Lots of fat, with no starch or carbs? Or vice versa? page 3

[Betorq]

...what she said.

[counterpuncher]

It'll get burned again only if you don't raise up your insulin over and over. That's how you end up in the vicious circle of weight gain. And you can end up there on a calorie deficit. I know because it happened to me.

I agree with this.

[oxide]

Sigh, so many people still think it's only about calories in/calories out, and that is so obviously not true.

until i turned 42, it was true for me. not anymore.

Operative word being "ONLY." There's that whole "fat-burner" thing which you have to do first. Then you can compare primal calories out to primal calories in.

[sakura_girl]

...what she said.

+1

[noodletoy]

Sigh, so many people still think it's only about calories in/calories out, and that is so obviously not true.

until i turned 42, it was true for me. not anymore.

Operative word being "ONLY." There's that whole "fat-burner" thing which you have to do first. Then you can compare primal calories out to primal calories in.

it worked great, and i was back in my very old size 6 jeans. until i turned 47 and my hormones went berserk and i have added 10 pounds that simply will not go. along with a bloated angry uterus that makes me look preggers. SUX.

[Iron Fireling]

I disagree. If you are undereating, then after the fat is stored, it will get burned again because where in the world is your energy going to come from when you're undereating? 400 calories of pure butter will be burned just as much as 400 calories of mixed rice and butter.

This is true to a certain extent. However, I think the problem is that as a result you get hungry again faster, then eat more and go through the whole process again. Obviously if you don't go and eat more then you'll lose the fat.

To me it's more about hunger/desire for food. If you eat a high fat/low carb meal and remain completely satiated for hours then you'll end up burning more fat than if you eat a high fat/high carb meal (of the same calories), get the insulin spike, store the fat and then experience hunger more rapidly and eat more later.

Of course, all else being equal the calories should be the same.

Still, since going primal and eating high fat/low carb my weight has started coming down quite easily, and I struggled for a looong time cutting the fat down and eating more carbs. So it seems that for ME this is the way to go. I am not everyone though . I also can't say what will happen down the track as I still have a lot of fat to lose and I may need to re-jig as I go along to keep the fat coming off.

For now, this is the easiest I've ever lost weight in my life (errm except when I was taking prescription diet drugs and lost desire for food ). I fully acknowledge that it's not going to be the same for everyone.

[BennettC]

carbohyrdrates purpose is to be stored as fat. even a small meal of carb stops fat burning.

[Uncephalized]

carbohyrdrates purpose is to be stored as fat. even a small meal of carb stops fat burning.

This is just not true, as far as I can tell from the science I've read and had explained to me. It's one of the pervasive myths of the low-carb world. It's also physically impossible, since if a small amount of carbs interfered with burning fat, then you would die every time you ate a handful of cheerios, because you would burn off the carb-calories in a half hour but the magical fat-blocking mechanism would still be active somehow, and you would be unable to get energy to your cells and your brain would die.

Luckily, your body is not that stupid, and your fat metabolism does not shut down when you eat oatmeal, and carbohydrate is a perfectly good source of energy for healthy people.

[Timthetaco]

This article seems to confirm your suspicion!

No common energy currency: de novo lipogenesis as the road less traveled

Things like that make it really hard to believe the insulin hypothesis. For the cognitively dissonant who refuse to read the link, it basically says the body prioritizes oxidizing glucose over fatty acids, so in the presence of both--when consumed in excess of energy expenditure, in other words, too many calories--the body will store the fat and burn the glucose, thus making you... you know, fatter. De novo lipogenesis is possible, but far more common in the eat-whatever-the-hell-I-want-oh-look-cookies SAD eater than a young, Crossfitting paleo dieter who thinks they gained five pounds after eating a cookie because it spiked their blood sugar and insulin. Either way, it doesn't appear to contribute significantly to body fat stores except in the context of massive overfeeding with very little fat. That was written back in 2001. If there have been any significant additions to the literature on this subject since then, I encourage someone to share them.

tl;dr: Eat potatoes and enjoy them, damnit! (unless you're diabetic [but even diabetics have to admit that ketogenic low carb does not restore their insulin sensitivity; it simply keeps blood sugar in better check])

^ You see that? That's a post that won't make me any friends.

[Neckhammer]

^There is actually a lot more research out there since then....literally a ton. I'm sure your google scholar works though.