It would be the compulsion that would be the neurosis, not the actual act. I am not compelled to count calories for 10 weeks, and then suddenly the compulsion leaves. It's a deliberate, temporary act to achieve a defined goal. Much like how while an OCD person might wash their hands compulsively, I am not neurotic because I wash my hands before I eat.
Of course, the compulsion could be any act, counting calories included.
Let's say you were dieting: you're allowed to cheat on a diet. But if you have been counting calories for the rest of the meals in your day, you have probably only have to avoid gluttony to stay compliant, and you probably know how much you have to work with. On the other hand, the positive side of counting calories is that you learn, roughly, how many calories are in what. If you've never counted calories you know none of this.
If you're not dieting, go for it. Don't let your dreams be dreams. One meal won't change anything either way.
For the people who think that they're counting calories to 0.05% precision (lol), a single incorrect meal every seven years will be sufficient to double their assumed measurement error.
In general, a single meal a week with a factor of 2 error , and that's a very conservative estimate, will give you a 5% error. So really nobody should be bothering to get a higher precision than 100 calories a day. That can be understood from a first year undergraduate course. I wouldn't be nearly as amused if people were rounding to the nearest 100 calories. It is also the case that for most normal people, the sample will be larger than one meal a week.
Moreover, the calories themselves don't matter that much. The human body is not a bomb calorimeter. A single calorie of sugar has a different effect than a calorie of protein or fat, and behaves differently based on what time of day you eat it at. That is well documented, but the people who count calories often ignore that, because they're more interested in the illusion of control.
You don't actually learn how many calories are approximately in things. The same meal in two different restaurants can have a calorie count that varies by a factor of two or three.
I wouldn't go as far as calling this personality disorder, I rather think it's a decision based on a combination of internet information and perfectionism.
But in a way I agree. I know most of you guys don't like him too much, but when I look at Jeff Cavaliere who is ripped all year long without counting calories, you have to believe in his talk of 40-40-20%. Basically he is saying that as long as you have the correct proportion of veggies/proteins/carbs (40-40-20) you should be fine eating how much you want you want. Given that you are training seriously of course.
I suspect that for healthy people, eating the right macros should lead to them to feel satisfied once they've eaten enough to maintain a lean body weight.
Comfort foods are largely engineered to bypass the human body's satiety response, causing people to eat a lot more. For example, coca cola is absorbed faster than a lot of the body's hormonal response to food.
i once drove 24 hours straight and didnt even make it out of Quebec.
