Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question re: fuel and weight loss

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

  • Question re: fuel and weight loss

    Hi All,

    I'm new to the primal/paleo lifestyle and am having trouble wrapping my brain around how weight loss occurs with re-adjusted macros - that is, more fat, less carbs - but no significant change in calories consumed.

    On a basic level, our body needs some thing to burn as fuel. If I consume 400 calories of carbs, how does that differ from 400 calories of fat? The way I understand it, the 400 calories of fat doesn't spike blood sugar, making me less hungry/lessens my "itching" for the next hit of food. As a result, I consumer fewer overall calories because of hunger depletion if I stick to a 50/30/20 (fat/protein/carb) split than a more traditional 20/30/50 split. But then isn't the primal/paleo diet just using calorie reduction as a mechanism for weight loss?

    My guess is that you'll say no, it's not.....then I would ask, other than why, is it that the body processes fat such that when consumed, it doesn't release insulin? And if so, given insulin's role in "unlocking pores....[so that] nutrients can be stored inside the cell" (quoting primal blueprint book), wouldn't this be a negative thing?

    Thanks to anyone who can explain this in plain terms for me....

  • #2
    .

    You've got the basics down.

    I suggest you ignore much of what you're going to be told here. I just heard a bunch of cookies hit computer desks.... and away we go!

    .
    There is a huge difference between talking about how to do something and getting it fucking done.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Lemmmmon View Post
      Hi All,

      I'm new to the primal/paleo lifestyle and am having trouble wrapping my brain around how weight loss occurs with re-adjusted macros - that is, more fat, less carbs - but no significant change in calories consumed.
      Dr Rosedale, a portion of Boston Speech at the Heinz Conference - YouTube

      Originally posted by Lemmmmon View Post
      On a basic level, our body needs some thing to burn as fuel. If I consume 400 calories of carbs, how does that differ from 400 calories of fat? The way I understand it, the 400 calories of fat doesn't spike blood sugar, making me less hungry/lessens my "itching" for the next hit of food. As a result, I consumer fewer overall calories because of hunger depletion if I stick to a 50/30/20 (fat/protein/carb) split than a more traditional 20/30/50 split. But then isn't the primal/paleo diet just using calorie reduction as a mechanism for weight loss?
      The body doesn't burn calories. It burns ATP.

      Comment


      • #4
        Is a Calorie Really a Calorie? Metabolic Advantage of Low-Carbohydrate Diets
        The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. AC Fat Loss Bible critique part II
        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you all so much for the resources!! Much appreciated

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Voyageur View Post
            .

            You've got the basics down.

            I suggest you ignore much of what you're going to be told here. I just heard a bunch of cookies hit computer desks.... and away we go!

            .
            agreed, you understand this better than half the hacks on here. get ready for the BS to flow. calories count. macros are important to the extent they keep you healthy and feeling full. but to lose weight, you need to be in a caloric deficit.

            Comment


            • #7
              Carbohydrates trigger an insulin response and fats and proteins do not. That is it. A calorie is simply a measure (and a very crude and unsatisfactory one, IMHO) of the energy of the food.

              Read Taubes, Bernstein, Eades, Briffa, Atkins. They all understood and have codifed somewhat the metabolic advantage gained by reducing the % of carbs in the diet.

              Useful Blogs:
              Weight of the Evidence
              Protein Power - Eades
              Jimmy Moore's blog
              Odille
              F 58 / 170cms / SW 131.5 kgs / Current 112.4/ GW 65
              following Primal Lifestyle and swimming my way to health

              My Primal Blog / Photo Blog / RedBubble shop / My Calendars / My Facebook

              Comment


              • #8
                there is no metabolic advantage to low carb eating. there is no tooth fairy. there is no santa.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jakey View Post
                  there is no metabolic advantage to low carb eating. there is no tooth fairy. there is no santa.
                  Why do you insist on raping my dreams and sending me copies of the directors cut?
                  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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jakey View Post
                    there is no metabolic advantage to low carb eating. there is no tooth fairy. there is no santa.
                    and there is no queen of england! This is the real world, and you need to wake up!

                    Ah, its good to have kids. Can you name that tune?
                    Last edited by Neckhammer; 04-23-2012, 07:08 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm actually not convinced that a "calorie is a calorie". Just too much variability in what is done with those different forms of calories once the hit the human ecosystem. sphikes link (the study) and the subsequent links from there are interesting. especially this from one abstract...."Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics."

                      I know that some consider this a closed discussion, but at least in my mind both possibilities still exist. Could just mean I'm not as well read on this topic as some of you who have made up your minds though.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                        I'm actually not convinced that a "calorie is a calorie". Just too much variability in what is done with those different forms of calories once the hit the human ecosystem. sphikes link (the study) and the subsequent links from there are interesting. especially this from one abstract...."Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics."

                        I know that some consider this a closed discussion, but at least in my mind both possibilities still exist. Could just mean I'm not as well read on this topic as some of you who have made up your minds though.
                        well, at least you're reasonable about it...

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X