Counting calories

[barbhero]

Hey guys i was just wondering how you all count calories (or if you do at all). I never really keep track closely, just drink my milk and eat as much as I can. When I get back from my break I want to try and start tracking this a little more closely to make sure I'm getting adequate calories,

I'm just wondering how you guys keep track of this stuff...computer programs, pen & paper, etc. I saw some computer programs that have calories and stuff programmed in for most foods, that part seems nice but also seems like a pain in the ass to get to the computer everytime I eat something. It seems like it would be easy for me to say I'll remember to put it in at the end of the day and then forget.

But then keeping track with pen and paper and having to calculate calories off a chart like this one http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR17/wtrank/sr17a208.pdf
also seems like a pain in the ass.

For those of you who are meticulous about counting calories what do you find works best?

[Eric K]

Google "USDA my pyramid tracker." The USDA is garbage for healthy food recommendations, but that tracker is fairly easy to use, and accurate enough, I think. I think it's a good goal to try to get the "unhappy" faces for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol intake to know that I'm eating well.

[MazdaMatt]

That's pretty funny.

I just estimate when I care to. It isn't that fucking hard and since I generally eat "similar" stuff every day (at least in quantity and type of food) it gives me an idea of where I'm at every few weeks. I actually meant to add up what I've been eating recently to figure out how I'm doing. Will do tonight.

[Draft]

www.fitday.com

[forgeforth]

When I'm creating an artificial growth spurt, I don't need to keep track of my calories because I smother my face with everything all the time. It's easy and requires little to no thought. When I'm working on body recomposition, I keep track of macros as opposed to calories. I'm done worrying about calories, mostly because it's a bother, not to mention the fact that you'll pretty much always overestimate what you're eating and undereat, especially when you begin to obsess over fat loss. Besides, the calorie labels usually found on foods conform to the product's serving size, which is not uniform across all users. I can't even tell you what 100g looks like a bowl. So I just focus on protein intake and time my carbs so that I'm eating most of them in the morning, pre and post workout. I let the fats take care of themselves and keep an eye on the proteins.

I don't know, man. If you're in an anabolic state and you have to worry about eating enough calories or fats, then chances are you're doing something wrong. I gained 40 pounds in approximately 6 weeks. People were convinced I was on steroids.

That's why the milk helps. Lots of guaranteed calories right there.

[LimieJosh]

A novice shouldnt need to count calories, just simply use progress (on the bar and on the scale) to determine if enough is being consumed. If not, eat more.

I tend to be fairly routine in my eating, but will still track it occasionally as I have a tendency to lapse back into too little protein and calories unless I'm consciously trying. For that, I use dailyburn.com

[AidenBloodaxe]

It becomes '2nd nature' after several days of doing it. I've counted my macros & calories(via journal) for almost two years now. All you need to do is read the labels on the food you usually eat for the first week or less & from there you can either remember the content of your staples, look back in your log or use your experience of similar foods to estimate. When you eat fast food, most places have a website with the nutritional value of their meals on, if you're a pedant like me. Remember though; labels, websites & your stomach for that matter are never going to be 100% accurate so if you're eating borderline surplus when trying to gain weight & you're not, it's probably because of the variation in nutritional content or ability of your body is different to what you have down on the paper, the same goes for losing weight or maintaining it. Also, it's possible to gain weight on a caloric deficit or lose it on a surplus, shit is never as it seems.

[Marotta]

I just keep a decent estimate going throughout the day, like nearest 500cal or so.

[Marotta]

It becomes '2nd nature' after several days of doing it. I've counted my macros & calories(via journal) for almost two years now. All you need to do is read the labels on the food you usually eat for the first week or less & from there you can either remember the content of your staples, look back in your log or use your experience of similar foods to estimate. When you eat fast food, most places have a website with the nutritional value of their meals on, if you're a pedant like me. Remember though; labels, websites & your stomach for that matter are never going to be 100% accurate so if you're eating borderline surplus when trying to gain weight & you're not, it's probably because of the variation in nutritional content or ability of your body is different to what you have down on the paper, the same goes for losing weight or maintaining it. Also, it's possible to gain weight on a caloric deficit or lose it on a surplus, shit is never as it seems.

You can't gain weight on a deficit.

[MazdaMatt]

You can't gain weight on a deficit.

Obivously he means if you stop pooping. Obviously.

[Oran]

You can't gain weight on a deficit.

I don't know. I've seen some toddlers grow while eating almost nothing. There's got to be some hormone component that makes it possible for short-term periods.

[Carlos Daniel]

I don't know. I've seen some toddlers grow while eating almost nothing. There's got to be some hormone component that makes it possible for short-term periods.

Toddlers, as cute as they can be, cannot break the laws of physics.

[LimieJosh]

I don't know. I've seen some toddlers grow while eating almost nothing. There's got to be some hormone component that makes it possible for short-term periods.

Being about 20lbs means very low "maintenance" levels for caloric intake.

[Marotta]

Toddlers, as cute as they can be, cannot break the laws of physics.

Exactly, the BMR on a toddler is basically nothing. Due to the conservation of mass and energy, mass cannot come from nowhere, it can't happen.

[Eric K]

C'mon guys, are you neglecting breatherarians that get all they need from sunlight and air?

[AidenBloodaxe]

I don't know. I've seen some toddlers grow while eating almost nothing. There's got to be some hormone component that makes it possible for short-term periods.Growth Hormone.

[tfarny]

Fuck the laws of physics - your body is nothing whatsoever like the closed system that the laws of thermodynamics describe. Your body can and does constantly adjust your BMR to account for your activity, food, and overall hormones. It can direct more of your calories to go into fat storage leaving less energy available for tissue repair, muscle building - your body ain't a closed system where all inputs are utilized the same and energy use is constant. I'll agree with you that you can't gain mass on a "deficit" - but you can get fat eating not all that much while the body cannibalizes other tissues especially skeletal muscle - the former "deficit level" becomes a "surplus"
Read some Gary Taubes to learn more.

[Eric K]

You seem angry for someone who agrees that you can't gain weight on a deficit.

[Subsistence]

Hahaha Taubes.

[Eric K]

Hahaha Taubes.

Wait. What's wrong with Taubes? (Serious question.) I haven't read "Good Calories, Bad Calories," (I'd like to) but I've read a few of his articles, and even some of his responses to criticisms of his book and they all seemed well versed and understood for a journalist.

[Subsistence]

Wait. What's wrong with Taubes? (Serious question.) I haven't read "Good Calories, Bad Calories," (I'd like to) but I've read a few of his articles, and even some of his responses to criticisms of his book and they all seemed well versed and understood for a journalist.

He generally seems to believe that hormones (mainly insulin) are the key to weight loss and such. Such ideas tend to be laughed at by anyone who has any idea what they're talking about.

See:

http://weightology.net/?p=251
http://weightology.net/?p=265

For starters.

[Eric K]

Thanks. I'll read that.

[tfarny]

There are lots of positive reviews out there as well, it's a complicated subject. And lots of people have lost a lot of weight by following his and others advice like Dr Eades etc. If you haven't even read his book, what makes you so confident you know enough to be loling about it anyhow?
And I'm not mad at all - but the idea that the laws of thermodynamics can completely explain your metabolism is just a dumb one. The conditions simply do not hold first of all - the body is not a closed, static, perfectly efficient system. There is no way that simple physics equations could ever describe it.

[Marotta]

There are lots of positive reviews out there as well, it's a complicated subject. And lots of people have lost a lot of weight by following his and others advice like Dr Eades etc. If you haven't even read his book, what makes you so confident you know enough to be loling about it anyhow?
And I'm not mad at all - but the idea that the laws of thermodynamics can completely explain your metabolism is just a dumb one. The conditions simply do not hold first of all - the body is not a closed, static, perfectly efficient system. There is no way that simple physics equations could ever describe it.

All we said from based on physics is that Mass must come from somewhere. Which is true.

[LimieJosh]

There are lots of positive reviews out there as well, it's a complicated subject. And lots of people have lost a lot of weight by following his and others advice like Dr Eades etc. If you haven't even read his book, what makes you so confident you know enough to be loling about it anyhow?
And I'm not mad at all - but the idea that the laws of thermodynamics can completely explain your metabolism is just a dumb one. The conditions simply do not hold first of all - the body is not a closed, static, perfectly efficient system. There is no way that simple physics equations could ever describe it.

None of what Taubes argues; some of which is arcurate (the observational stuff), much of which is poorly constructed (the hypothetical stuff), does not speak against the laws of thermodynamics, and nor does the fact the energy expenditure is variable argue against it either.

[Eric K]

There are lots of positive reviews out there as well, it's a complicated subject. And lots of people have lost a lot of weight by following his and others advice like Dr Eades etc. If you haven't even read his book, what makes you so confident you know enough to be loling about it anyhow?
And I'm not mad at all - but the idea that the laws of thermodynamics can completely explain your metabolism is just a dumb one. The conditions simply do not hold first of all - the body is not a closed, static, perfectly efficient system. There is no way that simple physics equations could ever describe it.

By repeating the fact that the human body is not a closed system does not account for the idea that mass can be accumulated in the system without first entering it. I'm with you on a lot of points, man. Low carb diets are a great way to lean out and and feel good (for a lot of people), but the real argument against calories in - calories out = change in weight, is not that you can gain weight from eating less than maintenance, it's the idea that changing macronutrient constituents of diet below maintenance can create some "inefficiencies" that result in a (very small, and not persistent) metabolic advantage.

[Subsistence]

If you want a more detailed look at the Energy Balance Equation Lyle McDonald has an excellent article on it here:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

There is no disagreement that for instance, eating more protein will increase the thermic effect of food, and consequently result in better fat loss than a isocaloric diet with less protein (assuming all else is equal). What it doesn't do is talk about why eating "clean" or "low carb" or whatever will magically make calories disappear into nowhere (or into muscles!) whereas eating dirty carbs will go straight to your waistline. There are great life style and satiety arguments for "cleaner" (a term which still begs a stronger definition) eating, especially when trying to lose weight. But in an isocaloric diet with similar macronutrient percentages (and in most cases even just similar protein levels with non-retardly skewed levels of carbs and fats) will do just fine. But people hate to hear that they need to eat less, so they look for other tricks that tell them that it isn't their fault, they weren't eating too much! Instead they just didn't realize these special tips that the doctors never told them, and if you follow my easy steps you'll be thin in no time (with no need to worry about calorie counting!).

It is silliness of course. And either doesn't work, or works by tricking people into reducing caloric intake while pretending otherwise.

[Starofflorida]

If you want a more detailed look at the Energy Balance Equation Lyle McDonald has an excellent article on it here:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

There is no disagreement that for instance, eating more protein will increase the thermic effect of food, and consequently result in better fat loss than a isocaloric diet with less protein (assuming all else is equal). What it doesn't do is talk about why eating "clean" or "low carb" or whatever will magically make calories disappear into nowhere (or into muscles!) whereas eating dirty carbs will go straight to your waistline. There are great life style and satiety arguments for "cleaner" (a term which still begs a stronger definition) eating, especially when trying to lose weight. But in an isocaloric diet with similar macronutrient percentages (and in most cases even just similar protein levels with non-retardly skewed levels of carbs and fats) will do just fine. But people hate to hear that they need to eat less, so they look for other tricks that tell them that it isn't their fault, they weren't eating too much! Instead they just didn't realize these special tips that the doctors never told them, and if you follow my easy steps you'll be thin in no time (with no need to worry about calorie counting!).

It is silliness of course. And either doesn't work, or works by tricking people into reducing caloric intake while pretending otherwise.

Bang!

[Twodogs]

For those of you who are meticulous about counting calories what do you find works best?

Livestrong.com has a ridiculously awesome calorie tracker, free, online. But even better, for a couple bucks, you can get the Livestrong.com mobile app (think it is called Calorie Tracker), which syncs automatically with your online account.

I discovered this last week, have used it every day since. I have no affiliation with lstrong.

The best part of the tracker is that it not only counts calories, but it gives you a full break down of your consumption. Here is a sample of what I ate a couple days ago:

Cals
5091
Fat
135 g
Cholesterol
1028 mg
Sodium
7911 mg
Carbs
495 g
Fiber
20 g
Protein
385 g
Sugars
224 g

Now if I only knew what it all meant.

[Eric K]

It means that you're eating to get big and strong.

[MazdaMatt]

And it also means that you're going to die of a heart attack at 37. Recommended Sodium is 1500-2300mg, you've consumed 3.5x the recommended maximum. Other than that, you're eating great :-)

[Twodogs]

And it also means that you're going to die of a heart attack at 37. Recommended Sodium is 1500-2300mg, you've consumed 3.5x the recommended maximum. Other than that, you're eating great :-)

Yeah, will work on that. Here is the day before, which is more reasonable.

Cals
4953
Fat
171 g
Cholesterol
631 mg
Sodium
3497 mg
Carbs
449 g
Fiber
25 g
Protein
365 g
Sugars
267 g

The nice thing about the calorie tracker is that I can see the components of each item consumed (down to the brand name with precise servings). So I can tweak my diet when I read posts that put the fear of god in me (like yours).

[MazdaMatt]

Haha, yeah, that's a much better day. DO keep in mind, however, that as an athlete, I think you're "allowed" to have more than the recommended maximum for average people and still expect to be healthy. 8g of salt is a hell of a lot, though.