Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    236

    Fat Loss Bible- It's about Calories not carbs!

    I somehow had Fat Loss Bible bookmarked on my computer, just came across it and for all of you who have not read it (The Fat Loss Bible - The Official Fat Loss Bible Web Site!), it mentions it really is about calorie counting instead of carbs. Primal works because you are reducing calories without thinking about it because it promotes satiety. I am confused now because there are proponents of primal out there that say you can't burn fat if you consume too many carbs, whereas this discusses calories in/out, whatever that may mean for you, if that means consuming more carbs then go for it. For me, I think I tend to do better with higher carb, lower protein, as I can easily go over when I consume too much fats and protein in the same meal. Anyone have any thoughts on this relating to their own experiences with weight loss?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    981
    I don't think there's many people left who say you can't burn fat being high carb.
    The fat loss bible is more targeted at people looking to go from flabby to ripped. It's a pretty good factual straight forward book for people looking to lose fat, though Lyle mcdonalds are probably better and go more in depth.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
    I don't think there's many people left who say you can't burn fat being high carb.
    The fat loss bible is more targeted at people looking to go from flabby to ripped. It's a pretty good factual straight forward book for people looking to lose fat, though Lyle mcdonalds are probably better and go more in depth.
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    27
    I second the Lyle McDonald recommendation.

    Regarding your question/topic, I have lost fat with CW and I have lost fat with a Primal diet. My experiences have told me how I react with various macro-nutrient percentages; and I use my past experience today. Everyone operates slightly different with various macro-nutrient profiles.

    Overall, these are the fat-loss basics, I have learned:

    - Want to lose fat? Create a caloric deficit in your diet.
    - Want to lose fat faster? Strategically create a caloric deficit based on workout-days, rest-days, & macro-nutrient percentages.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    91
    I don't know. I still think it is more about the unique affects of carbs on metabolism personally. I think calories matter but are not the most important thing. Could be wrong. I'm still influenced by Taubes who was my entree into paleo-ish thinking. It is a tricky situation with good points on both sides. I think Taubes was right to point the oversimplification of calorie counting as a method of weight loss. Hormones, nutrient partitioning, and the differential metabolism of different nutrients all matter and are affected by the content of what we eat, not the sheer volume. We are not calorie burning machines, we are living organisms. Also, 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 and does not address more important factors.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by SJW2 View Post
    I don't know. I still think it is more about the unique affects of carbs on metabolism personally. I think calories matter but are not the most important thing. Could be wrong. I'm still influenced by Taubes who was my entree into paleo-ish thinking. It is a tricky situation with good points on both sides. I think Taubes was right to point the oversimplification of calorie counting as a method of weight loss. Hormones, nutrient partitioning, and the differential metabolism of different nutrients all matter and are affected by the content of what we eat, not the sheer volume. We are not calorie burning machines, we are living organisms. Also, 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 and does not address more important factors.
    I agree.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Spalding, Lincolnshire
    Posts
    542
    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. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    MD/VA/DC
    Posts
    1,675
    When I ate 1300 calories/day on CW, I could barely maintain a skinny-fat body.
    When I cut to 1100 calories/day on CW, I didn't lose much but I was miserable.
    This is with a lot of exercise.

    When I ate 1300 calories/day Primal, I was stuffed beyond belief and lost one pound.
    When I cut to 1100 calories/day Primal to feel less full, I lost 9 pounds very slowly and now I weigh less now than I did before puberty.
    This is with almost no exercise and the midst of a depression.

    Y'all can debate back and forth, but I know the path for me.
    5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    5
    It's a pretty good factual straight forward book for people looking to lose fat

Posting Permissions

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