> Relies on calorie-counting, which is wildly inaccurate.
Some sources on this? (not that I doubt you, it's just that you probably have better references than a quick search might bring up)
Also, if it's inaccurate, what's the alternative?
Some sources on this? (not that I doubt you, it's just that you probably have better references than a quick search might bring up)
Also, if it's inaccurate, what's the alternative?
Calories in food vary depending on how it is prepared - https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/5283945/Carmody_...
Calories reported on food labels are often incorrect, because we digest some foods poorly and (because food companies are allowed to use multiple methods and report whichever result suits them best) - http://www2.centralcatholichs.com/copied%20articles%20to%20r...
Individual calorie absorption varies between people depending on gut biome - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Heymsfield/publi...
> Also, if it's inaccurate, what's the alternative?
Depends on what you're doing with it. For dieting, counting calories is probably better than not counting calories [citation needed].
For a non-preregistered non-blinded experiment testing an intervention with small effect sizes on a measure where people are known to be bad at self-reporting, well, you're already screwed. There are more direct methods of measurement (eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233774/) but they are costly.
Another way to eat less is to reduce unjustified feeling of hunger, which is often time produced by a sugar crash, specifically a vicious cycle of crash-gorge-crash that’s promoted by sugary foods. If you exclude all sugar and bread from your diet, the appetite will stabilize and you will only ever eat as much as you need, no self control required.
The difficult part of this diet is that pretty much all prepared foods have tons of sugar and bread is also all over the place. The other difficulty is that sugar is addictive, so it takes a few weeks before you stop craving it.