Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are the real weight loss benefits of going primal?

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

  • #76
    Yup your right. The whole 4 part series is actually quite good.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Katie14 View Post
      Are you saying that the processing of protein and fat burns more calories than the processing of carbs? Is that why you think I would lose more weight eating a low carb diet versus a regular diet even if calories and exercise are kept constant?
      It's definitely my opinion that we need good fats, good carbs and above all, good protein. Before eliminating bread, I used to try and make the bulk of my meal a bulk carbohydrate, like rice, potatoes or bread. Now I still eat rice and potatoes at dinnertime, but they are roughly the same volume on my plate as the meat I am eating, and less than the vegetables. Before they made up over half the plate (rice particularly).

      I think that 'low carb' works for two main reasons.

      1. People and animals 'overgraze' when they are deficient in vitamins and minerals, because their body tells them they don't have 'enough'. By eating more nutritious foods (that contain more vitamins and minerals) you will negate this overgrazing instinct

      2. Fats and Proteins are satisfying, while carbs are not in comparison. Which is another trigger to stop eating when you have had enough

      I think that the 'metabolic advantage' of eating low carb is quite overblown. But learning how to control my own hunger and not be a slave to it was an eye opening experience for me.

      Originally posted by Katie14 View Post
      I think that most people don't count calories (or if they do many don't count correctly) while dieting. So it is difficult to know if people lose more weight because of actually eating less calories or because eating less carbs somehow burned more calories. Maybe being on a low carb diet causes energy levels to increase. So dieters subconciously move more throughout the day, thereby burning more calories.
      Yes, I absolutely think that when your body thinks you are starving (you are deficient in something) then your metabolism is down-regulated, making the 'calories out' part of CICO a losing proposition. It's NOT just about calories in. It's also about calories out, and that's not just a matter of getting on a treadmill. It's having a good hormonal balance.
      Last edited by magicmerl; 07-22-2013, 05:10 PM.
      Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

      Griff's cholesterol primer
      5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
      Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
      TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
      bloodorchid is always right

      Comment


      • #78
        I am very interested in the idea that carbs versus fat doesn't matter so much if you control for protein. I know I've seen it mentioned a couple times.

        My own personAl experiment, I've been tracking cals for a bit and it took minimizing sugar/ wheat before the scale started moving. But I'm still mid experiment so we will see.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by noodletoy View Post
          are the scare quotes necessary? or just to make you feel better about acting like you're explaining this to a child? are you suggesting my hormonal balance was the same at 42 as 22? that although i have clearly stated i tried typical cw methods to lose wight, which included cutting cals and increasing activity, still my weight did not budge?



          duh.



          seriously? if i'm weighing and portioning my food correctly, now it's my fault because i'm eating a massachusetts apple instead of a new hampshire one? are you for real? if so, then you are even more hilarious than i have previously even considered. are people now supposed to send all their food to labs to be analyzed before consumption? or work with the tools available to a normal person and use usda counts as a framework and baseline?



          my half-claim? gah, you're a tool.

          there are plenty of reasonable people on here detailing their individual results with various blueprints. you keep on keepin' on that one size fits all.
          I'm saying you have absolutely no idea what your TDEE is, which is why you didn't have any success. You were clearly overeating. Now, you eat less calories than you did before, or you're simply more active now and you're exercising into a deficit. It doesn't matter if you tracked correctly or incorrectly. You did it wrong.

          If you couldn't lose weight on what you think was 1600-1700 calories a day, it was because 1600-1700 calories a day was your maintenance. You should've tried averaging 1400 cals a day.
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Leida View Post
            Word! If only appetite got clued in. That's btw is where I disagree with Chaco. I don't think we are eating out of habit. It's pretty much unthinkable to me to eat as much as I did when I was young, and I am down to 2 meals a day - or trying to. But it's hard because I am hungry. Why I am hungry, I don't know. And I am hungry at any macro ratio and cleanliness level I tried.
            The average human body isn't supposed to look like the cover of a fitness magazine. If you are truly eating a diet of whole foods and really sticking to it without sneaking in junk, you have to accept that your body doesn't want to look like what you want it to look like. If you want it to be thinner than what it wants to be, you have to go hungry a lot, and that isn't healthy. Those people on magazine covers and in competitions maintain that physique diet down in 6-10 week clips, hang there for a couple weeks to do photoshoots and for the majority of the year they're walking around with a much more normal build. Competition bodybuilders, the leanest people on Earth on competition day, hang around 10-12% bf most of the year. Most men can maintain that simply eating to satiety if their diet is clean and they work hard at the gym.
            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

            Comment


            • #81
              Your question assumes that every calorie is identical and the body metabolism is totally compartmentalized. "Metabolism" means all the chemical reactions within a body. Not just the reactions that turn food into fuel and fuel into motion, but all of them. There are thousands of chemical reactions within the body that are happening in a continuum and they affect each other.

              Here is an example: alcohol contains approximately 7kc/g. If you drink 1oz of (200 proof) alcohol, you are consuming nearly 200 calories. But alcohol suppresses the kidney chemical function that creates concentrate urine. So even if you are dehydrated, you are peeing like a racehorse when you imbibe too much. That reduces you "weight" temporarily because you are dehydrated. Those calories go in and they have a specific chemical property that creates an additional reaction. They cannot be separated, those 200 calories are not the same as 200 calories worth of kale or steak or even pasta. We can't go by the calories in/calories out model for long term health. Sure, you could consume 10 shots of pure grain alcohol for your 2000 calories per day, but the effect it would have on your body would be far different than 2000 calories of real food. Alcohol is an example from a basic a&p class, when you delve into more intricate biological study, you'll see much more. It shouldn't be hard to extrapolate that different macronutrients affect the human body differently in different ratios.

              Sent from my DROID4 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
              Last edited by JennHeart; 07-22-2013, 07:59 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Your question assumes that every calorie is identical and the body metabolism is totally compartmentalized. "Metabolism" means all the chemical reactions within a body. Not just the reactions that turn food into fuel and fuel into motion, but all of them. There are thousands of chemical reactions within the body that are happening in a continuum and they affect each other.

                Here is an example: alcohol contains approximately 7kc/g. If you drink 1oz of (200 proof) alcohol, you are consuming nearly 200 calories. But alcohol suppresses the kidney chemical function that creates concentrate urine. So even if you are dehydrated, you are peeing like a racehorse when you imbibe too much. That reduces you "weight" temporarily because you are dehydrated. Those calories go in and they have a specific chemical property that creates an additional reaction. They cannot be separated, those 200 calories are not the same as 200 calories worth of kale or steak or even pasta. We can't go by the calories in/calories out model for long term health. Sure, you could consume 10 shots of pure grain alcohol for your 2000 calories per day, but the effect it would have on your body would be far different than 2000 calories of real food. Alcohol is an example from a basic a&p class, when you delve into more intricate biological study, you'll see much more. It shouldn't be hard to extrapolate that different macronutrients affect the human body differently in different ratios.

                Sent from my DROID4 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by lea View Post
                  I am very interested in the idea that carbs versus fat doesn't matter so much if you control for protein. I know I've seen it mentioned a couple times.

                  My own personAl experiment, I've been tracking cals for a bit and it took minimizing sugar/ wheat before the scale started moving. But I'm still mid experiment so we will see.
                  I think that the 'control the protein' people were trying to demonstrate that there IS a difference between fat and carbs, and in order to see it you need to control for protein by keeping it constant between the two. (There is a small thermic effect from converting protein to glucose/trigs).

                  Not all carbs are created equal: Acellular carbohydrates.
                  Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                  Griff's cholesterol primer
                  5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                  Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                  TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                  bloodorchid is always right

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by JennHeart View Post
                    Your question assumes that every calorie is identical and the body metabolism is totally compartmentalized. "Metabolism" means all the chemical reactions within a body. Not just the reactions that turn food into fuel and fuel into motion, but all of them. There are thousands of chemical reactions within the body that are happening in a continuum and they affect each other.
                    My contention is that fat and carbohydrate are sources of energy, not structural like protein or toxins like alcohol, so it really doesn't matter.

                    Assuming equal protein, it's not going to matter much if you go high carb/low fat or low carb/high fat, at least in the short term. As long as calories are kept equal, your weight won't change. Low carb/high fat would have less potential for performance, though, since fat is a less efficient energy substrate for the production of ATP, so you'd probably want to remain relatively sedentary to feel good dieting on a low carb paradigm. Over the longterm, you'd probably plateau faster on low carb/high fat due to chronically high cortisol from a constant state of gluconeogenesis and a lagging thyroid, though. I think cycling your fat and carbs is always the way to go. If I had to pick one and only one - high fat/low carb vs high carb/low fat - I'd pick high carb/low fat for the long haul assuming equal calories. Personally, I hate the high/low macro exclusion nonsense and just go with a moderate approach.

                    In terms of alcohol, dietary fat is far more fattening than dietary carbohydrate when consuming alcohol. If you're going to drink, you better keep fat as low as possible since carbs can at least be absorbed by your glycogen stores to a point. Protein is always a challenge to store as fat, so that would take priority.
                    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-22-2013, 09:07 PM.
                    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I think for many people the difference between whether they succeed on primal or CW diets has to do with ease of compliance. If you're feeling satisfied after a meal you're less likely to go off the rails and binge, and for many people lowering carbs and upping fats has that effect. If you're better able to stick to a lower calorie diet, you're better able to lose weight and succeed over the long term.

                      So yes, a calorie may be a calorie, but the effect that calorie has on your body may differ depending on what that calorie is made of!!

                      I know that when I eat something like pasta I want more even when I'm physically full (even uncomfortably so!) whereas if I eat a fillet of salmon and veggies I can get to a point where I really don't want to eat more. My body's response to the food differs and thus my ultimate results differ.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                        Outside of metabolic damage, the only way to lose weight is to be in an energy deficit. How you create the energy deficit is up to personal preference. If you prefer to eat more carbs and less fat, do it. If you prefer to eat higher fat and less carbs, do it.

                        I don't buy into the metabolic advantage theory of low carb diets. When protein intake is kept static, there doesn't seem to be any metabolic advantage to low carb diets.
                        From the extract:
                        diet composed of either:
                        32% protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or
                        29% protein, 45% carbohydrate, and 26% fat.

                        There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either:
                        15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or
                        45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate.


                        If I read it correctly the higher fat lost 1.4 kg more on average than higher carb (nearly 19% more than high carb)

                        Higher carb lost 1.25 kg per week (averaged), the higher carb would have to been given 8 days more dieting (unfairly) to catch up the the high fat dieters same weight loss.

                        BUT Considering the first 3Kg (approx) of any weight loss diet is water weight the percentage is even greater favor of the high fat diet.

                        5.9Kg Vs 4.5kg (31% more lost on the lower carb not considering same water lost for each).

                        Did I interpret it correctly? (this is a quick glance so there could be a flaw in how I read it)

                        Secondly nothing was said of the ease or difficultly (relative comfort/hunger) for all of individuals on either type of diet.

                        Even if both where the exact same weight loss - if one was generally much easier (more comfortable, less hunger, easier to maintain etc) to do in real life practice, then it 'wins'

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post

                          If you couldn't lose weight on what you think was 1600-1700 calories a day, it was because 1600-1700 calories a day was your maintenance. You should've tried averaging 1400 cals a day.
                          i already said i tried slashing cals -- there were weeks at 1000 cals. weeks where i incorporated 48 hour fasts. it's hard to screw up counting when the total is zero.
                          As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

                          Ernest Hemingway

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by noodletoy View Post
                            i already said i tried slashing cals -- there were weeks at 1000 cals. weeks where i incorporated 48 hour fasts. it's hard to screw up counting when the total is zero.
                            I already said you weren't slashing cals enough. If you weren't losing weight, you were still in a surplus, or at best sitting at maintenance. You didn't cut enough.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Calories are like the spoon in The Matrix.....

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I already said you weren't slashing cals enough. If you weren't losing weight, you were still in a surplus, or at best sitting at maintenance. You didn't cut enough.
                                So what do you recommend people do when they slash calories to really low levels and still can not lose. By low, I mean 1200 and lower for moderately active people. It's not an uncommon scenario. And if you keep cutting, you keep making life even worse, metabolically. By virtue of CICO there are women staying fat with hours of cardio and below 1000 calorie a day diets. Should they cut more calories?

                                I know what is working for me, (add muscle, throw out the scale, eat more). But I'm super lucky in that adding muscle for me is really easy.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X