[QUOTE=Paleomom4;916643]So question about counting calories.....I started paleo this Spring and I've gained 10 pounds. Some of it is muscle, but I still have a lot of fat to get rid of. So, I started counting calories (I use myfooddiary.com). How do I know which level of calories to eat to for weight loss? Do I do a BMR calculator and subtract 500 from that? If I did that, my BMR is about 1400 so I would have to eat 900 calories? I CAN'T do that.
Does anyone know of a good formula for those of us who need to count calories to lose?[/QUOTE]
You are not meant to eat below your BMR but below your TDEE. But the calculators you use to work out BMR are not completely accurate.
So just say what you said about eating 500 below your BMR of 1400 is correct and you would need to eat 900 calories to lose. If you instead burned 500 calories doing daily exercise you would be able to eat 1400 calories but still have a deficit from your exercise of 500 calories and should still lose weight.
But then there are those that workout that to lose a certain amount of weight they would have to eat say 1200 calories to have a steady weight loss of 1lb per week. So just eating 1200 calories, no exercise, will deliver 1lb weight loss per week. If you also decide to exercise and say burn 500 calories daily - you just eat back those exercise calories burned so that you end up eating 1700 calories per day but should still see a 1lb loss per week.
This is pretty good:
[QUOTE=Sue;916803]Evelyn posted about the guest poster Jonathan Bailor and certain studies:
[url=http://carbsanity.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/the-smarter-science-of-slim-general.html]The Carb-Sane Asylum: The Smarter Science of Slim ~ General Thoughts[/url]
[url=http://carbsanity.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/is-it-possible-smarter-science-worse.html]The Carb-Sane Asylum: Is it Possible? "Smarter Science" worse than "Good" Science Journalism?[/url][/QUOTE]
Insane is not worth the time to read.
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;916838]Insane is not worth the time to read.[/QUOTE]
Yeh she is.
[quote]Do I do a BMR calculator and subtract 500 from that? If I did that, my BMR is about 1400 so I would have to eat 900 calories? I CAN'T do that.[/quote]
Eat AT BMR, or as close to it as you can. BMR is the expenditure if you would lie around doing nothing all day. Any activity you do will count as your deficit. It is not recommended to eat below BMR for more than 3 days in a row, even on the paleo/primal fare.
[QUOTE=StackingPlates;916589]What will get you ripped is working your ass off consistently and maintaining macro/micro/caloric requirements over a long period of time. If those foods fit within your caloric and micro/macro goals then there is absolutely nothing wrong with consuming them. It sounds as if your Facebook group has many examples which supports this logic...
When folks say you must abstain from things like this (not singling you out) and only eat food x or food y to lose weight then that is fear mongering at it's finest (worst?)...it creates very unhealthy relationships with food.[/QUOTE]
Then you're in agreement with me - when it comes to "weight" loss, it pretty much comes down to the energy deficit. The Primal Blueprint has an advantage for weight loss not because of some magical metabolic advantage that doesn't let your body store whole foods as fat, but because whole foods will provide better satiety and more nutrition per calorie, typically making a caloric deficit easier to handle from a sustainability standpoint.
However, that doesn't mean there "is absolutely nothing wrong with consuming them." There is a whole lot wrong with them. Health and body composition are two very, very different things. There are plenty of boneheads out there eating shit food and just tracking their macros because they don't care about their health or they're completely ignorant to health. If you want a diet of protein powder, pseudo cheesecake, egg substitute, gluten and rancid oil, that's your call. I would rather have a higher body fat and be healthier. Look at the facts: body builders are typically NOT healthy. They do not have long lifespans. People that live the longest, healthiest lives are almost always of average body composition.
Apparently the Krispy Kreme McMuffin thing was such a hit it's being repeated.
I'm sorry, but even 5 years ago I wouldn't have wanted to eat that. I've never really cared for doughnuts, and btw that's "fat free cheese." Has anyone actually TRIED fat free cheese? It's basically skim milk, xanthan gum, modified food starch and tons of salt. It tastes like super salty plastic. DISGUSTING. Hell, even whole milk Kraft singles are disgusting. How anyone can eat American cheese in those individuals wrappers is beyond me. If he at least used regular bagels, he could have fat normal cheese into his macros...ugh.
okay, there is a loooot of different arguments happening on this thread that are marked deviations from what the OP was about.
People are talking about health effects, mental effects, performance effects and sustainability effects. I believe that the main argument that was being purported by Choco was that for MOST people from a [B]PURE WEIGHT LOSS PERSPECTIVE[/B] the determinative factor IS calories in vs. calories out. Not, performance, health, mental etc, just from a pure weight loss perspective. Anyone who is NOT losing weight with the CICO paradigm is because they have not yet discovered the amount of calories needed for their TDEE or are using some arbitrary online calculator.
Whether one can adequately sustain eating twinkies long term or one wants to blow their frontal lobes out after eating high amount of sugar and refined carbs...that's another argument.
I was wondering how alcohol might affect this CICO paradigm. Will drinking 500 calories of alcohol and then eating 500 calories have the same weight loss effects than eating just 1000 calories? or does alcohol infact impair whatever metabolic advantage there is, if any?
Drinking calories in is easier than eating calories. A common advice to hard-gainers is drinking calories. Alcohol that replaces dessert or snacking after supper promotes weight loss, because if you sip on your wine replacing food, you win caloric equation. If you drink in addition to your meal, you will gain because you will be taking an excess of empty calories. I think drinking alcohol is much like drinking juice or adding sugar into your beverage. It serves no purpose but boost calories, with some minimal antioxidants or whatever, that can be found elsewhere. But I have never touched the drop, so I can't see the appeal.
I'm sorry but those still look like bagels to me. I know there's a krispy kreme shop somewhere around here because sometimes they turn up at office meetings, but I have never actually been to a krispy kreme shop myself so I guess I'm just not familiar with donuts that look like bagels.
By the way, real American cheese is really good. If you can find it.
Oh, and long ago before I adopted this diet I read Carb Sane's website because I didn't believe eating meat and fat and avoiding grains and going low carb was healthy. After reading her whole site I concluded she was a total nut case. She's disgruntled because she didn't get the weight loss she wanted. It really seems odd that so many people now just love her. It also seems really odd that it's in fashion to declare "I'm not paleo anymore. I hate paleo." If that's what people want to do that's fine, but I love paleo. I love the food, I love how it makes me feel, I love the positive health results I've had, I love the simplicity of cooking, I love that my food doesn't sit in a pantry growing moth larva. I love that when I'm hiking in the mountains the food I see is greens, mushrooms and moose and when I go home and open my fridge I see greens, mushrooms and meat. I have no intention of following the trend to love Carb Sane and that other Richard guy and the once reasonable now completely angry wack-job Dr. Harris. That's all popularity contest bull-shit. The science hasn't changed.
[QUOTE=jakey;916565]this food porn is getting me all hot & bothered.[/QUOTE]