Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Determining how many calories to eat, eating primal?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Determining how many calories to eat, eating primal?

    I notice when I first started this lifestyle I took the term not only from Gary Taubes, and Dr Eades, But from PB (eat as much fat as you like) as well and wasn't losing weight. Yes I have looked at the 17 reasons I may not be losing weight as well. But is there a caloric factor involved? I do eat whole foods and fatty meat, eggs etc, sometimes gouda cheese and extra sharp cheddar (ok by sisson). I also eat twice a day maybe with some pistachios in between.

    Bottom line, if there is a way to calculate your caloric needs eating primal, how do you do so?
    Big brains discuss ideas
    Average brains discuss events
    Small brains discuss people...
    -Eleanore Roosevelt

  • #2
    How many carbs are you eating a day?
    Fighting Primal - A Savage Performance and Recovery Blog for Primal Combat Athletes

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the classic calorie guidelines still generally apply when it comes to weight. It's the kind of calories (protein, fat, carbs) that determine how healthy you are at that given weight.

      There are a lot of online calorie calculators you can use. Figure out your total calorie needs with one of those, then just tailor it to Primal diet. I average 50% calories from fat, 35% from protein, and 15% from carbs, but it varies from day to day.

      Comment


      • #4
        Mark discusses all this in the book. I have the ebook version so I can't really tell you which page it is.

        First, you need to determine your basal metabolic rate (the amount of calories your body needs just to maintain itself if you were to stay in bed all day). Then you use a multiplier based on your activity levels to find out your caloric needs for the day. There are plenty of calculators on the net you can use. The most accurate ones employ your body fat percentage if you know that, but you can get a general ballpark figure even if you don't have that information.

        BMR calculator BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) Calculator | Muscle & Strength
        or BMR Calculator
        Body fat calculator Body Fat Calculator
        Daily calorie needs based on harris-benedict equation Harris Benedict Equation
        If you want to do the math yourself, here are the relevant formulas BMR Formula

        Then determine your protein needs based on your lean body mass [total weight - (weight x body fat percentage expressed in decimal form)] or a shortcut could be your goal weight. This will be 0.7grams to 1.0 gram/lb depending on activity levels. Multiply the total required grams by 4 (caloric value of 1g protein).

        Then determine your carbohydrate needs based on the carbohydrate curve. Multiply the required grams by 4 (caloric value of 1g of carbs). See carbohydrate curve here How to Succeed with the Primal Blueprint | Mark's Daily Apple.

        The remainder of your calories come from fats (1g of fat = 9 calories). If you happen to use your 20% allotment, it would fall here too. Alcohol has 7 calories per gram.

        Remember that if you want to lose weight, you need to create a caloric deficit. Don't compromise protein or your carbs for this, tinker the with the "fats & others" calorie allotment for your deficit.

        Hope that helps.
        Last edited by Fiji; 02-22-2012, 09:01 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          You don't need to create a caloric deficit. Fat calories are not metabolized or processed by the body the same way as carbohydrate calories are. Insulin controls what gets stored and what gets released. This is the reason eating fat doesn't make you fat and eating carbohydrates does. Calorie count is useless because all calories aren't equal.

          You can eat 1000 calories of carbohydrates and suffer extreme weight gain. Or you can eat 2500 calories of fat and protein and lose weight. Until you figure out how your body responds to carbohydrate consumption, trying to create some fictitious caloric deficit is useless. Besides, you can't create a long term caloric deficit without it resulting in an increase in sedentary behavior. They're positively correlated.
          Fighting Primal - A Savage Performance and Recovery Blog for Primal Combat Athletes

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kevingeary View Post
            You don't need to create a caloric deficit. Fat calories are not metabolized or processed by the body the same way as carbohydrate calories are. Insulin controls what gets stored and what gets released. This is the reason eating fat doesn't make you fat and eating carbohydrates does. Calorie count is useless because all calories aren't equal.

            You can eat 1000 calories of carbohydrates and suffer extreme weight gain. Or you can eat 2500 calories of fat and protein and lose weight. Until you figure out how your body responds to carbohydrate consumption, trying to create some fictitious caloric deficit is useless. Besides, you can't create a long term caloric deficit without it resulting in an increase in sedentary behavior. They're positively correlated.
            Carbs don't make you fat,numerous clinical ward studies have shown this. These studies involved weight loss comparisons between a low carb ketogenic diet and an isocaloric diet with much more carbs.At the end of all these studies the amount of fat loss was statistically insignificant,with low carb showing that it has significant benefits in repairing a broken metabolism but no real advantage in actual fat loss when compared to the other diets provided to the subjects.Keep in mind that these were tightly controlled clinical ward studies where everything the subjects ate was monitored and controlled by the researchers,not free living studies where there's much less control over what is eaten and more variables get added in.

            If you'd like to see these studies I can list them so you can read them at your leisure.
            Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own experience.

            In the mind of the beginner, there are many possibilities; in the mind of the expert, there are few.


            I've shaken hands with a raccoon and lived to tell the tale

            SW: 220- 225 pounds at the beginning of January
            CW: 180 pounds

            Goals for 2012: Lose a bit more fat and start a serious muscle and strength routine

            Comment


            • #7
              Play your carbs right
              Same calories in both groups, same % of protein, fat and carbs yet eating the carbs in the evening only resulted in fewer food cravings and greater weight loss. Seems logical that there is some effect and I mean an effect beyond the food cravings that would cause them to eat more but for some reason eating the carbs all at one time results in greater fat loss or more likely less fat storage from the ongoing insulin response.

              There was a study posted by a non-primal follower on this forum showing low carbs didn't make a difference but when you looked at the carb numbers they were well over the 150g recommended for maintenance in Primal and more than likely the diet included grains.

              If you do have studies with low carb diets (between 50-100g of carbs as per primal weight loss) I am sure we would all love to see them.
              Last edited by Dirlot; 02-22-2012, 10:33 PM.
              Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
              PS
              Don't forget to play!

              Comment


              • #8
                It's meaningless. What happened to the people AFTER the study? That's what's important. You can put people on a caloric deficit diet to make them lose weight but they'll invariably gain it back. That makes the study bogus.
                Fighting Primal - A Savage Performance and Recovery Blog for Primal Combat Athletes

                Comment


                • #9
                  So @lex and dirlot, is your argument that the key to fat loss is the consumption of carbohydrates?
                  Fighting Primal - A Savage Performance and Recovery Blog for Primal Combat Athletes

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Primal is healthy for me. Primal low carb equalled fat loss for me, eating more calories than on previous low fat diets.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by btownshreds View Post
                      I notice when I first started this lifestyle I took the term not only from Gary Taubes, and Dr Eades, But from PB (eat as much fat as you like) as well and wasn't losing weight. Yes I have looked at the 17 reasons I may not be losing weight as well. But is there a caloric factor involved? I do eat whole foods and fatty meat, eggs etc, sometimes gouda cheese and extra sharp cheddar (ok by sisson). I also eat twice a day maybe with some pistachios in between.

                      Bottom line, if there is a way to calculate your caloric needs eating primal, how do you do so?
                      Asking such a question generally means you're not qualified to count calories. It's best not to try.

                      How to Lower Your Blood Sugar
                      BODY BY SCIENCE (VIDEO 5): THE SCIENCE OF FAT LOSS »

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dirlot View Post
                        Play your carbs right
                        Same calories in both groups, same % of protein, fat and carbs yet eating the carbs in the evening only resulted in fewer food cravings and greater weight loss. Seems logical that there is some effect and I mean an effect beyond the food cravings that would cause them to eat more but for some reason eating the carbs all at one time results in greater fat loss or more likely less fat storage from the ongoing insulin response.

                        There was a study posted by a non-primal follower on this forum showing low carbs didn't make a difference but when you looked at the carb numbers they were well over the 150g recommended for maintenance in Primal and more than likely the diet included grains.

                        If you do have studies with low carb diets (between 50-100g of carbs as per primal weight loss) I am sure we would all love to see them.
                        Sure thing,and for the record I eat paleo,I just don't adhere to the low carb aspects because they showed themselves to have a negative impact on my life. I've noticed you like to accuse people of trolling for not following the primal blueprint exactly,so do try to keep that at a minimum since that wont help anyone.The first study I'm listing was done in 1955.

                        The Werner et al study was inspired by a 1949 paper in which A.W. Pennington reported that free-living men following a carbohydrate-restricted diet lost weight despite no limitation being placed on their caloric intake. Pennington concluded from this that high-fat/low-carbohydrate diets offered superior fat loss results when compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diets. Other researchers suspected the weight loss was simply due to lowered caloric intake resulting from increased satiation on the high-fat diets. To test this possibility, Dr. Sidney C. Werner and his assistants at the Presbyterian Hospital in New York City admitted six subjects (3 men, 3 women) to the hospital’s metabolic ward. During their stay, the subjects each followed a high-carbohydrate diet providing 287 grams of carbohydrate and 2,878 calories per day, and a high-fat/low-carbohydrate diet mimicking the Pennington regimen that supplied 52 grams of carbohydrate and 2,874 calories per day. Werner’s paper, published in a 1955 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, only lists the diet duration for three of the subjects;one of these, a sixteen year old boy, followed both diets for a minimum of 21 consecutive days each. This subject experienced a sharp drop in weight during the first week of the high-carbohydrate diet, which was explained by salt and water loss. After this early water loss, the subsequent rate of weight loss was identical on the high-carbohydrate and low-carbohydrate diets. Another male subject experienced similar results, but the duration this subject spent on each diet is not known. The remaining male subject experienced sharp declines in weight during the Pennington-style diet, but it was in no way due to any “metabolic advantage”; rather, he experienced diarrhea when attempting the high-fat regimen. One of the female participants lost a small amount of weight during the first week of the Pennington regimen, which again was attributed to temporary salt and water loss. She then proceeded to gain 1 kilogram in the nine days prior to commencing the high-carbohydrate diet and another 1 kilogram in the following nine days. The other two women experienced little change in weight on either regimen, save for small fluctuations occurring due to menstruation. Thus, the conclusions drawn by Pennington from his studies with free-living men were not confirmed by Werner’s far more tightly controlled ward study. Despite this, Pennington’s research is still cited by promoters of the metabolic advantage theory, while Werner’s non-supportive ward study is rarely if ever mentioned. Amazingly, in his 1992 issue of Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution, Atkins called the Pennington study “exciting” (p. 67) but dismissed Werner’s non-supportive study as too high in carbohydrate to promote ketosis (p. 70) - even though Werner used identical macronutrient amounts to Pennington.

                        In 1960, Danish researchers Olesen and Quaade examined eight obese subjects who consumed low- and high-carb diets in crossover fashion. The patients “remained in hospital under strict control throughout the observation period, but they were not kept in bed.” One of these subjects followed the high-carb diet (32% protein/18% fat/50% carbohydrate) for 24 days and a low-carb diet (32% protein/50% fat/18% carbohydrate) for 21 days. Energy intake during both diets was held at 1000 calories per day. After 21 days on each diet the weight loss was exactly the same: 4.1 kg.

                        In 1960, Pilkington and colleagues compared low- and high-carbohydrate diets at St Georges Hospital in London. The study, conducted in the metabolic unit and isolated from the general hospital population, involved 7 women and 2 men, all obese. Two of the male patients followed 1,000 calorie low- and high carbohydrate diets for 18 days each, while the remainder of the group followed both diets in crossover fashion for 24 days each. The patients alternated from one diet to the other, with two of the patients spending a total of 48 days on each diet. No significant difference was noted in the rate of weight loss, although the researchers did observe short, transient increases in bodyweight upon commencement of the high carbohydrate diet phases. These increases of up to 2.5 kg would last up to 10 days before disappearing, at which point weight loss would continue on a downward trajectory. The researchers measured fluid balance during the study, and noted that the temporary swings in weight could be explained not by greater fat losses, but by variations in fluid status. Low-carbohydrate diets have been repeatedly shown to increase fluid losses; one mechanism is the depletion of glycogen, a water-binding carbohydrate molecule. Lean tissue, primarily muscle, is the primary storage site for glycogen. Indeed, Pilkington and his team noted greater nitrogen losses on the low-carb diets, indicative of greater lean tissue losses.

                        In a 1963 paper aptly titled "Calories Do Count", Kinsell and co-workers admitted five obese subjects to a hospital metabolic ward and fed them liquid formula diets. The diets ranged in protein content from 14 to 36 per cent, fat from 12 to 83 percent, and carbohydrate from 3 to 64 percent. The calorie content of the various diets was held constant for each patient irrespective of diet composition. As they switched from one diet to another, each patient continued to lose weight at a similar pace. Concluded the researchers: "…it appears obvious that under conditions of precise consistency of caloric intake, and essentially constant physical activity, qualitative modification of the diet with respect to the amount or kind of fat, amount of carbohydrate, and amount of protein, makes little or no difference in the rate of weight loss."
                        Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own experience.

                        In the mind of the beginner, there are many possibilities; in the mind of the expert, there are few.


                        I've shaken hands with a raccoon and lived to tell the tale

                        SW: 220- 225 pounds at the beginning of January
                        CW: 180 pounds

                        Goals for 2012: Lose a bit more fat and start a serious muscle and strength routine

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kevingeary View Post
                          So @lex and dirlot, is your argument that the key to fat loss is the consumption of carbohydrates?
                          I think the key to fat loss is not eating garbage and getting off your ass. Eat healthy and natural food until you're satisfied and get off the couch. Go run, lift weights, hit a heavy bag, do some pull ups, ride a bike, and so on. We've been eating carbs for thousands and thousands of years without an obesity epidemic, so it doesn't make any sense to blame them for it. I think the sedentary nature of most people and the fact that we're shoving pounds of processed garbage and chemicals into our faces on a daily basis is the real reason why we're having so many health problems.
                          Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own experience.

                          In the mind of the beginner, there are many possibilities; in the mind of the expert, there are few.


                          I've shaken hands with a raccoon and lived to tell the tale

                          SW: 220- 225 pounds at the beginning of January
                          CW: 180 pounds

                          Goals for 2012: Lose a bit more fat and start a serious muscle and strength routine

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            To the OP I would say this: the proof is in the pudding. Regardless of the whole debate about very low carb vs. calories in, calories out- how is it working for you? If you are eating all the fat you want but you can't lose weight, certainly it wouldn't make sense to add more fat? Use your common sense based on your experience and see what works for you. No one here is telling you go on a low fat diet, by the way- just that portion control does matter to some extent.

                            For some people, it may help to increase the fat for whatever reason and they lose weight. I would bet that has something to do with satiety levels and stabilization of blood sugars with elimination of processed carbs and processed sugars. If we were to examine what they were eating prior to the increased protein and fats, I bet the total caloric intake was decreased on the primal diet due to satiety. For other people, eating carbs doesn't work because of a broken metabolism. Others don't do well on a low carb plan. We are all different. But that's all beside the point. Do what makes sense for you. If what you're currently doing isn't working out for you, you clearly need to make some changes. What works on some may not necessarily work for you. Please use your common sense in choosing your path. And please, read the book (again if you have already done so) and listen to your body and your common sense prior to taking any advice from these forums, including mine.

                            /end.
                            Last edited by Fiji; 02-22-2012, 11:21 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kevingeary View Post
                              So @lex and dirlot, is your argument that the key to fat loss is the consumption of carbohydrates?
                              Plenty of people go low-carb paleo/primal and fail to lose weight. There are numerous stories from people here whose weight wouldn't bulge until they reintroduced carbohydrate back into their diets. Low-carb works for some people, but it's definitely not everyone.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X