Why not?
There is not some amazing mystery to why so many people are overweight. They eat more food (energy) than there body uses. Possibly over a long period of time. Just look at people's shopping carts at the grocery store.
Yes we understand so little of the body's biological processes but that doesn't mean CICO is not an extremely useful idea and something to put into action.
How many calories are you expending? The answer is: It depends. How (warm|cold) is it? What's your average body temperature? How much clothing do you wear? What's your genetic makeup? Doing a lot of thinking? What's your current exercise regimen? Is your body in state X where it burns (more|less) calories than state Y? Are you sick?
Calories in and calories out sounds good on paper and seem obvious to an engineers mind, but if you can't tell how many calories are involved on each side of the equation, it's a meaningless measure.
We are not sending a rocket to the moon here. Just because something cannot be measured exactly doesn't mean it's worthless to measure.
If this were the case, Weight Watchers (which is at its core a calorie limiting system) should have a near 100% success rate. It doesn't. A casual perusal of Google shows closer to a 50% success rate for a 5% body weight change.
I can't think of many medical treatments where we go "yeah, a coin toss level of success is good enough for me."
As for the accuracy of the measurements - it does matter. Healthy weight loss rates are, mathematically, in the 10% calorie reduction range. That's less than the error rate for the caloric labeling of many foods.
First off - that's an astonishing success rate against a backdrop of an article saying, literally, surgery is the only reliable option.
Second off - You're assuming 100% compliance. I know people with personal trainers who are gaining weight because they don't stick to the program. I halfheartedly went through a weightlifting routine for years and got nowhere because I never really stuck to the program. 100% compliance in the field of weight loss is just not going to happen.
Incorrect. It's an imprecise measure. You said "Some studies show as much as a 20% difference in what was on the label and the actual caloric content". So then the labels are accurate within a 20% margin of error at worst.
Sounds like a pedantic little nag but then again
- "Star Spangled Blizzard - Mini" - 430 calories
- 1 serving of broccoli (1/2 cup, cooked) - 25 calories
A 50% margin of error would be fine given some of the choices out there. With that said, you usually don't pick between a dq blizzard or broccoli. More reasonable comparisons would be a blizzard vs water (0 cal) or broccoli vs french fries (regular size - 290 cal).
In a nutshell: if a thermostat's off by up to 10 degrees it can still ballpark whether the temperature's livable.
https://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/Company/Nutrition/Treats/
https://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/Company/Nutrition/Treats/
https://www.livestrong.com/article/402398-what-is-a-serving-...
Now then, if you were comparing a Starbuck's chocolate muffin and a Blizzard as a treat to fit into your diet without blowing it - could you?
If I'm having a "treat" then I'm already blowing my diet; regardless of if the number fits within a calorie goal.
A calorie budget is a bit like a financial budget. Just because I have allocated a point up to which I can "spend" each day, the long-term goals are a force to minimize day-to-day spend even within that allocation.
This is nonsense. It's like saying that not every kilogram is the same.
Would you consider a kilogram of gold "the same as" a kilogram of air?
Caloric content refers to the amount of energy released when you literally burn the food in question. But our bodies do not literally burn food. They metabolize it in a sophisticated chemical process that converts said energy into a form that the body can use to do work. The rate and effectiveness of this metabolism is clearly influenced by the type and composition of food. For more information, enter "glycemic index" into your favorite source of knowledge to learn why this measure is important for how food is processed. Just as a small glimpse into the complexity of the metabolism.
Would you consider a kilogram of gold "the same as" a kilogram of air?
Still I'm hoping that some sense will prevail eventually and the sugar industry will be regulated. Before that happens though I'm afraid a lot more people will have to suffer from Type 2 diabetes.