Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 96

Thread: What is it with nuts/seeds causing rapid weight gain? page 5

  1. #41
    pabs's Avatar
    pabs is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    103
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by splunky View Post
    You're absolutely right, butter plain, I could have a little and be happy-even though I love the stuff-mix it with sugar and I could eat spoonfuls of the stuff!

    So, I'm going to take this one step further and ask about macros now. If I lower my fat intake in general due to not consuming these things mentioned, my macros will change significantly. I was about 60/25/10 ish (f,p,c) and doing pretty well weight wise (unless consuming nuts as per the original topic). I did crave sweets or starch and lack energy, thus several posts of late searching for info on how I should change to meet my dietary needs.

    I get to stay low fat when higher carb and vice verse but on lower carb days how much fat is too much? Do I just make sure to eat to satiety and not go over cals? High carb days-How much fat will promote fat storage?
    if you're keeping relatively low carb on high fat days, eating to satiety will keep you safe. as chock mentioned, its very had to binge on either carbs or fat on their own. same goes for high carb. keep fat as low as possible meaning use fat as a cooking tool and not as gravy

    I don't think that combining carbs and fat will make you fat on their own. I think the fact that combining the two seems to make them hyperpalatable can indirectly make you fat because its easy to overeat
    Ones who try my curry are not ones to leave in a hurry

  2. #42
    splunky's Avatar
    splunky is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by pabs View Post
    its interesting how both of you present opposing arguments that are competent within their own contexts. choco has a more neolithic approach to whole food that I see lot of practical merit in. I find that its often hard to get quality LCHF food when out and about but fruits are aplenty and thus tweaking the prescription paleo diet to be able to thrive on more neolithic whole food makes sense.

    neckhammer has a more orthodox view of paleo which I also agree with. I see your problem, nh, with halfing whole foods as it usually compromises the micronutrional value of the food.
    Yup. This is why I find it so difficult to muddle through all the info to find what's best for me. I do enjoy learning tho

  3. #43
    accidentalpancake's Avatar
    accidentalpancake is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by splunky View Post
    I am not changing in completely just on the knowledge you have shared. While I am definitely cutting out nuts/seeds, I am also carb cycling which is new to me. I am doing this as of last wk and today is my 2nd high(er) carb day. I am remaining lower carb for 5 days and hire carb on the 2 days of intense exercise. Hoping this will mix it up for my body and help with fatigue etc. but thx for your concern
    That makes sense as a strategy, it just sounded like you were ready to switch wholly over to a HCLF approach completely.
    I got 99 problems but a pancake ain't one...

    My Journal

    Height: 6'3"
    SW (Feb 2012): 278
    SBF: 26% (Scale)
    CW (May 2014): 198
    CBF: 14.5% (Scale)
    GW: ~190-205
    GBF: ~12%

  4. #44
    pabs's Avatar
    pabs is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by splunky View Post
    Yup. This is why I find it so difficult to muddle through all the info to find what's best for me. I do enjoy learning tho
    its very confusing all right. the more I learn, though, the more my basic nutritional rules seem to get reinforced
    1. eat a wide variety of whole food
    2. enjoy your meals and eat to satiety

    can't go very wrong following the above
    Ones who try my curry are not ones to leave in a hurry

  5. #45
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,730
    ^Yup... really I can get into all the biochem and physiology but why? You are correct it can be as simple or as complicated as you want to make it. The problem with the complex analysis is that once you reach a certain level you encounter the finite limits of our current understandings. So be sure not to lose the forest in the trees when you delve deep. Thats how the evolutionary context of human eating helps keep your analysis real and on track. You really can quote any set of biochem pathways and handpicked studies to support most positions. Given the context of "what would grok do", or the more scientific anthroplogical data on health HG tribes though you can seperate .... the wheat from the chaff.....

  6. #46
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Actually its not just the fat that you remove when you take away the skin. Its the collagen and the gelatin and all the other constituents of the skin that work synergistically with that muscle meat you are consuming. And if you cook the whole bird then the minerals from the bone and glycine and purine and nutrition from the cartilage all permeate the finished product! This is whole food primal eating! If you deny this practice (using and eating the whole of the animal) you end up chasing your tail buying packets of knox gelatin to replace that which you should have gotten with a whole food approach like that of our ancestors. You use more butter or oil to cook with since you haven't used what was available. You eat more refined or even primal carbs for energy than you would likely need to and you create imbalance.... cause this isn't how humans evolved to eat!
    Then I'm guilty of chasing my tail. I go through a box of Knox a week.

    I modify my diet to suit my needs. I'm not going to consume a whole chicken with skin, brew the carcass in bone broth and drink periodically throughout the day. Not only do I not have the time to do all that, but the dietary fat load associated is too high for the carbohydrate count I require. Eating this way promotes too much fat gain because it's too much fat for me. I have a feeling most people are in the same boat as me. So I eat very nutritious higher protein foods, keep my carbohydrate intake high and I supplement with lots of gelatin. Regardless of what is "ancestral," we do not live on Ancient Earth. We have ample food at our disposal, and unlike our ancestors whose job was to hunt and forage, we work 10 hours a day 5 days a week with commute, with the other hours split doing monotonous tasks. I like my approach just fine and I think it's working just great.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    I deny the claim that our ancestors even required feast and famine to attain and maintain perfect health. Its inherent to eating the human diet. Fat, skin, bone, and all. Not all HG societies had extended or even short term famine. They hunt/gather/work like 14 hours a week and just kick back and chill the rest of the time. Agriculture F'd it all up.

    But hey... I eat Primal so maybe I'm biased.
    Just because something is more "ancestral" doesn't make it superior. Like I said before, it's a really nice (assumed) story, but we live in a very different world. It's not practical for most of us. You assume so much with your line of thinking, and it's really one of my biggest problems with the whole evolutionary-eating paradigm. What we think our ancestors did can't be fully proven, and what they actually did may not have been optimal. I'm going for "optimal" in a very different world than what our ancestors lived in.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #47
    Lady D's Avatar
    Lady D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    London : UK
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Thats how the evolutionary context of human eating helps keep your analysis real and on track. You really can quote any set of biochem pathways and handpicked studies to support most positions.
    The biggest thing I've taken from the evolutionary/ancestral models is that to intentionally eat stuff that's less calorically dense SOLELY in order to be able to eat larger quantities is a self-perpetuating cycle, which sooner or later results in eating less satiating and less nutritious foods that have had bits of their substance removed willy-nilly, like skimmed milk or low-fat chadder, and that then cycles into having to add seperate nutritional supplements - be they gelatine, or vitamin pills, or whatever.

    That's how it's shaken out for me, anyway - in the UK there are plenty of really nice, tasty, great-textured low-fat cheddars and they used to be a mainstay of my diet, but when I made the decision to not eat low-fat anything any more, I realised I could only eat less than half that amount of full-fat cheese.

    Oddly that was still less calories (say 100g low-fat cheese @ 273cals/100g, versus 50g full-fat @ 410cals/100g) and I think that accounts for me losing weight on it.

    JMO and just my experience.

  8. #48
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,377
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    The foods that are most conducive to weight loss are the foods that will keep you the fullest the longest while providing the least number of calories. For that reason:

    Boneless skinless chicken breasts will probably be less fattening than skin-on chicken thighs.

    Pork loin will probably be less fattening than bacon and sausage.

    Egg whites will probably be less fattening than whole eggs.

    Ahi tuna will probably be less fattening than salmon.

    But a healthy diet revolves around more than calories. A diet of chicken breast, egg whites, canned tuna and steamed vegetables may be great for fat loss, but at some point I'd blow my brains out from boredom and lack of flavor. A true healthy diet includes a healthy mental state as well, and ensuring a healthy intake of vitamins and minerals, specifically fat soluble vitamins and minerals, is key to vibrant health. Egg whites are great sources of protein, but compared to the yolk they may as well be empty calories. Eat the whole egg! Just eat less total eggs each week to reduce calories. Know what I mean?
    I know what you think you're saying, that eating egg whites, chicken breast, tuna, and steamed vegetables all the time will lead to a mental state that is intellectual in nature. I propose that what you perceive as "boredom" is a manifestation of your body's actual need for fat, which has been suppressed too long by then.
    Last edited by eKatherine; 08-08-2013 at 11:41 AM.

  9. #49
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,730
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Then I'm guilty of chasing my tail. I go through a box of Knox a week.

    I modify my diet to suit my needs. I'm not going to consume a whole chicken with skin, brew the carcass in bone broth and drink periodically throughout the day. Not only do I not have the time to do all that, but the dietary fat load associated is too high for the carbohydrate count I require. Eating this way promotes too much fat gain because it's too much fat for me. I have a feeling most people are in the same boat as me. So I eat very nutritious higher protein foods, keep my carbohydrate intake high and I supplement with lots of gelatin. Regardless of what is "ancestral," we do not live on Ancient Earth. We have ample food at our disposal, and unlike our ancestors whose job was to hunt and forage, we work 10 hours a day 5 days a week with commute, with the other hours split doing monotonous tasks. I like my approach just fine and I think it's working just great.


    Just because something is more "ancestral" doesn't make it superior. Like I said before, it's a really nice (assumed) story, but we live in a very different world. It's not practical for most of us. You assume so much with your line of thinking, and it's really one of my biggest problems with the whole evolutionary-eating paradigm. What we think our ancestors did can't be fully proven, and what they actually did may not have been optimal. I'm going for "optimal" in a very different world than what our ancestors lived in.
    Thats fine...I've read a good deal in this arena to verify what I "assume". You know like "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Price, Stephansson's work, original research by Boyds, Eaton, and Cordain, ect... And if you don't like the low carb sort of feel thats fine. I believe some of the most important information gleaned from an ancestral/traditional approach is food preparation. Sure the foods are primal, but not eating them in a form and manner that they were prepared and nurished us for tens of thousands of years is yet another neolithic stressor that our bodies have not acclimated to.

    I've chased biochemistry and physiology to the enth degree. Like I said we only know enough to theorize. And thats a necessary part of continuing to learn, but at this point and time we really don't know enough to rely solely on that knowledge. Thats why paleo/primal and even WAPF are helping people to reclaim their health everyday! Its not because they denounce biochemistry or physiology... its because they have the right framework from which to analyse it.

  10. #50
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady D View Post
    The biggest thing I've taken from the evolutionary/ancestral models is that to intentionally eat stuff that's less calorically dense SOLELY in order to be able to eat larger quantities is a self-perpetuating cycle, which sooner or later results in eating less satiating and less nutritious foods that have had bits of their substance removed willy-nilly, like skimmed milk or low-fat chadder, and that then cycles into having to add seperate nutritional supplements - be they gelatine, or vitamin pills, or whatever.

    That's how it's shaken out for me, anyway - in the UK there are plenty of really nice, tasty, great-textured low-fat cheddars and they used to be a mainstay of my diet, but when I made the decision to not eat low-fat anything any more, I realised I could only eat less than half that amount of full-fat cheese.

    Oddly that was still less calories (say 100g low-fat cheese @ 273cals/100g, versus 50g full-fat @ 410cals/100g) and I think that accounts for me losing weight on it.

    JMO and just my experience.
    This is quite a wild assumption.

    I find I eat more full fat cheese than low fat cheese. It tastes better so it promotes overeating more. Same thing goes for whole milk, though I buy whole milk and full fat cheese, not skim milk and reduced fat cheese, because I feel the benefits of dairy fat outweigh the extra calories in the quantities I eat.

    Now my dairy-based staple - yogurt - is always 1% organic. I eat it every single day and whole milk yogurt won't fit into my diet since I will consume the same amount regardless of fat content.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •