[QUOTE=VeggieLover;923252]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?[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
ooohhh here we go again...smh
[QUOTE=Diana Renata;923275]Short answer... it's about both.
Calories count, but they also have context.
It's just that easy. :)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=not on the rug;923271]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.[/QUOTE]
How does this contribute to the OPs original question? : )
It's about both. +1,001
It's also about the health/unhealth of the subjects in the study. People with unhealthy amounts of bodyfat respond differently from people with healthy BMIs. It's also about whether or not you were allowed to become a fat child because that is the only time you can increase the [I]number[/I] of fat cells; in adulthood, your number of fat cells remain fairly constant but get larger and smaller depending on what you feed them. Medications can make a difference.
It's about a lot of different factors.
Putting on the kale chips to watch the fun.
Can someone explain kale chips to me. What is the fascination? Is it that they are some kind of vehicle for parmesan cheese? I'll admit I've never had kale chips and I'm suspicious of their popularity. In fact, I'm suspicious of the popularity of kale as a whole. Those vegan kale salads which I've tried at potlucks are like eating gorilla leaves. Seriously, kale is the decoration around salad bars, not real food. The exception is black kale which is pretty good when stir fried.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;923288] Eat 12 extra large eggs. First of all, you will probably fail.[/QUOTE]
I would like to test this. LOL
[QUOTE=BrodieMN;923256]I would be interested to read from the more seasoned members on this topic, [/QUOTE]By 'seasoned' do you mean experienced, or old? ;) I sort of qualify with both, I think~ anyway, it's easy for someone in their 20's to say CICO is the only way, even at 30 it still works for most people. But for me, somewhere around 40, my system started processing certain foods differently. Whether I lost the 'forgiving' nature of youth, or just outgrew the 'instant energy' needs, my body started to conserve. It's sometimes called the *middle age spread* :p but basically, even people that have never had a weight problem, discover that their weight/body composition changes even though their eating habits/CI have not.
You'll read over and over here that's it CICO and composition doesn't matters, but those posts are mostly written by 20something members and for them, it's still true. For me, at 62, the kind of CI makes a BIG difference! My body is not so forgiving~ I have to watch the carbs.
[QUOTE=WeldingHank;923323]I would like to test this. LOL[/QUOTE]
Oh, I could easily destroy 12 extra large eggs. I could eat that in maybe 3-4 minutes. Hence the [I]probably[/I]. But eventually when the fullness sets in, it'll stay with you longer than, say, a 1,000 calorie loaf of wheat bread or a bowl of pasta.