Do You Think You Can Get Fat Eating Primally? page 16

[StackingPlates]

@ NobleSavage - No, there haven't been actually. I'll save you the energy of digging up those studies as it saves me the energy of having the explain why they were either poorly designed or failed in any other number of ways...

The only macronutrient that has an effect on postprandial thermogenesis (metabolic advantage if you will) is PRO. Want to hear something else that's interesting? CHO actually has a greater effect on postprandial thermogenesis than FAT.

[NobleSavage]

And once again we're back to assumptions and matter-of-fact statements without seemingly any backing. I'd like to hear why these studies were 'poorly' designed/failed 'in a number of ways'.
Also you conveniently ignore the cow example.

Again, im genuinely not pushing for any personal interest in this or that theory. I want the truth. I just see alot of assuming and postulation in the 'calories in, calories out' camp on this site which detracts alot from their credibility.

[magicmerl]

But none of this answers my question of why is it that if muscle is more dense than fat I can build muscle, I can see it, I can flex it, I am stronger and yet I'm always the same size and the same weight? Does this happen to anybody else?

Yes, this happens to me too. (disclaimer: not a woman). I'm not really doing 'primal' to lose weight though, and it seems like a lot of people on here are.

I lost about 10-15 kg reasonable effortlessly in the first six months being primal, and while my waistline is continuing to shrink (now on the tightest rung of my newest belt for my work dress pants), my weight isn't changing.

For me, the point phyiscally is being able to do things like climb up trees with your kids (something I did yesterday).

There have been done several weightloss studies comparing Atkins-like ad libitum diets with low-fat calorie restricted diets (i'll dig them up for you if you want references) They conclusively show a significantly larger weightloss in the ad libitum atkins diets.
Naturally there are two possible explanations to this: The atkins-folks just wasn't as hungry eating good wholefoods OR they had a metabolic advantage because their insulin wasn't storing a gazillion carbs as fat.

There have also been studies which controlled for total calorific intake and compared HFLC diets with HCLF diets, with identical weight loss results for both groups. The 'metabolic advantage' argument is hokum.

How on earth can you reconcile the apparent conundrum of 'eat as much fat/protein as you want and lose weight' with 'calories control weight gain'? Here's how: It's easier for people to eat fewer calories on a HFLC diet.

That's certainly been my experience.

@ NobleSavage - No, there haven't been actually. I'll save you the energy of digging up those studies as it saves me the energy of having the explain why they were either poorly designed or failed in any other number of ways...

Yeah, I think you are wrong here.

[StackingPlates]

Also you conveniently ignore the cow example.

Umm, because we aren't cows? I'd venture to say that the grains they are fed are more calorically dense than the natural diet of the cows and so they are consuming many more calories then they would be if they ate grass. I would also venture to say that a lot of farmers who would feed their cows grains also do other things that aren't natural (read hormone injections and the like). If you are so into the cow example then try and look for controlled cow studies where equal caloric diets were fed using only grass and grains and let me know the conclusions of the study.

And once again we're back to assumptions and matter-of-fact statements without seemingly any backing. I'd like to hear why these studies were 'poorly' designed/failed 'in a number of ways'.

"We're back to..." Excuse me but have we ever communicated before? Fine, I'll bite...post up these studies you mention. Ugh.

[Forgotmylastusername]

No, you wont get fat. Read the books and the references (the science is there and the actual reports stemming from public investigations proving the science).

Effect of dietary protein content on weight gain, energ... [JAMA. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI



Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract
"Thus, fat storage during overfeeding of isoenergetic amounts of diets rich in carbohydrate or in fat was not significantly different, and carbohydrates seemed to be converted to fat by both hepatic and extrahepatic lipogenesis."

Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...QE9gTXvR_fP_Jw

I would really like to believe I could lay on the couch all day and entertain myself with food and not gain fat, but it just won't work out too well.

[sbhikes]

Do you think the volume of food affects the feeling of fullness? Do you eat a big ass salad and feel as full for as long as if you ate a big ass bowl of oats or a big ass pile of bacon and eggs or a big ass steak? I'm just curious. Cows pretty much eat all day long from what I've seen, but if their grain-based food is more dense in calories than grass, do they stop eating because they get full or do they keep on eating like they normally do when they eat grass because eating all the time is just what cows do? Do healthy people eating healthy food stop eating because the capacity of their stomachs has been reached or because they've gotten enough calories? If I started eating lots of salads all the time would I lose weight because my stomach would be full from all these big salads that have relatively low calories? Or would I get hungrier and end up having to eat ever bigger salads every day until it's a wash as far as calories?

[Paleobird]

Referee whistle <Bleeeeep!>

OK. The problem with this mulberry bush that we have been around multiple times is that each camp tries to paint the other camp as believing in the extreme.

If someone says calories count, someone will assume they said that calories are the ONLY thing that matter, strict CICO down the line.

If someone says primal food is more satiating, someone will assume they mean you can stuff yourself senseless on it 24/7 and not gain weight due to some magic metabolic advantage.

Reality is somewhere in the middle. Taubes was right. There are good and bad calories. But even too much of a good thing is too much.

So BOTH are important. The quality of the calories and the quantity. The quality calories keep you fuller longer so that you can restrict the quantity safely, sensibly, and successfully without white knuckled hunger pangs.

Unfortunately, middle of the road non-inflammatory statements seem to not make for nearly as good a knock down drag out.

OK, <Bleeeeeep!> Have at it again. And again. And again.

[tfarny]

Wow, a post that makes sense! On the internet, no less.

Also, can we stop with the cow analogies? If we ate grass like a grassfed cow, we'd be REALLY skinny because we CANT DIGEST WHAT THEY EAT. They are mammals but that's about where the comparison ends. Snakes eat whole, live rodents as their preferred food - maybe there's a message for human nutrition there! V Diana is a hungry alien - YouTube

[Paleobird]

Hard-er. For me, it's pretty easy to overeat anything. 6 eggs is an absolute joke, and I'm still ravenous after a 20oz ribeye. A 20oz ribeye borders on around 1,000 calories. I would much rather eat 3 large chicken breasts for the same caloric load. However, the difference is, I'll tire from eating them much faster. I'll get stuffed and I'll want to stop. If you give me a half gallon of ice cream or a whole tray of brownies, not only will I want to eat til I'm stuffed, I'll want to keep going even if I'm totally stuffed. THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM FOR ICE CREAM. Seriously. There isn't always room for steak and potatoes.

There are a lot of girls on this site though that freak out at the prospect of having to eat 6oz of beef. 6oz of beef is around 3 bites for me...I don't get it...and I envy the hell out of them.

This is the personal preference part but for me it is actually easier to overeat on primal foods because they are my favorites. I really don't like ice cream and brownies. No appeal. (OK so maybe I'm weird.) Same goes for potatoes. But I can go through 6 eggs for breakfast and a 20 oz ribeye for dinner no problem. I am not one of those girls that shy away delicately from meat. The problem is that for me the calories in that day would be too much.

[Paleobird]

Wow, a post that makes sense! On the internet, no less.

Also, can we stop with the cow analogies?

Thank you tfarny. It's nice to see you too.
Couldn't agree more about the cows.