9

votes

hack one of my (many) qualms with high fat paleo.

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created April 17, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I understand that a lot of people on this site have adopted the paleo lifestyle in order lose weight, and that it is generally accepted that getting into ketosis via high fat, low carb is a great way to drop some lbs. However, no one acknowledges that you can get into ketosis simply by restricting calories. This is why anorexics who are not eating high fat diets have ketotic breath- it is a simple consequence of restricting calories enough. So, why risk the health damages of doing high fat paleo to lose weight when you could just restrict calories enough and still eat small, balanced meals just in sufficiently reduced quantities. For example, eating up too 800 calories a day like the VLC (very low calorie diet) and burn ketones, improve insulin sensitivity, and experience a number of other benefits as well (just so long as you don't restrict long enough to become severely underweight and anorexic). I also think that insisting on doing high fat is why so many fail to reach their body composition goals, and others reach plateaus before they've reached their ideal weight. Ketones are burned if you restrict calories enough. High fat is not necessary for ketosis!

Just want to see how much flack I get for this and hope I learn something in the process b/c after all the studying and experimenting i've done, i still just don't understand the high fat diet (especially when so much controversy surrounds which fats are healthy, benign, and unhealthy and in what ratios- it would suck to go wrong and be eating over 50% of your cals from something that's ruining your health).

8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

(6259)

on July 27, 2012
at 11:22 PM

LOL - but really disturbing - but also sad!

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on June 15, 2012
at 12:21 PM

You can get the 100-120g number from Volek and Phinney, Jaminet, and Lyle MacDonald's books - I'm not sure where the research comes from. Here is what Paul Jaminet has to say in "the Perfect Health Diet": "Normal glucose-as-a-fuel consumption is dominated by neurons. The brain and nerves require about 20 calories per hour, waking of sleeping. These 480 daily calories can be provided by either glucose alone, or by a mix of glucose and ketone bodies (which are derived from fats or protein). So the daily glucose consumption of the brain will be between 150 to 480 kcal (32g to 120g of glucose)

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on June 15, 2012
at 12:19 PM

Yes. In some places it's quoted as 100g in others it's 120g, but if you are a glucose eater that's pretty much constant, independent of how hard you think It also represents the bulk of your glucose use (unless you are an athlete), Jaminet reckons you only use about 12.5g per hour to fuel your muscles during running for example.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 15, 2012
at 11:41 AM

But your answer is still informative, nonetheless. Thanks. If you can, could you explain the answers to my questions? Would appreciate it b/c you're pretty much a keto authority!

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 15, 2012
at 11:39 AM

Hey thanks, fergie. But you wrote "diet your brain burns about 100g of glucose a day. If you eat much less than 100g of carbs then it uses ketones as an alternative energy source"---------- Everyone's brain burns approx 100g of glucose? where do you get that from? what if one person watches movies all day while another goes to and from class? Doesn't stretching your brain with complicated material require more energy, just as walking 5 miles requires less than running 5? Also, You say your brain burns 100g glucose, but you say absolutely nothing about your muscles and liver.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:43 AM

amazing answer! so well said! brava, sister!

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on May 24, 2012
at 10:51 PM

You hit the nail on the head, Jenny. Thank you for expressing the anger that welled up inside of me when I read this question.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 23, 2012
at 01:46 PM

I think the definition of what each study considers calorie restriction would be important as well.

10f2288b00292d97ead2a566af4f72fb

(233)

on April 18, 2012
at 10:56 PM

In a dunk tank. The most accurate way of testing bodyfat as far as I know. Check it out: BodyFatTest.com

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21430)

on April 18, 2012
at 03:06 PM

If you can't get past an adequate or high fat diet is healthy, there isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise. I can give you empirical evidence (lowering my total blood lipids almost 25 points, raising my good cholesterol, losing 110lbs of body fat, etc...) but these are individual results. I would advise you to read Good Calories, Bad Calories and see what actually motivated the Western diet standards of a low-fat, high carb diet... it is far from an objective book, but it does point out some of the flaws in the common wisdom out there.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 03:39 AM

@CoachCanadan-Thanks for clarifying what you meant. It seemed like you were suggesting that it was only excess glucose that causes insulin resistance, which is what I was questioning; I think the evidence shows glucose is only one of numerous factors involved in the pathology of IR.

Fb9739a7d4da8248d42747ba1c382343

(45)

on April 18, 2012
at 03:35 AM

How did you go about getting tested?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:35 AM

Those are some studies to chew on. Now, I'm not even trying to argue against studies which show calorie restriction seems to produce certain health benefits (in certain animals, of which humans are arguably one of them). I'm just saying, there are risks with CR that can't be ignored. @Foreveryoung-I think people draw a distinction between intermittent fasting and calorie restriction because one is chronic and the other is intermittent and this is supposed to give the benefits without the risks. But I don't know too much about this.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:34 AM

Those are some studies to chew on. Now, I'm not even trying to argue against studies which show calorie restriction seems to produce certain health benefits (in certain animals, of which humans are not clearly one of them). I'm just saying, there are risks with CR that can't be ignored. @Foreveryoung-I think people draw a distinction between intermittent fasting and calorie restriction because one is chronic and the other is intermittent and this is supposed to give the benefits without the risks. But I don't know too much about this.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:10 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15983169 ---“CR (Calorie Restriction) decreased survival, increased virus titers, and reduced natural killer cell activity in lungs of aged mice after primary influenza infection” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17383614 ---“These results suggest that chronic caloric restriction in young rats may lead to the development of depressive and/or anxiety disorders”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:07 AM

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/166/22/2502 ---“(Caloric Restriction)-induced weight loss, but not (Exercise)-induced weight loss, is associated with reductions in (Bone Mineral Density) at clinically important sites of fracture”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:04 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16222057?dopt=Abstract ---“The control group increased in both fat and fat free mass; however, although the restricted group increased fat to the same extent as the controls, fat free mass increased to a lesser extent. The contributions of the different components of the expended energy to compensate for the reduced energy intake were energy deposition, 2.2%; resting metabolic rate, 22.3%; and activity, 75.5%”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:03 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17990972 ---“The pattern of hyperphagic response suggested that signals coding body mass drive hunger during restriction, and because body mass under restriction remains depressed, this suggests that hunger would never disappear, making restriction to prolong lifespan in humans difficult to accomplish”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:03 AM

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/123/1/90.full.pdf ---“The average and basal metabolic rates obtained by direct calorimetry in our experiments demonstrated that the energy-restricted animals had lower metabolic rates than the ad libitum diet animals”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:03 AM

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf ---“(Resting Metabolic Rate) values during the modified fast and during the maintenance diet at stable reduced weight were not different and all were significantly lower than the prediet RMR”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:02 AM

http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/1/B5.full.pdf ---“We conclude that the process of preventing obesity by long term caloric restriction causes a significant and sustained long-term reduction in energy expenditure, even when corrected for lean body mass”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:01 AM

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf---“(Resting Metabolic Rate) values during the modified fast and during the maintenance diet at stable reduced weight were not different and all were significantly lower than the prediet RMR”

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on April 18, 2012
at 12:53 AM

Carbs are way more filling in my opinion.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:56 PM

Also, the slight at your age- it's not that your chronological years matter, but it takes some experience to have a conversation like this. I'm younger than you, but I've walked the stepping stones enough to find out what is and is not appropriate to say (for the most part). It's good that you are working that out now, I mean you aren't going to learn if you don't try it! But I wouldn't be surprised if you get some negative responses when talking about weight loss if you haven't been around the conversation for very long. The most important thing is to listen in your position.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:52 PM

I mean, I get that you are wanting to have a conversation here but commenting things like this: "I'm writing this because if I were above 25% bodyfat (and male), I'd do absolutely everything I could to do to get lean as fast as possible."- this implies that people who have this body fat % and stay at it, are NOT doing everything in their power to get lean. Shari's comment addressed that insinuation, with some sass and wit because those statements can be offensive.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:48 PM

I flinch hard with questions like this, I didn't mean that link as aimed personally at you, but at the whole concept of "overweight people, why aren't you just eating less". I think it resonates emotionally with a lot of people here, which is why you're going to get some defensive backlash when discussing anything like this. Comes with the territory.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 17, 2012
at 09:20 PM

FY, I don't care if people think I'm witty (without the "H) or not. I've been give a few -1's for my wit/sarcasm but I really don't mind. Anyway, my comment was about some of the statements made in your following posts. Your questions on here just seem to be opportunities for you tell everyone that you have the answers. At least one person in this thread has already told you a few days ago, of their success with high fat but you still don't seem to be willing to accept that high fat can work.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 08:07 PM

Thank you for an honest and helpful answer. I know that saturated fat and cholesterol are healthy, however I do think there is a point at which further increases in consumption result in diminishing and even negative returns to health. Good work on the weight loss!

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:54 PM

Thank you for an honest and helpful answer. Good work on the weight loss!

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:51 PM

Hey foreveryoung, I got your question. I think you were genuinely curious and just wanted to learn more. I think acute caloric restriction is a lot different than 800/day. That, especially for the average male, would do a lot more harm than good in long-term health and weight loss. If you look up the studies on CRON, the calorie values are much higher.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:45 PM

I was thinking very low calorie diets would have been practiced an awful lot due to the known benefits of acute caloric restriction. It is kind of like intermittent fasting, but more widely studied. I don't know why being wrong about something offends so many people. I am trying to learn.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:43 PM

Wow. You two are so clever. UNfortunately your whit falls flat as I did not say anyone was doing anything wrong, hence the question and not the statement. i was wondering why very low calorie diets to induce ketosis are not being practiced by those that need to lose a substantial amount of weight. Sorry my question offended you so much Jenny.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:55 PM

Did you read the link peter??? That is kind of the main point...

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:53 PM

The saying is "the easiest way to gain 25 lbs is to lose 20 lbs". And doctors, dietitians, nutritionist, nurses will attest to seeing this ALL the time.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:51 PM

Reminds me of this "A Plea to Folks who Lose 20 lbs To Stop Thinking They've Solved Obesity" http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/03/plea-to-folks-who-lose-20lbs-to-stop.html "if guilt, shame and name calling were useful in the generalized real world, then the real world would most assuredly be one hell of a skinny place as it currently has no shortage of guilt, shame and name calling for those with obesity."

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:04 PM

Why do you think that high fat necessarily means a high calorie diet in the first place? People here intermittent fast all the time, and reap great health benefits, while enjoying a high fat diet. I ate 500 kcal+ per day MORE when I ate a low fat diet.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:00 PM

Why do people think intermittent fasting is healthy then? It is just intermittent calorie restriction put another way.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:59 PM

@ Peter. Thanks, bro. You rock.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:34 PM

Starvation is not an end-point, it is a process. Eating below nutritional requirements is starvation. Weight loss diets are essentially just controlled starvation.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:35 PM

thanks for the answer, Jush. This helps me understand it more. So it's not that you haven't tried a very low calorie diet, it's that you have and it hasn't worked out? However, I can't get passed the idea that high fat diets are healthy. I was under the impression that hunter-gatherers ate a combination of meat, roots, and fruit for calories in different ratios depending on their proximity to the poles. The poles ate a high fish oil diet and closer to the equator at lean meats. Or, is the idea that H-Gs ate lean protein false? Isn't fatty grass fed meat in temperate climates scarce?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:46 PM

Congratulations on your successful weight loss though.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:43 PM

@ LadrinMAyo- There is a difference between being judgemental and asking questions because you want to learn more. YOu could have called me ignorant which would make more sense if you're going to be name-calling. I am sorry my question offended you so much. Asking the difference and preference betweeen very low calorie vs high fat for ketone production is hardly judgemental.

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:26 PM

when three of those hook up, you get a triglyceride. Your body then stores this as fat in adipose tissue. Since your body can only do this so fast, glucose begins to stack up in your blood stream, so your body produces more insulin. But since your body doesn't WANT any more glucose in the muscle cells (because it's trying to actually have LESS that it currently has), it begins to decrease the number of insulin receptors on the muscle cell, but the insulin receptors on your adipose cells stay intact. This is the beginning of insulin resistance. As far as I believe, anyway. Am I off here?

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:21 PM

@Mscott, sorry, I may have skipped a few steps there, but this is what I mean by that statement: If we have too much glucose being used for ATP in the cell to use at that time, a byproduct begins to build up called citrate. Citrate begins to signal phosphofructokinase to stop taking in all that glucose, and it begins to send it elsewhere, ie another muscle or your liver. Now, when your liver (70g) and muscle (200g) glycogen stores are full, your body needs to do something with the continued carbohydrates. The muscle cell then converts the excess carbs to glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate, and

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:40 AM

1) Depends on what you call acute. IF is acute caloric restriction. Inducing ketosis is not something that can be acheived by skipping breakfast, or fasting for just 24 hours. 2) But if you're in starvation-induced ketosis, you don't have enough carbs to acheive this. 3) Again, you're proposing ketosis, you're gonna feel like shit because you're inducing it via starvation. 4) Only high fat paired with high energy intake. If you're proposing a high-fat diet for weight loss (via ketosis), there's essentially no difference between diets.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:23 AM

And don't forget the yoyo thing. You restrict, lose the weight, fine, but it almost always comes back from restriction, if I understand correctly. You can't count on being the 1 in 1,000 who manages to keep it off.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:21 AM

Awesome answer as usual, Twinkeltoes. Anything we can do to STOP the food obsession and become the full humans we are meant to be is right in my book.

3b3a449b6705e9ec8b141d0bd07c1a64

(1489)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:03 AM

omg I crave cheese ... no bread...could smash a whole block!

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:33 AM

Sean, I used to think that fat was more filling. Turns out a search on pubmed will prove that wrong! - http://paleohacks.com/questions/101891/is-fat-more-satiating#axzz1sI7EYRK4

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:31 AM

"why risk the health damages of calorie restriction". - your turn Mscott

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:31 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22384249 ---"In patients with obesity, however, wnt5a became significantly detectable consistent with low grade inflammation in such subjects. Caloric restriction resulted in a weight loss from 131.9 ± 4.0 to 112.3 ± 3.2 kg in the obese patients group. This was accompanied by a significant decrease of HOMA-IR and leptin-to-adiponectin ratio, indicating improved insulin sensitivity. Interestingly, these metabolic improvements were associated with a significant increase in serum concentrations of the anti-inflammatory factor and wnt5a-inhibitor sFRP5..."

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:29 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22444502 ---"Both clinical and experimental evidence has revealed that calorie restriction (CR) is capable of improving heart function..."

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:28 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22454372 ---"Calorie restriction (CR) induces enhanced insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in fast-twitch (type II) muscle from old rats..."

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:27 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22479589 --- "Calorie restriction (CR) without malnutrition delays the aging process..."

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:26 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22461615 --- "Calorie restriction, which increases life span and insulin sensitivity, is proposed to function by inhibition of mTORC1....."

3b3a449b6705e9ec8b141d0bd07c1a64

(1489)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:58 AM

http://paleohacks.com/questions/112324/why-do-carbs-even-matter-in-ketosis/112344#112344 - i wonder about why you can't just do ketosis and lose weights with cal deficit and some carbs

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:54 AM

I've lost 150lbs and lose at least 1 lb a week. I eat to satiety. I don't search out ketosis but it happens because I don't really eat starch more than 1 meal in 20. I add enough fat to make my food delicious, same goes for veg, and meat. Do what works for you but stop being a judgmental prick to those of us who have had success doing what you have qualms about. No one has all the answers, we do the best we can and when something stops working we adapt, what could be closer to our Ancestral past? Adapt or die.

3b3a449b6705e9ec8b141d0bd07c1a64

(1489)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:49 AM

@foreveryoung I am trying VLC high fat at the moment (6 weeks now) and am still waiting on that energy kick...my performance has decreased in the gym terribly and I struggle to get through a crossfit wod or even 20 mins HIIT afterwork

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:42 AM

"Insulin resistance happens when the insulin receptors in your muscle cells basically turn off because of too much glucose" I'm unaware of much evidence supporting such a statement.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:40 AM

But...omg...what a horrible article.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:38 AM

Lol! Shari, you are so awesome. :)

Bd614f091f0625dea86bad5791471f2d

(775)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:27 AM

Eat real food. Don't stress about it. I like you! :)

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:05 AM

I think 30% fat is the standard (American diet) recommended percentage?, but I can't find a source anywhere. It's not high fat at all. Based on your comments do you seem scared of fat (that it's unhealthy if you have "too much"). I've noticed so many people are soooo scared of fat that if you put ONE tablespoon of heavy cream in your coffee people think you're a PIG (I mean, you should be using skim milk ;P) If you want you can go alot higher than 30%, it's good for you. But it's up to you!

4d0a80178a9f5f9adac5203ed92f3c52

(60)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:33 AM

Lifting wont be affected AFTER your keto adapted. Unitl you are keto adapted it will suffer big time. Give yourself 6 weeks for your body to fully adapt to keto. Then a stick of cheese sounds better than a piece of bread.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:33 AM

I wanted to cry when I read that. That someone would be so horrified over 5 or even 10 lbs on their body is just baffling and saddening and I can't believe doctors are actually doing this to women? He doesn't think he has the right to judge someone about 5 lbs? Damn right you do! A feeding tube so a woman can lose 5 lbs? He should lose his damn license.

4d0a80178a9f5f9adac5203ed92f3c52

(60)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:29 AM

So your high intensity output will suffer after about 10 minutes of work. low intensity is great. Dont expect to PR any of your times on any workouts. Lifting isnt affected as long as your resting between sets. for example if you did as many push ups as possible for 10 sets the sets after 3 or so will suffer. if you eat carbs the day before it will not. Your muscles will fill with glycogen and perform better the day after eating carbs

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:29 AM

yeah I know fat are more satiating than carbs, and proteins more than either. thanks for the link.

Ec39179d4c06199471827a706adb2896

(242)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:20 AM

Hahaha yes!! I think this is exactly the experiment Ferris references in the link I posted below this!

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:13 AM

Ah, I forgot the name of it and had to look it up...for more info, check out the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

B6114a1980b1481fb18206064f3f4a4f

(3924)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:02 AM

Congrats, Ashley!

D117467bf8e8472464ece2b81509606c

(2873)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:01 AM

I hope to some day be like you Ms. Twinkletoes and just eat naturally without stressing over how I look like! That sounds awesome!

B6114a1980b1481fb18206064f3f4a4f

(3924)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:58 AM

OMG, Where did you find that horrible article? That is so sad that people are willing to do that to themselves and pay so much money in the process!

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:52 AM

Hey. First off. I am not scared of fat. I eat fat and keep it around 30 percent of calories. Second, off, I love your answer.

Cdd931c4a0fae8944478767671bb7402

(105)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:51 AM

Brilliant description Twinkletoes! This was my experience exactly when I embraced the full fat paleo way. I lost weight and arrived at the perfect weight for me but that wasn't what mattered. I am finally feeling alive again, clear headed, emotionally strong and happy. Bliss!

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:46 AM

@Jenny, I wish knew you in real life. I think we'd be able to strike up hours of conversation!!

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:30 AM

This makes me laugh really loud, then cry a little. You're the best.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:28 AM

But how can people do exercise if you suggest they only eat 800 kcal per day?

361e96d70d6d3b91d63f6ad975e60ab6

(840)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:28 AM

"I think people trying to lose weight would feel better eating carbs and decreasing fat, and eating less calories too." Just being critical, I enjoy your curiosity. But what do you mean by "feel better eating carbs"? My n=1 (and from what I've read a lot of other PH'ers feel the same) as far as enjoyment goes, I enjoy fatty foods 10x more then carby foods. As far a physical feeling, I felt better eating fat than carbs.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:09 AM

Yes. I think it breeds unhealthy lifelong relationships with food and eating, and it is so RARELY successful that it can't be counted as a necessary evil. If you had a kid today, it would still be 229 times more likely that they'd develop an eating disorder than childhood diabetes; you can't brush that under the rug.

1bbcd2122d9c75b07440f22ef57d6448

(2934)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:08 AM

"Obese individuals in need of losing weight" is a pretty wide field; I'm sure that most people would not be advised to undergo this unless there were severe problems associated with the weight. Even including the entirety of the "obese" category, it's still a niche population, and the wiki article makes no mention of effectiveness or practicality of the diet for others in normal or non-hazardous weight ranges.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:02 AM

You're right- offensive. I'm asking though because I'm genuinely curious and want to learn more. Do the societal and psychological consequences of acutely restricting calories outweigh the health detriment of being overweight?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:01 AM

You're right- offensive. I am just wondering though, is being obese and the health consequences from given less weight than the societal and psychological consequences of restricting calories acutely enough to improve your health? I really just genuinely want to learn and am curious. I apologize for being offensive. I'm just really curious and am being blunt.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:55 AM

Hey, Doug. Thanks for your input, but i'm confused by that last sentence. would you mind mind spelling it out for me another way?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:49 AM

yeah, man. HIIT is key, and exercise in general. That's why I am like, why not just eat some carbs so you can do that HIIT, as opposed to eat no carbs and not have energy for it. If I don't eat starch or fruit for more than a week, my performance goes way down.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:48 AM

I find this a relatively abrasive, and almost insulting. My mom comes from below poverty line, so she knows the feeling of hunger and what it's like to be in a huge family and not have any food and be homeless, yet as a nurse the patients she has the hardest time with is the severely obese on these really calorie restricted diets because she KNOWS how they feel and she KNOWS how terrible it is to never get enough. It's not like someone who is obese just "can't get over a twinge of hunger"- we are talking about LONG periods of time NEVER feeling full. Honestly, how would you feel?

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:46 AM

Okay, but seriously, can you only measure disordered eating based on BMI? Why is it safe and healthy (heck encouraged!) that one person of a certain size can eat a certain way, but someone smaller that would be considered dangerous and unhealthy? I've seen severely obese males on really calorie constricted diets on my internship, and they are ready to weep for food- they feel grumpy and angry and most of all SO HUNGRY for months sometimes, they never ever feel full.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:42 AM

I'm writing this because if I were above 25% bodyfat (and male), I'd do absolutely everything I could to do to get lean as fast as possible. I'd eat high protein and just enough carbs to get me in and out of the gym. I'd eat as friggin little as possible and definitely, definitely not add butter to damn thing.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:40 AM

Yeah dude, I feel you.

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:40 AM

Part of the trouble of eating so low calorie is that your body will begin to slow down your metabolism because it doesn't think it's going to get enough calories to survive. That's why so many people plateau on semi-starvation diets. Their bodies adjust to the low caloric intake, and begin once again to conserve energy (ie gain body fat). A combination of high intensity interval training and low carb diet will begin to reverse insulin resistance and establish more or a metabolic norm. At least that's what I've seen over and over again with people coming through my gym.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:38 AM

Twinkletoes. Awesome.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:32 AM

Thanks. That's awesome about your blood markers. I am writing this because I am used to seeing so many people on here write about weight loss plateaus or gains on strict VLC paleo. I feel like if I were desperate to lose weight, I wouldn't do high fat because i'd drop weight faster eating very low calorie. I will read more of chris masterjohn. I have liked what I've read, but I'm not an expert by any means. haven't read his stuff in several years actually.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:29 AM

Selling our souls in order to lose weight is something we have done worldwide, in mass participation, and look how effective that has been. Bravo twinkletoes.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:28 AM

I am 46, fabulous, with cuves that will make a real man cry. Am I skinny? Hell now. Am I hot? Yup. So did I lose weight? I don't know. I threw out my scale when I started Paleo almost 5 years ago. I decided to embrace whatever my DNA wanted me to be, so I left my actions in the hands of my desire, and it weirdly has worked out. I am not a size 2, nope. But I am not fat by any means. I am Female. Not a waif.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:28 AM

@Bill1102inf Are you saying that's a good thing? I restricted calories like crazy when I was eating disordered, and no one paid attention while I was overweight, until I was seriously underweight and needed major interventions. Body fat got WAY too low, still dealing with the major metabolic repercussions years later.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:27 AM

1. Because acute, short term caloric restriction has many health benefits (wiki very low calorie diet). 2. if you include some carbs in your diet you will be able to replenish some muscle glycogen to engage in high intensity exercise and improve body comp and insulin sensitivity. 3. carbs release serotonin and make you feel better. 4. how do you know which fat to choose when eating high fat (in virtually all experiments high fat decreases blood flow, reduces insulin sensitivity, and thereby increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes).

4d0a80178a9f5f9adac5203ed92f3c52

(60)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:25 AM

Eating lots of fats to achieve Ketosis wont matter if you eat to much fat and your calories are too high. Your body wont create ketones if they arent being used (once you have become ketone adapted). You will begin storing the fat instead of converting to ketones. You still have to watch your calories even during ketosis. Look in the wild for example. Bears eat only the fatty eggs and guts during the fall during salmon runs. They get FAT and they are burning ketones and fattening up. So if weight loss is goal. Hit ketosis and restrict calories. Eat spoonful of coconut oil for a snack.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:23 AM

WIKI very low calorie diet. there are proven health benefits to acute caloric restriction in obese individuals in need of losing weight.

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:23 AM

Any human being who is 15%+BF can go on a 500-1000 calorie per day for quite a while, they will eventually become a <10%BF person from restricted calories alone.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:22 AM

That's good high fat gives you your soul back. But have you lost the weight you wanted to lose yet?

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:21 AM

Just because you weight more than the DSVM, doesn't mean the behavior of severe caloric restriction is healthy.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:20 AM

I think people trying to lose weight would feel better eating carbs and decreasing fat, and eating less calories too. I really think they would feel and perform better and experience greater health benefits during their weight loss journey. I'm mostly trying to help and I'm also just very curious.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:19 AM

So, I'm not by any means advocating anorexia. I am just mostly curious as to why people who are overweight eating very high fat and low carb don't acknowledge that restricting cals enough puts you in ketosis. I am doing this because 1) I'm genuinely curious, 2) I have my suspicions that high fat is still not healthy at all 3) I wonder if people are deluding themselves into thinking they can have their cake (fatty foods) and eat it too (weight loss). Fat loss is hard and requires a great deal of will power.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:15 AM

@ Jenny. Actually it's not. I'm talking about people who need to lose weight, which a lot of folks on here appear to be trying to do. Look up the DSM definition of anorexia. IF people are still overweight, they are not anorexic even if they are restricting calories to 800 or so a day.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:13 AM

I'm just basically saying that if I were trying to lose a lot of lbs, I'd do it by cutting calories hard, but leaving some carbs in for glycogen replenishment so I could hit weights with enough intensity to drastically improve body comp and insulin sensitivity. i just think high fat low carb paleo is going about weight (specifically fat) loss incorrectly.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:10 AM

"Why eat high fat when you could be borderline anorexic instead?" As a heads up, this is how what you wrote reads.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:10 AM

I am not afraid of fat at all- I get up to 30% of my calories from fat. Look up saturated fat and insulin sensitivity, omega 6 and inflamation, omega 3 and oxidation, etc. You're risking a lot by eating a large portion of your calories from food source that is wrought with controversy as to the ideal ratios, fat sources, and what not.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:09 AM

To me this reads "Why can I eat high fat when I could be anorexic?" I don't think you meant it, but heads up that it reads weird.

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:07 AM

What are the "health damages" of eating a high fat diet? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from here. How do you expect to feel satiated on 800 calories a day? I eat high fat, don't restrict my calories, and have no problems. Could you clarify what your fear is of eating fat?

Frontpage book

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

23 Answers

best answer

10
A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

on April 17, 2012
at 12:20 AM

As I wrote in the comments to that question, I'm not sure if I fully understand why you are proposing eating 800 calories a day as a method of going into ketosis. From the numerous books and studies that I've read, saturated fat is hardly the culprit for insulin resistance, nor are n~3 or n~6 fats. The whole concept of this way of eating is getting back to natural foods, and meats have a lot of saturated fat in them.
As far as I know, insulin resistance happens when the insulin receptors in your muscle cells basically turn off because of too much glucose. When your liver glycogen and muscle glycogen is all full up, your blood-glucose levels rise, and you release more insulin to deal with the extra glucose. Now, because your glycogen store are all full up, your muscles turn off the insulin receptors, leaving only adipose tissue open to store the excess glucose. This is why we gain weight and lose muscle when insulin resistance sets in. Now, the more carbs you eat, the more likely this is to happen. This is not the way your body metabolizes fat, however.
If you want to get the scoop on saturated fats, google Chris Masterjohn, he's making his name as the saturated fat myth buster, basically. He knows his stuff. Fats are healthy. I know that for me, since I began incorporating way more cholesterol and saturated fat into my diet, all of my biomarkers have improved. Glucose, triglycerides, HDL, LDL, LDL particle size, all that good stuff. I'd say that I get around 55% of my daily calories from fat. 30-35% from protein, and 10-15% from carbs. Been this way for 18+ months now, and I've never felt better. So I suppose if you want to do a semi-starvation diet and it works for you, then do it. But I would say that it's not the most ideal way to lose weight, nor is it the healthiest.

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:26 PM

when three of those hook up, you get a triglyceride. Your body then stores this as fat in adipose tissue. Since your body can only do this so fast, glucose begins to stack up in your blood stream, so your body produces more insulin. But since your body doesn't WANT any more glucose in the muscle cells (because it's trying to actually have LESS that it currently has), it begins to decrease the number of insulin receptors on the muscle cell, but the insulin receptors on your adipose cells stay intact. This is the beginning of insulin resistance. As far as I believe, anyway. Am I off here?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:32 AM

Thanks. That's awesome about your blood markers. I am writing this because I am used to seeing so many people on here write about weight loss plateaus or gains on strict VLC paleo. I feel like if I were desperate to lose weight, I wouldn't do high fat because i'd drop weight faster eating very low calorie. I will read more of chris masterjohn. I have liked what I've read, but I'm not an expert by any means. haven't read his stuff in several years actually.

3b3a449b6705e9ec8b141d0bd07c1a64

(1489)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:49 AM

@foreveryoung I am trying VLC high fat at the moment (6 weeks now) and am still waiting on that energy kick...my performance has decreased in the gym terribly and I struggle to get through a crossfit wod or even 20 mins HIIT afterwork

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:42 AM

"Insulin resistance happens when the insulin receptors in your muscle cells basically turn off because of too much glucose" I'm unaware of much evidence supporting such a statement.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:49 AM

yeah, man. HIIT is key, and exercise in general. That's why I am like, why not just eat some carbs so you can do that HIIT, as opposed to eat no carbs and not have energy for it. If I don't eat starch or fruit for more than a week, my performance goes way down.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:28 AM

But how can people do exercise if you suggest they only eat 800 kcal per day?

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:40 AM

Part of the trouble of eating so low calorie is that your body will begin to slow down your metabolism because it doesn't think it's going to get enough calories to survive. That's why so many people plateau on semi-starvation diets. Their bodies adjust to the low caloric intake, and begin once again to conserve energy (ie gain body fat). A combination of high intensity interval training and low carb diet will begin to reverse insulin resistance and establish more or a metabolic norm. At least that's what I've seen over and over again with people coming through my gym.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 03:39 AM

@CoachCanadan-Thanks for clarifying what you meant. It seemed like you were suggesting that it was only excess glucose that causes insulin resistance, which is what I was questioning; I think the evidence shows glucose is only one of numerous factors involved in the pathology of IR.

A1a7413b99e03bc77f02d95c4170ea43

(2393)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:21 PM

@Mscott, sorry, I may have skipped a few steps there, but this is what I mean by that statement: If we have too much glucose being used for ATP in the cell to use at that time, a byproduct begins to build up called citrate. Citrate begins to signal phosphofructokinase to stop taking in all that glucose, and it begins to send it elsewhere, ie another muscle or your liver. Now, when your liver (70g) and muscle (200g) glycogen stores are full, your body needs to do something with the continued carbohydrates. The muscle cell then converts the excess carbs to glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate, and

38
0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:08 AM

I can only speak for myself...

...but the decades - DECADES, PEOPLE - that I attempted a low calorie diet, I felt little bits of my soul die and dessicate, flit off in the New Mexican wind to some other planet, perhaps, or Dallas. Not sure which.

But when I chucked my low calorie days and embraced full-on-fat, I started recollecting those pieces of my soul! I really did! I wasn't hungry! I wasn't thinking about food! I wasn't obsessing on the size of my jeans or my back fat. I just felt so alive, so loved, so ready to move into a new reality where I was in charge of my own destiny.

This is the Power of Fat, my boy.

I will never, ever trade my beloved ribeyes for a low calorie diet where I feel hungry, grumpy, uncertain, starving, tired, achy, bitchy, sad, morose, and comatose. Never. I don't care how high my cholesterol goes.

For me, it's the moment, this moment, it's the way I feel day-to-day that dictates my action. And today? I'm eating a bunch of fat.

Just try to take it away. I dare you. ;)

D117467bf8e8472464ece2b81509606c

(2873)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:01 AM

I hope to some day be like you Ms. Twinkletoes and just eat naturally without stressing over how I look like! That sounds awesome!

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:28 AM

I am 46, fabulous, with cuves that will make a real man cry. Am I skinny? Hell now. Am I hot? Yup. So did I lose weight? I don't know. I threw out my scale when I started Paleo almost 5 years ago. I decided to embrace whatever my DNA wanted me to be, so I left my actions in the hands of my desire, and it weirdly has worked out. I am not a size 2, nope. But I am not fat by any means. I am Female. Not a waif.

Cdd931c4a0fae8944478767671bb7402

(105)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:51 AM

Brilliant description Twinkletoes! This was my experience exactly when I embraced the full fat paleo way. I lost weight and arrived at the perfect weight for me but that wasn't what mattered. I am finally feeling alive again, clear headed, emotionally strong and happy. Bliss!

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:29 AM

Selling our souls in order to lose weight is something we have done worldwide, in mass participation, and look how effective that has been. Bravo twinkletoes.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:22 AM

That's good high fat gives you your soul back. But have you lost the weight you wanted to lose yet?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:38 AM

Twinkletoes. Awesome.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:21 AM

Awesome answer as usual, Twinkeltoes. Anything we can do to STOP the food obsession and become the full humans we are meant to be is right in my book.

Aead76beb5fc7b762a6b4ddc234f6051

(15239)

on June 01, 2012
at 02:43 AM

amazing answer! so well said! brava, sister!

12
19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:37 AM

Sorry about the rambling, I'm kinda sleepy today... and I'm so very sick and tired that people nowadays don't know how to eat and are scared of food (note, I myself fell into this trap and became unhealthy after I moved to USA)

By restricting calories, you are also restricting intake of nutrients. Not good!!
Anorexics aren't simply unhealthy because they restrict calories, they also have many nutrient deficiencies. This is not something you should sacrifice to lose weight.

I'm sure some people would consider losing weight on Paleo via heavy calorie restriction, for example, if they are facing a bad financial situation, then I guess they could have an excuse to get by with less food. But why someone would do this for more than a week is beyond me. (Yes, I read the low-calorie wiki thing you linked to)
I can see myself doing that if I had one week to fit into a.. umm.. wedding dress or some such; but I wouldn't do it more than one week.

A lot of people found Paleo after doing lots of low calorie dieting which obviously didn't work for them. It's not sustainable, after you stop the low calorie diet, you regain the weight. Plus other people have to deal with a grumpy you. Grr!!

You seem to have the impression that fat is unhealthy. It's not. Fat is very good for you.
There's plenty of information on fat on MarksDailyApple, Weston A. Price Foundation, and other places. Go to your library and ask for help finding very old fashioned cookbooks from cultures outside the USA. I stress they must be very old books, because now most of the world subscribes to the USA low-fat dogma.

Or read Nourishing Traditions book, it has old fashioned recipes, and explains about nutrients and fat, etc.

I was fortunate to grow up in a tiny island in the middle of nowhere. I'm only 24 years old but I grew up in a place where most people did not own TVs and did not own cars at all. I grew up eating home made meals the old fashioned way. We raised and butchered our own animals, made our own sausages, grew our own vegetables and fruits, and so did every family in that place. Our meals were naturally high fat, simply because that's how things are!

I mean, my mom cooked meat and vegetables, with plenty of animal fats, I mean, what was she supposed to do, travel to the future to get non-stick spray? Or throw chicken thighs and pig belly in the trash because they're "too high fat"? NO WAY! We ate what we killed or got from the garden, no more no less.

I grew up knowing that fat was very good for our health, everyone always talked about how it was so important.
Ask any grandma from old-fashioned times, she will tell you that to lose weight you should eat less bread, less potatoes, less rice, not fat!

I feel very sorry that you didn't grow up naturally like I did, if you did you wouldn't be so scared of fat.

I'm not saying that is what you should do, but maybe it helps you understand "fat ratios" since I come from a culture who knew how to feed themselves (unlike most people today):
I eat now the way I ate when I was growing up on that little remote island, and when I track stuff on fitday it comes to about 65% fat, mostly from meat and fish, lard and tallow, marrow, and eggs.
I don't do anything fancy, just heat some fat in a pan, throw in my piece of meat, throw in some vegetables. I don't understand what's so unhealthy about this :-)

Bd614f091f0625dea86bad5791471f2d

(775)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:27 AM

Eat real food. Don't stress about it. I like you! :)

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:52 AM

Hey. First off. I am not scared of fat. I eat fat and keep it around 30 percent of calories. Second, off, I love your answer.

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:05 AM

I think 30% fat is the standard (American diet) recommended percentage?, but I can't find a source anywhere. It's not high fat at all. Based on your comments do you seem scared of fat (that it's unhealthy if you have "too much"). I've noticed so many people are soooo scared of fat that if you put ONE tablespoon of heavy cream in your coffee people think you're a PIG (I mean, you should be using skim milk ;P) If you want you can go alot higher than 30%, it's good for you. But it's up to you!

9
10f2288b00292d97ead2a566af4f72fb

on April 17, 2012
at 01:27 AM

I started Paleo as a 35 year old woman at 5'4" weighing 167 pounds with 28% bodyfat almost one year ago. I currently weigh 160 pounds and just got my bodyfat retested. I am now at 16%!! I did this eating very high fat Paleo, never restricting my calories. My resting metabolic rate is 1821 calories. So the concept that anyone can do ANYTHING healthy for their bodies at 800 cal/day is beyond ridiculous!

Fb9739a7d4da8248d42747ba1c382343

(45)

on April 18, 2012
at 03:35 AM

How did you go about getting tested?

10f2288b00292d97ead2a566af4f72fb

(233)

on April 18, 2012
at 10:56 PM

In a dunk tank. The most accurate way of testing bodyfat as far as I know. Check it out: BodyFatTest.com

8
A95770dd1cb626620429df3ecf19eb9f

on April 17, 2012
at 11:35 AM

I spent 8 years (2000-2008) trying to lose a middle age gut, following all the 'right advice': low fat, lots of jogging, even a marathon in 2004.

I gave up for 6 months, got heavier, ran more, got heavier.....April 2008 I started a 25 year old, medically researched, commercial ketogenic low fat VLCD, 610-800 kcal/day. I lost 50 pounds in 4 months, wasn't hungry after the 3rd day. (no exercise for 4 months)

Then back to low fat, calorie counting, jogging. Weight started coming on again. Went online, Started reading.......

Taubes, Sisson, Briffa, Eades, Wolf, Leangains, Lean Saloon, PHD, Kresser. Guyenet, Harris, Masterjohn, FTA. LLVLC and many more. (Despite being a lapsed 1974 biology post grad I'd heard nothing of epigenetics. I got very excited about that in feb 2009) I forgot the low fat mantra (took a year not to feel guilty from the CW brainwashing) Did quite a lot of Dolson (low carb) to help break away from bread/cake/pasta shaped food.

Lost the belly again, lifted a little bit, ran a little bit, cold showers for 2 year. Settled into paleo+butter/hwc, for 3 years so far. Feel good!

Point of all this rambling is that it was the commercial ketogenic VLCD that finally introduced me to the fact that i could quickly, simply and easily influence my body to 'burn fat' by how i ate, and I am very grateful for that.

I'm 60. 5ft 8in. I weigh 155lb. (My father and brother, both 5ft 8in, died age 63 and 71. both 240lb+)

8
510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:36 AM

This is an untrue assumption

So, why risk the health damages of doing high fat paleo

Ain't nothing wrong with fat. Just don't get caught up in the pissing contests where people brag about how much fat they eat; that's not healthy either.

8
98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

on April 17, 2012
at 01:28 AM

Exactly! That low carb thing is so 1997 and yeah we all know all that fat just cannot be good for you. I mean come on people! Don't you read People Magazine!? And calorie restriction well that's for wusses. What all the fat people need to do is this but they're all too stupid and lazy and gluttonous that they probably can't push themselves away from the dinner table to get it installed. Stupid fatties. Losing weight is not that hard. They just need to stop eating so damn much! Honestly I don't think they even try.

B6114a1980b1481fb18206064f3f4a4f

(3924)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:58 AM

OMG, Where did you find that horrible article? That is so sad that people are willing to do that to themselves and pay so much money in the process!

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:30 AM

This makes me laugh really loud, then cry a little. You're the best.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:33 AM

I wanted to cry when I read that. That someone would be so horrified over 5 or even 10 lbs on their body is just baffling and saddening and I can't believe doctors are actually doing this to women? He doesn't think he has the right to judge someone about 5 lbs? Damn right you do! A feeding tube so a woman can lose 5 lbs? He should lose his damn license.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:38 AM

Lol! Shari, you are so awesome. :)

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:40 AM

But...omg...what a horrible article.

8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

(6259)

on July 27, 2012
at 11:22 PM

LOL - but really disturbing - but also sad!

7
518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 23, 2012
at 05:35 PM

Because you got a lot of backlash on this question, I thought I'd put together a comment just explaining why it put me off right at the start. I flinch hard with questions like this, I didn't mean that link as aimed personally at you, but at the whole concept of "overweight people, why aren't you just eating less". I think it resonates emotionally with a lot of people here, which is why you're going to get some defensive backlash when discussing anything like this. Comes with the territory. Also, when you are discussing caloric restriction as a weight loss method, comparing it favorably to anorexia is pretty offensive for anyone that has experienced or been around someone experiencing anorexia. Saying that it is not anorexia just because the person isn't small enough puts a standard that you can't have a serious eating disorder until you reach "X" amount, which as many people will attest to, is not the case. You can be severely eating disordered and weigh any amount, healthy or unhealthy. Encouraging extreme caloric restriction and methods that encourage weight loss at essentially "any cost" (including satiation and happiness) is an encouragement of disordered eating a lifelong stressful relationship with food. I already put the stat up, but if you had a kid today that child would be 229 times more likely to develop an eating disorder than type two diabetes during childhood years. Yo-yo dieting, binging, anorexia, bulimia and many more can be the result of this behavior, all of which will cause enormous strain on your body. Even if you are just restricting calories and have all the psychosocial aspects under control, the saying is "the easiest way to gain 25 lbs is to lose 20" because most quick weight loss will be gained back plus some change.

Most people here didn't try paleo/primal/ancestral eating as their first kick at the weight loss can- I would challenge you to find one person who has lost a significant amount of weight that DIDN'T try some sort of low-fat caloric restricted diet. And yet, we are still all here, some people with some pretty amazing stories of improved healthy, well being, and, yes, weight.

It takes some experience to have a conversation like this. I'm younger than you, but I've walked the stepping stones enough to find out what is and is not appropriate to say (for the most part). It's good that you are working that out now, I mean you aren't going to learn if you don't try it! But I wouldn't be surprised if you get some negative responses when talking about weight loss if you haven't been around the conversation for very long. The most important thing is to listen in your position, to the other people in this conversation,.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on May 24, 2012
at 10:51 PM

You hit the nail on the head, Jenny. Thank you for expressing the anger that welled up inside of me when I read this question.

5
78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

on April 17, 2012
at 02:09 AM

"Normal" healthy people who undergo caloric restriction show symptoms of disordered eating and mental illness post starvation. You can start perfectly fine, but imposed with severe calorie restriction, psychological and physical consequences can occur. With a high-fat diet, you can still go into ketosis without subjecting your body to that kind of physical and psychological torment.

There is a well-known study conducted around WWII in the 40s to stimulate severe famine. Subjects (all men) in the starvation group lost about a quarter of their body weight in a about half a year through induced starvation. It offers light on how eating disorders can develop from simple dieting or severe restriction. Calorie restriction can have pretty significant consequences. You might lose weight, but be prepared to lose your mind...

During the starvation period, the men experienced severe depression, decreased sex drive, social withdrawal, preoccupation with food and body dissatisfaction. Keep in mind, these men were healthy before being subjected to starvation. If you think you are tough enough to avoid the psychological consequences, there were physical consequences as well. Metabolism (BMR) dropped and body temperature dropped.

Also, during this starvation period, the men became obsessed with food..collecting recipes from magazines, one stole food from the garbage and another ended up having to drop out because he had to be in a psych ward. In the next phase of the study, during rehabilitation, many started to binge-eat. This is very common people who may start their eating disorder with typical anorexic behaviors. The mind is a powerful thing, and the body can sometimes be overridden...and then the out of control binging begins. And by binging, some people REALLY binge, as in 10,000 in one sitting because your body doesn't know when you will try to restrict again. The men eventually "normalized" their eating but it took like half a year.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:13 AM

Ah, I forgot the name of it and had to look it up...for more info, check out the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

Ec39179d4c06199471827a706adb2896

(242)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:20 AM

Hahaha yes!! I think this is exactly the experiment Ferris references in the link I posted below this!

5
C4c952554fbdcdc08ca594ed3049e308

on April 17, 2012
at 01:32 AM

I think you are failing to realize that the "high fat" content of the paleo diet is coming primarily from mono-unsaturated fats from nuts, avacados, lean fish and meat. This should not be a detriment to ones health, nut rather an improvement. I technically have not lost weight on my 2 month paleo lifestyle adjustment, but my body has flourished. My stomach, hips, thighs, butt and all other fat storing regions have reduced in size dramatically. In regards to exercise, I have more endurance, stamina, and lung capacity than ever before, and I never feel hungry. The thought of eating a typical carb filled diet seems agonizing to me, and the taste of cheese, bread, and pasta generally repulses me at this point. Also, if you were to calorie restrict to the point of ketosis you would additionally deprive yourself of important vitamins and minerals, which a paleo diet amply provides. Yes, why the fear of fat? I suppose if your idea of paleo is eating nothing but fatty hamburger covered in bacon, you could be scared, however if that is the case, you have not researched paleo to any point of understanding, and have no grounds to judge it.

5
1bbcd2122d9c75b07440f22ef57d6448

(2934)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:17 AM

800 calories is well below the basal metabolic rate for even the smallest people. I've never seen a recommendation below 1200 calories, and that's pushing the bottom limit. Personally, I attempted low-calorie, low-fat, and low-carb all at the same time (based on flawed CW and absolutely no research/prior knowledge), ate 1800 calories a day, and felt terrible. I dropped about 20-25lb, but I felt tired walking up too many flights of stairs, and I looked no better than I do now (probably worse, actually), consuming 3500-4000 calories.

You might induce ketosis by restricting calories, but you're also causing your body to break down muscle tissue, preserve fat tissue, slow your metabolism, and basically revolt against you, physically and emotionally. The weight loss benefits of ketosis are IMHO cancelled completely by the negative effects of extreme calorie restriction.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:23 AM

WIKI very low calorie diet. there are proven health benefits to acute caloric restriction in obese individuals in need of losing weight.

1bbcd2122d9c75b07440f22ef57d6448

(2934)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:08 AM

"Obese individuals in need of losing weight" is a pretty wide field; I'm sure that most people would not be advised to undergo this unless there were severe problems associated with the weight. Even including the entirety of the "obese" category, it's still a niche population, and the wiki article makes no mention of effectiveness or practicality of the diet for others in normal or non-hazardous weight ranges.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:23 AM

And don't forget the yoyo thing. You restrict, lose the weight, fine, but it almost always comes back from restriction, if I understand correctly. You can't count on being the 1 in 1,000 who manages to keep it off.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:53 PM

The saying is "the easiest way to gain 25 lbs is to lose 20 lbs". And doctors, dietitians, nutritionist, nurses will attest to seeing this ALL the time.

4
246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21430)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:20 AM

So... You are suggesting an overall calorie deprivation to attain weightloss instead of an adequate-calorie approach?

And this is better why?

Many of us did calorie restriction and failed. The physical stressors of starving yourself isn't ultimately successful, aggrivates eating disorders, and is less-effective, in many cases.

Your only qualm is he oft-unproven concepts that eating adequate, and surplus calories from fat, are in fact detrimental.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:35 PM

thanks for the answer, Jush. This helps me understand it more. So it's not that you haven't tried a very low calorie diet, it's that you have and it hasn't worked out? However, I can't get passed the idea that high fat diets are healthy. I was under the impression that hunter-gatherers ate a combination of meat, roots, and fruit for calories in different ratios depending on their proximity to the poles. The poles ate a high fish oil diet and closer to the equator at lean meats. Or, is the idea that H-Gs ate lean protein false? Isn't fatty grass fed meat in temperate climates scarce?

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21430)

on April 18, 2012
at 03:06 PM

If you can't get past an adequate or high fat diet is healthy, there isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise. I can give you empirical evidence (lowering my total blood lipids almost 25 points, raising my good cholesterol, losing 110lbs of body fat, etc...) but these are individual results. I would advise you to read Good Calories, Bad Calories and see what actually motivated the Western diet standards of a low-fat, high carb diet... it is far from an objective book, but it does point out some of the flaws in the common wisdom out there.

3
Ebcbbdcb8b727e69e06eaa102d49a84c

on April 17, 2012
at 02:53 PM

I think the difference comes from the peace of mind that you get with actually being satiated. 800 calories a day and likely you will spend hours on end thinking about the food you are NOT eating.

A high fat/high protein diet will leave you feeling satisfied and allow you to be free to carry on your daily activities without obsessing over your hunger.

3
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:18 AM

What makes you think starvation-induced ketosis is healthier, short or long term, than high fat (define high) paleo?

EDIT: why even bother with ketosis, not necessary to lose weight?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:40 AM

1) Depends on what you call acute. IF is acute caloric restriction. Inducing ketosis is not something that can be acheived by skipping breakfast, or fasting for just 24 hours. 2) But if you're in starvation-induced ketosis, you don't have enough carbs to acheive this. 3) Again, you're proposing ketosis, you're gonna feel like shit because you're inducing it via starvation. 4) Only high fat paired with high energy intake. If you're proposing a high-fat diet for weight loss (via ketosis), there's essentially no difference between diets.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:27 AM

1. Because acute, short term caloric restriction has many health benefits (wiki very low calorie diet). 2. if you include some carbs in your diet you will be able to replenish some muscle glycogen to engage in high intensity exercise and improve body comp and insulin sensitivity. 3. carbs release serotonin and make you feel better. 4. how do you know which fat to choose when eating high fat (in virtually all experiments high fat decreases blood flow, reduces insulin sensitivity, and thereby increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes).

2
B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on May 31, 2012
at 09:49 PM

This is wrong by the way. The only way you can get into ketosis is by carbohydrate restriction (or total starvation). The process is governed only by your carbohydrate intake (and to a certain extent your protein intake), the number of fat calories is incidental.

On a regular diet your brain burns about 100g of glucose a day. If you eat much less than 100g of carbs then it uses ketones as an alternative energy source (ketones are a bi-product of the breakdown of fatty acids). If you ate zero carbs, your brain would get 75% of its energy from ketones, and the other 25g from glucose generated from gluconeogenesis (from breaking down protein and a little fat).

If you get into ketosis on a 800kcal diet, its only because you've restricted your carbohydrate intake significantly below 100g.

If you 800kcal diet consisted of 200g of pure glucose, you wouldn't get anywhere near ketosis.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 15, 2012
at 11:41 AM

But your answer is still informative, nonetheless. Thanks. If you can, could you explain the answers to my questions? Would appreciate it b/c you're pretty much a keto authority!

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on June 15, 2012
at 12:19 PM

Yes. In some places it's quoted as 100g in others it's 120g, but if you are a glucose eater that's pretty much constant, independent of how hard you think It also represents the bulk of your glucose use (unless you are an athlete), Jaminet reckons you only use about 12.5g per hour to fuel your muscles during running for example.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 15, 2012
at 11:39 AM

Hey thanks, fergie. But you wrote "diet your brain burns about 100g of glucose a day. If you eat much less than 100g of carbs then it uses ketones as an alternative energy source"---------- Everyone's brain burns approx 100g of glucose? where do you get that from? what if one person watches movies all day while another goes to and from class? Doesn't stretching your brain with complicated material require more energy, just as walking 5 miles requires less than running 5? Also, You say your brain burns 100g glucose, but you say absolutely nothing about your muscles and liver.

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on June 15, 2012
at 12:21 PM

You can get the 100-120g number from Volek and Phinney, Jaminet, and Lyle MacDonald's books - I'm not sure where the research comes from. Here is what Paul Jaminet has to say in "the Perfect Health Diet": "Normal glucose-as-a-fuel consumption is dominated by neurons. The brain and nerves require about 20 calories per hour, waking of sleeping. These 480 daily calories can be provided by either glucose alone, or by a mix of glucose and ketone bodies (which are derived from fats or protein). So the daily glucose consumption of the brain will be between 150 to 480 kcal (32g to 120g of glucose)

2
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:31 AM

You asked "why risk the health damages of doing high fat paleo"

I could easily turn that around and ask "why risk the health damages of calorie restriction".

Overweight individuals could severely cut calories and lose weight, I'm sure. However, many may find that their metabolism and energy levels decrease as a compensatory adaptation to this diet. This is certainly counterproductive to their goals, and may be in addition to other health risks associated with a low calorie diet, like increased bone and muscle loss.

A high fat diet may allow people to eat ad libitum, while still eating less calories than they burn, resulting in weight loss. This seems like a better weight loss strategy to me. Or, don't eat high fat (I agree with you in saying "I also think that insisting on doing high fat is why so many fail to reach their body composition goals"). I have lost weight easily eating as much potatoes, bananas, and rice as I want. But forcing yourself to eat less is not, in my opinion, the best strategy for weight loss.

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:29 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22444502 ---"Both clinical and experimental evidence has revealed that calorie restriction (CR) is capable of improving heart function..."

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 03:00 PM

Why do people think intermittent fasting is healthy then? It is just intermittent calorie restriction put another way.

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:28 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22454372 ---"Calorie restriction (CR) induces enhanced insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in fast-twitch (type II) muscle from old rats..."

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:31 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22384249 ---"In patients with obesity, however, wnt5a became significantly detectable consistent with low grade inflammation in such subjects. Caloric restriction resulted in a weight loss from 131.9 ± 4.0 to 112.3 ± 3.2 kg in the obese patients group. This was accompanied by a significant decrease of HOMA-IR and leptin-to-adiponectin ratio, indicating improved insulin sensitivity. Interestingly, these metabolic improvements were associated with a significant increase in serum concentrations of the anti-inflammatory factor and wnt5a-inhibitor sFRP5..."

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:27 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22479589 --- "Calorie restriction (CR) without malnutrition delays the aging process..."

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:59 PM

@ Peter. Thanks, bro. You rock.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:04 PM

Why do you think that high fat necessarily means a high calorie diet in the first place? People here intermittent fast all the time, and reap great health benefits, while enjoying a high fat diet. I ate 500 kcal+ per day MORE when I ate a low fat diet.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:04 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16222057?dopt=Abstract ---“The control group increased in both fat and fat free mass; however, although the restricted group increased fat to the same extent as the controls, fat free mass increased to a lesser extent. The contributions of the different components of the expended energy to compensate for the reduced energy intake were energy deposition, 2.2%; resting metabolic rate, 22.3%; and activity, 75.5%”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:07 AM

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/166/22/2502 ---“(Caloric Restriction)-induced weight loss, but not (Exercise)-induced weight loss, is associated with reductions in (Bone Mineral Density) at clinically important sites of fracture”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:03 AM

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/123/1/90.full.pdf ---“The average and basal metabolic rates obtained by direct calorimetry in our experiments demonstrated that the energy-restricted animals had lower metabolic rates than the ad libitum diet animals”

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:31 AM

"why risk the health damages of calorie restriction". - your turn Mscott

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:01 AM

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf---“(Resting Metabolic Rate) values during the modified fast and during the maintenance diet at stable reduced weight were not different and all were significantly lower than the prediet RMR”

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:26 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22461615 --- "Calorie restriction, which increases life span and insulin sensitivity, is proposed to function by inhibition of mTORC1....."

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:03 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17990972 ---“The pattern of hyperphagic response suggested that signals coding body mass drive hunger during restriction, and because body mass under restriction remains depressed, this suggests that hunger would never disappear, making restriction to prolong lifespan in humans difficult to accomplish”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:03 AM

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf ---“(Resting Metabolic Rate) values during the modified fast and during the maintenance diet at stable reduced weight were not different and all were significantly lower than the prediet RMR”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:35 AM

Those are some studies to chew on. Now, I'm not even trying to argue against studies which show calorie restriction seems to produce certain health benefits (in certain animals, of which humans are arguably one of them). I'm just saying, there are risks with CR that can't be ignored. @Foreveryoung-I think people draw a distinction between intermittent fasting and calorie restriction because one is chronic and the other is intermittent and this is supposed to give the benefits without the risks. But I don't know too much about this.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:02 AM

http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/1/B5.full.pdf ---“We conclude that the process of preventing obesity by long term caloric restriction causes a significant and sustained long-term reduction in energy expenditure, even when corrected for lean body mass”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:10 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15983169 ---“CR (Calorie Restriction) decreased survival, increased virus titers, and reduced natural killer cell activity in lungs of aged mice after primary influenza infection” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17383614 ---“These results suggest that chronic caloric restriction in young rats may lead to the development of depressive and/or anxiety disorders”

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on April 18, 2012
at 01:34 AM

Those are some studies to chew on. Now, I'm not even trying to argue against studies which show calorie restriction seems to produce certain health benefits (in certain animals, of which humans are not clearly one of them). I'm just saying, there are risks with CR that can't be ignored. @Foreveryoung-I think people draw a distinction between intermittent fasting and calorie restriction because one is chronic and the other is intermittent and this is supposed to give the benefits without the risks. But I don't know too much about this.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 23, 2012
at 01:46 PM

I think the definition of what each study considers calorie restriction would be important as well.

2
6b4909a79a5f70bd9e3d141be8e659de

on April 17, 2012
at 01:34 AM

Well, I've done low calorie diets in the past and it wasn't healthy because I was still eating processed foods. I started paleo in October. I weighed 210, and now I'm down to 164 and still losing weight. I have so much energy and my body just feels healthy. I don't get food cravings anymore. I'm losing fat where I had issues losing fat on a calorie restricted diet. I'm not doing paleo to just lose weight. This is a lifestyle change for me and my family. No more processed foods, sugar, dyes, etc.. I don't do as high of fats as some do. I don't use butter. Just not a big fan of it. I have some large family members that do calorie restrictivediets, and it gets them nowhere. They will lose weight and then gain it right back.

B6114a1980b1481fb18206064f3f4a4f

(3924)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:02 AM

Congrats, Ashley!

1
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:45 PM

In order to get to the next level, you have to understand that saturated fat (and cholesterol) are straight up good for you. Butter is a health food.

800 calories a day is a recipe for disaster. Most can't actually discipline themselves that well, and those that managed to would suffer terrible nutrient deficiencies. I lost plenty with a 1500 cal restriction- with about 70% of that coming from fat.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:54 PM

Thank you for an honest and helpful answer. Good work on the weight loss!

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 08:07 PM

Thank you for an honest and helpful answer. I know that saturated fat and cholesterol are healthy, however I do think there is a point at which further increases in consumption result in diminishing and even negative returns to health. Good work on the weight loss!

1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:38 PM

Oh what would we do without 22 year olds to tell us all where we are going wrong? LOL

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:56 PM

Also, the slight at your age- it's not that your chronological years matter, but it takes some experience to have a conversation like this. I'm younger than you, but I've walked the stepping stones enough to find out what is and is not appropriate to say (for the most part). It's good that you are working that out now, I mean you aren't going to learn if you don't try it! But I wouldn't be surprised if you get some negative responses when talking about weight loss if you haven't been around the conversation for very long. The most important thing is to listen in your position.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:51 PM

Hey foreveryoung, I got your question. I think you were genuinely curious and just wanted to learn more. I think acute caloric restriction is a lot different than 800/day. That, especially for the average male, would do a lot more harm than good in long-term health and weight loss. If you look up the studies on CRON, the calorie values are much higher.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:43 PM

Wow. You two are so clever. UNfortunately your whit falls flat as I did not say anyone was doing anything wrong, hence the question and not the statement. i was wondering why very low calorie diets to induce ketosis are not being practiced by those that need to lose a substantial amount of weight. Sorry my question offended you so much Jenny.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 17, 2012
at 09:20 PM

FY, I don't care if people think I'm witty (without the "H) or not. I've been give a few -1's for my wit/sarcasm but I really don't mind. Anyway, my comment was about some of the statements made in your following posts. Your questions on here just seem to be opportunities for you tell everyone that you have the answers. At least one person in this thread has already told you a few days ago, of their success with high fat but you still don't seem to be willing to accept that high fat can work.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:48 PM

I flinch hard with questions like this, I didn't mean that link as aimed personally at you, but at the whole concept of "overweight people, why aren't you just eating less". I think it resonates emotionally with a lot of people here, which is why you're going to get some defensive backlash when discussing anything like this. Comes with the territory.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:52 PM

I mean, I get that you are wanting to have a conversation here but commenting things like this: "I'm writing this because if I were above 25% bodyfat (and male), I'd do absolutely everything I could to do to get lean as fast as possible."- this implies that people who have this body fat % and stay at it, are NOT doing everything in their power to get lean. Shari's comment addressed that insinuation, with some sass and wit because those statements can be offensive.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:51 PM

Reminds me of this "A Plea to Folks who Lose 20 lbs To Stop Thinking They've Solved Obesity" http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/03/plea-to-folks-who-lose-20lbs-to-stop.html "if guilt, shame and name calling were useful in the generalized real world, then the real world would most assuredly be one hell of a skinny place as it currently has no shortage of guilt, shame and name calling for those with obesity."

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 07:45 PM

I was thinking very low calorie diets would have been practiced an awful lot due to the known benefits of acute caloric restriction. It is kind of like intermittent fasting, but more widely studied. I don't know why being wrong about something offends so many people. I am trying to learn.

0
Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on January 05, 2013
at 03:41 PM

I imagine a lot of folks who have turned to VLC paleo were significantly overweight or obese. That is very different from someone at a healthy weight trying to improve body composition (i.e., for aesthetic or athletic reasons).

For someone overweight or obese, they can likely lose fat without the need for glycogen stores to get peak performance during workouts and often without even having to worry too much about calorie restriction (e.g., just by eating real food to satiety). This may also be easier as it doesn't require counting calories, counting macros, super high intensity workouts, etc.

For someone at a relatively healthy weight, trying to lean out, the above approach may not work (hence the plateau). In those cases, I imagine workout intensity matters a lot more, thinking more about calories may become necessary (especially if pushing below a theoretical healthy body fat % or setpoint or whatever). In that situation, adding in carbs and removing fat, may be necessary. You also might have to take it further and think about macro ratios and/or carb cycling/etc.

0
Ec39179d4c06199471827a706adb2896

(242)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:18 AM

You're also missing that fat is more "filling" per calorie than carbohydrates are. You can actually eat fewer calories and still feel full by restricting your carbohydrate intake and increasing fats. It's one of the ways that standard nutritionists tried to explain away the Atkins diet as being a calorie restriction diet in disguise.

Tim Ferris talks a little about it... http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/02/25/the-science-of-fat-loss-why-a-calorie-isnt-always-a-calorie/

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on April 18, 2012
at 12:53 AM

Carbs are way more filling in my opinion.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:29 AM

yeah I know fat are more satiating than carbs, and proteins more than either. thanks for the link.

6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on April 17, 2012
at 10:33 AM

Sean, I used to think that fat was more filling. Turns out a search on pubmed will prove that wrong! - http://paleohacks.com/questions/101891/is-fat-more-satiating#axzz1sI7EYRK4

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 06:55 PM

Did you read the link peter??? That is kind of the main point...

0
4d0a80178a9f5f9adac5203ed92f3c52

on April 17, 2012
at 12:50 AM

I have been keto adapted for 4 months now. Fasting for 18-24 hours is nothing. Calorie restriction is no problem either. Once your body looks for fat as fuel it finds plenty stored all over your body and its not starving. If its burning is fat its happy. Just make sure your not kicking it out of "FAT" mode with a plate of carbs. Your body isnt starving if its burning fat, it usually has plenty stored all over. Its starving if fat is too low and your using your muscle for energy. Make sure you eat proteins and fats. Your liver will convert some the proteins into usable "sugars-glycogen" to feed the organs that need glycogen. So make sure you have enough protein for maintenance and conversion for those organs that need it. As far as energy though even being keto adapted your not going to get much energy in long intense exercise.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:55 AM

Hey, Doug. Thanks for your input, but i'm confused by that last sentence. would you mind mind spelling it out for me another way?

4d0a80178a9f5f9adac5203ed92f3c52

(60)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:33 AM

Lifting wont be affected AFTER your keto adapted. Unitl you are keto adapted it will suffer big time. Give yourself 6 weeks for your body to fully adapt to keto. Then a stick of cheese sounds better than a piece of bread.

3b3a449b6705e9ec8b141d0bd07c1a64

(1489)

on April 17, 2012
at 11:03 AM

omg I crave cheese ... no bread...could smash a whole block!

4d0a80178a9f5f9adac5203ed92f3c52

(60)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:29 AM

So your high intensity output will suffer after about 10 minutes of work. low intensity is great. Dont expect to PR any of your times on any workouts. Lifting isnt affected as long as your resting between sets. for example if you did as many push ups as possible for 10 sets the sets after 3 or so will suffer. if you eat carbs the day before it will not. Your muscles will fill with glycogen and perform better the day after eating carbs

0
1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

on April 17, 2012
at 12:34 AM

Starvation!???? Any person with an abundance of fat stores has a looooong way to go until they are "Starving". That pathetic wimper of hunger 3-4 hrs after eating is more thirst mixed with psychological triggers than it is hunger, that HUNGRY! feeling after 3 DAYS without food is real hunger and as far as starvation goes? 99.9% of people in America have no clue.

To put it another way, unless your <5%BF, its IMPOSSIBLE to 'starve'.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:42 AM

I'm writing this because if I were above 25% bodyfat (and male), I'd do absolutely everything I could to do to get lean as fast as possible. I'd eat high protein and just enough carbs to get me in and out of the gym. I'd eat as friggin little as possible and definitely, definitely not add butter to damn thing.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:48 AM

I find this a relatively abrasive, and almost insulting. My mom comes from below poverty line, so she knows the feeling of hunger and what it's like to be in a huge family and not have any food and be homeless, yet as a nurse the patients she has the hardest time with is the severely obese on these really calorie restricted diets because she KNOWS how they feel and she KNOWS how terrible it is to never get enough. It's not like someone who is obese just "can't get over a twinge of hunger"- we are talking about LONG periods of time NEVER feeling full. Honestly, how would you feel?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:01 AM

You're right- offensive. I am just wondering though, is being obese and the health consequences from given less weight than the societal and psychological consequences of restricting calories acutely enough to improve your health? I really just genuinely want to learn and am curious. I apologize for being offensive. I'm just really curious and am being blunt.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:46 AM

@Jenny, I wish knew you in real life. I think we'd be able to strike up hours of conversation!!

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:40 AM

Yeah dude, I feel you.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 12:46 AM

Okay, but seriously, can you only measure disordered eating based on BMI? Why is it safe and healthy (heck encouraged!) that one person of a certain size can eat a certain way, but someone smaller that would be considered dangerous and unhealthy? I've seen severely obese males on really calorie constricted diets on my internship, and they are ready to weep for food- they feel grumpy and angry and most of all SO HUNGRY for months sometimes, they never ever feel full.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:09 AM

Yes. I think it breeds unhealthy lifelong relationships with food and eating, and it is so RARELY successful that it can't be counted as a necessary evil. If you had a kid today, it would still be 229 times more likely that they'd develop an eating disorder than childhood diabetes; you can't brush that under the rug.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on April 17, 2012
at 01:02 AM

You're right- offensive. I'm asking though because I'm genuinely curious and want to learn more. Do the societal and psychological consequences of acutely restricting calories outweigh the health detriment of being overweight?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on April 17, 2012
at 02:34 PM

Starvation is not an end-point, it is a process. Eating below nutritional requirements is starvation. Weight loss diets are essentially just controlled starvation.

Answer Question


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