Calorie counting functions properly for controlling weight. The physics and chemistry of it is sound. And the empirical proof is the many thousands of professionals who use it successfully: models who need to be a certain shape; football players who need to be heavy so they don't get lifted off their feet by their competitors; or dancers who need to be light so that they can get lifted off their feet by their partners.

I say that up-front because there are a bunch of people out there who think that the basic science of calorie counting is wrong; that there are other hidden factors that keep some people thin and make other people fat.

BUT, what is true--and which this article highlights--is that calorie counting is super hard to do. As a system, it's hard "operate". You can't make mistakes, like forget to enter a meal or a snack, or forget to properly record activity. And it's kind of miserable to live that way. That's probably one reason it's mostly professionals who really do it well.

In software terms, calorie counting has terrible UX. And our food system has bad defaults. The cheapest, most heavily-advertised food is often high in calories per volume.

And of course calorie-counting does nothing for your nutrient intake, which is arguably more important to think about now because foods across the board (i.e. even organic kale) seem to have falling nutrient content.