The big problem with calorie counting is that its unsustainable. You can do it for some time, even long time, but then you have to stop it. So what happens when you do - you will return back your old weight, simple as that. Why? Because you returned to your old life which gave you obesity, and since you are older, it will be easier this time. There is a small probability that you fixed something that was broken for good - i.e. CRON dealing with infection that caused obesity in which case you will not get obese again, but I doubt this outcome is that often.

The only way is not to count calories if you want to keep your weight down. You need to base your solution to something that is sustainable. Paleo is good, because it changes your eating habits for life and you don't get back to your old patterns which caused obesity. Other then that, I totally can say everything Eve said.

I am living proof that Cal in does NOT equal out - less than 15 gms carbs a day and about 500 -600 calories - not one KG lost and have done this a few times but doing it now for about 8 wks - I think Cortisol and Leptin are still high

i count how many sausages i ate

1st law of thermo, yo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWzDfiLpliQ#t=03m46s

All the folks here are chiming in with theory, so I thought I'd answer based on my personal experience. I lost 40 pounds in the last 7 months without ever restricting calories. In fact, beyond eliminating the stuff everyone does under paleo, I paid very little attention to what I ate; I just ate what I wanted. I should also mention that I ate plenty of fruit, so it was not particularly low-carb.

I did do IF about once a week.

I also ate A LOT of fat: butter, lard, coconut oil.. I may have gone a bit overboard, which may have been what lead to some GI issues. But overall I've never felt better.

So, in so far as I can extrapolate from my own case, it is simply not true that you need to count calories to lose weight. It is also not true that eating fat makes you fat. It seems I just feel full eating a lot less.

I think our national lipophobia is probably one of the most damaging cultural trends in recent years. Eat fat and be happy :-)

Calories in/Calories out is partially true but it has two fallacies. The first fallacy is that those who promulgate this theory usually make it sound like the calories in amount is the cause of the problem. But it's not. The cause of the problem is that which makes you hungry. Then the hunger results in calories in. To solve the problem, you need to get to the root. Calories in is not the root. That which causes hunger is the root. You need to figure out why you are hungry and wish to overeat in order to have long term reliable weight control without suffering.

The second fallacy is that calories in/calories out theorists usually forget about other variables like that it's not only what calories you take in but also what your body chooses to do with them, like either store or burn them. Calories can lead to a fat butt or they can lead to increased energy and desire to get up and go. What the body wishes to do with its calories is another biological issue that is very important but typically totally ignored by many of those who like to talk about calories in/calories out. IMO, calories in/calories out is not exactly inaccurate but the idea is overly simplistic and they way it is currently promoted, also tends to mislead the public about the true reasons behind obesity.

It's not that calories don't matter, it's that if your body is working properly in terms of hormones and other signaling mechanisms, you should never have to count calories to get to and maintain a healthy weight. In some people, this ability is broken, and they may have to limit portions to reach these goals. In others, simply removing most of the carbohydrates from the diet will get the right hormonal state, in which eating to satiation will cause weight normalization. In fact, there are people who have purposefully overeaten by vast amounts while restricting carbohydrates and still losing or maintaining. Still others cannot overeat, even if it is just fatty meat, without gaining.

I suggest trying it with some upper bound of how much weight you are willing to gain before you decide it's not working.

In her book "The Obesity Epidemic" Zoe Harcome fervently denies the calorie-in-equals-calorie-out theorie. I'm reading her book at the moment - very interesting...

I'm eating about 2000 to 3000 kcal a day (vLCHF) and am constantly losing about 2 kg a month... (I'm a female and heigth 5' 6")

I'd like to go out on a limb here and disagree with the well established laws of thermo-dynamics, but more specifically why they do not apply to biological factors so far up the scale.

I have worked with dozens of people who were trying to lose weight. Most people can do this with calories in versus calories out, however, not 100% of people can do it this way. I have worked with people who have restricted calories and increased activity levels (no cheats or any other discrepancies) and haven't lost weight. It's not many, but a single exception leads us to question the premise.

It's not that these few people are circumventing the laws of physics, it's that there are biological safe guards in place - there to prevent sudden changes in environment or sudden food scarcity from harming us. For some, restricting calories and increasing activity will shock the body into starvation mode. If this happens, your body will conserve fat to survive. It will slow down or switch off other non-essential processes. People in this state will make fewer involuntary movements, they will make fewer voluntary movements, core temp may drop, sleep may go on for longer, inhibited cognitive function, 'feeling tired'.

Decreasing calories eaten and increasing overt activity is not always effective.

FYI, for those of my clients who historically can't lose weight via calorie restriction/counting, always manage to on paleo (and that's without counting calories, because calorie counting is BORING)

I personally believe that calories in and out are important and do matter. I second the law of thermodynamics post. My addition is the thermic effect of food (TEF.) A slice of wonderbread vs some carrots for the same amount of carbs/calories would not result in the same effect since our bodies do not have to process the bread as much to receive the energy. I would refer you to Martin Berkhan on this topic. Check out this post: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Martin explains the thermic effect of food in his 1st bullet point. Very informative.

I have not lost weight eating unrestricted paleo; but that was never my main goal. I actually tend to gain weight eating paleo foods that are more processed like soups and stews. I tend to lose weight and feel leaner eating more around chunks of meat and vegetables.

taking in more calories than you expend will add weight to your body, yes. Fact. The question Taubes deals with is why so many people's metabolism/hormonal state is such that it drives them to overconsume when they are lean, thus resulting in overweight. His book is tremendous and im excited that he's blogging and releasing another book now.

And you can gain weight eating anything. I am absolutely strict paleo - no grain, dairy, or legume. All meat and salady veg. I dont even eat starch. None. But im on a Starting Strength program and am eating BIG. Prolly in the 4k-5k cals/day range. I started the program at 154 lbs and Friday i was at 165, 11 lb gain in about one month. Im still looking to gain. Im seeing how long i can keep upping my cals, gaining weight, making progress with my poundage on strict paleo. If i stall out, ill start adding sweet potato, etc.

Why not try not counting as a personal trial? Data always helps me more then theory.

It's not a question of belief. The first law of thermodynamics (energy in = energy out) cannot be violated. Even Gary Taubes and Dr. Michal Eades admit this. The point is that it doesn't give you the cause and effect relationship. Are people fat because they are lazy gluttons? The science says no. People eat too much/get lazy (slow metabolism) because of the hormonal effect of food. Insulin forces the sugar into fat cells (oversimplified, I know) - which leaves the cells hungry. Correct the hormonal problem (sugar/insulin) and the body has plenty of energy in the form of its own fat storage - and will burn this fat and not be as hungry.

Calories matter. You CAN eat paleo and not lose weight. Most people lose because they are less hungry and spontaneously reduce caloric intake. Its also okay to eat more one day and less the next. Skip meals once in a while or try IF.

There are people smarted than me who can explain it better. Here are some goods videos to start with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEH0OZVHmvQ

I'm down 60 lbs without counting calories or anything else. The problem with the in/out theory is it's oversimplified and assumes a calorie is a calorie. A calorie is only a unit of heat energy and not a physical thing you can hold in your hand and eat. A slice of Wonder bread has the same calories as about two carrots (around 70). The difference lies in the package the calories come in.

You need to get Gary Taubes new book

Why we Get Fat and read his new blog. http://www.garytaubes.com/blog/

You simply can only gain weight if you consume anything that converts to sugar in the gut and then that sugar energy source is ready to use...and if you don't use it right now...the body stores the excess in your cells as fat. Eating fat does not convert to sugar...therefore the body cannot store anything as fat. If not used...it becomes waste and exits the body. If you stay full paleo you cannot regain the weight. Period.