Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ratio of macronutrients for weight loss (esp. women)?

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

  • #16
    OP, the Primal Blueprint book is not only a good read, it has a chapter covering weight loss...do you have the book?
    Achieving goals takes a backbone not a wishbone

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by js290 View Post
      Nobody has ever gained weight without being in a caloric surplus... Someone way smarter than any of us already figured out Conservation of Energy a long time ago.
      This is a load of BS. I used to gain weight eating fewer calories than I do now. And almost EVERYONE who gains weight is having a nutrient deficit. Which is part of why they keep eating.

      As for you famous equation: "calories in <-> calories out" as a comparison is correct, but you have to calculate both halves of this equation before you compare them to see if there is a deficit. The "calories in" half is pretty easy to calculate. But what do you know about the "calories OUT" half of the equation? Taubes spent an entire book basically saying that nobody knows dip squat how to calculate the calories-out half of the equation.*

      In other words, CW is sort of right. Which is why CW is so dangerous. The equation is easy enough for most people to grasp, but what if you go a level deeper and ask about individual terms? Oh god, that sounds like MATH, or worse yet, it sounds like THINKING. And we can't be having any o' that. No wonder most people can't go primal.

      That said, calories do matter somewhat. The trick is to keep the same ratio of carb/fat/protein, but with a lower overall calorie level. How many overall calories you should have depends on how tall you are, but I would shoot for 1400 overall calories: About 50% fat calories (80 grams); 30% protein (100 grams); and 20% carb (70 grams). Be sure to calculate the carb grams in the veggies; it's very easy to get to 70 grams before you know it.

      You're not quite a month in, so I wouldn't worry about "lift days" and "rest days" until you're more accustomed to being primal.




      -------------------
      * The book was published in 2006; a lot more is now known about "calories out:" it's a complex mix of leptin(?), insulin and other hormones respond to diet, genetic expression, and the like. It is certainly NOT calculated by counting how minutes you did on the elliptical.
      5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Chaohinon View Post
        You stay classy, Paelo Forum Community!
        An avocado a day keeps the doctor away!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by js290 View Post
          Nobody has ever gained weight without being in a caloric surplus... Someone way smarter than any of us already figured out Conservation of Energy a long time ago. Repeating it as it relates to metabolism doesn't offer any insight.



          Understanding cause and effect is not reality, but spewing bad nutritional dogma is?
          hey js290, since somebody already figured out conservation of energy, and you're not challenging it, just what the fuck is your point? cause my point is pretty damn clear. you need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. cause that effect.

          you tell me what will work to lose body fat besides putting yourself into a caloric deficit. you're right - i'm not reinventing the wheel. i'm stating a well-known truism. so what are you saying? what's your angle here? enlighten me/us!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jakey View Post
            hey js290, since somebody already figured out conservation of energy, and you're not challenging it, just what the fuck is your point? cause my point is pretty damn clear. you need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. cause that effect.

            you tell me what will work to lose body fat besides putting yourself into a caloric deficit. you're right - i'm not reinventing the wheel. i'm stating a well-known truism. so what are you saying? what's your angle here? enlighten me/us!
            This person lost weight without a calorie deficit!!!!!!

            astro.PNG
            "The problem with quoting someone on the Internet is, you never know if it's legit" - Abraham Lincoln

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by jakey View Post
              hey js290, since somebody already figured out conservation of energy, and you're not challenging it, just what the fuck is your point?
              My point is people should study some physics and thermodynamics so they are not so easily fooled by people who haven't.

              Originally posted by jakey View Post
              cause my point is pretty damn clear. you need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. cause that effect.
              It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about...

              Originally posted by jakey View Post
              you tell me what will work to lose body fat besides putting yourself into a caloric deficit.
              Hormones.
              Dr Rosedale, a portion of Boston Speech at the Heinz Conference - YouTube

              BODY BY SCIENCE 5 (The Science Of Fat Loss -- Part 1) - YouTube

              Originally posted by jakey View Post
              you're right - i'm not reinventing the wheel. i'm stating a well-known truism. so what are you saying? what's your angle here? enlighten me/us!
              I'm saying it's impossible for hormones to violate any laws of science. Study some so maybe you'd understand.

              Comment


              • #22
                js290, i love doug mcguff, glad you've read/watched him too. rosedale isn't my favorite, but he's a reasonable fellow. i'm not discounting the role of hormones in weight regulation. you are discounting the role of calories in fat loss. i'll say it again, and forever - nobody will lose fat unless they are in caloric deficit. that's how fat loss works. i know plenty of skinny folks that can eat whatever they want and never gain a pound. bully for them. hormones, genes - whatever, good for them. if they suddenly wanted to lose fat though, they would have to restrict calories.

                and i've done quite a bit of reading and studying, believe it or not.

                but could you please tell me your take on this - what will work to make you lose body fat?; without referencing the guru of your choosing! that's right, no references, you have to talk. you give someone advice about how to lose body fat - what must be done? cause i notice you seem to be great at disagreeing with shit, even though you seemed to agree with the first law of thermodynamics (thank god), but you're a bit deficient when it comes to advice, beyond links to other people's stuff. talk.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jakey View Post

                  but could you please tell me your take on this - what will work to make you lose body fat?
                  Fatty Acid Oxidation
                  In contrast to the hormonal activation of adenylate cyclase and (subsequently) hormone-sensitive lipase in adipocytes, the mobilization of fat from adipose tissue is inhibited by numerous stimuli. The most significant inhibition is that exerted upon adenylate cyclase by insulin. When an individual is in the well fed state, insulin released from the pancreas prevents the inappropriate mobilization of stored fat. Instead, any excess fat and carbohydrate are incorporated into the triacylglycerol pool within adipose tissue.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    it's awesome that you're unable to speak for yourself. i think you derive some sort of confidence from quoting others. that's so cool.

                    oh, you're also confusing fasting insulin levels with postprandial insulin spikes. actually, at this point, i could care less, run away from fruits and starches, they're going to kill you. run!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Wow... This has turned into quite the pissing match. If you're still checking this thread, I'll tell you what works for me. Doesn't mean it'll work for you; God made us all into different creatures, so there's my disclaimer.

                      Calories count to a certain extent, BUT you've got to have the right combination of macros to get things moving, IMO. Until recently, I was watching my calories like a hawk, doing PBF exactly as recommended, Intermittent Fasting, and not losing a pound. I figured I was just going to have to go on like that forever to maintain my weight. I'd just resigned myself to weighing 132# forever, and I'm not unhappy at this weight, so I wasn't too worried. Until I decided I'd been trying to do a real pull-up on my own for a year, so maybe I needed to tweak my diet a little to allow myself to get stronger.

                      I kept track of my eating for about a week, decided things were just pitiful. There was no way I was getting all my nutrients and not be eating 24 hours a day, if I didn't introduce a supplement or two. I found a decent multivitamin, started taking fish oil and magnesium, and stopped giving myself my 20% every single freakin' day. I discovered the smoothie and whey protein, which took the place of sugar free ice cream in my life. I ditched the daily Diet Coke, and started drinking unsweetened iced tea (tea without sugar is criminal here in GA, but I don't care!) and eating more salads and veggies. I aim for 1/3 of each macro (fat, carbs, and protein). Since I've cleaned up my diet in the past month, I've dropped another 5 pounds.

                      I'm still eating at a calorie deficit, but I hope I'll figure out my caloric sweet spot for maintaining in another 5 pounds or so. I'm still not actively trying to lose weight, but as long as I've got this little pudge, I'm not going to worry about it getting any smaller! Again, this is just what works for me. Life is not a one-size-fits-all proposition, so you may need to fiddle with things before you figure out what works for you. I wish you the best of luck in figuring stuff out!
                      Motherhood: When changing from pj pants to yoga pants qualifies as 'getting dressed'.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It depends on you. Some people do better eating more fat, some more protein, some more carbs. All of us have to eat a calorie deficit, even the people eating 90% fat. I can tell you what works for me, but it may leave you starving or craving carbs or wanting to eat a tub of coconut oil.

                        I think that there is no one answer that is right for everyone. Your starting point would be to eat the full range of primal foods INCLUDING fruit if you like it, in an amount that leaves you satisfied. If you lose weight, awesome, if not, look at your portions and colorie amounts, try eating less of the foods. If that still doesn't work, start looking at taking out some of the items that some people have issues with. Probably most people are fine to eat everything on that list as long as you watch portions and eat a deficit.

                        Use common sense- If my plate has a ton of veggies, lots of lean protein, some fat and a bit of fruit, I feel great. If my plate is fatty meat and veggies cooked in butter, I feel like crap. If my plate is fruit and veggies and a small amount of protein, I'm hungry in an hour. What mix makes YOU feel best?

                        Realize that FAT LOSS is slow.

                        http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
                        Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          What ever ratio that keeps you satiated enough to keep your caloric numbers down. For some it's low carb for others it's higher. A small chunk of meat and some potatoes and green vegetables work best for me.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Well for me after going primal I find that the naturally low carbs of real fruit and veggies compared to process junk indirectly controls my total calorie consumption. In fact I am rarely hungry. I do minimize my carb intake by not eating any grains, sugar, or any white potatoes. I do eat sweet potato or fruit occasionally. I like how I feel and I am sticking with it. That being said, I am pretty sure I could not eat enough bananas in a day to gain weight, that would be ALOT of banana. I guess technically one could, but not me.

                            As for me now, 15% carbs for a 2000 cal daily intake is working well for me. The rest of the calories is split between fat and protien, however it pans out, but generally the calories are nearly split between them. At my weight there is definitely a caloric deficit. As I get closer to my ideal weight, I will have to adjust things I am sure.

                            On the whole calorie deficit debate, I personally do not think the variations for the calories in/calories out are significant and may only become a factor when someone is within a few pounds of their body's ideal weight.
                            Last edited by DavidR; 04-04-2012, 09:12 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by oxide View Post
                              This is a load of BS. I used to gain weight eating fewer calories than I do now. And almost EVERYONE who gains weight is having a nutrient deficit. Which is part of why they keep eating.

                              As for you famous equation: "calories in <-> calories out" as a comparison is correct, but you have to calculate both halves of this equation before you compare them to see if there is a deficit. The "calories in" half is pretty easy to calculate. But what do you know about the "calories OUT" half of the equation? Taubes spent an entire book basically saying that nobody knows dip squat how to calculate the calories-out half of the equation.*
                              Yes, exactly. Eating different foods will change the "calories out" part of the equation ... even if you don't change how many minutes you're logging on the stairmaster. I can attest to this from personal experience. I used to eat 1200-1300 calories daily on the CW diet: low fat, high carb (esp whole grain). Lots of Lean Cuisines and whole wheat bread, but little red meat and NO animal fat, just canola oil if I HAD to use some oil. Now I'm ingesting around 1700-1800 calories/day on a high-fat, low-carb diet that includes lots of eggs, meat, veggies, healthy fats and a little bit o' nuts, fruit and dairy (mainly cheese). How is it that my weight has stayed EXACTLY at 140 if its "just calories in, calories out"? I've been eating this way for over 6 months now, so according to that equation I should have gained 26 lbs.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by oxide View Post

                                As for you famous equation: "calories in <-> calories out" as a comparison is correct, but you have to calculate both halves of this equation before you compare them to see if there is a deficit. The "calories in" half is pretty easy to calculate. But what do you know about the "calories OUT" half of the equation? Taubes spent an entire book basically saying that nobody knows dip squat how to calculate the calories-out half of the equation.*

                                This.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X