Can anyone anywhere produce a single shred of scientific evidence that calorie counting theory has any validity whatsoever? Practically everybody, especially the authorities, will tell you that if you create a certain calorific deficit by reducing calorie intake or increasing activity, then you will lose a specific amount of weight. Indeed, if you question this in any way you are almost seen as being unstable in some way, like if you said the earth is flat.
But does anybody know where the idea came from and have there ever been any experiments that prove that it works? Nope, apparently not. Indeed every attempt to prove that it works has actually shown completely the opposite, but it makes no difference whatsoever. All our official health and fitness advice rests on a theory that is not in any way proven and clearly does not work in practice. All of our leading authorities, including the Department of Health itself which is merrily handing out this advice, has no idea where the idea originally came from or can cite a single study that proves it’s true! This is complete and utter madness! Almost as mad as continuing to blame fat for the obesity epidemic, instead of sugar and recommending that we consume up to 65% of our calories in the form of starchy carbohydrates, despite the fact that no scientific study has ever proved it.
If the energy balance theory was even remotely plausible then I and many others I know would have wasted away to nothing many years ago! How can I run 300 kilometres in a week, climbing the equivalent of Everest, and come back weighing more than when I started? According to the theory, I must have been burning at least 5000 calories a day, probably more, and there’s no way my body could absorb that much in calories even if I tried (actually it was more like 2500. So, according to the theory 2500 deficit multiplied by 7 days equals 17,500 equals 5lbs of fat loss! So why the gain? Could it just be that it’s not really about energy balance at all, but more about metabolism and just maybe the body adjusts its metabolic rate to intake and output? And could it just be that the metabolic stresses caused by such an event have an effect on our hormones that causes us to store more fat? I noticed exactly the same effect when I did my Ironman distance triathlon – supposedly 8000-9000 calories burnt, yet weight gain. Is anybody seriously going to suggest that I consumed more than this in calories? This is really not possible and I can tell you for a fact this did not happen.
What are the implications of rejecting this nonsensical theory that everyone believes in? If stress and other metabolic disturbance such as high intensity or long distance training play a large part in weight gain, then will have to stop blaming people for being lazy or greedy and actually address their emotional and lifestyle issues alongside diet and exercise. We may also need to reconsider the metabolic stress caused by certain types of exercise. We may also think about how much deep sleep and recovery we need to reduce these stress levels.
What about you? Can you point to any studies that prove the theory? Have you tried implementing the theory and had sustained success by simply creating a caloric deficit? If so, did the weight stay off permanently and can you be sure that it was down to using the theory and not changing anything else like what you ate or reducing your stress levels? Or are you, like the majority, pounding away on the treadmill, supposedly burning massive amounts of calories, yet not losing weight, despite not really eating that much?
For more detail, here’s a lady who asked the authorities for proof and the incredible responses she got;