2

votes

Calories, calories, and more calories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM

As i understand not all calories are equal. There is a difference in eating 2000 calories of healthy meats and vegetables, vs eating 2000 calories of chocolate. With that being said, is it possible to consume 3000 plus calories a day in poultry, and various other meats and still have weight loss?

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on April 29, 2012
at 09:48 PM

Yet there is a new 'health' movement that wants to deny this fundamental law of the universe. You have just reaffirmed my faith in humanity.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on April 29, 2012
at 09:46 PM

Early man living hunter/gatherer life styles did not have continual access to food that modern man with developed agriculture does. In fact, intermittent fasting was forced on them regularly. As such, there wwas no need to 'count' calories as a hunter/gatherer. You ate everything when you could because it could be your last meal for awhile. As to Korion's statement, there is not enough information for a substantive evaluation of it. Your body stores excess protein and carbohydrates as fat. Excess is excess.

7c2afddaa11ff8861120e4f6f5e606db

(161)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:36 AM

Korion you make perfect sense. Tell that to Evelyn aka Carb sane :P I just finished reading the atkins diet book. Extremely close to The paleo diet. They dont count calories on atkins, just carbs. When carb level is low, the body uses its fat stores for energy. We are making this too difficult. Back to basics. Did the first paleo eaters count their calories? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm food for thought.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on April 28, 2012
at 11:26 PM

Well I suppose the less fit one is the more the glycemic index of everything they consume matters. That's a good medium;)

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on April 28, 2012
at 11:24 PM

Thank you! Too much energy taken in is simply stored. Doesn't matter if it's the happiest most grass fed cow around.

Bf2291448a06d573f0fdc87cd514e512

(519)

on April 28, 2012
at 06:32 PM

@Korion, come on now. What Erica said could be very arbitrary, and for the most part, is a near true statement. Eating anything in excess probably will cause weight gain..and it seems you were eating bread in excess, but now you're eating nutrient dense foods not excessively...

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on April 28, 2012
at 04:13 PM

@Korion, maybe it was the level of consumed nutrients allowing for more metabolic activities? sort of like going to the beach with a frisbee, beachball and pail as opposed to empty handed- you can do more?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:58 PM

@ Ben and Matt- Yes, I do generally agree with both of you guys that the glycemic index is overrated.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:43 PM

Literature does suggest that quality low glycemic carbs improve body composition better than a low/no carb diet.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:42 PM

I think it does matter and the degree to which this is true depends on your level of insulin sensitivity. I am highly insulin sensitive, so I think it matters less for me than it does for a type 2 diabetic or pre diabetic. I think this is why "slow carb" type diets improve body composition.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:39 PM

Forever, I pretty much say the same thing as you're saying to people all the time. However, I have less and less been mentioning the insulin thing. I suppose along Matt's line, I don't think the insulin release is even important if the calories are dialed in at maintenance or a calculated deficit. At least I mean that for otherwise healthy people, but maybe for everyone?

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:31 PM

You know a heck of a lot more about this than I, Evelyn, but it's clear that my own experience backs up what you said. The more "whole" my foods are, it seems the longer I stay satisfied and (I assume) the harder my gut has to work to get the net calories.

C3bc92e6b5eba45dc55f43ac3c70cc25

on April 28, 2012
at 03:27 PM

Not sure of your situation but eating more can possibly increase your metabolism

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:00 PM

Isocalorically, does insulin release really matter? I haven't seen any data saying it does, but I haven't searched for it either.

22fcea5ec4415ff2238c663324aca40f

(556)

on April 28, 2012
at 02:59 PM

I easily eat 2500 to 3000 Kcal a day. If I've really trained hard, like 3- 2hour sessions of training, I'll down like 4000kcal.. I really don't keep track though. Do what works for you and leaves you feeling the best. I'm not sure how people on here calculate their calories, or why. We are not bomb calorimeters we are complex biological machines.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 28, 2012
at 02:56 PM

Very true, but just trying to compare apples to apples, not to oranges. :)

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:25 PM

Yes true but exactly how much broccoli can you eat?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:25 PM

lol. probably but I was thinking if I said 2 cups of broccoli has 40 calories and a piece of light wheat toast has 40, someone would come on and tell me I'm wrong two cups of broccoli has 35 calories and a piece of light wheat toast has 45, etc.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:23 PM

It's all experiential. Try it for a month and find out.

A31b063c5866c08aa9968a8f2f1e9949

(1721)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:19 PM

I think the key to that is that low-carb decreases appetite so people following a low-carb diet typically consume less food. Coupled with any metabolic advantage that may come with changing macronutrient ratios is where people lose weight on low-carb... but the "eat all you want" mentality comes from, I think, the fact that most low-carbers don't WANT to eat all that much.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:03 PM

I'm as sedentary now as I was then, btw, though I see more sun, eat WAY more nutrient-dense and go to sleep at a reasonable hour.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:02 PM

I've been told I'm negative, so sorry, but how does this explain my weight gain last year on 1500 calories from bread, and me remaining lean on 3500 kcal right now?

93eea7754e6e94b6085dbabbb48c0bb7

on April 28, 2012
at 12:52 PM

I think it would be better if you used real example numbers...

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 12:36 PM

nutrient density is also a factor.

  • 7c2afddaa11ff8861120e4f6f5e606db

    asked by

    (161)
  • Views
    2.7K
  • Last Activity
    1281D AGO
Frontpage book

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

7 Answers

10
7bad6c4e7d681fab6a4aa4580f442e0c

(707)

on April 28, 2012
at 12:35 PM

Eating anything in excess will likely cause weight gain.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:03 PM

I'm as sedentary now as I was then, btw, though I see more sun, eat WAY more nutrient-dense and go to sleep at a reasonable hour.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:02 PM

I've been told I'm negative, so sorry, but how does this explain my weight gain last year on 1500 calories from bread, and me remaining lean on 3500 kcal right now?

C3bc92e6b5eba45dc55f43ac3c70cc25

on April 28, 2012
at 03:27 PM

Not sure of your situation but eating more can possibly increase your metabolism

Medium avatar

(10611)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:25 PM

Yes true but exactly how much broccoli can you eat?

Bf2291448a06d573f0fdc87cd514e512

(519)

on April 28, 2012
at 06:32 PM

@Korion, come on now. What Erica said could be very arbitrary, and for the most part, is a near true statement. Eating anything in excess probably will cause weight gain..and it seems you were eating bread in excess, but now you're eating nutrient dense foods not excessively...

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on April 28, 2012
at 04:13 PM

@Korion, maybe it was the level of consumed nutrients allowing for more metabolic activities? sort of like going to the beach with a frisbee, beachball and pail as opposed to empty handed- you can do more?

7c2afddaa11ff8861120e4f6f5e606db

(161)

on April 29, 2012
at 06:36 AM

Korion you make perfect sense. Tell that to Evelyn aka Carb sane :P I just finished reading the atkins diet book. Extremely close to The paleo diet. They dont count calories on atkins, just carbs. When carb level is low, the body uses its fat stores for energy. We are making this too difficult. Back to basics. Did the first paleo eaters count their calories? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm food for thought.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on April 29, 2012
at 09:46 PM

Early man living hunter/gatherer life styles did not have continual access to food that modern man with developed agriculture does. In fact, intermittent fasting was forced on them regularly. As such, there wwas no need to 'count' calories as a hunter/gatherer. You ate everything when you could because it could be your last meal for awhile. As to Korion's statement, there is not enough information for a substantive evaluation of it. Your body stores excess protein and carbohydrates as fat. Excess is excess.

5
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:02 PM

I've yet to see a study that says you can eat more calories than your metabolism burns and you can lose weight, no matter what the food. Now there are numerous examples saying one macronutrient ratio produces greater amounts of weight loss than another when isocaloric (a constant level of calories). Albeit, it usually is quite small and often statistically insignificant in the time span of the study itself.

The advantage of a high-protein-low-carb diet is rather small, we're talking maybe 50-100 calories per day. It's certainly not 100s to 1000s of calories of advantage.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 28, 2012
at 02:56 PM

Very true, but just trying to compare apples to apples, not to oranges. :)

A31b063c5866c08aa9968a8f2f1e9949

(1721)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:19 PM

I think the key to that is that low-carb decreases appetite so people following a low-carb diet typically consume less food. Coupled with any metabolic advantage that may come with changing macronutrient ratios is where people lose weight on low-carb... but the "eat all you want" mentality comes from, I think, the fact that most low-carbers don't WANT to eat all that much.

2
48b3a3fac68ce4e0b80d8d29a584cc93

(242)

on April 28, 2012
at 04:03 PM

Our body, like everything in the universe, follows the laws of thermodynamics. In order to lose weight you do have to consume less energy than you spend.

You can consume 3000 calories of the most healthy foods available, if you daily caloric expenditure is 2800 calories you will gain weight.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on April 29, 2012
at 09:48 PM

Yet there is a new 'health' movement that wants to deny this fundamental law of the universe. You have just reaffirmed my faith in humanity.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on April 28, 2012
at 11:24 PM

Thank you! Too much energy taken in is simply stored. Doesn't matter if it's the happiest most grass fed cow around.

1
Dc6407193ba441d1438f6f0c06af872b

on April 28, 2012
at 06:53 PM

I think it's the average of all the above.

  1. Calories in/calories out is true but irrelevant. Some people dispense with the extra calories they overheat by fidgiting and so don't gain. Some people can cut calories and be energetic, and therefore lose weight, whereas others will just become exhausted, sedentary, and therefore burn less and not lose weight. Gary Taubes sites examples of populations that eat under 2000 cal/day, work hard, and are obese (they live of bread and coffee). They're also completely exhausted the rest of the time. Food composition matters. Individual genetics matter.

  2. Food consumption matters. We all know that when somebody crash diets, they lose weight. True, it might be more muscle than fat in some cases, but often people look thin after a long crash diet. It's not sustainable, sure, but it demonstrates that calories matter.

I think the right way to think of it is that, for most people, cutting carbs and eating paleo triggers satiety with fewer calories than one would consume otherwise, and also that eating the same number of calories may still result in better weight control for a paleo, who will feel more energetic and so expend more calories than they otherwise would have. It's a combination.

Anicdotally, I occasionally do go on a month-long paleo "binge" where I overeat paleo foods. Sure I gain weight during those times. I don't gain as much as I used to, and merely getting my portion sizes back in line gets me back where I want to be, a gigantic change from my previous life. My health and weight are vastly improved, but at least for me I still have to keep an eye on whether I'm eating for hunger or for entertainment, because eating for entertainment, even with paleo, is not healthful for me.

1
24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on April 28, 2012
at 02:44 PM

I think comparing 2000 cals meat and veggies to 2000 cals chocolate is meaningless. I was going to say you couldn't survive on 2000 cals/day chocolate as it contains only trace protein, but milk chocolate is 17% protein according to FitDay! Still, to compare apples to apples, since a certain amount of protein is required for "maintenance" of cells as is a small amount of fats that are also components of lipoprotein particles and rarely incorporated into fat stores. These requirements are fairly constant if you've not changed activity/environment.

So, lets compare 2000 calories of intake in excess of those needs. Now I suppose we could compare whether those 2000 calories are from meat & veggies or chocolate (and for the sake of argument let's use conventional milk chocolate). Well, if one presumes the meat and veggie diet is 60% fat, 30% protein, 10% carb = 1791 using average Jequier thermogenic factors, while milk chocolate is 24% fat, 17% protein, 59% carb = 1812 effective calories. Pretty much a calorie is a calorie for this comparison, though the thermogenic factors may already be accounted for in the average calorie estimates.

Studies have shown that you absorb fewer calories from less processed foods, and that includes a whole steak vs. ground beef. Thus the types of foods are more important than the macro composition.

A milk chocolate diet! LOL Sounds good :D

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:31 PM

You know a heck of a lot more about this than I, Evelyn, but it's clear that my own experience backs up what you said. The more "whole" my foods are, it seems the longer I stay satisfied and (I assume) the harder my gut has to work to get the net calories.

0
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on April 28, 2012
at 04:15 PM

There is a great explanation of this in the Book the Smarter Science of Slim. It is not a Paleo book. However the Paleo aware will find it very Paleo friendly. Just remember that Soy is bad for you while reading the book. I also would not eat the amount of flax seed he is eating. Other than that it is very Paleo Friendly.

The perfect Health diet has some information on this as well.

0
1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

on April 28, 2012
at 12:36 PM

Of course it's possible if you're eating 3000 and burning say, 4500. The "all calories are not created equal" has more to do with how various foods affect you metabolically, and how they will thereby influence body composition.

FOr instance, 2 cups of broccoli (food A) has x number of calories but has virtually no insulin response to eating it and takes 2y calories to digest. A slice of light wheat toast (food B) has x calories too, but takes y calories to digest an ilicits a large insulin response. Therefore x calories from broccoli is the better option if you are trying to lose body fat when choosing between x number of calories from food A and x number of calories from food B.

93eea7754e6e94b6085dbabbb48c0bb7

on April 28, 2012
at 12:52 PM

I think it would be better if you used real example numbers...

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:43 PM

Literature does suggest that quality low glycemic carbs improve body composition better than a low/no carb diet.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:25 PM

lol. probably but I was thinking if I said 2 cups of broccoli has 40 calories and a piece of light wheat toast has 40, someone would come on and tell me I'm wrong two cups of broccoli has 35 calories and a piece of light wheat toast has 45, etc.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 12:36 PM

nutrient density is also a factor.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:58 PM

@ Ben and Matt- Yes, I do generally agree with both of you guys that the glycemic index is overrated.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:00 PM

Isocalorically, does insulin release really matter? I haven't seen any data saying it does, but I haven't searched for it either.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:39 PM

Forever, I pretty much say the same thing as you're saying to people all the time. However, I have less and less been mentioning the insulin thing. I suppose along Matt's line, I don't think the insulin release is even important if the calories are dialed in at maintenance or a calculated deficit. At least I mean that for otherwise healthy people, but maybe for everyone?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on April 28, 2012
at 11:26 PM

Well I suppose the less fit one is the more the glycemic index of everything they consume matters. That's a good medium;)

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 28, 2012
at 03:42 PM

I think it does matter and the degree to which this is true depends on your level of insulin sensitivity. I am highly insulin sensitive, so I think it matters less for me than it does for a type 2 diabetic or pre diabetic. I think this is why "slow carb" type diets improve body composition.

Answer Question


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