No announcement yet.

The easiest diet in the world

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31

    FLYNAVYWIFE . . . OK . . . finished.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Seriously, Gary Taube has been discredited and/or challenged by too many nutritionists and endocrinologists for you to accept his words as any ultimate wisdom.

    His treatment of calories in versus calories out was especially shallow.

    Like all of us . . . I've seen too many athletes get fat in the off-season and too many runners reduce themselves to less than 10% body fat . . . to just dismiss this hypothesis as he does.

    (An academic with a pet idea can be as fervently narrow-minded as any Al Qaeda religious fanatic.)

    In the end, I suspect the truth is "all of the above" . . . it's some unknown combination of genetics AND carb abuse AND too many calories that causes weight gain.

    Primal eating is healthy nutritionally AND will allow you to lose weight because it's so hard to over-eat when you're getting plenty of satiating fat and bulky, filling vegetables.

    On the other hand . . . eat too much Primal and you'll be fat.

    I bet that Grok's 45-year old mother-in-law, no doubt well-fed by her able son-in-law and leisurely spending her days supervising the cooking, water-hauling and other camp activities . . . was chubby.

    Thank you for the video. I enjoyed looking at your website. Warmest congratulations on item #6!


    • #32

      Taubes is the paleo Campbell.

      Don't be a paleotard...


      • #33

        i think that what i'm not understanding about your question is that yes, you'll lose weight... but that doesn't mean you'll be healthy. wouldn't you rather lose weight AND be healthy while you do it?

        And forget not that the earth delights to feel your bare feet and the wind longs to play with your hair
        Kahlil Gibran


        • #34

          "Gary Taube has been discredited and/or challenged by too many nutritionists and endocrinologists for you to accept his words as any ultimate wisdom."

          Would you mind pointing me to these nutritionists and endocrinologists (along with their qualifications and peer-reviewed research)? I'd appreciate seeing the direct refutation of the arguments in contemporary research (2005 or newer).

          Another resource you may want to look at is the PaNu blog or Robb Wolf for additional viewpoints. Both are well-trained, reputable scientists (MD or PhD) in the field.




          • #35

            While there is some truth to the saying a calorie is a calorie etc - it is not as clear cut as that. In the past scientists simply measured calories using a bomb calorometer. They are now figuring out that these measurements don't take into account how things are digested/broken down and perhaps were not that accurate to begin with.

            Without getting into the fat vs protein vs carb thing, lets get simpler.

            Assume you have 5 bunches of brocoli, exactly the same size and composition.

            Burn one in the calorometer - voila - 100 calories

            eat the second one raw

            steam the third one lightly and eat it

            cook the forth one and chop it into little bits and eat it.

            Cook the 5th one until its mush then throw it in your vitamix with a little water until its a smoothie then drink it.

            Which one will of the 4 you will provide your body with the most available calories?? It should be obvious - no chewing, no tough cellulose walls to break down in the smoothie.

            Perhaps that is why the raw food faddies are usually so skinny:-) That is just one food stuff - if you took 100 calories of raw brocoli or 100 calories of glucose I think it is also obvious the answer as to which provides more actual calories to the body

            If you are eating protein remember not all protein is used by the body for energy - some is used for celluar repair and muscle growth which is not true of carbs - also protein is harder for the body to break down - takes more energy, more processes in the body. Meat would be harder to digest and process than whey protein in a smoothie.

            Fat also has to be broken down and different fats are broken down differently by the body. Not all fat is used for energy either - some is used in other processes in the body (hence EFA).

            Some scientists are now rethinking how to assign a caloric value to food. The old 4/4/9 cal/gram for carb/protein and fat is not accurate. More like 5/3/8 by some accounts.

            Just an FYI a food calorie is not energy to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree. A food calorie is a Kcalorie or Kilocalorie - the amount of energy to raise 1000g of water 1 degree C.

            Some one asked for information on a taubes discreditor - here is one but I haven't read it. So won't comment.




            • #36

              The incorrect assertion here is that eating the way described by the OP is "easy". Ha. It may work, but it is far from easy, as other posters have stated.

              Cutting calories, with little consideration for nutrients, food groups, etc, may work in the short term. However, it is clear that conventional cals in, cals out diets fail because such a tiny percentage of people can maintain the program to keep the weight off.

              Most people regain because they cannot sustain calorie-deprived eating forever. If that eating includes sugary things, forget it, as that stuff will make you hungry, all of the time. Then white knuckling it is the only option, and why deal with that?

              Also, read Kessler. Fast food is engineered to make one want more, all of the time. Have fun trying to stay thin while resisting food designed to make you want to eat more.

              Most effective eating plans--even more conventional ones--tend to suggest increasing protein and lowering carbs--as well as eating more vegetables in lieu of cookies, or whatever. The big areas of contention seem to revolve around the consumption of whole grains/fibre and quantities of fat.

              Mark's plan abjures the former and recommends more the latter. If it works, why fight it? If it doesn't, then do something else. If you live in the Western world, food options are endless and no one is required to forgo any food they really want to eat unless they choose to.

              My husband is non-primal (but supports my efforts). He runs and bikes, lifts weights and has a milkshake once a week, eats grilled cheese and oatmeal, pasta etc. He is not overweight and seems pretty healthy. His body handles this. Mine cannot. When I was in my 20s, it could. Now, not so much.

              For some people a calorie is just a calorie, for others there is more at work. If I eat too many calories primally, I will not lose weight. However, I can eat MORE calories primally than I could conventionally, and still lose weight. Also, I do not need to exercise insanely any more. Things are just more in balance overall.

              Really, it depends on who you are and what works for you.


              • #37

                I was always hungry when trying to "cut calories". No I'm satiated, and though I eat more calories now, I'm dropping weight way faster than during the calorie counting phase. I also feel healthier, more energetic and happier.

                I don't think calorie counting is the easiest method, in fact I think it's the hardest with the least success.

                The more I see the less I know for sure.
                -John Lennon


                • #38

                  Yes, I remember the agonies of trying to keep my cals at 1200-1400. Yes, I would lose--and not all that quickly--and was hungry and lethargic all of the time. It would work for awhile, but was not sustainable. Eventually the losses would level off, and I would begin to eat more. And then the gaining would begin until I "cut" calories all over again.

                  I thought I would go insane and that I would never, ever be able to feel full or satisfied or energetic again, and I was made to feel like a failure for not finding this state acceptable.


                  • #39

                    Not to get too feisty but sometimes I think some folks here have their heads up some rat's bootay.

                    Did you really think, let's say, 2,000 calories with 300 gram+ of carbs is the equivalent metabolically of 2,000 calories with 50grams or less of carbs? REALLY?

                    A study I like to repeat because it makes it simple is one published a couple years ago in Science News - those fed low fat milk & all other things being equal either did not lose weight or GAINED weight whereas those consuming full fat dairy either did not gain or LOST weight. So - the group eating MORE fat and MORE calories LOST weight! First - because of the higher fat, second because that fat contained CLA, fatty acids that acutally promote fat loss!


                    By the way - read that single Taubes 'detractor' - not impressed - and a few of the comments on that article state in soundly.

                    Stating 'many' debunked Taubes & coming up with one piddly nonsense article doesn't do it for me.

                    Now - I'm going to drink a beer and chill since it's my day off and screw the lectins, even lectins are getting my wrath, and I guess I'll get their wrath soon enough! But, right now it's worth it. Ask me again tomorrow morning!


                    • #40

                      The anti-Taubes blog entry is not compelling.

                      First of all, he misrepresents Taubes' hypothesis. Taubes never claims that calories don't matter at all. So he's trying to falsify the wrong hypothesis.

                      And though I haven't studied each of the "falsified predictions" in detail, I can tell you off the top of my head that #3 is a no brainer. Endocrinologist Robert Lustig has very clearly explained why fructose is more fattening than glucose. You can watch his talk on YouTube by searching for the video titled Sugar: The Bitter Truth. I can't recall where I read it, but Taubes has no beef with Lustig, and lamented that Lustig's ideas weren't yet out when he was writing GCBC.


                      • #41

                        CICO is true, but the problem is that energy requirement is not a constant. It changes based on input. What you can discover is the average energy requirement based on the given energy input. Reduce the input, the output will reduce. Yes you can lose weight, by reducing input, but its a very complex thing to do if you want to remain healthy while doing it.

                        I prefer the simple way of not eating some times, and eating no (or reduced) carb foods some times. And sticking with natural foods. There are no other restrictions really. No calorie counting required just go with your bodies responses.


                        • #42

                          Hi, jwint and company.

                          jwint, this may not answer your question, but the reason I don't eat sugar and starches (like whole grains and legumes, in particular) is because of the effect that they have on me. I do agree with you that if there is a calorie deficit, one will lose weight (both fat and muscle; the way to retain muscle is through activity).

                          When I eat little to no sugar, I tend to eat less as sugar is metabolize way too quickly in my body and I find my appetite ravenous when eating it copiously. As for many of the starchy foods, like whole grains and legumes that metabolize more slowly than refined sugar... well, those often leave me bloated (probably due to their antinutrients), so I do tend to lean out overall when avoiding these things.

                          Yes. You are correct though. One could lose weight on the Subway diet, like that spokesperson of theirs did... just by eating at a caloric deficit. However, he probably was not eating all that nutritive of a diet and he looks like a sedentary individual and appears to be skinny-fat.


                          • #43

                            I track calories, total fat, carbs, protein and daily weight religiously. I then use an exponential moving average to smooth the data since the daily fluctuations are less interesting than the trends. (Yes, I am a huge geek and no I do not work in the financial sector.) I do this so that I can have reliable data on how various factors play out for me.

                            I have over a year's worth of good data. The result is that I know that given my current lifestyle/activity level/body composition I will lose weight if my calories are below 2,300 combined with carbs under 50g/day. I also know that I will maintain weight between 2,300-2,500 even with carbs holding steady and I will gain if my calories exceed 2,500. Yes, there are many other permutations of the above but you get the idea. I only know this because I track.

                            In addition, I have found that eating something on the order of 60(fat)/30(protein)/10(carb), produces the best general levels of satiety and energy, which in turn allows me to maintain my calorie ranges. So while there is debate about whether a calorie is a calorie, it is currently one of only a handful of ubiquitous measures with which to gauge your own program.

                            So, I say worry less about whether a calorie is a calorie in general and figure out what a calorie means to your body…


                            • #44

                              Best answer yet.

                              Thank you PrimalFocus.

                              Don't be a paleotard...






                              • #45

                                Im with Jwint on this one. The PB works because its very hard to over eat calories with protein and fat, thats why people dont need to count calories, they simply feel full all the time and end up eating less. Also you dont have the insulin spikes that come from carbs and you dont get as hungry. But this does not mean that because youre not eating carbs you can eat as much as you want. There are a lot of people on the forums saying they cant seem to lose weight or have even gained weight since going PB. Even Mark has said it, eating PB does not mean that it makes it impossible to gain weight.

                                On Taubes, just as he has "the truth" on weight loss and how carbs make you fat, there are thousand other scientist that have "the truth" on how fat makes you fat, or how excess calories make you fat no matter the macronutrient. I mean everyone believes the research that supports their ideals. thats why you believe what Taubes says. But i assure you there is a a LOT of research saying that calories in = calories out, but you just dont care about that research, only the one that shows how calories in is not the same as calories out.

                                Some of you accept the fact that you can lose weight with carbs, but say its not healthy. I disagree, what is NOT healthy, is losing weight with junk food, you can do it, but its not healthy, on the other hand you can eat carbs while eating whole foods, good meat etc and be very healthy. What is not making many people healthy is the quality of the food (Mcdonalds, trans fats, etc) not the carbs themselves. PB is about cutting carbs and eathing natural foods, not just cutting carbs, i bet you that if you cut carbs only, but eat mcdonalds WITHOUT THE BUN every day you would be just as unhealhty.

                                On the simplicity of eating PB, well that depends on everyone, some people find it easier to cut carbs and eat till full, some people go nuts without carbs...So you need to do what works for you, it doesnt matter if you chose to go low fat, low carbs, what ever, as long as you are in caloric deficit, and can stick to your diet.

                                Im chubby by nature, so ive spent the last 15 years trying every single diet, ive done low fat, low carbs, PB etc...I realized its very hard for me not to eat carbs. So i chose to maintain a caloric deficit, its easier for me, i eat healthy foods most of the time including carbs, and have the ocassional junk food. Also do 2 24hr IF a week which help with the weekly caloric intake plus the hormonal benefits. Right now im around 9% BF, this would be impossible if carbs made you fat.

                                PS: carbs retain water, so when you cut carbs, you lose water weight the first few days, some people mistake this with fat loss.