Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I recently lost ~15 lbs using Apple Watch Ultra (1) to measure calories out and the Lose It app to measure calories in (weighing food to try to get as accurate measurements as possible.) I run 5x/week (40-50 miles/week) and strength train the other two days (~1 hour sessions) all tracked with Apple Watch.

I've continued to track when I transitioned to maintaining weight. I've found I need to eat ~150 calories/day more than Apple Watch estimates I've burned to maintain my weight. So for me it would seem that Apple Watch underestimates my burn slightly. I was fully expecting it to overestimate, if anything.
 
I wish they'd get rid of "calories" it's irrelevant.

The continued emphasis on “calories” is not only outdated but fundamentally misleading. Caloric measurement is an oversimplified and reductionist approach to health and nutrition. It fails to reflect the complex regulatory systems of human metabolism, individual differences in energy expenditure, and the profoundly different metabolic effects of macronutrients.

The notion that “a calorie is a calorie” ignores the fact that carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are metabolized through distinct biochemical pathways and exert different hormonal effects—particularly on insulin, satiety, and fat storage. For example, 100 calories of sugar is not metabolically equivalent to 100 calories of protein or fat.

If you’re trying to lose weight, reducing refined carbohydrates and emphasizing protein and healthy fats—while eating to satiety—tends to be far more effective than simply slashing calories. This approach aligns better with how the body actually regulates hunger, energy balance, and fat storage.

It’s time to move beyond the calorie and toward a more nuanced, biologically informed understanding of nutrition.
Not true. Calorie counting IS efficient for weight loss. In fact if you don't get a calorie deficit, your waistline's in big trouble.

It DOES NOT matter what calories you count, BECAUSE calories aren't the same accros macros. So you see, your objection is irrelevant to the technique of calorie counting. WE KNOW.
NOBODY is saying calories are an absolute. They are a single-reference unit that let you know your need to keep within a budget, a framework, and anybody who understands that, understands weight loss.

Also, anybody who really sticks to calorie-counting plans understands 500 Kcals of oil or cheese or crisps won't let you get on.
500 Kcals of baked chicken breast, croutons, tomatoes, arugula lemon juice and olive oil vinaigrette and lettuce is a full meal however.

It becomes second nature to prepare varied, balanced, satieting meals because cravings have their replacements, etc.

I lost 12 kilos over 5 month once, only changing my diet habits, and another time I lost 7 over 2 months, doing the 1200Kcal diet.

The secret is to not count on exercise for a deficit, and not to use energy expenditure as an excuse to eat more. If you find the motivation and strength to exercise, good. Use dumbbells.
 
The secret is to not count on exercise for a deficit

This is the key....case in point. I walk 4-5 miles a day (15min/mi) and do weights 3 times a week...and for almost 2 years, gained weight....yes much of it was muscle...but a lot was fat as well, as I gained a lot of weight.

I could have changed up and walked 8 miles a day and worked out 7 days a week and probably still would have gained....the food noise is unrelenting.

Started on mounjaro for pre-diabetes in April and have lost over 30 lbs so far; same exercise regimen, difference is it's (the drug) appetite suppression and food noise (addiction) suppression allows me to eat what a need, not what I think I want.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Compote
This is the key....case in point. I walk 4-5 miles a day (15min/mi) and do weights 3 times a week...and for almost 2 years, gained weight....yes much of it was muscle...but a lot was fat as well, as I gained a lot of weight.

I could have changed up and walked 8 miles a day and worked out 7 days a week and probably still would have gained....the food noise is unrelenting.

Started on mounjaro for pre-diabetes in April and have lost over 30 lbs so far; same exercise regimen, difference is it's (the drug) appetite suppression and food noise (addiction) suppression.

calorie in <<< calorie expenditure
30 lbs ? That's a life changer. And for people who've never "lost it" (TM) it's not simply about having found the secret key but about knowing core truths and THEN finding the strength to go the distance. That's why it's disappointing that the Watch "delivers" on its promise with glazed over data.

I'm currently trying to lose 10 kilos and this article is coherent with my disappointing results. A 27% adjustment would indeed account for my struggle.
 
When running, my watch doesn't record heart rate until a good 5-10 mins into the run. My 3 never had that problem, but it's always been an issue with my 6.

My new Garmin records without issue.

Hmm. I do know that the sampling of heart rate (which triggers when AW thinks you are exercising) interval gets shorter if you are actively tracking a "workout" via Apple's app or a 3rd party one. But I would think even w/o the app activated that your HR would be high enough after 10 min of running.
 
Not true. Calorie counting IS efficient for weight loss. In fact if you don't get a calorie deficit, your waistline's in big trouble.

No, Killbill2 is right. While calorie counting works in the thermodynamic sense (if you consume more calories than you expend, the excess will be stored as fat) and may work short-term, it is not a sustainable way of getting to and maintaining a healthy weight.

The question is, why do people consume more calories than they expend? If you think the answer is sloth and gluttony, you're wrong. The real answer is hormones, in particular insulin. Any diet that will avoid insulin spikes or chronically elevated insulin levels will make people regain a healthy weight. And you guessed it, that sort of diet is one very low in carbohydrates.

Carbs not only bring up your insulin, they also set you up for a blood sugar rollercoaster (causing frequent food cravings), they bypass the satiety signalling of the body (it is easy to overeat on carbs without ever feeling full) and prolonged exposure to carbs with chronically elevated insulin levels promotes insulin resistance (the mother of most chronic diseases). Carbs are not an essential nutrient, our minimum daily intake of carbs is ZERO.

When you eat something predominantly made of fat and protein (like fatty meat), you'll feel full when your body has had enough. The satiety will last a long time, typically you won't be hungry more than twice a day. That way, you won't overeat, you get all the nutrition the body actually needs and you don't expose yourself to the devastating effects of chronically elevated blood sugar and insulin.

Also, a so-called balanced diet (as per the standard American diet) is counter-productive for weight loss. The high proportion of carbs in this diet (60% of the calories or so) leads to an insulin response, and with high insulin levels, fat burning is not possible. If you eat a calorie-restricted balanced diet you'll just feel hungry and miserable most of the time. Not sustainable.

Transition away from carbs, then you can listen to what your body tells you about what it needs and how much. No more counting, no guilt, and you'll return to a healthy body composition on auto-pilot.

The secret is to not count on exercise for a deficit, and not to use energy expenditure as an excuse to eat more. If you find the motivation and strength to exercise, good. Use dumbbells.

We're in agreement on this. Exercise does surprisingly little for weight loss (unless you do it almost full-time). It is still a super important thing to do for many other reasons. Weight loss is just not one of them.
 
The machine can be wrong too. Do you enter your weight and height into the machine?

Calories burned include calories needed to move your body as well as to produce the work you are doing. The machine knows the speed and resistance so can calculate the work, but without knowing your body size, it won’t count how much more effort it takes to move fat legs, arms, gut around compared to slim bodies, or the moment arm differences of body length, etc

I'm well aware that the machine can be wrong too, I just shared an observation. No, the machine does not take height or weight into account.

How does the machine count calories in your use case? Does it have a monitor that you wear, or link to the Apple Watch for heart rate data? I’m curious because I have the total opposite situation, the machine always says I burned more calories than my watch (no monitor or watch connection).

This particular machine does not connect to the Apple Watch in any way. It just displays calories burned on the display.

So both are wrong, just by how much

Agreed.

Both are irrelevant as physical measures. These are just motivators, which may be relevant but are not actual measures.

This, 100%, just sharing an observation I've made.
 
Some of what you wrote isn't true. It's also harmful from a psychological and dietary perspective to say things like this: "You can bike for 100s of miles and watch the calories add up - but if you go home and eat some pizza - you've wasted your entire day."

That induces guilt over what people eat and can lead to eating disorders (that really happens). Exercise is not a waste, just because you eat pizza afterward. The exercise has benefits for health despite what we eat. Over-focus on calories can also be problematic, but take this as an opportunity to learn about the benefits of exercise regardless of our diet.

If you expend more calories than you consume, you will not gain weight (there is a little fuzziness around the edges of that statement but it's broadly true). In other words and to be more precise, from a strictly caloric perspective, gaining adipose tissue while consistently expending more calories than consumed is virtually impossible due to the laws of thermodynamics. Biology is complex due to hormones, water retention, inflammation, and other processes that occur as we eat and have daily activities, but the overarching laws of thermodynamics hold true for us.

For example, if I burned 500 calories in a workout and then ate 300 calories of pizza, I would not gain weight. If I burned 500 calories in a workout and then ate 300 calories of broccoli, I would not gain weight.

Or, if my total caloric expenditure in a day was 2,200 and my food was pizza, sugary cereal, a hamburger, and one lettuce leaf drenched in ranch dressing but was only a total caloric intake of 2,100, I would not gain weight. I could develop some health conditions because of the what I was eating, but the exercise and caloric 'restriction' would counteract some, even many of them.

This doesn't mean pizza and broccoli are equally healthy, which is part of your point, but "calories out" >= "calories in" and exercise are associated with many health benefits, including longevity and quality of life, above and beyond the food we eat.

Again, food matters, it just matters less than calories from an overall weight and health perspective. That's at least true based on the current research in the field. This is important to know because it can help prevent weight gain. Diets and weight loss are notoriously difficult. Preventing weight gain takes work as well, but is relatively easier. A simple focus on keeping calories in <= calories out over time will prevent weight gain*. That's going to be true regardless of the food we eat and what quality of food we can afford.

It's easier to "obsess" over total calories than to "obsess" over what foods you are eating. My encouragement to my students when we cover exercise, diet, and health in one of my classes, is to focus first on general activity, exercise, and sleep (if you sleep less, you tend to eat more!) for health reasons, then focus on keeping "calories out" >= "calories in", then focus on the 'quality' of food -- more vegetables, healthy fats, proteins.

Prevention is much preferred over intervention. But if there needs to be intervention, the best diet is one you will eat and keep. That usually means keep what you are eating, just eat a little less of it. Rather than switch from pizza to kale and goat cheese, eat 2 slices of pizza instead of 3. Then gradually you can build in 'healthier' foods.

*There are some medical conditions and other issues and factors that complicate the picture, but the general principle is true.
That's an incredibly long-winded reply to basically say I was right. And your calories in / calories out is also a massive straw man in correlation to what I actually said. And save it with all the "harmful guilt" stuff, Lol, a random message board commenter is not inducing an eating disorder pandemic upon the population. And BTW - people don't just "eat a piece of pizza," they eat multiple pieces - in some cases half the pie. What I said is true, and I stand by it. Counting carbs over calories is an infinitely better strategy for losing weight, period. And of course exercise is important, I never said otherwise. Another straw man.....
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.