In my n=1 stuff I do have issues with carbs, but not nearly as much as before I started eating primally (about 18 months ago).
I can eat 3-5,000 calories/day of steak, chicken, pork, veggies and fruits (limited but still) and I feel great and have plenty of energy. I do add back in carbs (300g+) on days that I train hard or when I haven't had them for about a week in any substantial number (like less than 100g/day for a week). It doesn't help with energy or my training, but it does help my muscles hold water and I get a fuller look. Since losing quite a bit of fat it helps to know that I can still lift really heavy stuff AND sometimes *look* like I can lift heavy stuff. But, I have to cut the calories back to about 2-2,500/day when eating that many carbs or a bloat like a pregnant prom queen (or similar).
So, essentially, the only reason I eat carbs is because they help my self-confidence. Bet you never heard that one before.
As magnolia said, it's all dependent on the person. CICO do matter, but for me the macro mix/count matters a helluva lot more.
I have done high fat/low carb and not seen a difference in loss vs. higher carbs/lower fat. :) Where it makes a difference for me is in a lack of hunger by eating the higher fat foods in the context of reduced calories (ie, if I eat 1500 calories high fat, I'm not hungry, if I eat 1500 low fat I want to eat everything in the world). If eat 2000 calories high fat I won't lose weight (I'll gain). If I eat 2000 calories low fat I won't lose weight (I'll gain).
I'm a big believer in that we all have different metabolisms. And to be honest, perhaps if I cut some carbs I could eat more.... but I think "more" is 100-200 calories more per day. I think for some people it might be a bigger difference.
To be fair, I haven't read his book- but for me *in my experience* of many years of dieting, I can eat whatever below a certain point and lose weight. I can eat whatever beyond a certain point and gain. Primal works well for me (I am probably generally below 100 carbs a day) and tend to naturally eat about 1500 calories a day of primal foods and the ratios of fat/protein/carbs and playing with those doesn't really impact whether I lose or not.
It does seem that some people do much better eliminating carbs. Me, it doesn't make a significant difference.[/QUOTE]
I hear what you are saying, and I certainly think you need to find what works for you, no question.
I would suggest, however, that when you find yourself with the time to do so, you either read WHY WE GET FAT (AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT) or watch Taubes' lecture on WHY WE GET FAT (there are versions galore all over youtube - it's only about 70 minutes long). The reason I say this is that I, for one, really believe Taubes is correct in his assessment of why CICO does not apply to weight loss. Because his explanation makes so much sense (to me, at least), I think it can be a very useful tool for people in approach their own dietary choices, since it can change the way you think about what (and how much) you eat. It ties very closely to what Mark recommends in the PB, and so can also serve as a scientific underpinning to the PB world.
Just my $.02 :-)
I have found what works for me... :) I'd like it to work faster, but I enjoy what I eat (the mix of foods and the amounts). I'm not unhappy or thinking "Man, I wish I could eat unlimited amounts of fat". I have no desire for the ability to eat more fat for no real purpose. It was a PITA to get here though, lol, I feel snookered by the low fat eating.... YEARS OF IT.
And I'd say that for the guys, its a little more common to tilt towards the "I can eat a ton of fat and never get fat so long as I avoid carbs"... where as you tend to see quite a few women who end up also having to count calories.
I think that we might be seeing some difference in how women and men respond to low carb, just as we're finally talking about differences in women's responses to IF. Even many women who've done well and felt good on VLC who post here have said that they also needed to be conscious of caloric intake. I wonder if more intensive research on women specifically would show a sex-based variation in response to low carb diets--I'd like to see more studies done specifically looking at women and paleo diets.
[QUOTE=primalhippie;887144]I just finished entering today's eats into PaleoTrack (which I just discovered today, goodbye crappy nutritional recommendations from my previous calorie tracking program!) and I ate a little over 3200 kcal today ... but usually my calories are closer to 1800-1950.[/QUOTE]
The figures are almost certainly incorrect.
I've tried the tracker you mention, and it seemed pretty flakey. It was giving me far higher values for the same input when I cross-checked it with Fitday. It would also keep changing the numbers that were already entered every time I added something new or refreshed the page. I think it's a new service. It's probably got teething problems.
Pop your figures in Fitday and see what you get.
>>>And I'd say that for the guys, its a little more common to tilt towards the "I can eat a ton of fat and never get fat so long as I avoid carbs"... where as you tend to see quite a few women who end up also having to count calories.<<<
I'm the same way, Magnolia. I did "unweighed unmeasured Paleo" for a few months eating a lot of fat and VLC and actually gained. Through a LOT of experimentation and careful recording, I've found that I can lose slow and steadily at about 1500 calories a day and about 100g of carbs. Of course, I never had a lot to lose to begin with, and I'm now about 10 pounds away from my goal (I think, but my BF % will be the true determinant there).
I don't think a "calorie is a calorie", however. I can't imagine being satiated or having the energy I do on a 1500 calorie a day high carb diet. But 1500 calories with plenty of good fats and protein? Very doable, and enough to sustain a slow fat loss.
To second Magnolia about the 'value' of CICO--consider this. Taubes is writing the equivalent of a medical textbook analysis. His is 'correct' for the 'average person.' Someone like me who was morbidly obese from early childhood and at 5'4" was eventually over 300 lbs is not the 'average person'--but common among the obese.
I've read that people like us almost universally have some metabolic dysfunction, and since I've become hypothyroid, my endo has confirmed this. Thus, I cannot eat over 25g of carbs without gaining weight--even if those carbs are all green vegetables. I can also gain weight at that carb level if I eat over my caloric level--which I had to arrive at by trial and error because all the 'calculations' are for 'average people.' No matter the level of carbs, the body doesn't release its own fat without a caloric deficit that requires it to do so. The body is programmed to maintain itself, even its very obese self.
By learning what would work for my particular body, I was able to lose close to 200 lbs (340 - 146) despite being both post-menopausal and hypothyroid, two conditions that work against weight loss.
Yes, Taubes is correct--within a certain context, and CICO may seem reductive, but don't ever be fooled--calories always count.
[B]Magnolia[/B]- If you are gaining on 2000, there is definitely something else going on hormonally. I too used to gain in a maintaining amount (yes, 2000 should be a maintain amount). The larger you are, the more calories you need to sustain that weight. The smaller you are, the less you need etc. (that is if you believe in CICO, which it seems that you do.) If that were true, then why wouldn't you be able to eat 2000 without gaining regardless of macros?
I see that you said you were on a low fat diet for years. Maybe it is possible that it lowered your energy expenditure? I saw that Mark posted a study done on different diets and low fat had the worst effect on energy expenditure. Which makes sense because the body probably though it was in famine, being that there is only carbs and very little fat (which is essential).
I maintain on 2000-2500 usually. I am 5'2 110 pounds. Some days I eat 3000 and it really doesn't affect me much as long as I go back to 2000-2500. The days I eat 3000 are usually not primal, and the macros are mixed. I don't do heavy cardio AT ALL. I do lift weights but I am not a fanatic.
I am not trying to sound like a know it all or tell you what to do. But I know how it feels to feel the need to keep lowering the calories to prevent weight gain. That sucks. I just don't think gaining on 2000 sounds reasonable.
A likely explanation of Magnolia's experience with needing to eat less than one might expect for maintenance:
[url=http://www.drsharma.ca/obesitywhy-is-it-so-hard-to-maintain-a-reduced-body-weight.html]Why is it so Hard to Maintain a Reduced Body Weight? | Dr. Sharma's Obesity Notes[/url]
Eat when you're hungry, don't when you're not.
Were you hungry when you ate all that food? If not, why did you eat it? If you were, then you were listening to your body and giving it what it needed that day. Don't eat again until you're truly hungry. It all balances out.