This is a load of BS. I used to gain weight eating fewer calories than I do now. And almost EVERYONE who gains weight is having a nutrient deficit. Which is part of why they keep eating.
Originally Posted by js290
As for you famous equation: "calories in <-> calories out" as a comparison is correct, but you have to calculate both halves of this equation before you compare them to see if there is a deficit. The "calories in" half is pretty easy to calculate. But what do you know about the "calories OUT" half of the equation? Taubes spent an entire book basically saying that nobody knows dip squat how to calculate the calories-out half of the equation.*
In other words, CW is sort of right. Which is why CW is so dangerous. The equation is easy enough for most people to grasp, but what if you go a level deeper and ask about individual terms? Oh god, that sounds like MATH, or worse yet, it sounds like THINKING. And we can't be having any o' that. No wonder most people can't go primal.
That said, calories do matter somewhat. The trick is to keep the same ratio of carb/fat/protein, but with a lower overall calorie level. How many overall calories you should have depends on how tall you are, but I would shoot for 1400 overall calories: About 50% fat calories (80 grams); 30% protein (100 grams); and 20% carb (70 grams). Be sure to calculate the carb grams in the veggies; it's very easy to get to 70 grams before you know it.
You're not quite a month in, so I wouldn't worry about "lift days" and "rest days" until you're more accustomed to being primal.
* The book was published in 2006; a lot more is now known about "calories out:" it's a complex mix of leptin(?), insulin and other hormones respond to diet, genetic expression, and the like. It is certainly NOT calculated by counting how minutes you did on the elliptical.
5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.