2

votes

Gary Taubes, Mark Sisson, and unlimited fats

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created May 03, 2012 at 11:31 PM

In Good Calories, Bad Calories and The Primal Blueprint, both authors state that it is impossible to gain weight without carbohydrates because insulin is required. Sorry, I don't have the references at hand. I'm so much healthier eating paleo, but these claims seem unreal. Has anyone tested this? I would love to see a blog of someone eating, say, 3000 calories above maintenance per day and not gaining weight. Maybe I'm misunderstanding and mistcharacterizing their arguments?

81feb1022a28f534867616b9316c7aa4

(638)

on April 14, 2013
at 12:31 PM

I don't think "unlimited" refers to actually you should go gorge all the food in the supermarket that is not carbohydrate. Gary says in his book you should eat until comfortably full, not untill stuffed to the limit. When you are eating low carb it is much harder to over eat. I mean you can over-eat meat and fat, but it's not likely that many people will be able to or even feel the need to stuff down 1000's of calories after they finish their original planned meal.

81feb1022a28f534867616b9316c7aa4

(638)

on April 14, 2013
at 10:17 AM

yes I was almost sick before after eating very low carb for one day. I was feeling pekish as I do after dinner, ate a few slices of cheese and threw up in my own mouth!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 30, 2012
at 12:11 PM

I can see the "optimal" rationale, but how is eating 5x a person's RDA ancestral?

06ca9c524c28bc3fba95d4d90f8f43c6

on August 30, 2012
at 11:07 AM

A LOT of Bulletproof coffee + Delmonico steak + paleo cookies with coconut oil = what you just talked about.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 29, 2012
at 07:11 PM

That's actually half true @simon. A very few carbs will bring down all that dietary fat into the adipose. The converse is that on a high carb - low fat diet any fat is just as easily stowed away because the carbs supply plenty of blood sugar. Both approaches are valid for weight loss, and genetics determines which works best for each individual.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 29, 2012
at 06:54 PM

Eating a massive calorie high fat diet is unnatural, and not remotely what our ancestors ate. It's a modern thing originating with Atkins and continuing into the various trademarked versions of Paleo. Something suitable for rich hypochondriacs.

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on May 23, 2012
at 05:36 PM

Well, then, Dave Asprey would confirm Taubes, since Taubes suggests you can't gain weight without raising insulin. As long as your carb intake is very small, you do not store the excess calories that you eat. That would be one big rebuttal of Guyenet and others' thesis, if Dave Asprey's claims are true. I happen to think Dave's claim is true but a bit exaggerated. He's a big guy at 6-4/220. 4000 calories for him would be slightly above but not maintenance. In other words, his metabolic advantage is somethign like 500-800 calories. Not little but given his size, not as big as u'd think.

A7768b6c6be7f5d6acc76e5efa66464c

on May 21, 2012
at 08:57 PM

Perfect example of an *inappropriate* use of a downvote.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 12, 2012
at 02:35 PM

A distinction without a difference Simon. It can't make you obese? Do I need to name Exhibit A?

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 12, 2012
at 10:46 AM

Don't think taubes is suggesting people will eat unlimited amounts, just that excessive fat/protein consumption in the absence of carbs will not make you obese.

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 12, 2012
at 08:51 AM

Calories only matter when carbs are consumed, or you are doing research and need metrics. The message is very clear 'carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat accumalation'

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 12, 2012
at 08:40 AM

I regularly eat Pork Rinds without gaining weight. If they are store bought check they didn't add flour etc.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 09, 2012
at 11:56 PM

Yeah. Still, I don't think that's the major advantage of a LC diet. The primary way it works is through hormones. Hormones decide how the calories that do get through get used, for example building muscle vs. fat. They both take an excess of calories, and your hormonal state is one of the deciding factors.

2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 08, 2012
at 06:41 PM

Ambimorph are you referring to thermogenic effect of food. Protein has the highest, as many people think you should really only count protein around 3.2 per gram. So yes, there are differences, in the end the might contribute to a slight advantage.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:08 PM

Someone did publish such an experiment a few years ago: http://cavemanforum.com/diet-and-nutrition/can-one-lose-body-fat-on-excess-calories/15/

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:03 PM

Ah, but protein also causes the secretion of glucagon, so this kind of analysis can be misleading.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:01 PM

How could there not be a difference in the efficiency of using different fuels? I would find it extremely surprising if one kind of metabolism took exactly the same amount of energy as another. As it happens, just as an example, the amount of glucose you can get from protein via gluconeogenesis gets something like 2/3 the calorie's worth of glucose.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 08, 2012
at 02:50 PM

What a straw-man. Of course he didn't say that. For one thing, carbs aren't the only trigger of insulin in normal people. Now type 1 diabetics, otoh, actually do not make enough insulin, and they can't keep on weight.

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 08, 2012
at 05:33 AM

We underestimate our bodies ability to regulate fat, cholesterol, uric acid etc. Paleo diets are about a diet that is so natural that your body is perfectly capable of regulating itself, because it encounters nothing it is not designed / evolved to deal with. It took me over a year of self experimentation to discover this.

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 08, 2012
at 05:16 AM

Actually this is not what I found. My body regulates to 72.7 kg, as long I do not eat excessive carbs it will stay there regardless of calorie intake. If I remove carbs completely it stays at around 70.7kg. It is hard to maintain next to zero carbs with so many temptations around, but I did it for almost a month and am confident in my findings. I would define something as pointless if there is no need to do it. I do not deny that you can loose weight through calorie restriction (starvation), but I guarantee that it is not necessary. This is very easy to test yourself.

2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 08, 2012
at 12:12 AM

I do agree. It can not be a long term solution. Hopefully by simply attempting you start to see how much or how little food you really are consuming, and over time it does get easier.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 04:13 PM

Calorie counting IS too hard for most people. It's a discipline that requires much more effort than proscribed diets. But in the end you learn how to eat any food and not gain lost weight back.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 04:05 PM

-1. Downvote for treating carbs as if they're evil. That's not paleo or ancestral. Up on the top floor of the Plaza eating your steaks (or grass fed liver) do you breathe a lot of that magical invisible unicorn vapor?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 03:05 PM

Eating over and above 3000 calories a day, day in and day out, is not paleo. It's a diet for satiated gouty rich people, and pressing the argument makes paleo a bad joke for the rest of the planet. A feast once in a while for sure. Most of the time paleo means STAY HUNGRY.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 02:59 PM

Why would you want to eat sticks of butter? Why do Taubes and his ilk insist that you can eat all you want and go back for seconds? That's not ancestral eating, butter and bacon are not Paleo foods, and why paleos pay any attention to this guy is beyond me.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 02:49 PM

If something works it's not pointless. There's plenty of obesity to treat and LC is not the only way to treat it.

35b2cb4d450e5288895c255dfdfff35d

(5828)

on May 07, 2012
at 03:25 AM

Counting calories may be pointless until you get to within 10 or 20 pounds of your target weight. Then it'll matter.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 05, 2012
at 01:33 AM

What I should have said above is, insulin response. It doesn't have to be carbs. Whatever elicits an insulin response can make you gain weight.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 05, 2012
at 01:32 AM

Not everyone agrees calories matter. As I've said before, there is a metabolic advantage and it ranges from person to person: for me it's small but it definitely exists, ~500 calories. For some, it could be as large as 1000-2000, c.f., David Asprey. This is why I'm advising u not to be sure minded as individual differences matter more than the general principle in nutrition. Exceptions are the rule, there can be no one size fits all diet.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 05, 2012
at 01:30 AM

Well, daz, we already know that, of course protein will increase BG. That's clear as day. Protein in absence of carbs, of course. BG will rise slower but will elicit an inslin response ... so yes, weight gain is inevitable. Hence people like Nora and Dr. Leptin preach protein restriction.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:25 AM

Butter gets a mention here in some observations from a type 1 diabetic; http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html "Insulinogenic is not Hyperglycemic"

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:19 AM

Butter might be similar to high fat cheese, see here for some observations from a type 1 diabetic; http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html "Insulinogenic is not Hyperglycemic"

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:17 AM

Butter might be similar to high fat cheese, see here for some observations from a type 1 diabetic; http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html

Ecb90bbbd5a15868b2592d517a4a5e82

(280)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:05 AM

The question we need to ask Eades is to see a video of his 5,000-cal-a-day chick. There are people who can eat huge amounts and not gain because the NEAT like crazy. If we feed Eades' subject, does she spontaneously pace the room, gesticulate wildly in meetings, engage in horseplay on the floor with her kids, scrub the toilet like a fiend, and twitch/tap her feet/drum her fingers in meetings? How much does her temperature raise during sleep? Is she throwing off the covers at night complaining of the heat because her body's turned on the thermogenesis?

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:04 AM

here's an interesting read, a anecdote/comment by a T1D; http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html Here's some quotes "Beef causes my blood sugars to rise very high about 7-8 hours post prandial. So does cheese - in similar quantities. Butter and cream and full-fat yogurt do not" & " eating large portions of beef in particular, and other meats as well, require more insulin than 30g of carb"

Ecb90bbbd5a15868b2592d517a4a5e82

(280)

on May 04, 2012
at 11:59 PM

"As I mentioned before, it's possible to see weight gain by eating fast foods that do not have any carbs -- i.e., pork rinds." Of course it is. No one disputes this. Everyone admits calories matter. No serious person denies basic physics. If you eat 10,000 calories of pork rinds, unless you are Michael Phelps or the fidgety guy on the BBC series (whose NEAT-ing was truly alarming to watch, he twitched so much), you will gain a lot of weight. The real question is: how much do they count? And is it worthwhile for the average person to count them?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on May 04, 2012
at 11:00 PM

Taubes' carbs-> insulin-> fat argument is about as sophisticated as dietary fat -> body fat.

06cf0b860450445b9d399fcc1b2a053a

on May 04, 2012
at 10:45 PM

Someone downvoted my answer without offering a rebuttal or comment. Rude.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 09:31 PM

Anyone is qualified? I think not. Denise proved her goods. Not everyone needs formal education. But Taubes has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't even understand beyond the most basic level the biochemistry he tries to educate other about. His objection is not salient. It is cherry picked crapola.

2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 04, 2012
at 07:59 PM

Dave, good point about ketosis. Eating more fat in general does seem to lower appetite, another vehicle for fat loss on the paleo "diet"

2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 04, 2012
at 07:58 PM

Dan, 100% agree that Paleo is not about avoiding macronutrients. Regardless, many who go paleo, tend to be low carb. That's just they way most seem to be applying it. Personally I am moderate carb, sometime even high carb depending on my activity. Was just pointing out how people lose weight on the diet.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on May 04, 2012
at 07:45 PM

Anyone is qualified. The problems with modern research extend far beyond the field of nutrition. http://news.yahoo.com/cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-174216262.html We are plagued with epidemiology, computer modelling, and rent-seeking behavior. This is effecting all fields. You don't have to be qualified or objective to present a salient objection. It isn't that Taubes is so great, but that research is so bad. The child in the emperor-has-no-clothes story is, well, a child. Denise Minger can take down the China Study because it sucks. We have to pay twice for studies this bad

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:37 PM

Dan, you are correct. However, almost one third of the US population is obese/insulin resistant. A low carb protocol is often very helpful for that group.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 05:36 PM

August, there are tons of low carbers who do eat too much on low carb and gain weight. Sorry, but Taubes does not get to pass judgment in my book on good v. bad science. He's not qualified and hopelessly biased. What was unsatisfactory about the studies is that they didn't give the desired result.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:35 PM

I remember well the Anthony Colpo dustup.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:35 PM

<3 It will definitely find more uses.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:33 PM

It's a tag now, baby! (Had to shorten it to invisible-unicorn-vapor).

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:17 PM

From what I understand Taubes and others are trying to put together enough money for a study, precisely because most of the research done to date isn't satisfactory. What you just said about gluttony is kind of the point. I can't tell you how many times I thought I ate a lot only to do the math and find I hadn't eaten very much calorie wise. This is why Taubes feels comfortable giving that advice out- as advice, not as a hypothesis.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 04:41 PM

August, those studies HAVE been done. Overfeeding studies with carbs and fats actually favor carbs -- IOW slightly less fat gain likely due to the energy cost of denovo lipogenesis. Studies have varied macros wildly and fluctuated insulin wildly in controlled metabolic ward studies and no difference. He's not saying you don't feel gluttonous, so if you don't feel that, how can you be gluttonous?

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on May 04, 2012
at 04:27 PM

You can exercise as much gluttony as you want- because you won't feel very gluttonous. And then there are the insulinogenic proteins, which he doesn't mention, but if anyone does actually manages to gain weight eating nothing but protein and fat, well he can point to them and say- look it is still insulin! This issue isn't gong to be resolved except by the sort of studies Taubes wants.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on May 04, 2012
at 04:09 PM

Would upvote "magical invisible unicorn vapor" twice if I could and think it needs to be a tag.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 03:34 PM

:) Ben! In WWGF he threw down the gauntlet. Carbs are fattening. Period. I can't find it right now but he did a print interview with Fat Head where he said something like he wants everyone to stop thinking calories. It was in response to why cheese and nuts were stalling foods or gaining. It must be insulin! Well, cheese is insulinogenic, but it turns out nuts are not.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 03:27 PM

@Dave: Interesting isn't it. Considering the contentious arguments over this, many of them hosted on Eades forum with lots and lots of nastiness towards non-believers, I find this "let's just drop it" tact rather cheezy.

8f2d9842fdfec224a425c0f77c4ee34d

(1241)

on May 04, 2012
at 03:11 PM

Paleo is not about avoiding certain macronutrients.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 02:13 PM

Very cool paper! Eggs look like a good choice. I wish they would have tested butter or coconut oil...

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 02:01 PM

Mark, in The Primal Blueprint, lays out a food plan for weight loss that not only keeps insulin low, but is also calorie restricted.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:59 PM

Also, the fact that protein and ketosis both lead to a loss of appetite might have something to do with it as well.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:58 PM

For a while they (Taubes/Eades/et al) promoted the idea of a "metabolic advantage" of a few hundred calories per day for low carb diets. I haven't heard anyone touting that lately, so it's probably not true.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:55 PM

From the same post: "Once you’ve reached maintenance you can pretty much eat all you want without gaining as long as you watch your carb intake." - Dr. Mike Eades

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:53 PM

Dr. Mike Eades also said this about a woman eating low carb: "... this woman was eating somewhere around 5,000 calories per day. She was definitely not creating a deficit. And she wasn’t losing…but she wasn’t gaining either." http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/low-carb-and-calories-part-2/

3b3a449b6705e9ec8b141d0bd07c1a64

(1489)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:20 PM

yup! for the first few weeks I literally just ate and ate and ate and now I get to a point where I can't physically eat any more without being sick. even if you have metabolic damage it will soon sort itself. I now just eat maybe twice a day and I function so much better than before!

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 04, 2012
at 11:52 AM

boom, dropping the hammer properstyle, ev! I have heard GT say exactly that many times. Also, that IS essentially his entire message, if you will, whenever he speaks! He very much says that CICO is wrong and that one needs carbohydrate to gain weight. Course, he's terribly mislead but that's neither here nor there. I applaud his want to battle the mainstream.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 11:29 AM

Sorry Shari, he did say it. See my answer.

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:50 AM

I might be wrong, but I feel that on Robb's podcast when Gary was a guest he actually DID say that that carbohydrates are absolutely needed in order to gain weight. Am I wrong here? I could be remembering this incorrectly, but I feel like he did say that.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on May 04, 2012
at 02:19 AM

Wow, my head just exploded. Don't be talking smack about my Gary! As others have already pointed out, Gary never, ever said that and I'm pretty darn sure Mark didn't either. Yes you've misunderstood but you are certainly not the first to do so. (And WELCOME John!)

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:00 AM

Whoops! Physics, not physicians. Physicians can be circumvented for sure.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:59 AM

Hold up hold up...they didn't say that. Taubes definitely said some controversial things, but I have a copy of Primal Blueprint right here, and he doesn't say (or really, imply) that physicans can be circumvented in that way.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:58 AM

My school is called the Jean Mayer School of Nutrition Science and Policy :)

06cf0b860450445b9d399fcc1b2a053a

on May 04, 2012
at 12:49 AM

*Jean Mayer, who got a few things right about obesity and weight regulation but the important things wrong, phrased the issue this way back in 1954: “Obesity, too many people believe, is explained by overeating; actually it should be recognized that is simply restating the problem in a different way, and reaffirming (somewhat unnecessarily …) one’s faith in the First Law of Thermodynamics. To ‘explain’ obesity by overeating is as illuminating a statement as an ‘explanation’ of alcoholism by chronic over drinking.” Gary Taubes. Why We Get Fat (Kindle Locations 1120-1122).

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:47 AM

If you go to Youtube and watch the BBC documentary Why Thin People Aren't Fat, you'll the one guy who despite being caged in a room and massively overfed in fact doesn't gain any weight. But he shakes, paces, and fidgets like a Chihuahua. Clearly, he is the champion of NEAT.

06cf0b860450445b9d399fcc1b2a053a

on May 04, 2012
at 12:47 AM

"Because the one thing we should know for sure is that the laws of thermodynamics, true as they always are, tell us nothing about why we get fat or why we take in more calories than we expend while it’s happening." Gary Taubes. Why We Get Fat (Kindle Locations 1113-1114). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Cfc7dee889a66db9cd76c4f348109294

(1652)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:40 AM

Ok, well, not necessarily an exact test of this, but I think this is what I was thinking of. Stephen-Aegis ate a ton of fat (butter) and had a ton of energy as a result: http://paleohacks.com/questions/24509/does-1-4-lb-of-butter-give-you-boundless-energy-is-too-much-problematic#axzz1tr3LCFH7

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:20 AM

Neither Taubes nor Sisson actually say that. They're not crazy physics-free people.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:18 AM

Eat 10,000 calories each day of anything and you will gain weight. The macro nutrient component matters but only up to a certain threshold.

41088c15a77277f4d28f5d918c04da20

(101)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:13 AM

Does anyone have a link to this?

Cfc7dee889a66db9cd76c4f348109294

(1652)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:04 AM

didn't someone on this site experiment with this idea by eating a ton of butter?

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

17 Answers

11
24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 11:24 AM

I have no idea what Sisson says in PB, but I haven't read on MDA or seen him say in any interviews I've watched/listened-to where he claims fat consumption has no impact on body weight.

Gary Taubes, on the other hand, has said it point blank: (for context start ~6:45)

"you can't eat carbs, you can basically exercise as much gluttony as you want as long you're eating fat and protein"

Carbs are fattening, protein isn't fattening, fat isn't fattening.

He put the case forth in GCBC that carb was required to store fat in every one of his lectures through 4/10 made that case as well. If he actually read the texts he cites instead of cherry picking quotes, he would not have made such a bone-headed mistake .... over and (over)^n and over again. Why anyone believes his nonsense any more just astounds me. The science from his own references does not support his failed hypothesis ... and he knows it, or should.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 04, 2012
at 11:52 AM

boom, dropping the hammer properstyle, ev! I have heard GT say exactly that many times. Also, that IS essentially his entire message, if you will, whenever he speaks! He very much says that CICO is wrong and that one needs carbohydrate to gain weight. Course, he's terribly mislead but that's neither here nor there. I applaud his want to battle the mainstream.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:53 PM

Dr. Mike Eades also said this about a woman eating low carb: "... this woman was eating somewhere around 5,000 calories per day. She was definitely not creating a deficit. And she wasn’t losing…but she wasn’t gaining either." http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/low-carb-and-calories-part-2/

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:17 PM

From what I understand Taubes and others are trying to put together enough money for a study, precisely because most of the research done to date isn't satisfactory. What you just said about gluttony is kind of the point. I can't tell you how many times I thought I ate a lot only to do the math and find I hadn't eaten very much calorie wise. This is why Taubes feels comfortable giving that advice out- as advice, not as a hypothesis.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on May 04, 2012
at 04:27 PM

You can exercise as much gluttony as you want- because you won't feel very gluttonous. And then there are the insulinogenic proteins, which he doesn't mention, but if anyone does actually manages to gain weight eating nothing but protein and fat, well he can point to them and say- look it is still insulin! This issue isn't gong to be resolved except by the sort of studies Taubes wants.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 05:36 PM

August, there are tons of low carbers who do eat too much on low carb and gain weight. Sorry, but Taubes does not get to pass judgment in my book on good v. bad science. He's not qualified and hopelessly biased. What was unsatisfactory about the studies is that they didn't give the desired result.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:55 PM

From the same post: "Once you’ve reached maintenance you can pretty much eat all you want without gaining as long as you watch your carb intake." - Dr. Mike Eades

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 04:41 PM

August, those studies HAVE been done. Overfeeding studies with carbs and fats actually favor carbs -- IOW slightly less fat gain likely due to the energy cost of denovo lipogenesis. Studies have varied macros wildly and fluctuated insulin wildly in controlled metabolic ward studies and no difference. He's not saying you don't feel gluttonous, so if you don't feel that, how can you be gluttonous?

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on May 04, 2012
at 07:45 PM

Anyone is qualified. The problems with modern research extend far beyond the field of nutrition. http://news.yahoo.com/cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-174216262.html We are plagued with epidemiology, computer modelling, and rent-seeking behavior. This is effecting all fields. You don't have to be qualified or objective to present a salient objection. It isn't that Taubes is so great, but that research is so bad. The child in the emperor-has-no-clothes story is, well, a child. Denise Minger can take down the China Study because it sucks. We have to pay twice for studies this bad

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 03:34 PM

:) Ben! In WWGF he threw down the gauntlet. Carbs are fattening. Period. I can't find it right now but he did a print interview with Fat Head where he said something like he wants everyone to stop thinking calories. It was in response to why cheese and nuts were stalling foods or gaining. It must be insulin! Well, cheese is insulinogenic, but it turns out nuts are not.

Ecb90bbbd5a15868b2592d517a4a5e82

(280)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:05 AM

The question we need to ask Eades is to see a video of his 5,000-cal-a-day chick. There are people who can eat huge amounts and not gain because the NEAT like crazy. If we feed Eades' subject, does she spontaneously pace the room, gesticulate wildly in meetings, engage in horseplay on the floor with her kids, scrub the toilet like a fiend, and twitch/tap her feet/drum her fingers in meetings? How much does her temperature raise during sleep? Is she throwing off the covers at night complaining of the heat because her body's turned on the thermogenesis?

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 09:31 PM

Anyone is qualified? I think not. Denise proved her goods. Not everyone needs formal education. But Taubes has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't even understand beyond the most basic level the biochemistry he tries to educate other about. His objection is not salient. It is cherry picked crapola.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 02:59 PM

Why would you want to eat sticks of butter? Why do Taubes and his ilk insist that you can eat all you want and go back for seconds? That's not ancestral eating, butter and bacon are not Paleo foods, and why paleos pay any attention to this guy is beyond me.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 12, 2012
at 02:35 PM

A distinction without a difference Simon. It can't make you obese? Do I need to name Exhibit A?

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 12, 2012
at 10:46 AM

Don't think taubes is suggesting people will eat unlimited amounts, just that excessive fat/protein consumption in the absence of carbs will not make you obese.

10
2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:13 AM

This is definitely not true, and I'm pretty sure they both acknowledge that in the end calories still matter. They believe it's much harder when limiting carb intake, or that there is some "metabolic advantage" to going low carb.

There is no magic in weight loss. Wanna lose weight? You need to be in caloric deficit. Sounds simple, but for most just too hard. What paleo/primal offer is a diet that does this without you even noticing via a few methods:

  • the fact that you are avoiding a class of macronutrient
  • food reward (you are avoiding hyperpalatable food that for many are easy to overconsume)
  • its get you to start working out
  • improves your sleep
  • helps you manage your stress
  • you IF and dont actually eat for periods of time
  • eating whole real food, its just much harder to get the same amount of calories as eating donuts, bagels, desserts disguised as coffee, pizza, cake, ... you get the idea. Try overeating sweet potatoes.. now try that with pringles, bet you can't eat just one :)

There's probably even a few more I left out, hopefully you get the idea.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:58 PM

For a while they (Taubes/Eades/et al) promoted the idea of a "metabolic advantage" of a few hundred calories per day for low carb diets. I haven't heard anyone touting that lately, so it's probably not true.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on May 04, 2012
at 03:27 PM

@Dave: Interesting isn't it. Considering the contentious arguments over this, many of them hosted on Eades forum with lots and lots of nastiness towards non-believers, I find this "let's just drop it" tact rather cheezy.

2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 04, 2012
at 07:58 PM

Dan, 100% agree that Paleo is not about avoiding macronutrients. Regardless, many who go paleo, tend to be low carb. That's just they way most seem to be applying it. Personally I am moderate carb, sometime even high carb depending on my activity. Was just pointing out how people lose weight on the diet.

8f2d9842fdfec224a425c0f77c4ee34d

(1241)

on May 04, 2012
at 03:11 PM

Paleo is not about avoiding certain macronutrients.

2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 04, 2012
at 07:59 PM

Dave, good point about ketosis. Eating more fat in general does seem to lower appetite, another vehicle for fat loss on the paleo "diet"

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:35 PM

I remember well the Anthony Colpo dustup.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:59 PM

Also, the fact that protein and ketosis both lead to a loss of appetite might have something to do with it as well.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:37 PM

Dan, you are correct. However, almost one third of the US population is obese/insulin resistant. A low carb protocol is often very helpful for that group.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 04:13 PM

Calorie counting IS too hard for most people. It's a discipline that requires much more effort than proscribed diets. But in the end you learn how to eat any food and not gain lost weight back.

2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 08, 2012
at 12:12 AM

I do agree. It can not be a long term solution. Hopefully by simply attempting you start to see how much or how little food you really are consuming, and over time it does get easier.

2c2349bc7af0fedb59a5fe99dac9fae2

(2707)

on May 08, 2012
at 06:41 PM

Ambimorph are you referring to thermogenic effect of food. Protein has the highest, as many people think you should really only count protein around 3.2 per gram. So yes, there are differences, in the end the might contribute to a slight advantage.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:01 PM

How could there not be a difference in the efficiency of using different fuels? I would find it extremely surprising if one kind of metabolism took exactly the same amount of energy as another. As it happens, just as an example, the amount of glucose you can get from protein via gluconeogenesis gets something like 2/3 the calorie's worth of glucose.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 09, 2012
at 11:56 PM

Yeah. Still, I don't think that's the major advantage of a LC diet. The primary way it works is through hormones. Hormones decide how the calories that do get through get used, for example building muscle vs. fat. They both take an excess of calories, and your hormonal state is one of the deciding factors.

9
6ec6087043aa391d07a4e0bb35a50234

on May 04, 2012
at 12:28 AM

That's as wacky as the notion claimed by some unnamed practitioners of low-fat raw vegan who say you can eat as many carbs as you want and not gain weight. If anything, it's most accurate to say you can eat as much protein and consume as much alcohol as you want and not gain weight since those are the items most difficult for your body to turn into fat. But either way, yeah, calories matter. Gluconeogenesis doesn't just eat up all the calories you consume and turn them into magical invisible unicorn vapor.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:33 PM

It's a tag now, baby! (Had to shorten it to invisible-unicorn-vapor).

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on May 04, 2012
at 04:09 PM

Would upvote "magical invisible unicorn vapor" twice if I could and think it needs to be a tag.

870fdea50f2a9f1cd2890c8e22549300

(2056)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:35 PM

<3 It will definitely find more uses.

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 12, 2012
at 08:51 AM

Calories only matter when carbs are consumed, or you are doing research and need metrics. The message is very clear 'carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat accumalation'

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 29, 2012
at 07:11 PM

That's actually half true @simon. A very few carbs will bring down all that dietary fat into the adipose. The converse is that on a high carb - low fat diet any fat is just as easily stowed away because the carbs supply plenty of blood sugar. Both approaches are valid for weight loss, and genetics determines which works best for each individual.

6
64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:48 AM

I think the assumption is that you CANT eat so much more than your energy needs for any substantial amount of time if you're eating low carb. Your hunger hormones won't let you unless you're metabolically damaged.

Maybe you can do that for a week, but it gets pretty darn hard to do for a long time.

3b3a449b6705e9ec8b141d0bd07c1a64

(1489)

on May 04, 2012
at 01:20 PM

yup! for the first few weeks I literally just ate and ate and ate and now I get to a point where I can't physically eat any more without being sick. even if you have metabolic damage it will soon sort itself. I now just eat maybe twice a day and I function so much better than before!

81feb1022a28f534867616b9316c7aa4

(638)

on April 14, 2013
at 10:17 AM

yes I was almost sick before after eating very low carb for one day. I was feeling pekish as I do after dinner, ate a few slices of cheese and threw up in my own mouth!

4
3c7150f971f65f52bb066bf21baa0f1d

on May 04, 2012
at 12:14 PM

Remember that weight loss and no gain weight is different to lean out! After i red the "3000 cal a day and no more gain" by Taubes i tried to stay very very low carb high in fat and protein, following the guidelines of Sisson and Wolf...and the result? Gain fat, no muscle...worst recovery ever from my crossfit and strength session. High fat doesn't work for me.

4
1955b5516a3eaedce732f4ea8bb3fa6c

on May 04, 2012
at 04:26 AM

I often log meals into myfitnesspal app to get an idea where I'm at on macronutrient ratios (I'm weird and think it's fun sometimes). I eat on average about 60-70% fat, 20% protein, and 15% or so carbs (gonna try and go lower carb over the summer). I have an EXTREMELY hard time going much over 1500 or so calories, and I don't feel that I'm not eating a lot of food, I think I eat quite a bit. I think eating lower carb, and filling in those calories with fat and protein pretty much means you are taking in less calories, but feeling more full and satisfied at the same time. If I have a bad week and go off paleo I consume way more calories but feel much less satisfied and hungry all the time.

2
2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

on May 07, 2012
at 02:53 AM

Hi, Actually yes I have tried eating unlimited fat. When I first read Gary Taubes book it went against everything I knew, but I needed to loose weight. I decided I would go on a super high fat ketogenic diet so I could find out if it didn't work ASAP. Part of the reason I did this was because there is research showing that ketogenic diets can reverse insulin resistance and diabetic nephropathy in mice.

During the first month of my diet I went out of my way to eat butter, cream, bacon sausages, ribs, steak, cheese, cream cheese, coconut oil, olive oil indeed anything high fat. On a daily basis I was probably eating at least 1.5x my recommended calorie intake and never went hungry, and never said no to food. However by the end of the month I had lost 8kg.

I should stress I was doing no exercise and had a very sedentary lifestyle. I know this point is contentious, but it shouldn't be, as anyone who is obese can easily test the hypothesis (as I did). Counting calories is just pointless.

35b2cb4d450e5288895c255dfdfff35d

(5828)

on May 07, 2012
at 03:25 AM

Counting calories may be pointless until you get to within 10 or 20 pounds of your target weight. Then it'll matter.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 02:49 PM

If something works it's not pointless. There's plenty of obesity to treat and LC is not the only way to treat it.

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 08, 2012
at 05:33 AM

We underestimate our bodies ability to regulate fat, cholesterol, uric acid etc. Paleo diets are about a diet that is so natural that your body is perfectly capable of regulating itself, because it encounters nothing it is not designed / evolved to deal with. It took me over a year of self experimentation to discover this.

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 08, 2012
at 05:16 AM

Actually this is not what I found. My body regulates to 72.7 kg, as long I do not eat excessive carbs it will stay there regardless of calorie intake. If I remove carbs completely it stays at around 70.7kg. It is hard to maintain next to zero carbs with so many temptations around, but I did it for almost a month and am confident in my findings. I would define something as pointless if there is no need to do it. I do not deny that you can loose weight through calorie restriction (starvation), but I guarantee that it is not necessary. This is very easy to test yourself.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 29, 2012
at 06:54 PM

Eating a massive calorie high fat diet is unnatural, and not remotely what our ancestors ate. It's a modern thing originating with Atkins and continuing into the various trademarked versions of Paleo. Something suitable for rich hypochondriacs.

2
3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

on May 04, 2012
at 10:21 PM

There is evidence on both sides. For one, Type 1 diabetics who do VLCing use very low insulin. By definition, they produce zero or very little insulin endogenously. If they VLC, they have to inject very little insulin. Just about every T1 diabetic on a ketogenic diet is thin. When a T1 diabetic starts eating moderate amounts of carbs and must inject insulin, he will gain weight independent of the actual calories he's taking in. Italicized since it's anecdotal and I am not entirely sure about this myself. Supposedly, the weight gain for such a person is a function of the amount of insulin injected, not the amount of calories -- i.e., rapid weight gain if eating high-carb but low-calorie meals vs. low-carb meals with identical calories.

As I mentioned before, it's possible to see weight gain by eating fast foods that do not have any carbs -- i.e., pork rinds. These items have fat, salt, and spicy ingredients -- items which spark "food reward." I experienced weight gain myself eating these. However, if you're eating Paleo (nothing fried or with added salt and spices), you don't eat them, since junk foods are by definition man-made.

There are exceptions to both sides. Some people are making absolute statements here. To quote Matt Stone, if you are not yet confused by nutrition, you haven't looked at it long or hard enough. If you don't have any skin in the game, stay neutral, stay agnostic. You'll have to eat your words soon when new discoveries are made.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 05, 2012
at 01:30 AM

Well, daz, we already know that, of course protein will increase BG. That's clear as day. Protein in absence of carbs, of course. BG will rise slower but will elicit an inslin response ... so yes, weight gain is inevitable. Hence people like Nora and Dr. Leptin preach protein restriction.

Ecb90bbbd5a15868b2592d517a4a5e82

(280)

on May 04, 2012
at 11:59 PM

"As I mentioned before, it's possible to see weight gain by eating fast foods that do not have any carbs -- i.e., pork rinds." Of course it is. No one disputes this. Everyone admits calories matter. No serious person denies basic physics. If you eat 10,000 calories of pork rinds, unless you are Michael Phelps or the fidgety guy on the BBC series (whose NEAT-ing was truly alarming to watch, he twitched so much), you will gain a lot of weight. The real question is: how much do they count? And is it worthwhile for the average person to count them?

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 05, 2012
at 01:32 AM

Not everyone agrees calories matter. As I've said before, there is a metabolic advantage and it ranges from person to person: for me it's small but it definitely exists, ~500 calories. For some, it could be as large as 1000-2000, c.f., David Asprey. This is why I'm advising u not to be sure minded as individual differences matter more than the general principle in nutrition. Exceptions are the rule, there can be no one size fits all diet.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 05, 2012
at 01:33 AM

What I should have said above is, insulin response. It doesn't have to be carbs. Whatever elicits an insulin response can make you gain weight.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:04 AM

here's an interesting read, a anecdote/comment by a T1D; http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html Here's some quotes "Beef causes my blood sugars to rise very high about 7-8 hours post prandial. So does cheese - in similar quantities. Butter and cream and full-fat yogurt do not" & " eating large portions of beef in particular, and other meats as well, require more insulin than 30g of carb"

2965fdc9b18493242a114c8b1daa436b

(48)

on May 12, 2012
at 08:40 AM

I regularly eat Pork Rinds without gaining weight. If they are store bought check they didn't add flour etc.

2
543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 04, 2012
at 04:02 AM

....don't forget that its not just carbs that raise insulin in healthy people

An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods (PDF)

"....postprandial insulin responses are not always proportional to blood glucose concentrations or to a meal's total carbohydrate content. Several insulinotropic factors are known to potentiate the stimulatory effect of glucose and mediate postprandial insulin secretion. These include fructose, certain amino acids and fatty acids, and gastrointestinal hormones such as gastric inhibitory peptide, glucagon, and cholecystokiin (25, 26). Thus, protein- and fat-rich foods may induce substantial insulin secretion despite producing relatively small blood glucose responses.
....."

(an exception being if you are an insulin-dependent diabetic)

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:25 AM

Butter gets a mention here in some observations from a type 1 diabetic; http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html "Insulinogenic is not Hyperglycemic"

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:17 AM

Butter might be similar to high fat cheese, see here for some observations from a type 1 diabetic; http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on May 04, 2012
at 02:13 PM

Very cool paper! Eggs look like a good choice. I wish they would have tested butter or coconut oil...

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on May 05, 2012
at 12:19 AM

Butter might be similar to high fat cheese, see here for some observations from a type 1 diabetic; http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html "Insulinogenic is not Hyperglycemic"

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:03 PM

Ah, but protein also causes the secretion of glucagon, so this kind of analysis can be misleading.

2
06cf0b860450445b9d399fcc1b2a053a

on May 04, 2012
at 12:27 AM

The idea is that in the long run, your body will regulate your energy input and expenditure if you're not eating carbs. So you will find it impossible to eat more than you burn, and you will naturally become more active if you eat a lot.

06cf0b860450445b9d399fcc1b2a053a

on May 04, 2012
at 12:49 AM

*Jean Mayer, who got a few things right about obesity and weight regulation but the important things wrong, phrased the issue this way back in 1954: “Obesity, too many people believe, is explained by overeating; actually it should be recognized that is simply restating the problem in a different way, and reaffirming (somewhat unnecessarily …) one’s faith in the First Law of Thermodynamics. To ‘explain’ obesity by overeating is as illuminating a statement as an ‘explanation’ of alcoholism by chronic over drinking.” Gary Taubes. Why We Get Fat (Kindle Locations 1120-1122).

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:58 AM

My school is called the Jean Mayer School of Nutrition Science and Policy :)

06cf0b860450445b9d399fcc1b2a053a

on May 04, 2012
at 12:47 AM

"Because the one thing we should know for sure is that the laws of thermodynamics, true as they always are, tell us nothing about why we get fat or why we take in more calories than we expend while it’s happening." Gary Taubes. Why We Get Fat (Kindle Locations 1113-1114). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

06cf0b860450445b9d399fcc1b2a053a

on May 04, 2012
at 10:45 PM

Someone downvoted my answer without offering a rebuttal or comment. Rude.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on May 07, 2012
at 04:05 PM

-1. Downvote for treating carbs as if they're evil. That's not paleo or ancestral. Up on the top floor of the Plaza eating your steaks (or grass fed liver) do you breathe a lot of that magical invisible unicorn vapor?

A7768b6c6be7f5d6acc76e5efa66464c

on May 21, 2012
at 08:57 PM

Perfect example of an *inappropriate* use of a downvote.

1
Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 30, 2012
at 12:08 PM

The consequence of eating unlimited carbs was, for me, high blood sugar and A1C. My tolerance for carbs is high but I now know the limits for that macronutrient. Having seen that damage I'm reluctant to perform the same experiment with fats. In the sense of eating an ancestral diet I don't see any point in mass consumption either.

1
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on August 30, 2012
at 10:18 AM

If you attempt to eat pure, unlimited fats, you'll run into a very potent rate limiting factor: bile salts. Once your gall bladder is exhausted, you'll experience a not so pleasant reaction: explosive diarrhea. (This most commonly happens to new paleo folks who have heard about coconut oil's benefits for the first time and try to eat lots of it at once before they're used to it.)

So in that sense, since your body will, um, forcibly remove it from your digestive tract, it becomes impossible to eat it in unlimited amounts, therefore you won't be able to absorb it all, therefore you won't be able to build fat from it.

The real question then becomes what's the rate at which you do absorb it, vs burn it off, so you can answer the question of whether it would cause you to gain fat or lose fat. If you absorb far less than you burn off, you'll obviously burn your already stored fat, otherwise, you'll still gain fat.

But it's a ridiculous way to "eat unlimited" anything, and would have serious consequences - it would be like the reverse version of binge/purge.

Even if you were to eat unlimited protein, you wouldn't be able to digest it all, and you'd wind up in rhabdo/rabbit fever. If you were to try and eat unlimited carbs, at some point you'd also not be able to digest it all, and a lot of it would be excreted.

You'd also wind up malnourished due to a lack of micronutrients, and also depending on what you pick, you'd be missing out on either essential fats, or essential amino acids if you do that long term.

Obviously no one will eat pure fat, or pure protein, or pure carbs. Doing so is insane and has bad consequences, but theoretically, there are going to be rate limits to their absorption.

06ca9c524c28bc3fba95d4d90f8f43c6

on August 30, 2012
at 11:07 AM

A LOT of Bulletproof coffee + Delmonico steak + paleo cookies with coconut oil = what you just talked about.

81feb1022a28f534867616b9316c7aa4

(638)

on April 14, 2013
at 12:31 PM

I don't think "unlimited" refers to actually you should go gorge all the food in the supermarket that is not carbohydrate. Gary says in his book you should eat until comfortably full, not untill stuffed to the limit. When you are eating low carb it is much harder to over eat. I mean you can over-eat meat and fat, but it's not likely that many people will be able to or even feel the need to stuff down 1000's of calories after they finish their original planned meal.

0
B31805c30ac668043fafb85a0b57a02e

on December 29, 2013
at 04:14 PM

Mark clearly says here that studies show that if you eat 50% more calories on a ketogenic diet, you won't gain weight yet you won't lose either.

http://www.askthelowcarbexperts.com/2012/02/5-ketosis-devil-or-angel-mark-sisson/

Edit: 21:00

0
510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on August 29, 2012
at 09:51 PM

Here you go: https://sites.google.com/site/themikelinks/figures/sample-food/sample-food.PNG. This is a sample meal from one day a while ago. I normally don't weigh or measure food, I just eat what I want, but I was curious what it was so I checked it out on fitday. It turns out to be 5,000 cals, 75% fat. This is has been a typical day for me for the last three years. I work out 10 minutes a day at a crossfitesqe strength program, so there's no way I'm burning it off by exercising. I have maintained 175-185 consistently for the last three years. I only go up or down on purpose depending on energy needs and I do that only by adding or removing carbs.

0
Ecf56c446c8ef2d3edc313c864a9ab0a

on August 29, 2012
at 05:46 PM

Creator of the "Optimal Diet" Jan Kwasniewski had clients who have consumed more than 10000 kcal a day and they lost a LOT of weight very fast (I'm not sure but it was something like 20kg of FAT in 30 days or similar...).

Optimal diet is a very low carbohydrate, low protein and very high fat diet. You can lose weight while overeating but carbs and protein must be low (you usually eat at least 2,5 g of fat per 1 kg body weight. Some active individuals eat at least 3,5 g of fat per 1kg BW). Lately I'm working out very hard so my calories are somewhere at 4000-6000 75-85% from fat.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 30, 2012
at 12:11 PM

I can see the "optimal" rationale, but how is eating 5x a person's RDA ancestral?

0
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on May 04, 2012
at 05:04 PM

If I want to keep my calories up, I have to eat more carbs. If I don't eat the carbs my total calories drop. Taubes, Sisson- hell every gym rat trying to gain muscle mass knows this.

Dave Asprey actually claims to have kept his weight stable while eating something like 4000 calories a day- in the high fat direction too, since he puts butter and MCT oil in his coffee.

Taubes goes very in depth into the sort of studies he thinks are needed. I suspect the reason he doesn't mention testing this particular notion is because it isn't meant in the way his detractors like to take it. If the average person shifts from SAD to high-fat low carb, that average person ends up eating fewer calories in total pretty quickly.

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on May 23, 2012
at 05:36 PM

Well, then, Dave Asprey would confirm Taubes, since Taubes suggests you can't gain weight without raising insulin. As long as your carb intake is very small, you do not store the excess calories that you eat. That would be one big rebuttal of Guyenet and others' thesis, if Dave Asprey's claims are true. I happen to think Dave's claim is true but a bit exaggerated. He's a big guy at 6-4/220. 4000 calories for him would be slightly above but not maintenance. In other words, his metabolic advantage is somethign like 500-800 calories. Not little but given his size, not as big as u'd think.

0
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on May 03, 2012
at 11:56 PM

Couldn't tell you whether those authors meant that, but I've read of lot of people saying low insulin would make weight gain impossible. And then there was acylation Stimulating Protein;

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/10/fat-tissue-regulation-part-iv-how.html

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/05/weight-loss-when-its-hard.html

I'd love to hear of someone gaining weight (or not) eating thousands of calories and no carbs, but I got nothing off hand. In my own experience, I gained weight when I first went paleo and dropped my carbs to about 50 grams per day.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on May 04, 2012
at 12:47 AM

If you go to Youtube and watch the BBC documentary Why Thin People Aren't Fat, you'll the one guy who despite being caged in a room and massively overfed in fact doesn't gain any weight. But he shakes, paces, and fidgets like a Chihuahua. Clearly, he is the champion of NEAT.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!