In 1918, an American female doctor, Lulu Hunt Peters, made a breakthrough in dietetics, suggesting the use of the physical term "caloric value" to calculate the nutritional properties of different foods. And losing weight began to compute ... I often meet people who consider this to be the most effective weight loss measure. And many try to count the calories. But, as often happens, the desired result is not obtained: the weight either does not decrease at all, or the effect is much less than expected. Or they try, but they face technical difficulties and, failing to cope with them, drop them. And people still feel that they never lose weight. However, are those who insist on counting calories really right? And is there no contradiction in this system? CONTRADICTION FIRST: CALORIA CALORIES ROSE It would seem, what is the difference, in what form does the energy enter the body? Are these proteins, fats or carbohydrates? Everything will burn, everything will turn into calories. However, there is a difference! The fact is that proteins and carbohydrates have no place for us, we have to spend them on current energy needs. And fats we can easily accumulate! That's why fatty foods with high caloric content are not particularly satisfying. Indeed, what is the point to include a mechanism of satiety and stop eating, if all this excess fat can safely be put in stock? Quite another matter is proteins and carbohydrates: if the body can not accumulate them, it means that it simply must include a feeling of satiety and stop eating even with their relatively small consumption. By the way, this can be easily verified. So it turns out that if a person eats basically low-fat food, with quite satisfactory satiety, he can do much less calories than with a fatty diet. Well, what's the point of just counting calories? Much more benefit would be from reducing the fat content of the diet. CONTRADICTION SECOND: NOT ONLY IN CALORIES CASE It is proved: the more a person eats, the less he needs calories to eat. It is also important how quickly nutrients are absorbed into the intestine. If too quickly, the body switches to the accumulation of stocks and begins to demand more and more food portions. If the nutrients are digested slowly, the body uses them for current needs, and we feel fed, cheerful and energetic for a long time. The rate of absorption of nutrients directly depends on the content in the products of cellulose. The more it is, the slower the carbohydrates and fatty acids penetrate from the intestine into the blood. THE CONTRADICTION THIRD: PEOPLE LIKE EVERYTHING NOT FROM THAT LITTLE IS DRIVING Is not it, sounds paradoxical? Why do they lose weight then? And from the fact that fat is consumed more than consumed with food! And only from this. If only a reduction in food intake led to weight loss, we would have significantly fewer problems. Approximately calculated how much you spend, roughly calculated how much you eat, reduced the amount of calories consumed, and it went. But in fact, in response to such a decrease in food intake (energy), the body tries to reduce its energy costs. Reduces the formation of heat, and we feel chill, there is a muscle weakness, the desire to go somewhere to go and do something. Therefore, one should not get too involved in calorie reduction. The less we eat, the more difficult it is for our body to extract the missing energy from the reserves. And you still need to increase muscle tone. Let it be walks, dances, toning exercises. CONTRADICTION FOUR: EXACTLY EVERYTHING IS NOT EVALUATED ... In the table you can find the approximate caloric content of an apple or eggs, but you will not find there a caloric content of belyas or portions of ravioli, soup plates or goulash. Of course, you can find a way out of the situation: there is only what you have prepared yourself, carefully counting the calorie content of everything that you put in the pan, and then divide by the number of portions. But problems are inevitable here. Take the same meat. The table shows only the approximate calorie content of a particular variety. But what's the grade, when the caloric content of different pieces can differ almost twofold, depending on the fat content! Yes, and the numbers in different tables can be different. For example, in some tables the calorific value of cheese is on the order of 590 kcal, in others - 330 kcal. And the whole point is that in the first case the fat content is considered to be GOST in the dried sample, and it is 50%, in the second - the actual fat content, which is about half the size. Well, the procedure itself, when instead of calmly and with pleasure there is need to weigh everything, something for something to multiply, add and divide, and the results to record, like not everyone. CONTRADICTION FIFTH: SLOW, AND WHAT'S NEXT? Whichever way we can get rid of excess weight, its maintenance requires certain efforts. For example, continue counting calories. And this is where the patience of the majority runs out: when the main theme of life was weight loss, we agreed to tolerate inconvenience. Now, when the goal is achieved, there is no such motive! And people are increasingly skipping calculations,