The Economist is just.... wrong

 https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie 

The article essentially argues that CICO must be wrong because people process food differently. There is certainly some truth to the notion that CICO is not 100% accurate, but it is still the best way to ensure that you're on the right track.

Why? Because Calorie counting is directional. It tells us where we are headed.

Relying on the story of one person, Camacho, the author of this article overlooks the fact that Camacho clearly did not find his diet satisfying. But he also glosses over the fact that the subject drinks fruit juices instead of switching to water. His diet was as follows:

low-fat cheese and turkey sandwiches, salads, canned peach juice, Gatorade and Coke Zero, with three Special-K low-calorie diet bars a day.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with this diet, but it doesn't tell the full story. Was that all Camacho ate? Did he use a food scale? There is no link to his spreadsheets, and we don't know how accurate they are. I don't say this as a criticism of Camacho. He probably did keep strict tabs of his diet. And as the article notes, some foods are mislabelled.

But to conclude that CICO must be wrong because people are fat despite calorie labels is ludicrous. After all, the plural of anecdote is not data.

The article argues that nutrition and a balanced diet are key. And they are. But that doesn't mean that they are at odds with CICO.

So ignore the Economist on this one—I know I'll stick to the consensus of trained dietitians and medical doctors.

submitted by /u/whosbrent
[link] [comments]

from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/2Hk1ovl