Question re: fuel and weight loss page

[Lemmmmon]

Hi All,

I'm new to the primal/paleo lifestyle and am having trouble wrapping my brain around how weight loss occurs with re-adjusted macros - that is, more fat, less carbs - but no significant change in calories consumed.

On a basic level, our body needs some thing to burn as fuel. If I consume 400 calories of carbs, how does that differ from 400 calories of fat? The way I understand it, the 400 calories of fat doesn't spike blood sugar, making me less hungry/lessens my "itching" for the next hit of food. As a result, I consumer fewer overall calories because of hunger depletion if I stick to a 50/30/20 (fat/protein/carb) split than a more traditional 20/30/50 split. But then isn't the primal/paleo diet just using calorie reduction as a mechanism for weight loss?

My guess is that you'll say no, it's not.....then I would ask, other than why, is it that the body processes fat such that when consumed, it doesn't release insulin? And if so, given insulin's role in "unlocking pores....[so that] nutrients can be stored inside the cell" (quoting primal blueprint book), wouldn't this be a negative thing?

Thanks to anyone who can explain this in plain terms for me....

[Voyageur]

.

You've got the basics down.

I suggest you ignore much of what you're going to be told here. I just heard a bunch of cookies hit computer desks.... and away we go!

.

[js290]

Hi All,

I'm new to the primal/paleo lifestyle and am having trouble wrapping my brain around how weight loss occurs with re-adjusted macros - that is, more fat, less carbs - but no significant change in calories consumed.

Dr Rosedale, a portion of Boston Speech at the Heinz Conference - YouTube

On a basic level, our body needs some thing to burn as fuel. If I consume 400 calories of carbs, how does that differ from 400 calories of fat? The way I understand it, the 400 calories of fat doesn't spike blood sugar, making me less hungry/lessens my "itching" for the next hit of food. As a result, I consumer fewer overall calories because of hunger depletion if I stick to a 50/30/20 (fat/protein/carb) split than a more traditional 20/30/50 split. But then isn't the primal/paleo diet just using calorie reduction as a mechanism for weight loss?

The body doesn't burn calories. It burns ATP.

[sbhikes]

Is a Calorie Really a Calorie? Metabolic Advantage of Low-Carbohydrate Diets
The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. » AC Fat Loss Bible critique part II

[Lemmmmon]

Thank you all so much for the resources!! Much appreciated

[jakey]

.

You've got the basics down.

I suggest you ignore much of what you're going to be told here. I just heard a bunch of cookies hit computer desks.... and away we go!

.

agreed, you understand this better than half the hacks on here. get ready for the BS to flow. calories count. macros are important to the extent they keep you healthy and feeling full. but to lose weight, you need to be in a caloric deficit.

[Analog6]

Carbohydrates trigger an insulin response and fats and proteins do not. That is it. A calorie is simply a measure (and a very crude and unsatisfactory one, IMHO) of the energy of the food.

Read Taubes, Bernstein, Eades, Briffa, Atkins. They all understood and have codifed somewhat the metabolic advantage gained by reducing the % of carbs in the diet.

Useful Blogs:
Weight of the Evidence
Protein Power - Eades
Jimmy Moore's blog

[jakey]

there is no metabolic advantage to low carb eating. there is no tooth fairy. there is no santa.

[@lex]

there is no metabolic advantage to low carb eating. there is no tooth fairy. there is no santa.

Why do you insist on raping my dreams and sending me copies of the directors cut?

[Neckhammer]

there is no metabolic advantage to low carb eating. there is no tooth fairy. there is no santa.

and there is no queen of england! This is the real world, and you need to wake up!

Ah, its good to have kids. Can you name that tune?