Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 136

Thread: What are the real weight loss benefits of going primal? page 6

  1. #51
    noodletoy's Avatar
    noodletoy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    land of the glass pinecones
    Posts
    2,291
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Yep, and you lost weight by taking in less calories than you spent by eating primal! You do not need to count calories for that to happen, you know...
    cals were consistently 1600-1700. on both plans.
    As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

    Ernest Hemingway

  2. #52
    Stina1115's Avatar
    Stina1115 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Leida View Post
    Primal is a high fat-low carb version of Paleo. Paleo is moderate carbs, moderate fat.
    False. Some people choose to eat high-fat, low carb under the umbrella of what is the Primal Blueprint. Some do the complete opposite - high-carb, low-fat. Most probably fall somewhere on the spectrum between the two.

    I would agree that BOTH Primal and Paleo are low-carb diets relative to conventional wisdom, simply due to the exclusion of grains, sugar, and processed foods.

  3. #53
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,153
    Quote Originally Posted by noodletoy View Post
    cals were consistently 1600-1700. on both plans.
    Then you either raised your activity levels or measured wrong! Also remember the thermogenic effect especially from certain groups of proteins that can give a calorie discount up to 30%! And if no rational explanation there could also be some black magic involved...
    "When a person is poor in knowledge then he is rich in ignorance and stubbornness, carefully heeding around the little that he knows ..."
    - Gorbag

  4. #54
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I don't understand what you're trying to say.

    When you get older, your metabolic rate slows. Since people eat with their eyes and based on the time of day instead of with their stomachs, people tend to eat the same amount of food while having a progressively lower and lower maintenance calorie level. Not to mention people naturally move around less with age. This is why weight gain occurs. It isn't because of "hormones." It's because people don't decrease their food intake as they age. They see advertisements of what a plate of food should look like and they eat because it's 7:00am, 12:00pm and 6:00pm. That's breakfast, lunch and dinner time.

    I've read multiple studies on how people that "track calories" track their calories. The results are always the same: people who are underweight overestimate their caloric intake and people that are overweight underestimate their caloric intake. Also, people tend to track calories like this:

    Breakfast:
    - 3 large eggs
    - Cooked in 1 Tbsp butter
    - 1 medium apple
    - 3 strips bacon

    This is how to actually track calories:
    - 154g whole egg, raw
    - 9g butter
    - 120g apple, raw
    - 72g bacon

    Do you own a food scale and weigh everything, especially your cooking fats?

    Most people don't track their calories properly. And then you have to factor in the variances in calorie tracking. What kind of apple was it? Was it a ripe apple with a high sugar content or a bland apple with a high water content? How fatty was that bacon exactly? Did it come from big fat CAFO pigs funneled soybean oil or were they leaner, pastured pigs?

    And the biggest factor of all: the CO part of the equation. Most people grossly overestimate their TDEE, usually at the expense of their activity level or their "multiplier." People put 30 seconds into their TDEE calculation with some online calculator. The ONLY way a TDEE is accurately realized is through consistent eating habits, a consistent exercise routine and trial and error. Finding your "CO" is the hardest part of all.

    All these things matter. Please, don't insult my intelligence by some half-claim that calories weren't responsible for your weight loss. It is always CICO, and failure is due to the human factor 100% of the time.
    Well you're a young man, so your information about metabolism and nutrition is invalid.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  5. #55
    noodletoy's Avatar
    noodletoy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    land of the glass pinecones
    Posts
    2,291
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    It isn't because of "hormones."
    are the scare quotes necessary? or just to make you feel better about acting like you're explaining this to a child? are you suggesting my hormonal balance was the same at 42 as 22? that although i have clearly stated i tried typical cw methods to lose wight, which included cutting cals and increasing activity, still my weight did not budge?


    This is how to actually track calories:
    - 154g whole egg, raw
    - 9g butter
    - 120g apple, raw
    - 72g bacon
    duh.

    And then you have to factor in the variances in calorie tracking. What kind of apple was it? Was it a ripe apple with a high sugar content or a bland apple with a high water content?
    seriously? if i'm weighing and portioning my food correctly, now it's my fault because i'm eating a massachusetts apple instead of a new hampshire one? are you for real? if so, then you are even more hilarious than i have previously even considered. are people now supposed to send all their food to labs to be analyzed before consumption? or work with the tools available to a normal person and use usda counts as a framework and baseline?

    All these things matter. Please, don't insult my intelligence by some half-claim that calories weren't responsible for your weight loss. It is always CICO, and failure is due to the human factor 100% of the time.
    my half-claim? gah, you're a tool.

    there are plenty of reasonable people on here detailing their individual results with various blueprints. you keep on keepin' on that one size fits all.
    As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

    Ernest Hemingway

  6. #56
    noodletoy's Avatar
    noodletoy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    land of the glass pinecones
    Posts
    2,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Then you either raised your activity levels or measured wrong! Also remember the thermogenic effect especially from certain groups of proteins that can give a calorie discount up to 30%!
    ummmmmmm......................... i thought cals were cals?
    As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

    Ernest Hemingway

  7. #57
    Stina1115's Avatar
    Stina1115 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    FALSE- Primal is a trademark by Mark Sisson which includes the carb curve and subsequent dietary measures. If you CHOOSE to eat high carb low fat you are in fact not following the PB. Doesn't make you a bad person, or even mean you will be sentenced to a life of metabolic hell, but it is what it is.

    In terms of what is under what umbrella its kinda like this

    Ancestral Eating -----> Paleo ---------> Primal
    My point is that the terms "low-carb" and "high-fat" are relative - and I don't believe the guidelines for Primal nor Paleo would differ *significantly enough* to state, in absolute terms, that one is "high-fat, low-carb', while the other is "low-fat, high-carb". I imagine it would be difficult to consume a "high-carb" diet on either plan as compared to CW. In fact, according to Loren Cordain's Paleo website (I know, I know...) potatoes are not allowed - The Paleo Diet: What to Eat

    I was under the impression the whole point of PB is that it should be used as a set of lifestyle guidelines, and then tweaked to suit an individual's unique needs anyway - so this would apply to the carb curve as well.
    Last edited by Stina1115; 07-22-2013 at 01:50 PM.

  8. #58
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by noodletoy View Post
    there are plenty of reasonable people on here detailing their individual results with various blueprints. you keep on keepin' on that one size fits all.
    CICO is not a method of fat loss, it's a principle. If you lost fat, it was because you created an energy deficit. How you did this doesn't matter, and there are different methods people use to achieve the same goal (an energy deficit).

    It's not a one-size fits all approach. It's the underlying base of any fat loss diet.

    I wish you would stop with the ad hominems and name-calling and argue with facts and useful information.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  9. #59
    Stina1115's Avatar
    Stina1115 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by noodletoy View Post
    ummmmmmm......................... i thought cals were cals?
    Could be that by eating primal/low-carb, your body was able to stabilize your hormones, which increased your basal metabolic rate. This could account for the calorie deficit, as well as the appetite/craving suppression usually accompanied by low-carb/primal eating/hormone balance. I believe that this is what happened for me.

    I agree though, for me it was all about the hormones. Peter Attia explains this well - Do calories matter? The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.

  10. #60
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,800
    Actually, yes, they would.

    Classical Paleo, by Cordain etc, was based aropund the idea that the wild game was lean, and that non-starch vegetables and fruit were unlimited. It aimed for moderate fat, from meat with no added sources, and frowned on added fats, bacon, dairy. The tables specifically eliminated it as well as starches. Cordain, btw also did not recommend vinegar and wine. Classic Paleo aimed for ~ 25-35% fat and was self-described as moderate-fat and moderate carbs.

    Later versions of Paleo, such as Primal, pointed out to the fat content in organs and stuff like bone marrow, and built a version that aimed for ~ 70% fat and lower carb intake, restricting fruit in addition to starches. Primal also introduced high fat dairy, butter and bacon into the dialy menu (and a lure).

    Now, the Perfect Health Diet version of Paleo went towards adopting tubers and rice, introducing the idea of safe starches.

    Finally, further afield, you have a whole range of whole food diets, that include or exclude prepared whole grains and/or legumes. For example, Ferris is beg legume proponent.

    What people chose to do on this fora represents a spectrum of variations on the theme. It is a good thing, but it is good to follow an actual programe, since they are empirically derived & work the most effectively as specified.

    TBH, I think whole foods is the best approach, but I am so used to shunning the grains and beans that I can't seem to go back ???
    Last edited by Leida; 07-22-2013 at 12:30 PM.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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