Page 14 of 69 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 14

  1. #131
    mrexec1986's Avatar
    mrexec1986 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    25
    Primal Fuel
    Calories do matter. The thing is that no one person has the same caloric needs as the other. Where as I might need 3000 calories per day to maintain, other people may need less or more. Genetics, body composition, and activity level all contribute to this. That is just the way it is. Now this may not be entirely the case for people that have messed up metabolisms/insulin resistance/diabetes, and I bet that really sucks for them.

  2. #132
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by mrexec1986 View Post
    Calories do matter. The thing is that no one person has the same caloric needs as the other. Where as I might need 3000 calories per day to maintain, other people may need less or more. Genetics, body composition, and activity level all contribute to this. That is just the way it is. Now this may not be entirely the case for people that have messed up metabolisms/insulin resistance/diabetes, and I bet that really sucks for them.
    Truly insightful.

    And yes, it does suck. Thanks for the sympathy.

  3. #133
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    The point of what I said in my MDA Friday success story post was that it is not a question of CICO or GCBC. You don't have to pick one or the other. It's both. The quality of the calories you eat make it easier to restrict the quantity without white knuckled hunger.
    Yup. Health first, calorie counting second (if you want). Quality food makes it far more likely that a CICO weight loss strategy will actually work and be sustainable.

  4. #134
    magnolia1973's Avatar
    magnolia1973 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,985
    I actually think in terms of evolution... it would be BETTER to be someone with a slow metabolism since food was limited. Needing 5000 calories a day is not beneficial when you have to catch it, but hey, if you can stay fat and happy on 1200 a day or better yet, 800... you are probably better off back when food required effort.

    One thing I wonder about Grok- why wouldn't Grok want to more easily put on weight to store as energy for bad times? I'd think someone like me- with fat, but still fit enough to move would be better off than someone who was thin, lean and needed say 4000 calories a day. I also think I'd be more likely to be able to have and raise kids then some poor, thin woman who needed a lot of food.

    Up until recently, it was not a particular advantage to have a high metabolism, was it?

    I mean heck, if I'm a man and have to catch food for my wife, I'd kind of want the chick that stays plump on nothing at all vs. the slender one that eats more than I do.

  5. #135
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,809
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia1973 View Post
    I actually think in terms of evolution... it would be BETTER to be someone with a slow metabolism since food was limited. Needing 5000 calories a day is not beneficial when you have to catch it, but hey, if you can stay fat and happy on 1200 a day or better yet, 800... you are probably better off back when food required effort.

    One thing I wonder about Grok- why wouldn't Grok want to more easily put on weight to store as energy for bad times? I'd think someone like me- with fat, but still fit enough to move would be better off than someone who was thin, lean and needed say 4000 calories a day. I also think I'd be more likely to be able to have and raise kids then some poor, thin woman who needed a lot of food.

    Up until recently, it was not a particular advantage to have a high metabolism, was it?

    I mean heck, if I'm a man and have to catch food for my wife, I'd kind of want the chick that stays plump on nothing at all vs. the slender one that eats more than I do.
    Very good points. We don't want nor need a higher metabolic rate (quantity)....we want quality metabolism, which many in the longevity circles associate with a slightly slower rate.

  6. #136
    Lily Marie's Avatar
    Lily Marie is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    717
    As someone with T2D and a paraplegic, I need a low carb diet. I only need 90g of protein a day and under 30g carbs. Just meeting those needs isn't enough. I'd shrivel and die of malnutrition(or eat someone) - I have to have more calories than those two macro nutrient groups usually provide. I have to eat a few hundred calories in fat to hover around 1000 cals a day. I always crash and burn when not adding in supplimental fat sources(almost always gf beef tallow). Calories do count for me. If I ate those all in a single food group, that would matter too.

    Even people with metabolism problems and such have the same "individuality" in their needs as normal bodied people.

  7. #137
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,783
    Here are a few thoughts if I may.

    Calorie count works.

    But there are problems.

    Maintaining it long-term in deficit is hard. A few months, a year… the longer you maintain chronic deficit or low level, the harder it gets. Logically, it should get easier, but it doesn’t. Enduring hunger just doesn't come naturally. The fat cells do not die, they say, and they scream for food, hence, your former pounds always work to come back, tiring you out….

    Macronutrients and quality of food help, but only to a degree. At certain points I think it is not uncommon to experience positive emotions about the sensation of hunger (I am hungry therefore I am successful) but long term hunger is exhausting and depressing.

    In gender vs macronutrients vs food volumetric, it’s harder for women for Paleo principals specifically because high fat on an average woman caloric allocation to lose weight (~ 1000-1300 calories) the volume of food is diminishingly low once fat goes up. In my experience as well, women feel fuller with higher carb content and higher dairy content.

    Calorie counting in my case has one effect that I do not like: a tendency to eat in an ‘itemized way’.

    The calorie count is far easier when you eat a boiled egg or a package something (a can of tuna; a scoop of whey).

    Complex dishes with multiple ingredients (unless it’s a frozen dinner) are hard to estimate.

    Counts are also very easily thrown off by the Fat Variable, which is how much fat is on this steak vs that steak and how much coconut oil got consumed when you fried your egg whites. How full that tbsp of almond butter was.

    Finally, calorie counts are very hard when you cook for a family and eat some of the dish you are sharing with the others. I calculate the total for the dish, then divide per whatever parts, and have to visually divide the dish into portions.

    I don’t know about the others, but I find that even with the calorie count I always have my doubts.

    To be honest, the easiest way to track CICO so far that I found was weighing myself a couple of times a day (morning and after supper). It is easier, faster, and eliminates the puzzling stuff.

    Also, I wanted to add, that I have experienced sticking points in the weight loss, when an unproportional amount of efforts is needed to shift weight past the set point.

    *Bites off another piece of a celery stick*
    Last edited by Leida; 07-26-2012 at 12:51 PM.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  8. #138
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BestBetter View Post
    Truly insightful.
    And yes, it does suck. Thanks for the sympathy.
    Well, he actually did have a point. I only made calorie counting work when I decided to ignore all the tables and charts telling me how much I "should" be eating and also ignore the dire warnings about "starvation mode" and how you should never ever go below 1200/day. Yada, yada. That is all designed with a sugar burning metabolism in mind. If you are fat adapted, you can eat much less without the sky falling or anything.

    One place that we Grokelles often go wrong is in serving out equal portions to ourselves and or male SOs. We don't need that much. Once you have lived on less (without falling skies) this becomes clear. Then more intuitive portion control becomes possible.

  9. #139
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,783
    One place that we Grokelles often go wrong is in serving out equal portions to ourselves and or male SOs. We don't need that much. Once you have lived on less (without falling skies) this becomes clear. Then more intuitive portion control becomes possible.
    What if it always falls over? I tried eating pure fat 2 to 3 times, and I screamed for mercy by 2-4 pm? I do not have the dizzy-disoriented hunger spells any longer, but I just don't do well on <1,300 cals a day? I did 900-1100 cals days for Lyle's diet, and weeks turned into black misery.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  10. #140
    Gadsie's Avatar
    Gadsie is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Groningen, Netherlands
    Posts
    1,932
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia1973 View Post
    I actually think in terms of evolution... it would be BETTER to be someone with a slow metabolism since food was limited. Needing 5000 calories a day is not beneficial when you have to catch it, but hey, if you can stay fat and happy on 1200 a day or better yet, 800... you are probably better off back when food required effort.

    One thing I wonder about Grok- why wouldn't Grok want to more easily put on weight to store as energy for bad times? I'd think someone like me- with fat, but still fit enough to move would be better off than someone who was thin, lean and needed say 4000 calories a day. I also think I'd be more likely to be able to have and raise kids then some poor, thin woman who needed a lot of food.

    Up until recently, it was not a particular advantage to have a high metabolism, was it?

    I mean heck, if I'm a man and have to catch food for my wife, I'd kind of want the chick that stays plump on nothing at all vs. the slender one that eats more than I do.
    I have to agree. And when you eat primal, even in the modern world, you still have to kind of "catch" your food, meaning it is harder to get good quality food than to go to mcdonalds. I (still) have a high metabolism, and because of this all I'm doing is looking ("hunting") for real food in order not to go to bed hungry. I think a slower metabolism has a lot of benefits as well. But hey, the grass is always greener on the other side
    Billie trips balls

Page 14 of 69 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •