Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it really about low carb or calories in/out?

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

  • Is it really about low carb or calories in/out?

    Ive been doing so much research on all of this and I see how so many people say they eat a ton more calories now that they are paleo as long as try keep their carbs on the low end, they lose weight, I've seen plenty of research though that states it really is about calories in/calories out. Feeling a bit confused, is it just that paleo keeps you fuller so in the end you dont eat as many calories? Or is there something to be said about being low carb, which just burns your own body fat?

  • #2
    I would be interested to read from the more seasoned members on this topic, but there has been times where I ate really low carb and had a 16 ounce steak with a few mushrooms in butter at 8pm. Woke up the next morning and lost a pound...I was blown away. My experience could be an abberation though.

    Comment


    • #3
      "is it just that paleo keeps you fuller so in the end you dont eat as many calories?"

      Yes. Most people find low-carb works by increasing protein and fat, which they find more satiating and lead to you consume less calories. Others can consume a high carb diet with potatoes and fruit and get the same effect. Find the foods that give you the best satiety per calorie and appetite control.


      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046
      DESIGN: Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 34.4 +/- 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with approximately 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; approximately 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.

      CONCLUSIONS:
      KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.


      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22215165

      Among persons living in a controlled setting, calories alone account for the increase in fat; protein affected energy expenditure and storage of lean body mass, but not body fat storage.


      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815

      This study showed that independently of the method for weight loss, the negative energy balance alone is responsible for weight reduction.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1734671
      Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057

      The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period.

      http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

      http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i...oss.html#ref18
      Last edited by Forgotmylastusername; 08-08-2012, 07:39 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        hold on, hold on...lemme get my popcorn...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
          hold on, hold on...lemme get my popcorn...
          Hold on. Popcorn isn't primal.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BrodieMN View Post
            I would be interested to read from the more seasoned members on this topic,
            Have fun... recent 50+ page discussion

            http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread62656.html

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 2tall View Post
              Hold on. Popcorn isn't primal.
              there's a thread on that too! allow me to rephrase... let me make some homemade, organic, non-gmo corn, popped in coconut oil, drizzled with melted kerrygold and dusted with himalayan salt or finely shredded imported parmigiano reggiano cheese. because that's how i do it at my house every couple of weeks.

              Comment


              • #8
                Short answer... it's about both.

                Calories count, but they also have context.

                It's just that easy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Diana Renata View Post
                  Short answer... it's about both.

                  Calories count, but they also have context.

                  It's just that easy.
                  ^^^^^^^^ TRUE^^^^^^^

                  Now let us never speak of it again
                  You know all those pictures of Adam and Eve where they have belly button? Think about it..................... take as long as you need........................

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My favorite answer to these types of questions are: Yes.
                    "The problem with quoting someone on the Internet is, you never know if it's legit" - Abraham Lincoln

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by VeggieLover View Post
                      is it just that paleo keeps you fuller so in the end you dont eat as many calories? Or is there something to be said about being low carb, which just burns your own body fat?
                      It is simply caloric restriction in almost every case. You cannot lose weight without a caloric deficit, and there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate diet. People aren't eating nearly as much as they think. What people forget is that on the SAD, they were drinking thousands of calories a week. Eliminating those calories, even in the presence of more food, is going to create a large deficit. Then you take hunger into the game. Eat 1,000 calories of wheat pasta and you're hungry in 2 hours. Eat 12 extra large eggs. First of all, you will probably fail. Second, you will be stuffed for hours because eggs take forever to digest. Third, you haven't even eaten 1,000 calories.

                      So, in short, you can eat 2 dozen eggs every single day and come in under 2,000 calories. That will "feel" like stuffing your face, but it's actually a 1,000 calorie deficit compared to the average American man consuming 3,000+ calories every day.

                      Exception: there may be rare cases with people with severe metabolic disorders where eating so much toxic food has halted their metabolic rate to a crawl. SAD foods over time can crush your metabolic rate, making it feel impossible to sustain calories low enough to lose fat on the standard low fat/whole grain American diet. Eating primally for extended periods can help repair that metabolism, which will increase your metabolic rate. It is conceivable you CAN eat more calories primally after the metabolism has recovered. But for anyone with a healthy metabolism, pasta and ice cream in the same caloric content isn't going to make you fatter than avocado and ribeye as long as protein levels remain constant. But there is never a situation where you can lose weight on a caloric surplus. It's just impossible to know that your TDEE is at any given moment.
                      Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 08-08-2012, 07:58 AM.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There's the metabolic advantage that arises when eating foods that promote satiety (since hunger is driven by hormones) and the metabolic advantage of spontaneous calorie reduction (you know, because it's advantageous not to have to struggle, count and measure.) These advantages are more easily attained when you have more weight to lose, not just vanity weight. And these advantages are crucial for people with metabolic syndrome, many of whom have found it nearly impossible to lose weight and keep it off any other way.
                        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ooohhh here we go again...smh

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Diana Renata View Post
                            Short answer... it's about both.

                            Calories count, but they also have context.

                            It's just that easy.
                            +1,000!!!
                            F, 44 years old, 111.8 lbs, 4 feet 11.5 inches (yes, that half inch matters!)

                            **1st place sparring, AAU TKD regional qualifier, 2/15/15 - It's damn good to hit like a girl!**

                            **First-ever 5K race 11/28/13: 37 minutes, 18+ seconds, no stopping**

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
                              there's a thread on that too! allow me to rephrase... let me make some homemade, organic, non-gmo corn, popped in coconut oil, drizzled with melted kerrygold and dusted with himalayan salt or finely shredded imported parmigiano reggiano cheese. because that's how i do it at my house every couple of weeks.
                              How does this contribute to the OPs original question? : )
                              Female, age 51, 5' 9"
                              SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

                              Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
                              2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X