Fat Loss Bible- It's about Calories not carbs!

I somehow had Fat Loss Bible bookmarked on my computer, just came across it and for all of you who have not read it ([url=http://www.thefatlossbible.net]The Fat Loss Bible - The Official Fat Loss Bible Web Site![/url]), it mentions it really is about calorie counting instead of carbs. Primal works because you are reducing calories without thinking about it because it promotes satiety. I am confused now because there are proponents of primal out there that say you can't burn fat if you consume too many carbs, whereas this discusses calories in/out, whatever that may mean for you, if that means consuming more carbs then go for it. For me, I think I tend to do better with higher carb, lower protein, as I can easily go over when I consume too much fats and protein in the same meal. Anyone have any thoughts on this relating to their own experiences with weight loss?

I don't think there's many people left who say you can't burn fat being high carb.
The fat loss bible is more targeted at people looking to go from flabby to ripped. It's a pretty good factual straight forward book for people looking to lose fat, though Lyle mcdonalds are probably better and go more in depth.

[QUOTE=Forgotmylastusername;1016629]I don't think there's many people left who say you can't burn fat being high carb.
The fat loss bible is more targeted at people looking to go from flabby to ripped. It's a pretty good factual straight forward book for people looking to lose fat, though Lyle mcdonalds are probably better and go more in depth.[/QUOTE]

My general take was that you can intensify/increase fat burning and weight loss by going the lowER carb route, as well as breaking through plateaus. Not sure if that's correct or not, but it's what I intend to try :P

I second the Lyle McDonald recommendation.

Regarding your question/topic, I have lost fat with CW and I have lost fat with a Primal diet. My experiences have told me how I react with various macro-nutrient percentages; and I use my past experience today. Everyone operates slightly different with various macro-nutrient profiles.

Overall, these are the fat-loss basics, I have learned:

- Want to lose fat? Create a caloric deficit in your diet.
- Want to lose fat faster? Strategically create a caloric deficit based on workout-days, rest-days, & macro-nutrient percentages.

I don't know. I still think it is more about the unique affects of carbs on metabolism personally. I think calories matter but are not the most important thing. Could be wrong. I'm still influenced by Taubes who was my entree into paleo-ish thinking. It is a tricky situation with good points on both sides. I think Taubes was right to point the oversimplification of calorie counting as a method of weight loss. Hormones, nutrient partitioning, and the differential metabolism of different nutrients all matter and are affected by the content of what we eat, not the sheer volume. We are not calorie burning machines, we are living organisms. Also, caloric restriction clearly works, at least in the short term. What I've read makes me think it is not that effective in the long term and does not address more important factors.

[QUOTE=SJW2;1016660]I don't know. I still think it is more about the unique affects of carbs on metabolism personally. I think calories matter but are not the most important thing. Could be wrong. I'm still influenced by Taubes who was my entree into paleo-ish thinking. It is a tricky situation with good points on both sides. I think Taubes was right to point the oversimplification of calorie counting as a method of weight loss. Hormones, nutrient partitioning, and the differential metabolism of different nutrients all matter and are affected by the content of what we eat, not the sheer volume. We are not calorie burning machines, we are living organisms. Also, caloric restriction clearly works, at least in the short term. What I've read makes me think it is not that effective in the long term and does not address more important factors.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

When I ate 1300 calories/day on CW, I could barely maintain a skinny-fat body.
When I cut to 1100 calories/day on CW, I didn't lose much but I was miserable.
This is with a lot of exercise.

When I ate 1300 calories/day Primal, I was stuffed beyond belief and lost one pound.
When I cut to 1100 calories/day Primal to feel less full, I lost 9 pounds very slowly and now I weigh less now than I did before puberty.
This is with almost no exercise and the midst of a depression.

Y'all can debate back and forth, but I know the path for me.

It's a pretty good factual straight forward book for people looking to lose fat

WEIGHTloss is about calories.

FATloss is about much, much more. It's about calories, yes, but ALSO what you eat, what you drink, how you workout, how OFTEN you workout, ect.

I agree with Oxide.
I went primal two months ago. Since then, I have consistently lost 2lbs per week. At first, I was worried I needed to work out/exercise in order to lose weight. But I have since realized that the amount of calories I eat per day is only dependent on how much I exercise. In other words, I lose two pounds regardless of what I eat or how much I exercise. Granted, I have been eating between 50 and 100 grams of carbs per day. My charts show that my caloric intake fluctuated depending on how much I exercised (exercise made me more hungry). But in general, I have lost an average of 2lbs or week. Not sure what my body fat percentage is right now, or how much longer I can continue to lose at this rate, but so far it has been very constant.