6

votes

Is Hormonal balance, as opposed to caloric balance, more important to weight loss?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created July 20, 2010 at 10:44 PM

I saw a brief discussion on research showing that your hormone balance, as opposed to strict calories in/calories out, is more important to weight loss. I'm not sure if that sounds like I said anything at all there, but CW is pretty big on 'calories in less than calories out'. Physics diet. Pretty black and white. Even discussions of good calories/bad calories come down to a in/out balance.

Is there validity to the opposite (hormone environment being correct)? It seems to be a big discussion point around here even without being explicitly said. Are there links to research? I'm not succeeding at PubMed searching yet. Keywords are too vague.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 24, 2010
at 04:49 PM

If by "calories [are] meaningless for weight loss" you just mean "practically, it's not worth trying to count" which is all you're arguing for now, then the point is uncontentious. It sounds like you've now conceded what you were questioning before: that "calories are the ultimate factor" (truistically).

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 24, 2010
at 03:35 PM

Blah blah, if you perfectly modeled all of the various heat/energy exchange mechanisms in the body you could show calories in = calories out and the first law of thermodynamics holds, yay! and duh! Too bad we're not even close to modeling things this well, and hence I still support calories as being fairly meaningless for weight loss.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 23, 2010
at 10:11 AM

If your hormonal system regulates your energy balance, energy balance is not at all "irrelevant". Energy balance is an important component in explaining it and thus can't be said to be irrelevant. Heck, your own answer relies on energy balance to explain futile cycling - why does futile cycling matter if not as an explanation of how your body manages energy balance? "Calories are irrelevant" equates to "energy balance is irrelevant" which would mean that most of your answer is... irrelevant. Endocrine system <=> energy balance is the ultimate truth of the matter.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 23, 2010
at 06:58 AM

Google dictionary seems to support my use of irrelevant. http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&q=irrelevant&hl=en&aq=f

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 23, 2010
at 06:57 AM

pfw, exactly. We have tools to rebuild people, normalize their hormonal response, and allow them to dissipate excess energy. Calories are not an important part of this, you can run full speed at the endgame without measuring or manipulating them.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 23, 2010
at 06:33 AM

Chris, for my argument to work, I need to establish that for two people with identical calories in, some other factor can alter calories out; with identical calories out, some factor can alter calories in and with identical calories in and out, by definition, there would be no difference. Your addition just adds a causal factor that can influence energy out, which you can add in brackets to the above without altering the argument... If A and B have equal calories in/out, A 'futile cycles' and B doesn't, then either B really expends more calories, or A expends fewer elsewhere.

3864f9a2af09b1b447c7963058650a34

(3703)

on July 23, 2010
at 05:14 AM

Excellent post and responses Chris! (I learned a lot) There's a another name too -- G-flux! Bioenenergetics is not physics -- it's complex metabolic systems. I've learned that hormone systems are all interrelated, then add to that complex positive and negative feedback loops. http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/gflux_redux The BMR buzzes w/all the factors that Chris lists... testost/estro, dhea, THYROID, vitamin D, adiponectin/leptin/insulin, cold hormesis, hypoxemia (HIIT), even melatonin (sleep hormone) which counters cortisol.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 23, 2010
at 12:39 AM

I should note that I now agree with everything in your post except the statement about calories being "irrelevant" - unless you're using the word in a weird, non-standard way, it simply isn't supportable.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 11:57 PM

That doesn't change his point at all.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 11:55 PM

Your ABS are your argument for the irrelevance of energy balance? I'm not even sure how to respond to such a non-sequitur. Your clients and friends have amazing success because they repair their normal hormonal balance and thus their body takes care of regulating the energy balance. That doesn't mean energy balance is "irrelevant", as you claim, it means that it is not primary and not the whole story.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 10:16 PM

David, this is far too simple of an explanation, there are numerous other things that can account for energy lost. Say for example, if your liver decides to futile cycle pyruvate -> glycogen (because you did intervals).

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 10:11 PM

I'm tired of discussing this with you; myself, friends & clients have had amazing success loosing body fat while paying no attention to calories at all. If you think they are important, have fun. My abs speak for themselves.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 09:27 PM

Yes, you are. You are saying that calories are "irrelevant". If that were the case, there would be zero difference between consuming 0 calories and 10,000 calories. If different levels of energy intake generate different results, then calories are relevant.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 09:25 PM

Then the two meals aren't identical in the terms of the tautology. Your energy out is clearly different in the differing cases, resulting in a different energy balance. Simply, (and obviously), a meal of sugar is different from a meal of steak. This is irrelevant to the fact that there is some level of steak intake which will fail to maintain your weight just as there is some level of sugar intake which will fail to maintain your weight, and it makes no dent in the observation that both energy intake and hormonal state are relevant factors in weight regulation.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 22, 2010
at 06:28 PM

They wouldn't be identical in calories in AND out. If A and B take in X calories, but A has low insulin and B high insulin, then A cannot expend any more calories, but B can so calories out varies. If A and B each expend X calories and A has high insulin and B has low insulin then A must take in these calories from outside, whereas B could have called 'in' the energy from their own fat and so could still lose weight. For any-one who has lost fat, by definition some of their energy out has not come from their energy taken in, so there must be a difference between the two.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 05:48 PM

If two diets identical in calories can cause a person to both gain and loose weight, how are calories the ultimate factor?

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 05:47 PM

Sure, but this is not a tautology. There is no universal truth in two meals identical in calories, one which contains many 10-14 carbon fatty acids, which in turn bind UCP1 and increase thermal dissipation of energy.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 04:27 PM

No, I am really not saying that about 0 calories at all.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:43 PM

Stephan talks about this here: http://blog.adonislifestyle.com/body-fat-regulation-can-we-change-it/

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 10:39 AM

That does not establish that calories are irrlevant, merely that they are not sufficient to explain all weight loss. What you are saying is that it would be possible for someone to gain weight eating 0 calories, which is clearly false.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 10:36 AM

Do you understand the definition of tautology? I'm not sure if you're being serious at this point or if you're pulling some bizarro-troll on me.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:53 AM

Say for example I maintain my weight by eating either a) 2500kcal 70% fat 30% protein b) 3500kcal 20% fat 20% protein 60% carb. How is maintenance defined here in terms of calories?

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:51 AM

Irrelevant for weight loss. Again, you can loose weight on a diet with the same amount of calories that makes you gain weight.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:49 AM

So that's not reference, just hand waving?

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:14 AM

It's indisputable because it's a tautology. If you eat less than is necessary to maintain your weight, you lose weight. A == A. I don't need a study to prove that unless you want to pull strict epistemic skepticism on me, in which case we have no basis for discussion. Note that "maintenance" is not strictly defined and is simply whatever quality/quantity of food is necessary for you to maintain your weight.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:11 AM

If you limited yourself to saying that calories were not the whole story because of your example, you would be correct and I'd stop arguing with you. When you say that they are irrelevant, you state something which is quite simply false. Energy matters to an organism. If you ate zero calories but took a complete multivitamin, how long do you think you'd live? Claiming that because calories do not describe the entire picture of weight they must not matter at all is quite simply unsupportable and false. Your two links do nothing to establish that.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:02 AM

Have any citations or references for your indisputable point that eating below "maintenance" will result in someone always loosing weight?

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:01 AM

They're irrelevant because a diet with the exact same amount of calories can cause someone to loose weight, gain weight and maintain their weight.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:41 AM

Look, plain and simple, calories are irrelevant because the same amount of calories consumed each day can cause a person to either gain, loose or stay the same weight.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:23 AM

Energy matters. Saying that calories is irrelevant is simply incorrect - I'd agree that they are not the whole story, but to say that they are irrelevant because they are not the whole story is logically flawed and not supported by any observable evidence (or theoretical logic)

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:08 AM

But not every single weight loss study has used a reduction of calories.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:02 AM

Sure, and you can starve someone on a very wide range of calories. Remember Taubes discussion of the Pima indians, obesity is malnutrition.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 12:03 AM

Calories are relevant to weight loss. Every single study ever has demonstrated that starving someone makes them lose weight. Calories and hormones are NOT independent variables (Taubes central point).

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on July 20, 2010
at 10:57 PM

Very slightly edited title to correct grammar

  • 5767f1875b9741d1cca521a1886b9c33

    asked by

    (35)
  • Views
    2.4K
  • Last Activity
    1259D AGO
Frontpage book

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

8 Answers

7
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on July 21, 2010
at 03:21 AM

Hormones determine how much you feel like eating and how much you store and how much you burn. If your hormones are balanced, then you will feel full and stop eating at the appropriate time and the calories that you do eat will be easily availabe to be burned as fuel whenever needed. If your hormones are healthy, your muscles and body will function in a more healthy manner, you will have more energy, and your metabolism will be higher. If your hormones are balanced, then you will not eat 10 bags of pork rinds each night because you will feel full and won't want to eat too many of them.

The problem with the way most refer to calories in/calories out is that they leave out the complexities and confounding variables like where the calories go in the body. If the calories are all stored due to high insulin but your muscles are not getting enough nutrients, then you will still have cravings and feel hungry for more food. If you cut calories with remaining hormonal imbalance, you will lose stored fat but your muscles will suffer even more. That is why a diet that does not deal with the hormone problems is probably not going to be healthy or easily sustainable as long as you will be fighting cravings and hunger for the rest of your life.

In order to fix the calories in/calories out issue in a healthy way, the trick is to fix the hormone problem first. The amount of eating is not a cause, it is a symptom of the hormone imbalance. Fix the hormone imbalance and the amount of eating adjusts naturally to more healthful levels because you have fixed the cause of the desire to overeat in the first place.

5
1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 21, 2010
at 10:37 PM

Normalizing your hormone balance (basal & post-prandial insulin/blood glucose, TSH, testosterone/estrogen, etc) will be much more influential for weight loss than caloric manipulation.

Calories are an irrelevant measure for weight loss, as they are only meaningful in the context of the food being eaten.

One can easily come up with equivalent calorie meals that will have dramatically different effects on hormones and body composition, here are two 3000 calorie meals:

  1. 880g ground bison and 450g organic valley sour cream
  2. 100g bison, 30g sour cream and 27 slices pepperidge farm whole grain bread

There are also a number of 'futile cycle' mechanisms throughout the body that waste energy in a sense. Dr Eades has a good post on the subject, Thermodynamics and the metabolic advantage.

Some other futile cycles of interest are:

  • Cori cycle during exercise, where lactate that travels to the liver uses 6 ATP to be re synthesized into glycogen while only producing 2 ATP during glycolysis.
  • Gluconeogenesis on VLC, where 6 ATP are required to synthesize one glucose molecule, which in turn can make 36 ATP
  • The mitochondrial uncouple protein UCP1 assists in dissipate energy as heat, and increases in expression during overfeeding and cold acclimation. Lauric & myristic acid also seem to trigger UCP1.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:08 AM

But not every single weight loss study has used a reduction of calories.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 04:27 PM

No, I am really not saying that about 0 calories at all.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 10:11 PM

I'm tired of discussing this with you; myself, friends & clients have had amazing success loosing body fat while paying no attention to calories at all. If you think they are important, have fun. My abs speak for themselves.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 23, 2010
at 12:39 AM

I should note that I now agree with everything in your post except the statement about calories being "irrelevant" - unless you're using the word in a weird, non-standard way, it simply isn't supportable.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 11:55 PM

Your ABS are your argument for the irrelevance of energy balance? I'm not even sure how to respond to such a non-sequitur. Your clients and friends have amazing success because they repair their normal hormonal balance and thus their body takes care of regulating the energy balance. That doesn't mean energy balance is "irrelevant", as you claim, it means that it is not primary and not the whole story.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 23, 2010
at 06:58 AM

Google dictionary seems to support my use of irrelevant. http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&q=irrelevant&hl=en&aq=f

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:51 AM

Irrelevant for weight loss. Again, you can loose weight on a diet with the same amount of calories that makes you gain weight.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 23, 2010
at 10:11 AM

If your hormonal system regulates your energy balance, energy balance is not at all "irrelevant". Energy balance is an important component in explaining it and thus can't be said to be irrelevant. Heck, your own answer relies on energy balance to explain futile cycling - why does futile cycling matter if not as an explanation of how your body manages energy balance? "Calories are irrelevant" equates to "energy balance is irrelevant" which would mean that most of your answer is... irrelevant. Endocrine system <=> energy balance is the ultimate truth of the matter.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:11 AM

If you limited yourself to saying that calories were not the whole story because of your example, you would be correct and I'd stop arguing with you. When you say that they are irrelevant, you state something which is quite simply false. Energy matters to an organism. If you ate zero calories but took a complete multivitamin, how long do you think you'd live? Claiming that because calories do not describe the entire picture of weight they must not matter at all is quite simply unsupportable and false. Your two links do nothing to establish that.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 09:27 PM

Yes, you are. You are saying that calories are "irrelevant". If that were the case, there would be zero difference between consuming 0 calories and 10,000 calories. If different levels of energy intake generate different results, then calories are relevant.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 23, 2010
at 06:57 AM

pfw, exactly. We have tools to rebuild people, normalize their hormonal response, and allow them to dissipate excess energy. Calories are not an important part of this, you can run full speed at the endgame without measuring or manipulating them.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:02 AM

Sure, and you can starve someone on a very wide range of calories. Remember Taubes discussion of the Pima indians, obesity is malnutrition.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 12:03 AM

Calories are relevant to weight loss. Every single study ever has demonstrated that starving someone makes them lose weight. Calories and hormones are NOT independent variables (Taubes central point).

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:23 AM

Energy matters. Saying that calories is irrelevant is simply incorrect - I'd agree that they are not the whole story, but to say that they are irrelevant because they are not the whole story is logically flawed and not supported by any observable evidence (or theoretical logic)

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:01 AM

They're irrelevant because a diet with the exact same amount of calories can cause someone to loose weight, gain weight and maintain their weight.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 10:39 AM

That does not establish that calories are irrlevant, merely that they are not sufficient to explain all weight loss. What you are saying is that it would be possible for someone to gain weight eating 0 calories, which is clearly false.

3864f9a2af09b1b447c7963058650a34

(3703)

on July 23, 2010
at 05:14 AM

Excellent post and responses Chris! (I learned a lot) There's a another name too -- G-flux! Bioenenergetics is not physics -- it's complex metabolic systems. I've learned that hormone systems are all interrelated, then add to that complex positive and negative feedback loops. http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/gflux_redux The BMR buzzes w/all the factors that Chris lists... testost/estro, dhea, THYROID, vitamin D, adiponectin/leptin/insulin, cold hormesis, hypoxemia (HIIT), even melatonin (sleep hormone) which counters cortisol.

4
E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 22, 2010
at 06:17 AM

We can easily accept that 'calories in/calories out' is valid while still holding that changing your hormonal balance is more important.

It's (tautologically) true that if I consume more calories than I expend (expend meaning 'use on anything other than making fat') then I will gain fat. If I consume fewer calories than I expend then (tautologically) I need to burn some calories from body stores.

The crucial points are:

  • 1) My body can change the amount of energy expended.
  • 2) Hormonal balance can influence the amount of energy expended.

If I normally expend 2500 calories per day, that doesn't mean that if I consistently consume only 2000 calories per day, my body won't ensure that I henceforth only consume 2000 calories per day.

Similarly, hormonal balance can alter the amount of energy available and thus the amount of energy expended. If I have low insulin I may have endless supplies of fat energy available to burn, if I have high insulin I may have no fat energy to burn, I may indeed have a caloric deficit that can only be met exogenously (from consuming more food) or from reducing the amount of calories I expend.

This is shown in a great study cited in Good Calories, Bad Calories (regrettably I don't have my copy on me), where a group of women are shown to be able to lose fat easily on a hypocaloric fat and protein diet, whereas they maintain or even continue to gain fat while eating the same or fewer calories on a carbohydrate based (and thus insulinemic) diet.


So the final conclusion: yes calories in/calories out is the ultimate factor as to whether fat is lost or gained, but hormonal balance can itself determine whether more calories go in or out. If you are burning more fat then more calories are going out, by necessity, it's an analytically true (but unrevealing) statement.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 05:48 PM

If two diets identical in calories can cause a person to both gain and loose weight, how are calories the ultimate factor?

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 10:16 PM

David, this is far too simple of an explanation, there are numerous other things that can account for energy lost. Say for example, if your liver decides to futile cycle pyruvate -> glycogen (because you did intervals).

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 11:57 PM

That doesn't change his point at all.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 24, 2010
at 03:35 PM

Blah blah, if you perfectly modeled all of the various heat/energy exchange mechanisms in the body you could show calories in = calories out and the first law of thermodynamics holds, yay! and duh! Too bad we're not even close to modeling things this well, and hence I still support calories as being fairly meaningless for weight loss.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 23, 2010
at 06:33 AM

Chris, for my argument to work, I need to establish that for two people with identical calories in, some other factor can alter calories out; with identical calories out, some factor can alter calories in and with identical calories in and out, by definition, there would be no difference. Your addition just adds a causal factor that can influence energy out, which you can add in brackets to the above without altering the argument... If A and B have equal calories in/out, A 'futile cycles' and B doesn't, then either B really expends more calories, or A expends fewer elsewhere.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 22, 2010
at 06:28 PM

They wouldn't be identical in calories in AND out. If A and B take in X calories, but A has low insulin and B high insulin, then A cannot expend any more calories, but B can so calories out varies. If A and B each expend X calories and A has high insulin and B has low insulin then A must take in these calories from outside, whereas B could have called 'in' the energy from their own fat and so could still lose weight. For any-one who has lost fat, by definition some of their energy out has not come from their energy taken in, so there must be a difference between the two.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 24, 2010
at 04:49 PM

If by "calories [are] meaningless for weight loss" you just mean "practically, it's not worth trying to count" which is all you're arguing for now, then the point is uncontentious. It sounds like you've now conceded what you were questioning before: that "calories are the ultimate factor" (truistically).

3
4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 12:17 AM

They are intimately coupled. Conventional wisdom is wrong not because calories don't count, but because calorie counting is not the whole story.

This is an extremely important point. People often make the mistake of saying that calories don't count when that is not supported by a single stick of science out there. No matter what you eat, if you eat below maintenance you will lose weight. This is indisputable and in disputing it paleos tend to destroy their own credibility as well as frame the discussion in such a way that it can never be salvaged.

The counter-argument to calorie counting is not that calories are irrelevant but that they are not the primary thing to be concerned about because your calorie intake is coupled to what your body demands you do and what your body does with your calorie intake. It's a feedback loop, not a line. Calories in - calories out = change in weight. Don't ignore either side of the equation and understand that each side effects the other.

Your energy balance still matters, it's just wrong to assume that you can fight your body over energy balance forever. You need to ensure that your endocrine system is working properly, doing its job of regulating appetite and nutrient partitioning between fat/muscle, which is why avoiding certain foods helps a lot of people. In avoiding those foods, they can avoid having to calorie count, because they allow their endocrine system to naturally regulate their appetite and fat tissue into healthy balance - which, if you're fat, requires a negative energy balance.

So. My impassioned plea to the paleo community: Don't swing the pendulum so far the other way that you never settle over the truth. Re-read GCBC and focus on the part where he talks about thermodynamics and how the trivial observation of in - out = weight change is tautological, inadequate, not incorrect.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:49 AM

So that's not reference, just hand waving?

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 10:36 AM

Do you understand the definition of tautology? I'm not sure if you're being serious at this point or if you're pulling some bizarro-troll on me.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:02 AM

Have any citations or references for your indisputable point that eating below "maintenance" will result in someone always loosing weight?

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 01:41 AM

Look, plain and simple, calories are irrelevant because the same amount of calories consumed each day can cause a person to either gain, loose or stay the same weight.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 05:47 PM

Sure, but this is not a tautology. There is no universal truth in two meals identical in calories, one which contains many 10-14 carbon fatty acids, which in turn bind UCP1 and increase thermal dissipation of energy.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 09:25 PM

Then the two meals aren't identical in the terms of the tautology. Your energy out is clearly different in the differing cases, resulting in a different energy balance. Simply, (and obviously), a meal of sugar is different from a meal of steak. This is irrelevant to the fact that there is some level of steak intake which will fail to maintain your weight just as there is some level of sugar intake which will fail to maintain your weight, and it makes no dent in the observation that both energy intake and hormonal state are relevant factors in weight regulation.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:14 AM

It's indisputable because it's a tautology. If you eat less than is necessary to maintain your weight, you lose weight. A == A. I don't need a study to prove that unless you want to pull strict epistemic skepticism on me, in which case we have no basis for discussion. Note that "maintenance" is not strictly defined and is simply whatever quality/quantity of food is necessary for you to maintain your weight.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on July 22, 2010
at 02:53 AM

Say for example I maintain my weight by eating either a) 2500kcal 70% fat 30% protein b) 3500kcal 20% fat 20% protein 60% carb. How is maintenance defined here in terms of calories?

2
667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 21, 2010
at 12:49 AM

Yes, your question is essentially one of Taubes' major points in GCBC. I believe it is indeed both but that i put more emphasis on controlling the hormones, then calories secondarily. I think if you take someone on the SAD, they will benefit much more by getting that insulin squared away, even if they still eat tons and tons of calories. But eventually i do concede that there is a limit to how many calories you can eat without gaining unwanted fatweight. If you eat zero carbohydrates but pound down 10 bags of pork grinds before bed for a week straight, you will gain weight. Absolutely.

1
D31a2a2d43191b15ca4a1c7ec7d03038

on September 01, 2010
at 11:21 PM

From Dr. Kurt Harris:

"Macronutrient ratios mediate weight via hormones. Hormones drive fat storage."

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/8/27/how-to-lose-weight.html

I can attest to the validity of Stephen-Aegis' statements. Eating Paleo has stabilized many things for me and enabled me to lose weight that limiting calories did not.

Peter Dobromylskyj gives the science behind this, at his blog, Hyperlipid.

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/

1
95ab15c8ef50ff0daf87ccbdd52cd3b8

(2384)

on July 21, 2010
at 12:32 AM

Insulin. Leptin. Read Gary Taubes.

1
4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

on July 20, 2010
at 10:56 PM

Caloric restriction does work, but not long term

Hormonal changes adjust your set point

Look for insulin and leptin sensitivity/resistance control your weight heavily.

Paleo repairs your leptin/insulin

Answer Question


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