3

votes

Does my diet constitute as both high fat and high carb?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created December 18, 2011 at 6:08 AM

And if so, am I basically killing myself with it? If not, what DOES constitute a high fat/high carb diet?

[Try to stick with me here, and let me know if it gets too confusing!] I've read through a ton of paleohacks threads (I can't seem to find ANY of the threads I reference herein, so I hope you all know what I'm talking about) and the general consensus seems to be that a diet both high in fat and high in carbs means trouble. This has led to more confusion regarding my diet than normal.

I realize a similar question has been asked previously (somewhat recently, I believe, concerning the parameters for high fat/high carb), but I'd like to expand on the question.

What are the parameters that quantify what is high carb and what is high fat? Having been a calorie-counter in the past, I've tended toward a focus on macronutrient percentages rather than grams. I see this on many paleo websites as well, which typically advocate for around 65% of calories or more consumed as fat, something like 10% as carbs, and 25% as protein.

(In this next part I'm assuming you all know that carbs are 4 calories per gram, protein grams are 4 calories as well, and fat grams are 9.) Let me try to explain with the appropriate amount of detail: I generally consume around 100 grams of protein a day. (This isn't based on any calculations regarding my lean body mass, btw--it's just the number to which I've been naturally inclined to over the years.) Since I consume about 1600 calories a day (maintenance; not much exercise), this keeps the percentage of protein I consume fixed at 400 calories: 25%. That leaves 1200 calories for myself to consume of fat and carbs.

Now, I could potentially consume 1200 (and 75% of my) calories as carbs--300 grams. Okay, that's a little 'high' even away from the paleo context. What happens if we shift that and I consume, say, 55% as carbs and 20% as fat? That's 220 grams of carbs--high by most paleo standards (I think) but not grossly high otherwise. It also allows for 35 grams of fat--most certainly not high by paleo standards.

Now let's say I want to fall within paleo-friendly carbohydrate ranges and limit my intake of carbs to 150g per day--a moderately high (?) approach. 150g of carbs provide 600 calories, so about 38% of my calories would come from carbs. That leaves 600 calories for me to consume from fat - about 38% of my caloric intake. So I'm not consuming high carbs by any means, but I'm also not consuming a high amount of fat--not 'high' by the paleo definition I've recognized, anyway. But I AM consuming the same amount of fat and carbs, which I think equals a recipe for disaster. Or sudden death.

If I were to consume a more paleotically-correct amount of carbohydrates--say, 100g--that means I'm getting 400 calories from carbs, or 25%. This leaves 800 calories to consume as fat, or 50%. To me, 25% isn't low-carb, and it isn't within the generally-accepted paleo parameters either. The fact that I don't eat very many calories could also be skewing the numbers here.

On a personal note, it's a little silly to me that there seems to exist a set limit on amount of carbohydrates consumed that takes neither age, weight, nor lean body mass into account in its being determined. All that seems to matter is activity level, and this doesn't make sense to me. How is it logical that both a lightly active, 115-pound, 20-year-old female and a lightly active 170-pound, 50-year-old male should limit their carbohydrate intake to 100-150 (or whatever seemingly arbitrary number) grams per day?

This is all just theoretical, of course.. And I agree with most paleohackers who hold the notion that most vegans have gotten into trouble for doing what 'seems' right ;p

The thing is, I'm really struggling when it comes to finding what's right for me. I was feeling okay on ~38% carbs, ~38% fat, and ~25% protein (the example I used earlier), but then I got ultra sick and switched to high carb out of fear that because I was battling an infection, I had high inflammation, and as such should not have been consuming a high amount of saturated fat (a fear which stemmed from reading a thread about how saturated fat causes atherosclerosis, but heart disease and attacks are caused by inflammation, which can arise due to reasons unrelated to diet). I know that KGH doesn't buy into the belief that saturated fat causes atherosclerosis no matter what--but again, I can't find the thread about inflammation, [EDIT: this one ] so I don't remember why people were coming to that conclusion. (Sorry! :p )

I tend to feel shitty on anything less than 100 grams of carbs, and I felt the best in my life when I was basically eating a vegan diet supplemented with animal products. However, since venturing into the paleo realm I've come to think of this way of eating as suboptimal.

There's a chance that since I'm focusing on percentages instead of grams, I'm under the impression that my diet is both high in carbs when it is neither. There's also a chance that I'm consuming too much protein, and as such most of my number-tweaking is pretty much invalidated.

I don't even know if I've made my own confusion clear here. But I've done my best given my current frantic state. The question remains: Am I doing damage by eating the same amount of carbs and fat?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:29 PM

Cliff, maybe no-one told you, but you're on a paleo website. Believing that everyone could or should find optimum health with 700g+ of potato starch a day is not likely to fool too many people here.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:29 PM

Where do I demonise carbs? In all honesty, there may be a majority of paleo eaters that eat pure fat, but there's a lot more people in the world selling the low-fat message to health, and while you may have a point that there's a significant difference between CW low-fat diets and what you eat that's not the message that comes across.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:15 PM

Barley anyone eats potato starch, 99% of paleo eaters eat butter, oils etc. That's the difference

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:14 PM

You demonize carbohydrates though?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:13 PM

go on cronometer.com and compare 2000 cals worth of 70/30 ground beef(602g) to the equivalent amount of 95/5 ground beef(400g) and orange juice(13 cups).

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:13 PM

Yes, and potatoes aren't carbohydrate sources, they're just a vegetable which has carb stores you can eat. Eat all the potato starch you want, it has zero nutrition. Or we can stop being pointlessly argumentative. As far as I'm concerned I'm not going to reconstitute a potato to remove the starch, nor am I going to go out of my way to mess around with meat to remove the fat. I'll eat the meat and the potato. You're the one who is making a business out of being anti low-carb. I'm just suggesting we not demonise real foods.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:06 PM

First off you clearly have never looked at a cronometer type program because most of the nutrients are in the flesh. Cows aren't a fat source they are an animal which has fat stores you can eat, fat stores that do not contain very much nutrition. Most of the nutrition is bound up in the fleshy protein parts. Your the only one with a dogma, I have no low fat argument just pointing out the facts. Maybe once you realize what fat means we can have a coherent dialog.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:53 PM

Something like that. There's not much reason to add in extra carbs instead of fat per se, so 25% carbs 50% fat is workable, as is 50% carbs and 25% fat. Just start with the food. Get your nutrition sorted, protein sources etc. See how much fat you get along with that, add in useful high nutrient density veg, and you'll probably find there's not that many calories left to worry about exactly where they come from anyway.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:48 PM

What on earth are you to talking about? Carbs contain very little nutrition unless you eat the rest of the potato as well. You were talking about fat sources. Tallow isn't a fat source, cows are. Whole foods. You two are the most dogmatic out there on this, trying to make the micronutrient argument for low-fat. As you well know, you can't survive without fat, you can survive just on animals. Mick, these really aren't sensible people to take advice from.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:09 PM

Lower carb intake and increase activity? Your trolling right?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:08 PM

@mick- if you were eating a 811 vegan style diet its probably due to the fact that the diet includes no animal products and not enough protein.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:07 PM

@andy Fat contains little nutrition, the nutrition is in the meat. You could eat lean meat with carbs and get way more nutrition than you ever could with lean meat +fat, you also get nutrients that animal foods lack.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:05 PM

I don't think it really matters that much tbh(especially if your already somewhat healthy), I've never noticed any difference between low fat high carb meals and high fat/carb meals.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 19, 2011
at 10:05 AM

:-) Cordain thinks saturated fat (palmitic acid) is inflammatory in the presence on carbs because palmitic acid is the fat that made by the liver when glycogen stores are supersaturated so he figured it would be too much for the body to handle. At the end of the day calories count but I think a healthy metabolism should self regulate intake, expenditure and tend to put excess calories into heat, muscle and fat tissue (but to a lesser degree than most people experience); but we can fool the body by superstimulating the brain (like fast food snacks do).

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 19, 2011
at 09:49 AM

Andy feel free to look up tallow as opposed to a potato in terms of nutrition. Who said I was against fatty meat? I eat a fair amount of lamb. I just don't let dogma get in the way of facts. Fat is not a good source of micronutrients; nutrition is in the lean part of animals mostly and starchy foods. The fact that you think liver is a fatty meat amuses me. :-) Mick, a lot of people cycle carbs eating lower carb and calorie on rest days and higher carb and calories on workout days.

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:31 AM

@Cliff, re: 'considering you don't necessarily eat a whole lot'.. would I be doing damage if I increased my intake? And what about days when I'm more active and I do eat a little more but my macros are the same? I'd like to prevent this 'damage' from occurring, if possible (:

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:28 AM

The only period in which I ever actually went below 100 carbs only lasted a few weeks. I was always hungry and always felt faint when I'd stand up which, for me, is the first sign that something's not right with my diet. I know Robb Wolf suggests staying low carb until you're lean/unless it doesn't fit in with your activity level, and I'm already fairly lean--I could lose some body fat but not a whole lot of weight. So that leads to the question of what someone's macros would look like after adding more carb in.. maybe something like mine now.

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:20 AM

@JRAC, thank you! Now I know I'm not alone in this :p I'm really beginning to think I'm placing too much importance on macros. It was just that thread and other things I've read that freaked me out, i.e. an interview with Loren Cordain where he claimed high fat is perfectly fine and dandy as long as you don't eat a lot of carbs + Mark Sisson's assertion that eating above 150 carbs AND eating a lot of fat = .... 'insidious weight gain'.

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:17 AM

Thanks, Melissa. I can actually credit Denise for exposing me to paleo in the first place, and I took interest in her diet for sure. I guess I get caught up in macronutrient ratios a bit much, and since a higher carb/lower fat diet, when implemented at different times in my life and with different foods, both made me feel awesome AND totally crappy, I can't figure out whether it was the quality of the food I ate or my macronutrients that mattered more. I'm leaning toward the former.

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:14 AM

Thanks for the answers, everyone! This kind of discussion is exactly what I was looking for. @AndyM and @Travis, I appreciate that you seem to have opposing viewpoints. That displays to me that either option is viable, and confirms what I've heard from others: do what's best for me. If I start getting fat, there will most certainly be a change (:

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:08 AM

Depends how much of a boozer the animal was. Still, if 25-30% fat is lean meat then great. It's still a source of fat though.

D5cde8031564f905260ce9aa7a1f5e2c

(1170)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:03 AM

Liver is quite lean, actually.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:59 AM

Alternatively, having actually been respectful enough to read your question before commenting on it, concentrate on not being in a frantic state. And if you're getting fatter, consider lowering your carb intake *and* increasing activity :)

Medium avatar

(39821)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:50 AM

Not going to read that novel, but if you are not getting fatter, then it's fine. If you're getting fatter, consider lowering your fat intake or increasing activity. If the fat and carbs are from legitimate sources, there's no problem outside of an energetic overage.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:17 AM

I believe it was you, just up there, extolling the virtues nutritionally of lean meat over the fattier sources. Such as liver. And also trying to suggest carbs are better still. I know you believe this, that's your prerogative, but it's far from being fact.

B3e7d1ab5aeb329fe24cca1de1a0b09c

(5242)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:16 AM

Ha, agonistic was an iphone auto correct fail.... I actually had to google it to see what it meant....

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:14 AM

Separate on the plate? I'd say that's very speculative.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 11:38 PM

Who said liver was poor in micronutrients? Ruminant (or other) fat is a good fuel source but it's typically not high in micronutrients.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 18, 2011
at 10:48 PM

Liver is poor in micronutrients? Lean meat pretty much means limiting yourself to muscle meat, which simply cannot be said to be nutritious than any other animal product. Yes there's plenty of veg that are nutritionally awesome, but the high-carb ones generally don't match up that well.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 07:27 PM

Yeah you've mixed them. Seperate on the plate it's not an issue I don't think (as I side note I eat butter mashed potatoes frequently and never feel a need to eat more). Sweetened fat is very easy to eat large amounts of calories.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 06:58 PM

Yes exactly; the highly stimulating food made you eat more...

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 18, 2011
at 06:36 PM

No. Quantity trumps quality. I like quality, but mass quantities are what made me fat. I could do it on Kerrygold or Blue Bonnet, though I prefer the butter. They're close substutes both in calories and reward.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 18, 2011
at 06:27 PM

Butter by itself. Blech. Potato by itself. Blech. Buttered potato. Seconds please. The problem isn't the macronutrient balance as the size of the meal. I've spent the last 5 years figuring out how to eat a highly variable mix and not regain lost weight.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 18, 2011
at 05:52 PM

I'll go all paleo then. Leave the lamb out, except for the fat, and fry or drench the potato with it. I could just as easily get unhealthy on that. Do the potato in coconut oil and voilà! The basic vegan dilemma. It tastes so good that you overeat it and develop the same obesity and diabetes as on the SAD combos.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 18, 2011
at 05:42 PM

I'd hardly call a carb an empty calorie. Some here consider them poisons. Paleo-wise I consider cars to be more a poison, and I strive to follow a low-car diet.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 05:12 PM

Yeah, I don't think macros matter much. Quality matters most. Perhaps a theory is that highly palatable over stimulating foods are making people fat and that the PUFAs coupled with a lack of nutrition are doing the real damage?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 05:06 PM

A chunk of lamb and a baked potato is pretty much equal fat and carbs. Cake, cookies, candy, french fries aren't good comparisons in my opinion. Sweetened fat is much easier to overeat than other items.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 18, 2011
at 04:54 PM

For me high fat and high carb means at the same time. A piece of cake. Cookies. Candy bars. French fries. All the stuff that turned me into a manbearpig. 10% protein, 75% fat, 75% carbs.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 04:28 PM

Most fat sources are poor in micronutrients. Most nutrition is in the lean or carbohydrate sources. Although animal fat is a source of fat soluble vitamins if it's raised on pasture.

Cfa2637d1b6ec288d32379de06415792

(235)

on December 18, 2011
at 04:26 PM

I second that. I have had similar results in cooked and raw paleo. I think the main reason is giving up highly processed foods and bad quality oils. I can eat from 50 - 150gr of carbs with great weight loss results, whilst following a paleo diet.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 18, 2011
at 03:43 PM

Sorry, but I don't think many of the animals that are the source of my fat are 'empty calories'. I mean, I wouldn't even call a coconut empty calories. You can get some handy micronutrients from those sources honest. Hell, you can even get some calories, which are a handy part of the diet for some.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:59 PM

No, 200g would be into ''insidious weight gain'' wouldn't it?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:55 PM

+1 Melissa and Cliff

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:54 PM

Cliff I think the problem is a high carb amount after a high fat meal. Whereas the at the same time it slows the absorption so it's not as much of an issue. Also the carbohydrate helps keep FFA in check by stimulating insulin.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:43 PM

I think the main point is a almost vegan diet can be paleo compatible, the problem is that most people act like paleo is low carb.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:42 PM

Eating high fat/carb meals can cause blood sugar issues because fat can interfere with the uptake of glucose. I don't think it really matters though unless you eating a ton of fat and highly digestible carbs at the same time.

072fd69647b0e765bb4b11532569f16d

(3717)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:19 PM

I agree with this point. A Paleo-centric diet has worked for me but don't let this site be your main source of information. It will obviously be biased to Paleo. The best source of information is the classic "n=1" personal experimenation.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:14 PM

High carb and high fat sounds like manbearpig. It all has to add up to 100%....assuming that protein is still 10-30%, it's either/or for the rest....

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:04 PM

I've heard multiple people on this website say that high-fat and high-carb is incompatible, but I don't see why either.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:03 PM

Mark does not eat 200 gms a day. I just spoke to him about this very issue not long ago.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 18, 2011
at 01:57 PM

+1...................

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 18, 2011
at 01:41 PM

WHere is this general consensus? I am totally unaware of it and so is my body since I consume a fairly high fat/carb diet.

B124653b19ee9dd438710a38954ed4a3

(1634)

on December 18, 2011
at 01:22 PM

Sisson claims to eat 60-80g/day. Maybe you are thinking kcal since 50g carbs = 200kcal.

7841848bd0c27c64353c583fb7971242

(7275)

on December 18, 2011
at 12:59 PM

"agonistic" should be "agnostic"

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 18, 2011
at 06:32 AM

ah, but I'm assuming he also gets far more exercise than I do and titrates his carb intake accordingly.

Frontpage book

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

7 Answers

best answer

3
26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

on December 18, 2011
at 03:36 PM

There's no one right way to eat. People really are very different, and self-experimentation is key in finding what works best for you.

Personally I eat over 200g of fat and about 200g of carbs most days. I also prefer to eat my carbs with lots and lots of dairy fat. I feel great, my health and looks have improved vastly, my lipid profile is amazing (but then it was when I ate SAD/vegetarian too), and this is about the only thing ever which has raised my body weight set-point a few much-needed pounds. On low-carb I ate higher in calories but my weight was still too low plus I had some unpleasant issues. On true high-carb I feel crappy because I have blood sugar problems which paleo has not eradicated. I need to eat very high in calories, so lots and lots of fat is really my only choice.

18
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 18, 2011
at 01:44 PM

"I tend to feel shitty on anything less than 100 grams of carbs, and I felt the best in my life when I was basically eating a vegan diet supplemented with animal products. However, since venturing into the paleo realm I've come to think of this way of eating as suboptimal."

Whhhhhhhyyyy?? Denise Minger does fine on this diet and has for years, as do many other people. Honestly, it seems paleohacks has done far more harm than good in this case (and many other cases). Stop overthinking things and do what works for you.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:55 PM

+1 Melissa and Cliff

072fd69647b0e765bb4b11532569f16d

(3717)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:19 PM

I agree with this point. A Paleo-centric diet has worked for me but don't let this site be your main source of information. It will obviously be biased to Paleo. The best source of information is the classic "n=1" personal experimenation.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 18, 2011
at 01:57 PM

+1...................

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:43 PM

I think the main point is a almost vegan diet can be paleo compatible, the problem is that most people act like paleo is low carb.

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:17 AM

Thanks, Melissa. I can actually credit Denise for exposing me to paleo in the first place, and I took interest in her diet for sure. I guess I get caught up in macronutrient ratios a bit much, and since a higher carb/lower fat diet, when implemented at different times in my life and with different foods, both made me feel awesome AND totally crappy, I can't figure out whether it was the quality of the food I ate or my macronutrients that mattered more. I'm leaning toward the former.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:08 PM

@mick- if you were eating a 811 vegan style diet its probably due to the fact that the diet includes no animal products and not enough protein.

7
D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 01:38 PM

Nothing wrong with carbs and fat together.

I eat about 40% carbs and 40% fat (of which the majority is saturated).

The only combination of fat and carbs that is bad is PUFA with fructose... but seeing as PUFA is horrible for you anyway; that makes fructose perfectly fine by itself (especially if the quality of foods is good).

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 06:58 PM

Yes exactly; the highly stimulating food made you eat more...

Cfa2637d1b6ec288d32379de06415792

(235)

on December 18, 2011
at 04:26 PM

I second that. I have had similar results in cooked and raw paleo. I think the main reason is giving up highly processed foods and bad quality oils. I can eat from 50 - 150gr of carbs with great weight loss results, whilst following a paleo diet.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 05:12 PM

Yeah, I don't think macros matter much. Quality matters most. Perhaps a theory is that highly palatable over stimulating foods are making people fat and that the PUFAs coupled with a lack of nutrition are doing the real damage?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 18, 2011
at 06:36 PM

No. Quantity trumps quality. I like quality, but mass quantities are what made me fat. I could do it on Kerrygold or Blue Bonnet, though I prefer the butter. They're close substutes both in calories and reward.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 19, 2011
at 10:05 AM

:-) Cordain thinks saturated fat (palmitic acid) is inflammatory in the presence on carbs because palmitic acid is the fat that made by the liver when glycogen stores are supersaturated so he figured it would be too much for the body to handle. At the end of the day calories count but I think a healthy metabolism should self regulate intake, expenditure and tend to put excess calories into heat, muscle and fat tissue (but to a lesser degree than most people experience); but we can fool the body by superstimulating the brain (like fast food snacks do).

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:20 AM

@JRAC, thank you! Now I know I'm not alone in this :p I'm really beginning to think I'm placing too much importance on macros. It was just that thread and other things I've read that freaked me out, i.e. an interview with Loren Cordain where he claimed high fat is perfectly fine and dandy as long as you don't eat a lot of carbs + Mark Sisson's assertion that eating above 150 carbs AND eating a lot of fat = .... 'insidious weight gain'.

3
A994080d499afca98cdc9de896701ebd

on December 18, 2011
at 02:17 PM

Don't worry, I eat high carb and don't measure my fat intake either. I eat as much fat as I want to. And since starch satiates me well, I can't seem to overdo it with the fat anyway. You won't drop dead tomorrow, believe me.

"If I were to consume a more paleotically-correct amount of carbohydrates--say, 100g..." .....seriously? There is nothing correct about that number. 300 g isn't correct either. There is no wrong or right. Your diet seems to work for you, that's all that matters.

3
E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 18, 2011
at 01:39 PM

According to the data we have on hunter gatherers the majority of them eat more than 150g of carbs.. Your paleo-friendly range of carbs is based on low carb parameters not actual evolutionary amount of carbs.

Most fat sources are basically empty calories so if it were me i would eat the 55% carbs. Granted I don't think you'll do that much damage eating equal amounts of carbs and fat considering you don't necessarily eat a whole lot.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 18, 2011
at 10:48 PM

Liver is poor in micronutrients? Lean meat pretty much means limiting yourself to muscle meat, which simply cannot be said to be nutritious than any other animal product. Yes there's plenty of veg that are nutritionally awesome, but the high-carb ones generally don't match up that well.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 18, 2011
at 03:43 PM

Sorry, but I don't think many of the animals that are the source of my fat are 'empty calories'. I mean, I wouldn't even call a coconut empty calories. You can get some handy micronutrients from those sources honest. Hell, you can even get some calories, which are a handy part of the diet for some.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 04:28 PM

Most fat sources are poor in micronutrients. Most nutrition is in the lean or carbohydrate sources. Although animal fat is a source of fat soluble vitamins if it's raised on pasture.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 11:38 PM

Who said liver was poor in micronutrients? Ruminant (or other) fat is a good fuel source but it's typically not high in micronutrients.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:17 AM

I believe it was you, just up there, extolling the virtues nutritionally of lean meat over the fattier sources. Such as liver. And also trying to suggest carbs are better still. I know you believe this, that's your prerogative, but it's far from being fact.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:14 PM

You demonize carbohydrates though?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:07 PM

@andy Fat contains little nutrition, the nutrition is in the meat. You could eat lean meat with carbs and get way more nutrition than you ever could with lean meat +fat, you also get nutrients that animal foods lack.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 18, 2011
at 05:42 PM

I'd hardly call a carb an empty calorie. Some here consider them poisons. Paleo-wise I consider cars to be more a poison, and I strive to follow a low-car diet.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:08 AM

Depends how much of a boozer the animal was. Still, if 25-30% fat is lean meat then great. It's still a source of fat though.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:15 PM

Barley anyone eats potato starch, 99% of paleo eaters eat butter, oils etc. That's the difference

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 19, 2011
at 09:49 AM

Andy feel free to look up tallow as opposed to a potato in terms of nutrition. Who said I was against fatty meat? I eat a fair amount of lamb. I just don't let dogma get in the way of facts. Fat is not a good source of micronutrients; nutrition is in the lean part of animals mostly and starchy foods. The fact that you think liver is a fatty meat amuses me. :-) Mick, a lot of people cycle carbs eating lower carb and calorie on rest days and higher carb and calories on workout days.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:48 PM

What on earth are you to talking about? Carbs contain very little nutrition unless you eat the rest of the potato as well. You were talking about fat sources. Tallow isn't a fat source, cows are. Whole foods. You two are the most dogmatic out there on this, trying to make the micronutrient argument for low-fat. As you well know, you can't survive without fat, you can survive just on animals. Mick, these really aren't sensible people to take advice from.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:13 PM

Yes, and potatoes aren't carbohydrate sources, they're just a vegetable which has carb stores you can eat. Eat all the potato starch you want, it has zero nutrition. Or we can stop being pointlessly argumentative. As far as I'm concerned I'm not going to reconstitute a potato to remove the starch, nor am I going to go out of my way to mess around with meat to remove the fat. I'll eat the meat and the potato. You're the one who is making a business out of being anti low-carb. I'm just suggesting we not demonise real foods.

D5cde8031564f905260ce9aa7a1f5e2c

(1170)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:03 AM

Liver is quite lean, actually.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:29 PM

Where do I demonise carbs? In all honesty, there may be a majority of paleo eaters that eat pure fat, but there's a lot more people in the world selling the low-fat message to health, and while you may have a point that there's a significant difference between CW low-fat diets and what you eat that's not the message that comes across.

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:31 AM

@Cliff, re: 'considering you don't necessarily eat a whole lot'.. would I be doing damage if I increased my intake? And what about days when I'm more active and I do eat a little more but my macros are the same? I'd like to prevent this 'damage' from occurring, if possible (:

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:05 PM

I don't think it really matters that much tbh(especially if your already somewhat healthy), I've never noticed any difference between low fat high carb meals and high fat/carb meals.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:13 PM

go on cronometer.com and compare 2000 cals worth of 70/30 ground beef(602g) to the equivalent amount of 95/5 ground beef(400g) and orange juice(13 cups).

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 19, 2011
at 01:06 PM

First off you clearly have never looked at a cronometer type program because most of the nutrients are in the flesh. Cows aren't a fat source they are an animal which has fat stores you can eat, fat stores that do not contain very much nutrition. Most of the nutrition is bound up in the fleshy protein parts. Your the only one with a dogma, I have no low fat argument just pointing out the facts. Maybe once you realize what fat means we can have a coherent dialog.

2
B3e7d1ab5aeb329fe24cca1de1a0b09c

(5242)

on December 18, 2011
at 06:27 AM

Paleo is carb agnostic, focus on food quality.

Mark Sisson eats about 200g of carbs a day.

EDIT: I'm sure I read one of Mark's posts where he stated he was eating ~200g of carbs, I remember it because someone commented on how he gets that many carb if he is only eating leafy greens and what not as a carb source. Anyway I couldn't find it, but I did find a post where he said he ate ~100g of carb per day, so I'll stand corrected.

My point I wanted to make to the OP was that if your food quality is good macro ratios really shouldn't matter - unless you have some metabolic 'derangement' - however the OP sounds in good shape.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:59 PM

No, 200g would be into ''insidious weight gain'' wouldn't it?

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 18, 2011
at 06:32 AM

ah, but I'm assuming he also gets far more exercise than I do and titrates his carb intake accordingly.

B124653b19ee9dd438710a38954ed4a3

(1634)

on December 18, 2011
at 01:22 PM

Sisson claims to eat 60-80g/day. Maybe you are thinking kcal since 50g carbs = 200kcal.

7841848bd0c27c64353c583fb7971242

(7275)

on December 18, 2011
at 12:59 PM

"agonistic" should be "agnostic"

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on December 18, 2011
at 02:03 PM

Mark does not eat 200 gms a day. I just spoke to him about this very issue not long ago.

B3e7d1ab5aeb329fe24cca1de1a0b09c

(5242)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:16 AM

Ha, agonistic was an iphone auto correct fail.... I actually had to google it to see what it meant....

1
Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 18, 2011
at 11:11 AM

I don't see any need to tweak your protein if you're comfortable with it. Equal amounts of carb and fat would be moderate both. Neither's high, and if it's in the form of real food it's perfectly sustainable. It may not be optimal, but you're welcome to eat it. I don't think many would consider 25% carb, 50% fat as anything other than pretty standard. It's relatively high fat. If you're not doing much exercise some might wonder what benefit there is from the carbs for the inconvenience they may cause in causing hunger, but that may not be an issue for you. If you feel bad with fewer carbs then that might suggest things aren't running as smoothly as they could, which, as always, means we come back to asking how long you tried with low-carb (such as 70g or less).

It should only ever be a guide though, getting bogged down in the numbers is rarely helpful.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 12:53 PM

Something like that. There's not much reason to add in extra carbs instead of fat per se, so 25% carbs 50% fat is workable, as is 50% carbs and 25% fat. Just start with the food. Get your nutrition sorted, protein sources etc. See how much fat you get along with that, add in useful high nutrient density veg, and you'll probably find there's not that many calories left to worry about exactly where they come from anyway.

6d06945c5244687be2f6a9ca731b9cc6

(405)

on December 19, 2011
at 02:28 AM

The only period in which I ever actually went below 100 carbs only lasted a few weeks. I was always hungry and always felt faint when I'd stand up which, for me, is the first sign that something's not right with my diet. I know Robb Wolf suggests staying low carb until you're lean/unless it doesn't fit in with your activity level, and I'm already fairly lean--I could lose some body fat but not a whole lot of weight. So that leads to the question of what someone's macros would look like after adding more carb in.. maybe something like mine now.

Answer Question


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