Is it really about low carb or calories in/out? page

[VeggieLover]

Ive been doing so much research on all of this and I see how so many people say they eat a ton more calories now that they are paleo as long as try keep their carbs on the low end, they lose weight, I've seen plenty of research though that states it really is about calories in/calories out. Feeling a bit confused, is it just that paleo keeps you fuller so in the end you dont eat as many calories? Or is there something to be said about being low carb, which just burns your own body fat?

[BrodieMN]

I would be interested to read from the more seasoned members on this topic, but there has been times where I ate really low carb and had a 16 ounce steak with a few mushrooms in butter at 8pm. Woke up the next morning and lost a pound...I was blown away. My experience could be an abberation though.

[Forgotmylastusername]

"is it just that paleo keeps you fuller so in the end you dont eat as many calories?"

Yes. Most people find low-carb works by increasing protein and fat, which they find more satiating and lead to you consume less calories. Others can consume a high carb diet with potatoes and fruit and get the same effect. Find the foods that give you the best satiety per calorie and appetite control.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046
DESIGN: Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 34.4 +/- 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with approximately 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; approximately 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.

CONCLUSIONS:
KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22215165

Among persons living in a controlled setting, calories alone account for the increase in fat; protein affected energy expenditure and storage of lean body mass, but not body fat storage.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815

This study showed that independently of the method for weight loss, the negative energy balance alone is responsible for weight reduction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1734671
Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057

The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i...oss.html#ref18

[not on the rug]

hold on, hold on...lemme get my popcorn...

[2tall]

hold on, hold on...lemme get my popcorn...

Hold on. Popcorn isn't primal.

[Nivanthe]

I would be interested to read from the more seasoned members on this topic,

Have fun... recent 50+ page discussion

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread62656.html

[not on the rug]

Hold on. Popcorn isn't primal.

there's a thread on that too! allow me to rephrase... let me make some homemade, organic, non-gmo corn, popped in coconut oil, drizzled with melted kerrygold and dusted with himalayan salt or finely shredded imported parmigiano reggiano cheese. because that's how i do it at my house every couple of weeks.

[Diana Renata]

Short answer... it's about both.

Calories count, but they also have context.

It's just that easy.

[Tribal Rob]

Short answer... it's about both.

Calories count, but they also have context.

It's just that easy.

^^^^^^^^ TRUE^^^^^^^

Now let us never speak of it again

[Fernaldo]

My favorite answer to these types of questions are: Yes.