This is nothing new for the "Choco Group". PHD wrote about it 2 years ago, and I am sure he was not the first, but it is lower than the normal paleo/pb/phd. And he is higher fat normally, just not for weight loss especially for women in this age group. (again not talking any other medical issues) I feel good about following PHD because I feel it has Mark's stamp of approval.[/QUOTE]
My point is Mark wrote the prologue and when asked about the carb debate he simply states that they are on the higher end of his scale....but the basic premises are the same so don't sweat the small stuff. In my opinion its the same here. Your 5-10% is only speaking of an actual difference of 80-160 calories if your eating 1600 calories. I doubt anybody can find me any studies ANYWHERE that show a significant difference in health, weight, or lean mass when you simply switch out fat and carbs for that many calories. In fact we looked at a study much like this in another thread that compared 50g of carb intake to 150g on an isocaloric diet. No significant difference. No, the higher carbs did not help retain more lean mass. The high fat diet fared just as well in all markers. Like I said, there is no use sweating the small stuff.
You like a bit more carbs go on. N=1 is the best you got when the studies show no significant difference. Go with what works for you. Really I think there are bigger fish to fry in this age group. Many of which are mobility related. Not for everyone, but for a significant number.
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1098841] Your 5-10% is only speaking of an actual difference of 80-160 calories if your eating 1600 calories. I doubt anybody can find me any studies ANYWHERE that show a significant difference in health, weight, or lean mass when you simply switch out fat and carbs for that many calories. [/QUOTE]
Yal I had typed, and then my dog jumped up and deleted and I didnt feel like re-typing everything, but PHD also recommends 1300 calories. (more for exercise)
I just feel like it all adds up. One of the first things ppl ask you when you arent making progress, is how many calories are you eating.
I don't really know why I said 5-10%. I think I was thinking of the difference between a 3-way split (33%) and the 40% recommended for Fat Loss. So the difference is more like 20% or more from PB guideline. When you are pushing fat even farther over 60%, it is just that much greater to where I was eating twice as much fat as I should.
Again, I am talking about the fat, not the carbs. My carbs vary daily. It is the fat I am trying to reign in. And I make sure I get enough protein. The protein source is my fat source for the most part.
Not looking to argue or anything. Just saying it all adds up. It would be like someone trying to stay in ketosis eating 20% - 50% more carbs ( & protein?) than they should and then wondering why they can't stay in ketosis.
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1098841]No significant difference. No, the higher carbs did not help retain more lean mass. The high fat diet fared just as well in all markers. Like I said, there is [B]no use sweating the small stuff.[/B] [/QUOTE]
I just got to thinking, for me I guess it is the small stuff that makes all the difference in my success.
In looking at my tracking and weight loss numbers:
30% fat is 8-10lbs per month
50% fat when I found PB, weight loss dropped to 4-5lb
With every % of fat increase, weight loss decreased, until 75%/80% weight loss stopped. 80% is a gain. And this is all with calories in check.
So for my N=1, the small stuff does matter and makes all the difference in the world to my fat loss success. If I know I can lose fat at 40% and not as much at 50% dietary fat, and if fat loss is my goal, then I know what I need to do. Now if I couldn't do it for some reason or didnt like my food choices, then I would just need to be happy with 50% and take what I can get.
That is my line of thinking anyways. Do what I can do, and then don't sweat the rest out of my control.