perfectly possible to track both quantity and quality simultaneously, and the fact remains that maintaining a calorie deficit is precisely what one should do if one wants to lose weight-and making sure that those calories are coming from nutritious, less-processed foods is how one can maintain that weight loss.
So sick of this clickbait type of content that pretends calorie counting is the actual problem. They ALWAYS say something that isn’t actually rooted in the calorie counting being the problem.
What a load of bullcrap. Counting calories _works_. It's that simple.
This episode is a blessing, not a podcast ❤
Always these guys in the most average shape telling us counting calories doesn’t work. Believe it or not, counting calories doesn’t also mean eating all the junk you want. Why do they throw the baby out with the bath water? How about eating whole foods AND tracking calories and macros?
Its 2024 you cant avoid processed foods lmao. Cottage cheese is processed, protein powder is proccesed, ect ect
Nonsense
@@andymarsh9917 then you don't know what processed means. Food is food. As long as it has protein and other nutrients.
And what is he talking about there have been no studies lmfao, who is this guy?!? Why has it become so easy to become a doctor.
I don’t count calories and I’m down 100lbs. Carnivore is life.
That’s because eating just meat will result in calorie deficit
@@James_36 that’s fine. It works
Agreed I am updating my own knowledge'. One size doesn't fit all. What's good for the goose is bad for the bat. Lol😂
Please get Eddie Abbew!
hmmm... listening carefully to what he's saying and his main point is some studies show we react differently to different meals with the same calorie count. So one might make you feel hungrier than another later on. He does not say, however, say what does work for losing weight, does he? He says to eat healthy food (we know that) but you can't just eat heaps of healthy food, can you? None the wiser really.
he is talking rubbish, absolute nonsense
Just because the method is not something that people enjoy it doesn’t mean that the law of thermodynamics is not real, how bizarre to think this way, this huy might be super smsrt and all but this is BS……
Rubbish talk that brings Mr. Spector a lot of money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
not all calories are the same. eat the food of the gods, then you shall thrive. eat the food of the losers, then so you will lose. simple logic.
Overly simple logic
L
Count chemicals not calories
So much BS talk
The idiots in the comment section saying cico works have never been trully fat. And by trully fat imean viscerally fat with an insulin belly, fatty liver, leaky gut, and above 25% of bodyfat .
Its all about metabolism and hormones, specially testosterone, insulin and the most important thing: fat cell count.
With a low fat cell count, being very insulin sensitive and above 800 ng/dl test you wont get fat no matter how much calories you eat. Period. YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT, ( in the form of muscle, water, etc ) but you wont gain fat. On the other side, a person with low test, high insulin resistance and high fat cell count you wont loose fat even on a cslorie restriction, only water weight, maybe a little of subcutaneous but not visceral belly fat which is what fat people want, to loose real fat, not weight. And loosing visceral fat with calorie restriction is completely useless since calorie restriction lowers testosterone, increeaes cortisol and will plateau very early.
Yes, if you think there’s a fixed calorie count for everyone, you’re wrong. BUT CICO does work when it’s relevant to the actual individual and their metabolism.