Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Fat Loss Bible- It's about Calories not carbs! page 2

  1. #11
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelly6 View Post
    My general take was that you can intensify/increase fat burning and weight loss by going the lowER carb route, as well as breaking through plateaus. Not sure if that's correct or not, but it's what I intend to try :P
    Anthony Colpo disproves this pretty well.

  2. #12
    ez2cy's Avatar
    ez2cy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    314
    Not much differance from what I've said before. Documentary about how Atkins diet worked. People ate less calories and felt full, plain and simple. I have to go look for the link. Great watch
    55 yr old male


    07/01/2013

    Weight; 199
    Chest; 41.5
    Waist; 42
    Hips; 40
    Thigh; 22.5
    Calf; 15
    Bicep: 13
    Forearm; 11.5
    Neck; 17

    07/20/2013

    Weight; 200
    Chest; 42
    Waist; 42.5
    Hips; 39
    Thigh; 23
    Calf; 15
    Bicep: 13
    Forearm; 11.5
    Neck; 16

  3. #13
    inesenite's Avatar
    inesenite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumroll View Post
    WEIGHTloss is about calories.

    FATloss is about much, much more. It's about calories, yes, but ALSO what you eat, what you drink, how you workout, how OFTEN you workout, ect.
    Drumroll said it all.

    My personal experience - I lost under 20 kgs on "clean" CW calorie-restricted diet (5 months with average deficit of 750 cals - I was eating about 2000 cals a day and exercising quite a lot), so I believe that calories matter, no matter what macro regime you choose. However, now having chosen promal as my best chance of maintaing that weightloss, I see that the calorie restriction I applied to lose weight would have been so much easier to get through if I had skipped carbs. Even though my CW diet wasn't super high in carbs - around 40% over the period of 5 months. But then I was terribly insulin resistant and sugar-addict, so lower carbs certainly works best for me.
    We are all different and low carbs is not for everyone. I am starting to get annoyed that people always think that paleo/primal is low carb. It's about sources of food, not macro split

  4. #14
    Damiana's Avatar
    Damiana is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,689
    There are all sorts of ways to lose weight. Efficiency and efficacy, however...
    F 28/5'4/100 lbs

    "I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high-functioning sociopath; do your research."

  5. #15
    PBNewby's Avatar
    PBNewby is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    239
    "We are all different and low carbs is not for everyone. I am starting to get annoyed that people always think that paleo/primal is low carb."

    I see it as, primal is efficient carbs. The 'low-carb' part comes because the carbs I do eat are so very high in nutrients (as compared with CW) that not many grams need be consumed.

  6. #16
    dnj1965's Avatar
    dnj1965 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    15
    The "It's about X not Y" approach in your thread title is a problem.

    Human's prefer to look for "univariate" (one variable) solutions to problems, but most interesting problems have multiple causation (that is, multiple variables are involved in causing changes in the variable of interest). Not only that, but the solution space can be non-linear in any one dimension as a function of what is happening in other dimensions (e.g., does higher fat consumption raise LDL? - The answer may depend upon the total macro-nutrient profile of one's diet, types of fat consumed, exercise, etc., etc., etc.).

    So asking whether it is "carbs" or "calories" pretends that we are dealing with an either/or answer. Maybe it is both, plus many other variables as well.

    Worse, what is the "it" in "is it calories or carbs"? Weight loss? Weight maintenance after loss? Hunger levels throughout the day? Effort required to eat a certain way? Body composition? Energy levels? Blood lipid profile? Diabetes management? Cognitive clarity at work? Sex drive? How cold your hands are? ....

    Even uglier: Some of the variables in this multivariate problem are almost certainly individual difference variables. Almost all research on these topics averages data from everyone in a group, and looks at group (mean) differences. For example, the 2007 Stanford study comparing a variety of diets resulted in the following statement in the accompanying press release:

    "At the end of a year, the 77 women assigned to the Atkins group had lost an average of 10.4 pounds.
    Those assigned to LEARN lost 5.7 pounds, the Ornish followers lost 4.8 pounds and women on the Zone lost
    3.5 pounds, on average. In all four groups, however, some participants lost up to 30 pounds."

    Obviously not everyone in the Atkins group lost 10.4 pounds. In fact, no one person may have lost this amount. The paper itself has the standard deviations for each group, and they are large enough to tell us that no two people responded the same way to any given diet (of course, no two people received the exact same treatment either....).

    Two harsh realities here:
    1) If one looks for the "one" thing (leptin, insulin, carbs, omega 3, exercise, genes, etc., etc.) that will "solve" an interesting problem, (s)he is going to miss the overall solution by a long ways;

    2) Because of multiple causation, studies that look at "just" a handful of variables (which is HARD to do, don't get me wrong), will SLOWLY move us towards the answer. While they are moving us there, they'll take wrong turns, and/or produce "wonky" data, precisely because until we know ALL of the variables in play, and how they interact with each other, we'll have uncontrolled important variables in play that "mess" things up.

    Read a lot, pay more attention to peer-reviewed, randomized controlled (true experimental) studies than one-off statements on the internet (like this one from me), and accept that what works for you may be a semi-unique pattern of variable settings.

    For now, you can be sure that depending upon your "it" (the thing you want to effect), total calories, macro-nutrient profiles, presence/absence of grains/dairy/sugars, resistance training, cardio, types of fats consumed, and many other things you'll see on these forums "matter". No one of them will solve the worlds problems (and it all of "this" was a univariate problem, it would have been solved generations ago....).

    Sorry for the dissertation, but the "either/or" univariate thinking pushes a button.
    Last edited by dnj1965; 11-28-2012 at 05:25 AM.
    SW = 280, PSW = 224, CW = 204, UGW = 194
    6'2" Male, Late 40's

  7. #17
    magnolia1973's Avatar
    magnolia1973 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,862
    accept that what works for you may be a semi-unique pattern of variable settings.
    That is SO true. Effectively, if you are fat, you have a lifestyle that supports excess body fat, and need to change that. The best solution is something you can stick to long term (ie, forever). That varies for people. I think primal is effective because it is such a vague blueprint for living that eliminates most of the easiest ways to overeat, while being really easy to customize. When you start getting to strict, you can't stick to it for long.... so as soon as you finish, say, a potato fast or slim fast or exclusion of all fat or all carbs, you have lost the fat, but are unable to keep it off ongoing because you haven't really learned to create a sustainable lifestyle for YOU that keeps off the fat.

    http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
    Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

  8. #18
    Nigel's Avatar
    Nigel is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Spalding, Lincolnshire
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by SJW2 View Post
    caloric restriction clearly works, at least in the short term. What I've read makes me think it is not that effective in the long term
    If you take in no calories for long enough, you will eventually get to the point where you will never gain weight again.

    I started off counting calories to make sure I lost weight. I stopped doing this a few weeks back because I hit a plateau at about 15lbs of fat left to get rid of and can now feel that I am developing some muscle. This last means that as I put on muscle and lose fat, I am not losing weight like I did when I had over 60lbs of blubber to get rid of. My experience is showing me that it is calories, carbs, fat, protein, vitamins & minerals, water and any other factors that can influence our bodies like exercise and sleep.
    Why use a sledge hammer to crack a nut when a steam roller is even more effective, and, is fun to drive.

  9. #19
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,683
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia1973 View Post
    That is SO true. Effectively, if you are fat, you have a lifestyle that supports excess body fat, and need to change that. The best solution is something you can stick to long term (ie, forever). That varies for people. I think primal is effective because it is such a vague blueprint for living that eliminates most of the easiest ways to overeat, while being really easy to customize. When you start getting to strict, you can't stick to it for long.... so as soon as you finish, say, a potato fast or slim fast or exclusion of all fat or all carbs, you have lost the fat, but are unable to keep it off ongoing because you haven't really learned to create a sustainable lifestyle for YOU that keeps off the fat.
    My best friend recently celebrated losing 100 lbs doing weight watchers, after watching the documentary "sick, fat and nearly dead" (I haven't seen it, not sure what it's exactly about) this same friend lost about 50-60 lbs after I talked to him about primal. He regained them, and then some, before really committing to a lifestlye (WW) and making other changes in his mindset in general.

    It's not that primal failed him (and to be clear, he actually did more of an atkins style diet, he never came to me for any advise or anything, and I'm not sure if he read the materials I gave him. He said he had done atkins in the past, he also wasn't keen on cutting out ALL grains or being too strict) it's that he himself wasn't committed.

    He's also admitted, as I pointed out above, that he's not at all interested in having the type of dietary restrictions I have. He's not worried about dairy, or gluten, or anything of the sort. He just wanted to lose body fat, and he's accomplished that goal.

    Me, I am much more a nutrition nerd than he would ever want to be. I've forgotten more about nutrition than he cares to ever learn. That's fine (for him) but it's not who I am. I geek out on this stuff, I almost get off on the knowledge and the application of it. I'm more of a hacker so to speak. I also have this thing, where if I know something is better, I can't just do "good enough" (at least not every time).

    I only had about 30lbs to lose, and I've never in my life gone up and down as dramatically as my friend has. My weight fluctuates 10lbs at the most, so we were vastly different to begin with. I'm happy for him, he's found something that works for him and suits his lifestyle and what he wants to do with his time is different from what I want to do with mine. Calorie counting got him there, and through calorie counting he plans to stay there. He said he doesn't do as much counting now, he knows how to eyeball things better and what no-no foods to really avoid, so he learned a lot.

    Both of us won't eat bread (too often) but he won't do it for different reasons than I won't. I think it's pretty funny actually, I see gluten, he sees a number.

  10. #20
    Silvergirl's Avatar
    Silvergirl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    503
    I have done just about every diet out there........and been successful on them all. Different ways to count calories, be it a handful or a point or whatever, but I agree that the problem is finding the one that, not only can you sustain, but seems really good for your particular body and well-being in general. I think this comes a lot down to your intolerances/allergies. If the diet seems easy to you, you don't feel the need to cheat too much, then you have found the one for you. That has been the case for me on this diet, no need to count calories, watch portions or exercise a lot, I feel satiated and clear and well. Not the case for weight watchers and the like, very foggy brain, loads of cheat days... just about twice a week of losing control, amazing I lost the weight at all. Years of eating overly carby food the culprit I think.
    Starting Primal June 2012 at 148.5lbs, goal weight in November 2012.
    Now 95lbs and holding.
    Primal, minus eggs, dairy and a myriad of other allergens.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •