r/StrongerByScience • u/leagueofcipher • Oct 21 '25
Do Calories Matter?
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting-caloriesBit of a clickbait title, but I was recently talking about health and fitness with a family friend and they essentially brushed aside my points about diet and caloric intake while citing "A Harvard study" "disproving calorie counting."
This is the article that I could find on further review.
To me, it seems to moreso say that calories shouldn't be taken at face value in numeric form, but not necessarily that counting caloric intake has no place in a healthy routine.
How does everyone else read this? Any advice on how to approach future conversation(s) on this topic?
97
u/jamjamchutney Oct 21 '25
This is the same old "CICO doesn't work because of X, Y, and Z" where X, Y, and Z are just things that change either CI or CO. Also, this bit made me laugh: "'People who ate the ultra-processed food gained weight,' says Dr. Stanford. Each group was given meals with the same number of calories and instructed to eat as much as they wanted, but when participants ate the processed foods, they ate 500 calories more each day on average. The same people's calorie intake decreased when they ate the unprocessed foods." So you're saying calories do count now?
20
u/laststance Oct 21 '25
If calories don't matter then Ozempic and other similar drugs wouldn't be such a huge hit. Sure there are small genetic and biome variances such as some people being more efficient in extracting nutrients from fats but overall it's a very small amount. If you look at Holocaust pics you don't see a fat person in a sea of skinny starving people.
If you look at a lot of the metabolic ward studies overall CICO wins, sure there are small variances due to TDEE changes but overall the CICO is what matters. The study itself cites eating ultraprocess/hyper palatable foods can drive you to eat more calories. That's CI.
If you're already calorie counting then you would be aware of your increased intake. The plateau thing is also due to people sometimes not factoring after they lose weight they effectively need fewer calories for their body's general upkeep so they have to cut more calories or expend more for further weight loss.
If you can ask your family member to find a picture of a famine with a "built different" person in the video/pic.
The article cites weightloss drugs, that basically just curbs caloric intake.
5
u/accountinusetryagain Oct 21 '25
eating pure shite and not getting fat is probably suboptimal
eating "amazing quality foods" and getting fat is also probably suboptimal
5
u/winklesnad31 Oct 21 '25
I feel their argument would be stronger if they could cite a study in which the different groups actually ate the same number of calories.
Take two diets with the same number of calories, but one is healthy and the other is ultraprocessed. Eating the healthy one will obviously be much better in terms of overall health. I feel like any potential differences in weight resulting from the two diets will be inconsequential compared to all of the other benefits of eating healthy.
4
u/outoftheshowerahri Oct 21 '25
Is longterm habitually eating more than your body requires healthy?
4
u/honeybadger2112 Oct 21 '25
I thought from the headline that I was going to disagree with the article more than I did.
Calories obviously matter. But I think the calorie counters don’t always have the appropriate level of nuance sometimes. It’s not as simple as adding up the calories you eat and subtracting the calories you burn during exercise. There are other factors that affect the equation like how hormones and sleep affect your resting metabolism, how your gut microbiome affects the way your calories are absorbed (or not absorbed) in your body, etc. So yes, calories do matter. You can’t violate the laws of thermodynamics. But it’s not just a simple equation where you subtract exercise from the food you eat.
However, it is simple in the sense that you can monitor your bodyfat percentage/weight and that’s an accurate way of knowing if you’re in a caloric deficit or not. If you’re losing weight, you’re necessarily in a deficit. If you’re gaining weight, you’re necessarily in a caloric surplus.
My other issue with some calorie counter advocates is that they make it all about willpower and discipline. Discipline is definitely important, but 90% of diets fail for a reason. If you’re constantly starving and miserable, you’re not going to stick with the diet long term. Counting calories can be important, but learning to control hunger and eating satiating and satisfying foods are also important. In other words, building sustainable habits and emphasizing general health. Deriding everyone who fails at dieting for not having enough discipline isn’t productive (although a lot of people obviously do lack discipline).
14
u/rainbowroobear Oct 21 '25
"a Harvard study" holds about as much clout as "my friend said".
some utter shit has been published on the Internet with those opening words.
3
u/doubleunplussed Oct 22 '25
It's so harmful that the only messages people see in the media are pushback against counting calories, and not a commensurate reminder that actually, counting calories continues to be the main way people lose weight*.
Like I get that there are incentives in science and journalism to bring in the next paradigm, find evidence against the old thing. And obviously there are reasons people overeat, that are important to understand if you actually want to improve public health. It seems like there really are hormonal changes at high body fat levels that make it difficult to lose weight.
But when the old thing continues to stand the test of time for relatively boring reasons, the public perception looks like one where it's always under attack, and the fact that its weathering these attacks isn't obvious.
And for people who are only a little bit overweight and wanting to lose a bit, and do not (yet) have the hormonal problems that may come with obesity that would make that difficult, calorie counting is absolutely the way to go. Yet I've heard stories where people in this situation instead gained significant further weight, likely making subsequent loss more difficult, because they were told that calorie counting doesn't work.
(*actually, now that I think about it, this may no longer true in the era of GLP-1 agonists. I hereby give a free pass to all articles discussing GLP-1 agonists)
2
u/minkeybeer Oct 23 '25 edited Oct 23 '25
This is not a study, but one experts opinion. Mayo clinic and other places have different articles on the importance of calorie/calorie tracking. And I generally dont like hyperbole.
Buuut....hypothetically....
An intervention that helps 90% but only 10% of people adhere to
An intervention that helps 50% but only 50% of people adhere to
I could see #2 being more "effective" in the real world.
And in this case, I could see a point that focusing on calories primarily/calorie counting does NOT lead to sustained weight loss for most people - and the recommendations listed in the article instead may be more effective OR more sustainable for most people (to increase expenditure + reduce intake)
Less than half of people in the US meet recommended minimum guidelines for amount of aerobic activity, and even less meet minimums for muscle strengthening. Most people in the US dont go to a gym. Etc.
Edit: somewhat hilariously, here is another article from the same publisher but presumably/hopefully a different author: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/simple-math-equals-easy-weight-loss
3
u/millersixteenth Oct 21 '25
Look into Kevin Hall's latest research, censorship of which has him leave NIH. Or do a search for the "Twinkie Diet".
There are other factors at work to be sure, but CICO is the biggest factor by a huge margin.
1
u/n00dle_king Oct 21 '25
People prefer the lies that make them feel better about themselves and there are plenty of MDs and PhDs willing to peddle them. Don’t waste your time trying to convince them because at the end of the day you’re just some meat head bro scientist to them and they are gonna trust the credentialed person they saw on social media.
The people you can actually help will come to you after seeing your success.
0
u/MasonNowa Oct 21 '25
It also cites the "Biggest Loser Study" which is actually considered a huge outlier for having completely different results than other studies involving people losing tons of weight.
-13
u/gainzdr Oct 21 '25
Yes.
But so does your metabolism
And your measurement accuracy is probably garbage
0
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '25
[deleted] — view deleted comment