0

votes

Is weight loss a product of total calories consumed per day or the specific combination of Paleo foods consumed in the day?

Commented on February 25, 2014
Created February 21, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Is weight loss a product of total calories consumed per day or the specific combination of Paleo foods consumed in the day?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 25, 2014
at 12:50 AM

Well it kinda does if your explicit goal is the reduction of body fat. I am tired of being side tracked into this whole 'isocaloric' debat. Its an abstraction. Even if we ignore all the cellular mechanisms, and say 'yes weight loss is entirely about calories", its easier to keep your calories down with less willpower and no counting via low-med carb, because of the strong effect of insulin on hunger.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 25, 2014
at 12:41 AM

Obviously you still must use the energy you use, but if the mechanism is inefficient, it may come from somewhere other than adipose (some people trying to lose weight find they lose muscle, especially with cardio). The last factor to consider is that insulin strongly creates hunger. Its the whole reason smokers can avoid eating (nicotine lowers insulin). So we can't truely compare isocaloric diets with different macros, because carbs produce greater hunger, lower carb diets (low-med) therefor produce more satiation. Which makes the whole isocaloric thing a misleading abstraction.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 25, 2014
at 12:39 AM

Another factor I am reminded of my this mention of sugar is fructose. It stressed the liver being overloaded with fructose - its strongly associated with fatty liver and abdominal fats, not because of input-output, but because the liver is overwhelmed (it handles fat mobilization).

So we can see lots of processes where pure "energy in and out" might get a spoke in the cogs at the metabolic level.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 25, 2014
at 12:38 AM

Oh well its not really a theory. Its just that the burning adipose as energy, as a cellular process, is inhibited by insulin, and generally overweight people have higher levels of basal insulin, and insulin resistance, which therefor will interfere with fat loss. In a healthy paleolithic person the presence of insulin of course would be when blood sugar is elevated, so it makes sense in an evolutionary POV.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 24, 2014
at 04:36 PM

You're right, but I couldn't reply to Mscott because he would have deleted his original post and therefore mine would have gone down as well. So I made it an answer. Nothing against the OP per se.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 24, 2014
at 04:33 PM

Ha! Oh yes you are so much more civilized than the rest of us. "Fuck off"? Lol. Really bitch? Nicely done now go eat some ice cream and cookies you fat fuck and stop trying to seem like the civilized one in this debate. And yes I do have a degree in Electrical Engineering and another in Computer Engineering. What do you have bitch? A degree in woo?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 24, 2014
at 01:17 AM

Wow, toxic.

2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

(10)

on February 23, 2014
at 11:58 PM

the barbarian behavior is just the tip of the iceberg. he's a grade A moron no matter how nice he could be.

618fc5298c4a96b817c4918c795a875f

(1217)

on February 23, 2014
at 10:00 PM

yes Daz, my point exactly. I was using parody as a rhetorical technique to show how silly it is to get so heated in a forum about diet. It IS distasteful to go so out of control that one resorts to foul language and name calling. Adults, especially those who claim to be educated, should be civilized enough to control themselves and dialog - even when it becomes heated, there is no reason to resort to verbal violence. It takes away credibility, in my opinion.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 04:03 AM

Well technically it wasn't about low or medium carb at all. it was about specific "paleo foods". The only specific foods I know of associated with weight loss are MCTs, and SCTs (milk and coconut). So technically none of us are talking about the OP's question at all. A bit pedantic don't you think, there cdone?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 04:00 AM

Although I must say that this ward study isocaloric stuff is really misleading in the context of real life dieting. People don't eat in a ward, they control their own eating. Insulin produces hunger, immediately, strongly, and so lower carb is more satiating, and thus more stable calorically, less bingy, easier to do without applying willpower. Thats kind of a no brainer. If the ward studies show anything, they show that being locked up and having someone else control your food helps you lose weight, lol. Which we all know already.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 03:58 AM

Then we differ in our view. In my view most people trying to lose weight are overweight, and likely sedantary, thus insulin reistant to some degree, and so insulin is a primary consideration for weight loss in my view. If you had a ward study than included excercise, longer term, over weight people and a decent sample size, I am sure it would show that.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 03:52 AM

I haven't changed my position at all. You've just actually seen it for the first time.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 23, 2014
at 03:28 AM

yes, I do exercise. again, that's not the question. The question is whether, in an isocaloric reference frame, a specific macro ratio matters. And the answer is, no. For health, yes it matters -- and I believe that moderate carb is better than low carb for health -- but for weight loss, the answer is no. The first order effect is calories.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 23, 2014
at 03:26 AM

That wasn't the OP's question.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 23, 2014
at 03:25 AM

Wow, we got through to Drael.... Now we got to chip through on theGasTronO'mer -- you'd think my irish comptraiotaes would understand teh value of a potato.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:40 AM

In fact, thats one reason, that kind of shows why ward studies have little real life application. In real life you eat if your hungry. If your diet makes you hungry, you'll eat more, if your diet makes you feel full, you'll eat less. Being insulin stimulates hunger, sugar produces opiate like effects, a diet higher in carbs is going to be harder to mentally control.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:36 AM

Whatever makes you feel full huh? I suppose it doesn't help that insulin produces hunger then?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:35 AM

Well that would make sense anyway. Low fat is the mainstream paradigm, its more well known.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:33 AM

If you dig into it, Khazakstan is a good place to rummage for health statistics. Here's a start, though you'll see that alcohol and smoking confound things:

http://www.med.nagoya-u.ac.jp/medlib/nagoya_j_med_sci/7412/05_Kulkayeva.pdf

You really need historical information.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:29 AM

It's hard to figure out what low fat means exactly, only that low fat diet was something many successful weight loss maintainers had in common. The data is collected using surveys of diet and activity details - how many servings of this or that per week, how many flights of stairs climbed, time spent walking, etc. Not all the research papers generated are easy to get on the Internet unless you pay for them.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:14 AM

But your right, if your fit, lean, etc, then higher carb is fine. I still lean towards moderate carb being healthier, philosophically than 60-70% calorically carbs, but the differences would be much harder to detect, if they exist, between very fit people, than between your average person, or overweight person.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:10 AM

If your already exercising, though. If your overweight, overactive, chances are you have some level of insulin desensitization, and your road might be slower or stalled (especially if you do steady state cardio). So for the typical dieter, overweight, doing low fat, calorie counting, and jogging, the picture is less favourable. Which is why even old fashion weight watchers is now incorporating at least glycemic index.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:04 AM

I've heard of studies being done on populations that traditionally ate very low carbs. Central Asian nomads I think. I'll look around.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:59 AM

Drael you have hit the nail on the head. While LC is advantageous for controlling metabolic syndrome (and is why the ADA developed the carb counting diet for diabetics 50 years ago),there is no great benefit beyond that. If you're exercising, a fat calorie burns the same as a carb calorie.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:49 AM

personally i don't see any requirement for foul language or name calling by anyone.

its just an internet forum after all

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:46 AM

I couldn't find anything in the summary of research findings about them being all low fat eaters, or a comparison of low fat versus high fat. I was temporarily excited an n=10,000 macro diet comparison, if well controlled would have been fascinating.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:41 AM

Ive read lots of macro diet comparisons, and while I think it leans toward low carb being better overall, I wouldn't call the total "experimental debate" particularly conclusive either way. Nutritional science is often like that though, too hard to properly control, hard to get sufficient sample sizes.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:40 AM

Hmm. Okay. Whats your academic background? Where or how did you learn to critique and read studies? You are both very firm in your perspective, i'd love to see some evidence that matched that. Ill be honest, all the convinced me was the cellular metabolic processes, and how that matches to peoples frequent failures at weight loss. For me there's no study, only the biology itself. As such, I guess you could call it, what i'd expect to see based on the body.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:34 AM

Well id actually say a sample of eight isn't sensitive enough for moderate differences. Typically a thousand is used for small differences. This doesn't even go into double digits, it will only detect gross differences.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:31 AM

And yet your go to stuff is these ward studies with tiny sample sizes? Thats pretty unwhelming scientifically. That the "debate" experimentally is still unresolved and ungoing, between low carb and higher carb, and does allow actually both perspectives, although I think the general lean is in the lower carb direction, in terms of evidence. I think the "insulin theory of obesity" would be a misnomer regarding my understanding, overly simple. Obesity is far more complex than either macro's, or calories, as any open minded scientist will attest. For example, fructose can lead to adiposity.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:20 AM

I am not aware of many studies that actually study strict low carb for long periods of time. Often they study moderate carb (or the study designers idea of low carb). Moderate carb (100-200 grams type) is reasonable easy to follow IMO, and plenty of paleo folks do it. Incorporate cheat days, and actually its a hell of a lot more satisfying long term and free than low fat diets. I think i'd agree that a diet that relies on a strongly ketogenic state like atkins is hard to follow. But any lowering of carb intake will help with metabolic syndrome, you don't need to go all keto

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:06 AM

100% healthy people yes (assume insulin sensitivity). But considering our sedantary lifestyle, and that standard 60-70% by calories people eat of carbs - how many people are healthy by the time they reach say, 30? What percentage of the population? Worse, what percentage of people trying to lose weight? For an overweight person, it can be pretty hard to lose weight on a standard diet, with the prescribed slow steady state exercise most are recommended or do, I think.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:02 AM

Thats a moderate carb diet. Much lower than the 60-70% by calories that the SAD diet is composed of. I eat moderate carb myself, it works better for me too. I lost about 10 kgs. Did you exercise?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:00 AM

Are these ward studies tiny almost meaniningless samples of eight again? How is that supposed to detect significance between the two? And are these people with confirmed metabolic syndrome, or normal healthy people? Are they doing exercise? What kind?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 12:56 AM

If your insulin resistant then your body is constantly producing more. Insulin operates via a receptor, and much like receptors in the brain there is sensitisation and desensitization.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 12:54 AM

Atheletes don't have metabolic syndrome. Exercise lowers insulin resistance.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:50 PM

There's an order of magnitude between the adaptation and deficit.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 22, 2014
at 09:14 PM

Yeah, because the 1000s of professional athletes, most of whom still consume copious amounts of carbs, all have the "skinny fat" look.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 22, 2014
at 09:09 PM

several of the studies are linked to in this post.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 22, 2014
at 09:08 PM

You are creating a strawman and deflecting from the real question. For two healthy people. One who eats VLC and one who eats high carb -- in an isocaloric reference frame -- will loose the same weight. Once you bring it diabetes and other metabolic disorders -- you change the question.

I would agree 100% that someone who is diabetic -- low carb is a good choice to heal. But it is not a requirement to loose weight.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 22, 2014
at 09:04 PM

@Drael I can categorically said that is not true. I ate carbs (~150g per day) and lost 60lbs. Not an ouce of ketosis -- and somehow went down to 9% body fat while increasing my muscle by 2.4 lbs -- as measured by a dexa scan.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 08:46 PM

Wing's factors are a template which allows almost any diet. There's a slightly higher success rate for structured diets (such as Atkins and Weight Watchers), but diet is only one of several factors. Eating less and being active an hour a day are of importance to 90% of participants, and neither of those conflicts with a Paleo dietary approach.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 08:30 PM

Disagreeing is one thing gastronomer, but coming in and crapping on someone's question is bad form.

Paleo is not Weight Watchers, but it's not Atkins either. I stand by eating meat and hunt-and-gather behavior, but not by mandatory 24-7 ketosis dieting.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 07:10 PM

And now you lump together low carb and Mediterranean to make your point? Oh brother.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 07:10 PM

And yet the low carb diet underate more and lost slightly more (according to what the calorie deficit would have predicted). The initial weight loss is largely diuretic in nature, not real fat loss.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 05:30 PM

This only happens when someone asks a really good question. Too bad there were consequences.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:43 PM

Yeah Matt it kind of sucks. Most LCers are Atkins, which is very easy to start out on. They get a kick start with the induction stage for a couple weeks, but then the real work begins. Wing et al tried to get Atkins people into her long term weight loss study but there aren't that many that persist. If you look at her study in the link below you'll see that success in maintaining weight loss is multifactorial. One factor is low fat diet, but it doesn't necessarily have to be if the other factors override it.

I spent some time rereading Wing's main factors. Daily exercise, eating less.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:58 PM

YOU claimed to have seen the metabolic ward studies asshole, not me. Its yours to prove. Weight loss includes fat loss, is that hard for you to understand? Weight loss is directly proportional to fat loss, come on idiot even you can figure this one out.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:55 PM

No they don't. And you cant prove it because you havent cited a single one, you're just making shit up. Is this the best you can do? Come on show us the metabolic ward studies that compare the two diets...go on then.

Unless you're full of shit and made them up because they dont exist, in that case go on talking shit and pretending to know what you're talking about.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:47 PM

Little kid I've been an engineer a lot longer than you and your boyfriend Mscott have been "science geeks" and I've read a lot more physiology than both you ignoramuses have. The fact that you have been on this site "longer than us folks" doesn't qualify you for shit nor does it make you the authority on anything. This is PaleoHacks and you don't even believe in the Paleo concept, you're full of shit kid. By the way YOU are the one who claimed to have seen the metabolic ward studies asshole, not me, so the duty to prove it is on you. And you still haven't proven shit.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:41 PM

Yes it does asshole:

"All groups lost weight, but the reductions were greater in the low-carbohydrate and the Mediterranean-diet groups (P<0.001 for the interaction between diet group and time) than in the low-fat group"

Even though the low carb group didnt count any calories. Read it next time so you don't look so stupid.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:39 PM

gastronomer here is a large-scale study for you to chew on

http://www.nwcr.ws/

Low fat diets are superior for long term weight loss maintenance for this N=10,000 group over 10+ years.

EDIT: study group is 10,000 not 50,000.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:35 PM

This was while the low fat group and mediterranean group were counting calories but the low carb group wasn't counting a single one. You're embarrasing yourself.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:33 PM

Yes it was:

"All groups lost weight, but the reductions were greater in the low-carbohydrate and the Mediterranean-diet groups (P<0.001 for the interaction between diet group and time) than in the low-fat group (Figure 2)."

P <0.001 is very statistically significant. So there.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:27 PM

Except they had less weight/fat loss when compared to the low-carb induction phase of less than 20g/day even though they were counting calories and the low-carb group wasn't. You're wrong again, no surprise there.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:21 PM

Little kid I've been an engineer longer than you and your boyfriend Mscott have been "science geeks". I've also read a lot more physiology than both you ingoramuses have. Being on a blog "a lot longer than us folks" doesn't qualify you for shit nor does it make you the authority on anything. If thats your best argument it's pathetic. This is PaleoHacks and you even belive in the Paleo concept. The one who said he'd seen metabolic ward studies was YOU, not me, asshole, so it's up to your ignorant ass to prove it.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:17 PM

Except it doesn't show significance where it matters??? to continue to confuse weight and fat loss is your problem.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:15 PM

You mean the one with 322 subjects from the New England Journal of Medicine and more than enough statistical significance to go around? Guess you purposefully missed that one.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:14 PM

Easier to follow and yet terrible recedivism?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:13 PM

Now it's weight/fat loss! LOL! Show me metabolic ward studies that show significant difference between macronutrient ratios on an isocaloric diet.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:12 PM

Incorrect. You can eat any realistic isocaloric ratio and track the same weight loss/gain. This is what metabolic ward studies suggest.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:08 PM

You have shown no metabolic ward studies comparing low calorie diets with low carb diets, none at all. I'd love to see a head to head comparison of both diets in a metabolic ward, so bring it on. Unless you're making them up to try to win this argument, nice try.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:01 PM

I never changed the language, I've repeated myself a million times by now. Low carb is superior for weight/fat loss, lowering carbs will cause weight/fat loss, raising them will cause weight/fat gain, assuming all other variables are held constant, specifically calories. You're a terrible loser, try losing with some dignity next time.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:57 PM

"Nearly all insulin is cleared out of the body" - this is wrong, specially in the context of hyperinsulinemia such as is often the case in overweight or obese individuals. Chronically elevated insulin levels is caused by a chronic consumption of a high carb diet. Basal insulin levels in overweight people are quite high and inhibit fat loss, promoting use of glucose over the use of fat for energy.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:49 PM

This leads to the classic "skinny fat" look. People who are thin but who simultaneously have very little muscle and substantial amounts of flab (connective tissue and fat).

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:44 PM

Low calorie is equivalent to lowering carbs. If a person who is already getting the majority of their calories from carbs has their calories reduced then the vast majority of these reduced calories will come from carbs which are the bulk of their calories. So yes their carb reduction will stimulate a weight loss phase.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:39 PM

Actually why aren't you arguing for the magic of the Mediterranean diet? It had a diminished diviation from baseline than low-carb and the same weight loss results. Hrm???

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:39 PM

Did you know the body can lower its resting energy requirements in response to what you eat? I dont know if you took math in school but, if your energy output is a function of your your macronutrient ratio as opposed to a constant value, which is supported by thermogenesis (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenesis) then the input food may cause a deficit or a surplus depending on both its macronutrient composition and energy content.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:37 PM

Actually, it wasn't significant. So there.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:36 PM

Every metabolic ward study and N=1000000+ of individual dieters doesn't disprove that idea that fewer calories means you won't lose weight?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:33 PM

Mscott and I have been around for a lot longer than you folks. We probably also were attracted to the simplicity of the insulin-theory of obesity, but we're both science geeks??? we read actual studies and quickly discovered that the low-carb studies are not a slam dunk, but rather results again and again show that it's just calories that count. Which is why you've yet to show metabolic ward studies showing weight loss differences, or larger out-patient studies showing statistically significant weight loss results that cannot be explained by greater deviations from baseline diet.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:30 PM

Some weight loss is from fluid and some is from fat, but fat is lost.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:28 PM

I didn't say a healthy diet causes a calories deficit, I was agreeing with "if you're overweight limiting carbohydrates has been shown to increase energy expenditure". That was a valid point. I dont believe calories have to be dropped to lose weight, although thats one way to lose weight. I believe that changing the macronutrient composition can be just as effective without dropping calories.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:27 PM

Funny, because you're also posting results that are statistically insiginificant, even with larger sample sizes. Haha.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:26 PM

Notice you chance your langauge whenever it suits your "point", fat loss becomes weight loss. And then when weight loss doens't even apply, you argue health markers. C'mon??? you're a terrible troll.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:22 PM

Yeah but a sample size of 322 people, like the study I posted above is.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:20 PM

Nevertheless this doesnt disprove my point, it just says that very low carb makes people lose weight very quickly, and that reintroducing more carbs slows down or halts said weight loss.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:18 PM

They are not inaccessible by insulin though. And you certainly won't touch lean mass for energy.

Two points the insulin-theory gets wrong: 1) Insulin has a half-life of about 5 minutes in the body. As soon as gluclose levels return to normal nearly all insulin is cleared out of the body. 2) Metabolism is not black or white (sugar burning or fat burning) at any one time, it's always some shade of gray (burning some ratio of fat and carbs).

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 01:17 PM

Ok, yes I see the one you are refering to. The 40% carb intake was months after the induction phase of only 20g/day of carb, by this point the carbs had been reintroduced for maintenace and therefore this increase in carbs halted their weight loss, which is why after 6 months there was a joining of the three groups, because the low carb group had stopped being low carb and then was turned into moderate carb. They didnt regain weight because they still ate roughly 120g less of carbs/day than they originally ate.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:14 PM

If you're eating insufficient calories for your activity level, it doesn't matter where your calories come from if not from adipose. Explain how that could be otherwise.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:11 PM

Almost, but not quite correct, a small sample size is not sensitive to small differences.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:05 PM

Except you stick them in a metabolic ward and they magically start losing weight on high carb, low calorie.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:01 PM

gastronomer why does eating a healthy diet necessarily cause a calorie deficit? We are evolved to gorge. We can eat 5 lbs of grass fed beef at one sitting.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:55 AM

???? drael you need to explain this in terms that even Gary Taubes and Jack Kruse can understand. What's YOUR theory?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:53 AM

You gave them 5% wiggle room, which is the same as taking a laxative.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:50 AM

Yes, if it is a low carb approach to Paleo. The effect should be the same as Atkins induction, with 5-10 lbs loss in the first two weeks. This is not fat loss though.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:47 AM

Low carb is a discipline which is probably easier to follow than any other restricted calorie approach. Unfortunately it has terrible recidivism. The consequence of leaving the discipline and eating a 50% carb diet such as the Med is rapid regain of 5-10 pounds of water weight. And because low carb dieters are not trained to reduce the amount they eat but only to avoid specific foods, it is nearly impossible for them to do damage control and maintain their weight.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:35 AM

CD please link the studies you refer to.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 04:12 AM

I think thats a good question though. Where does the energy come from, when the fat stores are made inaccessable by insulin? Would a person starve eventually? Would they eat muscle (seems likely).

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 04:06 AM

Muscle loss I would guess, and other forms of body cannablism. Like joggers. But you might want to ask someone with a deeper understanding of cellular metabolic processes than I, all I know is that insulin inhibits the burning of body fat.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 04:02 AM

It does seem like that. Like they are simply ignoring the human body, and treating it like burning an almond in third form science class. Not exactly a deep comprehension.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 04:01 AM

I think the question that comes to my mind, is if these people are coming here simply to argue against lower carb diets - how could people ever trust that sort of open emotional bias?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:59 AM

Yes you can. Small sample size simply is not sensitive enough to detect significance. I actually studied stastical experiments at university. Using eight people studies for an argument with firm conclusions is just silly. If you just look at HOW fat is burnt, and what the influence of insulin is on that process, you'll see why people take the position that carbs count. Unless you look at the actual metabolic process, your not really dealing with the human body your dealing with an abstract.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:56 AM

I have posted no studies. How did you get that confused?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:54 AM

So your just ignoring the actual cellular mechanism via which body fat is burned? Perhaps you should do more research.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:52 AM

Untrue. There people who eat under calorie, and exercise and do not loose - because they are eating high carb.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:51 AM

In this way they are both "first order" so far as I am concerned. This "either or" mentality that is prevelant in these discussions may be what is leading you to refer to it as second order. The energy still needs to be biologically liberated from the adipose, even if you have a deficit.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:50 AM

Okay, I see where you are coming from. Its possible to lose no real weight at all under a caloric deficit, because of insulin resistance, so at a biological level, its a first order effect as far as I am concerned, weight loss is enabled by lower insulin. Yes that will exist in people who are healthy and higher carb, but less so in people who are overweight. However weight loss will also not occur unless there is also a higher metabolic use of energy than absorbtion.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:44 AM

If you eat below TDEE, even with high carbs, you're pulling from reserves. Where does the energy come from otherwise?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:42 AM

Funny, because you're also posting results that are statistically insiginificant, even with larger sample sizes. Haha.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:39 AM

Yes, a 2 pound difference in one study may be significant and in other it may not be. So far, all I've seen used to support low carb being superior is statistically insignificant studies. You cannot ignore the statistics just because the sample size is small.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:34 AM

If your TDEE is 2500 calories, than yes, both will result in approximately 1 pound of fat loss per week.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:29 AM

You are quite mistaken. Read through Table 2.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:28 AM

not me. I am here for health.

The arugment is not whether insulin is needed The argument is whether 20g carbs, 40g carbs, 200g carbs in a isocaloric reference frame would change weight loss. It may, but without caloric deficit weight loss will not occur. First order, second order -- by definition.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:25 AM

I am not arguing that insulin in not needed. I am arguing that in healthy people carbohydrate intake is a secondary effect to caloric load. The relative difference may appear high, but the absolute difference is not a first order effect.

If you eat 1000 calories over your energy expenditure you will not loose weight. if you eat 1000 calories under your energy expenditure -- even if you are eating high carb -- you will loose weight. First order, second order -- By defintion.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:24 AM

A second order effect, without which their can be no weight loss. That's a weird kind of second order effect. I thought weight loss was the primary effect we are after?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 03:19 AM

Without insulin, like in type 1 diabetes where the pancreatic beta cells are dead and unable to produce insulin, people die of starvation and cachexia no matter how many calories they take in. This is a pretty clear sign that insulin is the primary hormone in the signaling of the fed state and not merely a secondary effect. This site explains the purpose of insulin clearly and consicely: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=42943#tocb

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 03:12 AM

The key part is "...when insulin levels drop in response to low blood glucose...", without this event there is no fat utilization under normal resting circumstances. So eating a low carb diet, which inherently decreases insulin levels by decreased bioavailability of glucose, consequently promotes fat utilization to a much greater degree. Sadly some people on here are too lazy to look into this mechanism and like to live in a bubble where apparently calories are the only thing that matters. Explaining biochemistry to them is like explaining calculus to a dog.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 03:08 AM

Indeed, insulin inhibits fatty acid oxidation (burning fat). It's no secret, it just takes some reading. Like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_metabolism#Transport_and_oxidation

"when insulin levels drop in response to low blood glucose levels, this triggers an intracellular secondary messenger cascade that phosphorylates hormone-sensitive lipase to break triglycerides into glycerol and free fatty acids for use in metabolism, a process called lipolysis. The free fatty acids move into the blood stream where they are....transported to the tissue needing fuel"

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:06 AM

it's a second order effect --- by definition.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 03:01 AM

Oh fun, links. Here I got one for you, screw PaleoHacks you'll fit right into this one:

http://community.weightwatchers.com/index.aspx

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:52 AM

Nice simple answer. At a cellular level insulin inhibits adipose burning (body fat loss). So low-moderate carb is going to produce on average better results for weightloss, especially for the insulin insensitive, keeping in mind that calories also matter.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:48 AM

What about the cellular effect of insulin on releasing energy from the adipose? How is that a "second order effect"? Mechanically, I would think that's a basic requirement for weight loss, the ability to easily liberate energy from the adipose at a cellular level, not some after thought...

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:34 AM

That's easy. For an overweight person, the paleo would be superior, because it would be moderate or low carb (on average), which increases the availability of stored energy. Again, my suggestion - read body by science. It covers the cellular cycles and such, and gives you an idea how all these things actually work.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:32 AM

Agreed Drael, the studies they cite are miniscule, specially when compared to the larger studies I cited above by the New England Journal of Medicine. They selectively chose to ignore those however.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:31 AM

Eight people again! Hello statistical significances sensitivity is derived from the sample size. You can't study eight people and dismiss the results because of signficance, thats just lol. You need a bigger study. Some of you folks need to actually study experimental design before you run around proclaiming conclusions based on science you clearly don't understand well enough to do so.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:30 AM

Exactly what I was thinking. These people are starting to sound like Weight Watchers. Should we all start eating low-calorie chocolate chip cookies to lose weight and begin counting our "points"? Since when did Paleo become another mainstream count-your-calories weight-loss scheme?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:28 AM

@Drael You're 100% correct. An understanding of the biochemistry of the human body makes it much easier to comprehend the underlying mechanisms involved in the process of storing or burning fat. The human body has ways to regulate its energy output, based on the foods it eats and the physical demands placed on it. It is far too simplistic to view the body like a calorimeter that burns all substrates identically and doesn't differentiate between them. There is ample evidence that it does.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:27 AM

If you don't believe that low carb helps liberate energy from the adipose, as cellular science teaches, what the heck are you doing on this website? Is it some kind of emotional bugbear for you?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:23 AM

With an absolutely tiny sample size of eight, the statistical signigificance is more likely due to that. To confidantly say that macro's didn't matter you'd need to repeat the experiment for a longer period (12 weeks), with a bigger sample size (lets say 1,000, although 10,000 is usually more ideal). You'd also want in there a group that consisted of metabolic syndrone people, and you'd also want women, and people of differing ages. Finally you'd want to measure far more cellular fitness markers. Scientifically, this is hardly conclusive (indeed cellularly counter intuitive IMO)

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:18 AM

'secondary effects', nice, well worth mentioning

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:17 AM

You're right. Eating 2000 calories from sugar will have the same effect weight-wise as eating 2000 calories from fat, veggies and meat. Right...you tell yourself whatever you want to feel better about drinking your (sugary reduced-calorie) Kool-Aid.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:12 AM

Nowhere in article 2 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681) does it say the low carb diet was 40% calories from carbs, but then again I guess you like making up your own imaginary facts. Whatever, go ahead, if it makes you feel better about being wrong....

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:09 AM

Oh hey, you can't prove me wrong so the best you can do is bring up statistical significance, like I don't know what it is. You're a an idiot kid. There's plenty of statistical significance in the studies I cited, but you conveniently chose to ignore those. Is that what you do when you are on the losing side?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:05 AM

Ok so prove it wrong then.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:04 AM

Article 2:

"The low-carbohydrate, non???restricted-calorie diet aimed to provide 20 g of carbohydrates per day for the 2-month induction phase and immediately after religious holidays, with a gradual increase to a maximum of 120 g per day to maintain the weight loss."

The diet initially was very low carb, only 20 grams so people lost a lot of weight. But this difference dissapeared once people were allowed to reintroduce carbs back up to 120 grams. This is the reason why after 6 months there was no difference, they ate more carbs. So you're wrong, again.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:03 AM

http://i.imgur.com/hrm1M.gif

2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

(10)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:34 AM

don't let it happen again, matt

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:12 AM

Seriously, so much wrong??? *head explodes*

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:10 AM

Oh shit, I gave them some room to argue!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:06 AM

Article #3: Weight loss was only significant for 6 months, then there was no difference. Diet was not measured either, it was only prescribed so who knows what the diets really were like.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:06 AM

Article #1: There's no comparison, period. Also worth pointing out that they report the paleo diet increases caloric intake versus baseline, except baseline is 24-h recall, which is notoriously low.

Article #2: Low-carb diet actually had lower calorie consumption (greater deviation from baseline) than the other two diets. Supporting the idea that calories are important. Notice, low carb here was still 40% calories from carbs. You sure you want to use this to suggest that low-carb is so superior?

2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

(10)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:04 AM

and im sure in that 5% it's not because 'carbs are teh devilz!'

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:50 PM

Oh hey, let me introduce you to my friend, statistical significance.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:48 PM

Source makes no difference. Calories are all that count, 95% of the time.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 11:31 PM

Hahaha! Cry a little if it makes you feel better. "TheGastronomer is mean! He's a troll!" You guys are hilarious. You get your asses handed to you because you were proven wrong and all you can do is cry. Nice. By the way you want to know what is statistically significant? In table four, the low carb group lost 9.6% waist circumference (from 115 down to 104) and the high-carb group only lost 8.8% (from 113 down to 103) and that was statistically significant.

2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

(10)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:26 PM

he's a troll. i argued with him in another thread, i posted multiple studies explicitly stating that de novo lipogenesis is not a significant pathway of fat deposition in humans, and he basically responded to every single one with "you didnt read your own studies! they prove my point for me! your reading ability sucks!" and pointed out irrelevant shit like fat burning is inhibited during carb feeding, ignoring the fact that carb burning is accelerated proportionally to make up for it. he wants to be right no matter what. which is seriously childish and immature, but it's a free world.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:21 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 11:19 PM

Funny how it still significantly improved all other health parameters. Also funny is how it did lower body fat more than the low-fat diet, but even funnier, is how you're still in denial. Lol.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:17 PM

Funny how low carb diet is supposed to be so much better for fat loss but can't even do better than expected statistical variation.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 11:16 PM

I just did, using your own sources. Not to mention the 23 different scientific studies I cited before in my own Answer.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 11:14 PM

Haha! Yeah, you tell yourself whatever makes you feel better buddy. I'll take that extra percentage point of fat loss, thank you.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:13 PM

Archaic doesn't mean wrong. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary if you feel strongly about this.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 11:11 PM

This study also proves my point, the carb restricted group lost 8.4kg of weight 5.7kg of which were fat, while the carb containing group only lost 7.4kg of which 4.8kg were fat. Low-carb wins. This is in Table 1. It also says that:

"The mean fasting and exercise plasma glucose concentration was lower in the CR [carbohydrate restricted] group than in the CC [carbohydrate containing] group"

Which is great news for obese people and diabetics on low carb diets.

7160a3fb485cb0af573c0292fdb08144

(35)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:09 PM

Are you seriously trying to argue the "kcals in/kcals out" weight loss theory? That's almost as archaic as arguing the lipid hypothesis.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:04 PM

The body fat loss result was not statistically significant. That's a pretty important distinction.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 11:03 PM

The second study compares a 20% fat diet vs. a 40% fat diet. Explain to me how a 40% fat diet is low-carb or ketogenic when 60% of the calories are coming from carbs and protein. Seriously kid, try harder next time, you can't even cite some decent studies.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 10:55 PM

He's wrong, and you are helping prove him wrong. Silly Mscott, doesn't even read his own sources, which prove him wrong.

The first study shows that the 15% carb diet (low-carb) had a 17.7% fat loss, which is more than the 45% carb (high-carb) group's loss of 16.8%. The study also states that:

"Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly in patients eating low-energy diets that contained 15% carbohydrate"

You should read what you post next time.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 10:49 PM

The first study proves my point:

"These results suggest that, when restrict diet was made isocaloric, a low calorie/low carbohydrate diet might be more effective treatment for a reduction of visceral fat, improved insulin sensitivity and increased in HDL-C levels than low calorie/high carbohydrate diet in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus."

In short, low-carb wins.

The second study had nothing to do with weight loss, it was about cycling endurance. But it found that:

"fasting and exercise plasma glucose concentration was lower in the CR [carb-restricted] group"

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 10:37 PM

Bogardus, Clifton, Betty M. LaGrange, Edward S. Horton, and Ethan A. H. Sims. 1981. ???Comparison of Carbohydrate-containing and Carbohydrate-restricted Hypocaloric Diets in the Treatment of Obesity.??? Journal of Clinical Investigation 68: 399-404.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 10:31 PM

Miyashita Y, Koide N, Ohtsuka M, Ozaki H, Itoh Y, Oyama T, Uetake T, Ariga K, Shirai K. Beneficial effect of low carbohydrate in low calorie diets on visceral fat reduction in type 2 diabetic patients with obesity. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004 Sep;65(3):235-41

Bogardus, Clifton, Betty M. LaGrange, Edward S. Horton, and Ethan A. H. Sims. 1981. ???Comparison of Carbohydrate-containing and Carbohydrate-restricted Hypocaloric Diets in the Treatment of Obesity.??? Journal of Clinical Investigation 68: 399-404.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 10:30 PM

Silly Thegastronomer, downvoting MrNada simply because you don't like his answer, even though he's right. Here are some of those studies:

Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8

Rumpler WV, Seale JL, Miles CW, Bodwell CE. Energy-intake restriction and diet-composition effects on energy expenditure in men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Feb;53(2):430-6

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 09:46 PM

Properly done, Paleo will give better results when compared to a typical diet, which is often comprised of substantial amounts of grains, legumes and sugars. Granted a low/lower carbohydrate approach is taken when following the Paleo diet.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 09:20 PM

This is a valid point, limiting carbohydrates does lower insulin and thus activates Hormone Sensitive Lipase once insulin is low enough. This then promotes fatty acid oxidation (fat burning) which is required for weight loss. Also when insulin levels dip, glucagon rises to meet the demand for glucose in the bloodstream, thereby causing the liver to begin using up its stored triglycerides and glycogen, this helps ward off fatty liver disease as well as hypertriglyceridemia.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 09:05 PM

Which metabolic ward studies are those? Show us the metabolic ward studies you are talking about. I'd love to see metabolic ward studies that compare macronutrient ratios.

Frontpage book

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

11 Answers

0
618fc5298c4a96b817c4918c795a875f

(1217)

on February 23, 2014
at 12:33 AM

This is not an answer to the question, so moderators, please remove if need be. I'd just like to say that The Gastronomer is a brutal lunkhead who seems to always in a foul mood, presumably because his diet lacks carbs. I can almost smell his foul breath through the computer screen. His way of commenting and "answering" is so distasteful that even if he were correct, I would rather eat wheat than agree with him. The patience of those who dialog with him is beyond me. He is so obviously a sad gym rat who is flipping out trying to keep water weight off of his ripped abs. He seems to be on the verge of violence, considering how quickly he resorts to foul language and name calling. I'll bet he's on steroids, too. What other explanation for such a hideous temper that erupts when discussing calories/carbs. What a loser. Get a real life, "engineer" - yea, on a toy train. Fuck off.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 24, 2014
at 04:33 PM

Ha! Oh yes you are so much more civilized than the rest of us. "Fuck off"? Lol. Really bitch? Nicely done now go eat some ice cream and cookies you fat fuck and stop trying to seem like the civilized one in this debate. And yes I do have a degree in Electrical Engineering and another in Computer Engineering. What do you have bitch? A degree in woo?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 24, 2014
at 01:17 AM

Wow, toxic.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on February 23, 2014
at 01:49 AM

personally i don't see any requirement for foul language or name calling by anyone.

its just an internet forum after all

0
47cbd166d262925037bc6f9a9265eb20

(55)

on February 22, 2014
at 04:13 PM

I just dropped in to add that there is some quackiness in the paleosphere about it as well to the extent of claiming consuming 4500 calories a day and not exercising and not gaining weight. That's just fishing consumers.

0
Fdf849bf969daf9aeb9aed863c9d1c1c

on February 22, 2014
at 03:22 PM

I have 8 replies to my questions, one person who feels the need to swear over such a topic and no less than 120 email alerts that are clogging up my emails. Because The Gastronomer can't use adult words and the barrage of emails repeatedly when no one else has made a comment I am going to unsubscribe and find another site. Farewell

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 05:30 PM

This only happens when someone asks a really good question. Too bad there were consequences.

0
8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:15 AM

I can answer this easy. The answer is they both count.

Calories obviously count of weight loss, but you cannot lose much weight if your insulin resistant, eating high carb, low calorie - even if you exercise because metabolically, the fat has to be liberated from your adipose, and insulin inhibits that. The metabolic process of losing weight, is inhibited by metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance.

This is why so many people try to lose weight and fail. Read "body by science", there are loads of studies and biochemical facts in there that show that lower carb and hit strength training is the superior combination for liberating fat from the adipose (lowering body fat), and raising metabolic rate (which increases your baseline calories).

At the same time, you will also find it harder to lose weight if your eating wildly over calories. But people who argue that its only calories are ignoring celullar processes and oversimplying (its not just and in and out, the fat actually has to be chemically liberated at a cellular level), as are people that suggest that eating low carb is all that is needed and calories or expendature are irrelevant. This is why the studies lean slightly more toward lower carb being more effective for weight loss, its the cellular metabolic proccesses.

Hope that helps.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 22, 2014
at 02:28 AM

@Drael You're 100% correct. An understanding of the biochemistry of the human body makes it much easier to comprehend the underlying mechanisms involved in the process of storing or burning fat. The human body has ways to regulate its energy output, based on the foods it eats and the physical demands placed on it. It is far too simplistic to view the body like a calorimeter that burns all substrates identically and doesn't differentiate between them. There is ample evidence that it does.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 03:44 AM

If you eat below TDEE, even with high carbs, you're pulling from reserves. Where does the energy come from otherwise?

0
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:02 AM

The data is clear. Reducing caloric load below the energy needs is the only first order effect on body weight. The Paleo diet is particularly satiating, therefore every clinical involving paleo trial (that did not force a caloric intake) results in the paleo group reducing their caloric load without stimulus at a higher rate than any other group. So yes, reducing calories is the most important, and this diet is the best at reducing caloric intake.

Everything else in this thread is arguing over secondary effects. Secondary effects are, well, secondary.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:18 AM

'secondary effects', nice, well worth mentioning

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:48 AM

What about the cellular effect of insulin on releasing energy from the adipose? How is that a "second order effect"? Mechanically, I would think that's a basic requirement for weight loss, the ability to easily liberate energy from the adipose at a cellular level, not some after thought...

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:35 AM

CD please link the studies you refer to.

0
Medium avatar

on February 22, 2014
at 12:53 AM

Sugar, and carbs spike insulin. If there is insulin in the blood a person is storing trigs as fat, and also not using body fat for fuel. If a person is eating fats, and protein, they will not spike insulin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:52 AM

Nice simple answer. At a cellular level insulin inhibits adipose burning (body fat loss). So low-moderate carb is going to produce on average better results for weightloss, especially for the insulin insensitive, keeping in mind that calories also matter.

0
Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 10:57 PM

Nice job there Mscott. I guess you're too much of a pussy to stand by the study you posted, so when I proved that the study contradicted what you said you deleted the comment? You're a little bitch. Be a fucking man and stand by the shit you post.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 08:30 PM

Disagreeing is one thing gastronomer, but coming in and crapping on someone's question is bad form.

Paleo is not Weight Watchers, but it's not Atkins either. I stand by eating meat and hunt-and-gather behavior, but not by mandatory 24-7 ketosis dieting.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 22, 2014
at 01:03 AM

http://i.imgur.com/hrm1M.gif

0
7160a3fb485cb0af573c0292fdb08144

on February 21, 2014
at 09:08 PM

A caloric deficit is the effect of eating a healthy diet; it's not the cause. If you simply try to eat fewer calories, but the quality of the calorie remains unchanged, you won't lose any weight in the long run because your total calorie expenditure will simply drop to match calories taken in. You'll simply be left feeling lethargic and tired all the time. If you focus on the quality of the food, you will lose weight regardless of the calories consumed. If you're overweight, limiting carbohydrates has shown to increase energy expenditure.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 09:20 PM

This is a valid point, limiting carbohydrates does lower insulin and thus activates Hormone Sensitive Lipase once insulin is low enough. This then promotes fatty acid oxidation (fat burning) which is required for weight loss. Also when insulin levels dip, glucagon rises to meet the demand for glucose in the bloodstream, thereby causing the liver to begin using up its stored triglycerides and glycogen, this helps ward off fatty liver disease as well as hypertriglyceridemia.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:12 AM

Seriously, so much wrong??? *head explodes*

0
2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

on February 21, 2014
at 08:56 PM

metabolic ward studies show calories matter more than anything else. macronutrient ratios (fat vs carbs) are irrelevant. whatever makes you feel full will work

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 09:05 PM

Which metabolic ward studies are those? Show us the metabolic ward studies you are talking about. I'd love to see metabolic ward studies that compare macronutrient ratios.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 10:31 PM

Miyashita Y, Koide N, Ohtsuka M, Ozaki H, Itoh Y, Oyama T, Uetake T, Ariga K, Shirai K. Beneficial effect of low carbohydrate in low calorie diets on visceral fat reduction in type 2 diabetic patients with obesity. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004 Sep;65(3):235-41

Bogardus, Clifton, Betty M. LaGrange, Edward S. Horton, and Ethan A. H. Sims. 1981. ???Comparison of Carbohydrate-containing and Carbohydrate-restricted Hypocaloric Diets in the Treatment of Obesity.??? Journal of Clinical Investigation 68: 399-404.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 23, 2014
at 02:36 AM

Whatever makes you feel full huh? I suppose it doesn't help that insulin produces hunger then?

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 10:37 PM

Bogardus, Clifton, Betty M. LaGrange, Edward S. Horton, and Ethan A. H. Sims. 1981. ???Comparison of Carbohydrate-containing and Carbohydrate-restricted Hypocaloric Diets in the Treatment of Obesity.??? Journal of Clinical Investigation 68: 399-404.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329

(30)

on February 21, 2014
at 10:30 PM

Silly Thegastronomer, downvoting MrNada simply because you don't like his answer, even though he's right. Here are some of those studies:

Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8

Rumpler WV, Seale JL, Miles CW, Bodwell CE. Energy-intake restriction and diet-composition effects on energy expenditure in men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Feb;53(2):430-6

0
Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 08:02 PM

If weight loss is the goal, the foods you eat do matter, not only the calories. This has been the subject of plenty of passionate debates on here. I urge you to look at some clinical trials regarding weight loss and draw your own conclusions. Some interesting places to start would be the following.

Paleolithic diet vs standard diet in weight loss: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n8/abs/ejcn20094a.html

Calorie-restricted low-fat diet vs. calorie-restricted Mediterranean diet vs. non-restricted low-carb diet, 2 yr. study New England Journal of Medicine (low-carb performed the best, despite not limiting calories like the other two diets): http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

Low carb diet vs standard low-fat diet, 1 yr. study by the New England Journal of Medicine (low-carb diet produced greater weight loss): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12761365

I also recommend you look at this article which summarizes the outcomes of 23 different studies comparing low-fat diets and low-carb diets http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

You will notice that macronutrient composition does matter to a large degree and counting calories may not be as effective as lowering carbs. Both methods (lowering calories or lowering carbs) will produce results, but low carb requires less effort since much more food can be eaten while weight is steadily lost.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:39 PM

gastronomer here is a large-scale study for you to chew on

http://www.nwcr.ws/

Low fat diets are superior for long term weight loss maintenance for this N=10,000 group over 10+ years.

EDIT: study group is 10,000 not 50,000.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 22, 2014
at 12:06 AM

Article #1: There's no comparison, period. Also worth pointing out that they report the paleo diet increases caloric intake versus baseline, except baseline is 24-h recall, which is notoriously low.

Article #2: Low-carb diet actually had lower calorie consumption (greater deviation from baseline) than the other two diets. Supporting the idea that calories are important. Notice, low carb here was still 40% calories from carbs. You sure you want to use this to suggest that low-carb is so superior?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:47 AM

Low carb is a discipline which is probably easier to follow than any other restricted calorie approach. Unfortunately it has terrible recidivism. The consequence of leaving the discipline and eating a 50% carb diet such as the Med is rapid regain of 5-10 pounds of water weight. And because low carb dieters are not trained to reduce the amount they eat but only to avoid specific foods, it is nearly impossible for them to do damage control and maintain their weight.

0
Fdf849bf969daf9aeb9aed863c9d1c1c

on February 21, 2014
at 07:30 PM

Perhaps I did not phrase that correctly.. Will 1500 calories of a typical diet yield the same weight loss as 1500 calories of Paleo foods? If weight loss is the goal will a Paleo diet give better results in less time?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 21, 2014
at 11:48 PM

Source makes no difference. Calories are all that count, 95% of the time.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 21, 2014
at 09:46 PM

Properly done, Paleo will give better results when compared to a typical diet, which is often comprised of substantial amounts of grains, legumes and sugars. Granted a low/lower carbohydrate approach is taken when following the Paleo diet.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 22, 2014
at 02:34 AM

That's easy. For an overweight person, the paleo would be superior, because it would be moderate or low carb (on average), which increases the availability of stored energy. Again, my suggestion - read body by science. It covers the cellular cycles and such, and gives you an idea how all these things actually work.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 22, 2014
at 11:50 AM

Yes, if it is a low carb approach to Paleo. The effect should be the same as Atkins induction, with 5-10 lbs loss in the first two weeks. This is not fat loss though.

Answer Question


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