3

votes

Weight loss while Hypercaloric? Is it real?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created July 27, 2012 at 4:58 AM

This kind of hits upon the question of is a calorie really a calorie. Several people in the Paleosphere have claimed that they maintain a healthy body (weight, and bf%) while eating large numbers of calories per day. Bulletproof exec claims 4000 a day, others have said they eat multiple lbs of meat per day and are at 10% bf percentages. It sounds great, and seems to proove that not every calorie is the same, but is it all just hyperbole?

Does anyone here have records of their caloric intake along side charts showing weight loss? Is it possible to be chronically hypercaloric (1000-2000 calories above TDEE) and still reach optimum bodyweight? I'd love to see some real proof on the subject.

Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

Still not sure what to make of Dave Asprey. Part of me thinks he's a total whackjob, but when I'm honest about it, I think I'm just jealous that he amassed enough money at such a young age to basically use himself as an experiment into all sorts of things. Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does take some pressure off!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 05, 2013
at 11:40 PM

We don't store toxins.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on July 28, 2012
at 08:36 PM

The George Bray overfeeding study from a few months ago showed that a high-protein diet added lean mass.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:59 PM

...I never said ratios didn't matter. I asked if there is a magic number or ratio that causes thermodynamics to go out the window so you can eat more calories than required per a TDEE calculation and still lose weight. "But you are really asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be "How many calories do I need to loose weight" the question should be, "How does the types of calories I consume effect my ability to burn fat" You said this in your first post because you assumed I was some idiot noob. Prove to me it works first and then I will ask why.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:45 PM

...the question was whether one could eat a diet low enough in carbs to be hypercaloric and still lose weight. Energy levels are decidedly different from weight loss. I asked if there was a magic carb number that suddenly made calories stop mattering in regards to weight loss. I asked for evidence of that. Instead, you got all defensive that someone might threaten your world view and felt the need to defend it with silly arguments.

Fc25b41326b954c4e5b8ce0dabb889a6

(523)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:40 PM

More importantly, if you just eat REAL FOOD until you are full. Try to make as much of it as possible nutrient dense, you needn't worry about calorie intake. If you are exercising and eating adequately, it all comes out in the wash...

Fc25b41326b954c4e5b8ce0dabb889a6

(523)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:39 PM

We aren't talking purely weight. If your definition of health is defined as "Losing weight" or "Maintaining weight" maybe that argument might fair even a small chance of standing any ground. However, if you are talking about overall health, which includes metabolic rate, nutrient ratios (adequate amounts in the system at all times), as well as proper amounts of Omega 3:Omega 6 and many other variables. Pumping your body full of loads carbohydrates that your body will store (instead of use) is going to cause you to gain weight. Same with excess protein or fats when you aren't adapted.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:02 PM

First, the metaphors went way over your head, so let's pass on that. Second, thanks for making my point. the ratio do macronutrients do matter. There's more to it than just calories!

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 06:56 AM

Eating a 100% fat diet would be just as destructive.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 06:56 AM

Gas is actually very stable long-term, whereas wood rots; although I suppose the metaphor wasn't thought that far through then? As far as your sugar suggestion, I hope you understand how silly it sounds. It wouldn't prove anything since the destruction of my health could be blamed on any number of things; lack of essential amino acids, lack of vitamins and minerals, lack of EFAs. It'd be like trying to prove hydrogen is bad by trying to drinking liquid hydrogen instead of H2O.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 02:44 AM

Not actually a full log, so it's pretty much impossible to tell if the guy is lying or not. It also sounds like he exercises pretty intensely "In fact, if anything, I probably exercise a bit less (i.e., down from 3-4 hours per day to 2 to 2.5 hours per day)." It could be that he is underestimating what he ate before and overestimates what he eats now.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on July 28, 2012
at 02:12 AM

Oops, for got link ^^^ - Here it is: http://eatingacademy.com/my-personal-nutrition-journey

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on July 28, 2012
at 02:12 AM

I suggest you take a gander at this link and carefully read parts 1, 2 and 3 of "How I Lost Weight."

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 28, 2012
at 12:37 AM

being corrected WITH misinformation... Glucose is the gas, very energy dense... but it is not stable long term. Fat is the wood, takes a bit more to get it burning, but then it can hold the burn long term... less maximal energy, more average energy over time. Here's what I'd like you to do. Replace your calories with sugar... All of them. If all that matters is being hypocaloric then you should be able to control your insulin no problem. Let me know how it works out. Let me know if your energy and health are good on a hypocaloric pure sucrose diet.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 09:34 PM

Not sure how being corrected on misinformation is a pissing match but whatever. "Eating few calories than you burn may still have execess blood glucose because of burn rate" Makes sense if you only eat fewer calories once a week - long-term hypocaloric diets wouldn't have this problem. If you're constantly driving down the street to eat more than you need current wisdom says you will never lose weight. I am trying to figure out if this isn't true with a low carb diet. That analogy of gasoline vs wood is bizzare. Are you saying glucose is the wood and fat is the gas?

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 06:58 PM

What composition would lead to muscle gain and not fat gain in a sedentary person?

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 27, 2012
at 06:56 PM

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. From what I know about biology, I think Primal Blueprint is the best layman explanation. Yes, insulin tries to convert glucose to glycogen, but it's fairly rare for us to have depleted glycogen stores since we now just have to drive down the street to get access to all the food we need. The excess is stored as fat. Eating fewer calories than you burn you may still have excess blood glucose because of burn rate. Take a cup of gasoline and burn vs a cup of wood see which burns longer. You can loose weight, but is it healthy?

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:47 PM

I've read the Primal Blueprint, the Paleo Solution, Eat Stop Eat, Good Calories Bad Calories, and Neanderthin. I've been doing Paleo for 2 years without losing weight. You're also completely misunderstanding how insulin works. It pushes excess glucose to muscle first, then fat once muscles are full. If you consumed less than the required amount of calories you wouldn't have excess blood glucose. The point I am getting at is that in these books when they describe the stuff you are repeating they don't actually provide much proof for it.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:34 PM

Probably the most reasonable answer, but these claims about hypercaloric weight loss keep floating around. I've done paleo for 2 years solid eating LC to VLC and haven't lost a pound. The desire for excess food never ceased and I can easily put away my current BMR (3500 calories at 347 lbs) every single day in the form of meat and oil.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:31 PM

I'd have to see the records to call this legitimate proof regarding the part where you ballooned to 450 lbs eating 1200 calories a day. For the part where you went from 450-300 calories eating 1800-1900 calories that isn't unusual at all. Your TDEE at 300 lbs would be around 2500, your TDEE at 450 would be 3500. Eating less than both of those ranges logically leads to weight loss and do anything but prove a simple calories in calories out theory.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:30 PM

Point two, When you consume sugars your insulin spikes. Yes you burn some of the sugars for energy, but most everything else gets stored as fat (that's the insulin does) and is not available to be transported to the muscles for fuel. Energy dense calories (like fat) do not cause insulin spikes. So you body can immediate use the vast majority of the calories you consume for fuel

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:26 PM

Dualhammers, yes it seems that way. This is very complicated subject that could take a long time to explain (longer than this). Read Primal Blueprint, and you will get the full answer. Here's the short answer. Your body can burn lots of stuff for fuel. Easiest to hardest -- Alcohol, Sugar, Carbs, Fat, Protein. Fat is out bodies preferred fuel source, but it will burn whatever is easiest. If you drink alcohol your body will not burn anything else for fuel until the alcohol is gone.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:26 PM

Exactly right. I am looking for calorie counts, not food volume.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:26 PM

Your .02 is very confusing. Wouldn't eating 2000 calories devoid of nutrients mean that someone would require MORE calories from foods like McDonald's to maintain weight whereas when you are eating nutrient complete foods you'd require more calories? If paleo foods are more nutritionally dense why could please get away with eating MORE of them and losing weight?

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:23 PM

I meant hypercaloric in the sense of more calories than the calculations would indicate the body needs. If eating enough meat for 'hormonal optimization' to account for an increased TDEE from 2000 to 4000 calories that is something that would really change the 'calories in calories out' weight loss principles. I am just trying to find hard data on the subject that someone on Paleohacks might already have.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:19 PM

"One of the benefits of paleo/primal eating is that you get your energy from calories that your body can immediately use for energy" Doesn't seem to jive with "if you get a lot of your calories from fluids (like beer and coke) your body absorbs those calories easily AND you don't get full! Whereas if you get your calories from Meat... Your body works to digest them (more calories burned) AND you are full so you don't have to eat that bag of french fries!" Slowing down the digestion of energy is part of what makes us feel full. You seem to contradict yourself.

Dc8ec73989c7b37c006f2031dd648a61

on July 27, 2012
at 05:15 PM

+1, would love to see some info on this... I'm definitely not part of the "a calorie is a calorie" mantra but I am sometimes not sure of how much of a difference the quality vs quantity thing is... problem is studies are poorly done and anecdotal evidence is dismissed or lacking in documentation

1407bd6152d9fdbc239250385159fea1

on July 27, 2012
at 03:40 PM

Volume and energy density are not the same thing. There are numerous trials in which an increased volume of food (measured in grams) accompanied by a decreased intake of overall calories resulted in weight loss despite participants feeling like they were eating more.

0382fa263de4c83328dc34a56e25437f

(4238)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:33 PM

Hormones, yes. I find that the effects of sugar (any kind of sugar, including fruit) that impact insulin that impact the hormonal response, do matter greatly.

Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:24 PM

THANK YOU: "The question shouldn't be 'How many calories do I need to lose weight?' The question should be, 'How do the *types* of calories I consume affect my ability to burn fat?'"

Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:23 PM

THANK YOU: "The question shouldn't be 'How many calories do I need to lose weight. The question should be, 'How do the *types* of calories I consume affect my ability to burn fat?'"

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:12 PM

Great story! I find similarly that I can take in about 400 more calories on a lower carb/higher fat diet than a low fat diet.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:04 PM

Michael Phelps (apparently) consumes upwards of 12000 calories per day. But he probably burns it off in the pool. Lewis and Clark documented that the 30 men on the expedition ate 9 pounds of meat per day (I doubt they were getting fat). The hiking and packing they did probably required that much food.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on July 27, 2012
at 02:53 PM

Athletes and extreme fitness types can consume 3500+ calories and not gain. Also consider people's resting metabolism's are different. Most people do not live that active of a lifestyle or have aberrant metabolisms. I would chalk up such claims to hyperbole, inaccurate calorie counting or calculation of daily maitenance, or trying to sell you something.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 08:00 AM

I would imagine this is the general case, although I find that I require a balance of hormonal satiation and meal-time fullness. As a recovering obese person it feels uncomfortable to not feel full and yet not feel hungry, so I opt to eat larger amounts of low-calorie carbs to fill me up.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 07:58 AM

Can you provide links to some records?

4ecfe8ee47ea62a11be516cd59701a4b

(30)

on July 27, 2012
at 06:18 AM

No. This isn't a physics-free zone. Calories count; the only debate is whether it's worthwhile to count them regularly.

Frontpage book

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

11 Answers

5
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 27, 2012
at 01:45 PM

Ultimately you need a caloric deficit to loose weight. Now it's not as simple as calories in - calories out.... Digestion is a big player, if you get a lot of your calories from fluids (like beer and coke) your body absorbs those calories easily AND you don't get full! Whereas if you get your calories from Meat... Your body works to digest them (more calories burned) AND you are full so you don't have to eat that bag of french fries!

But you are really asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be "How many calories do I need to loose weight" the question should be, "How does the types of calories I consume effect my ability to burn fat"

One of the benefits of paleo/primal eating is that you get your energy from calories that your body can immediately use for energy, where as with SAD your body spikes insulin (uses sugar for energy) and then stores most of the calories as fat as it cannot actually use them for energy (because your insulin is dominating your body) . So you are constantly hungry/ needing to eat to get energy. This is where the whole, "eat 6 small meals a day", thing comes from. by eating small meals you keep your body running on sugar and reduce the calories that get turned into fat.... This is what we typically refer to as treating the symptoms not the disease.

When you eat according to your body's demands, and limit sugars and their derivatives, you can get more from less. I typically ate 4200+ calories a day to maintain my energy when I was eating SAD. Now I am closer to 2800 calories AND I have more energy.

Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:24 PM

THANK YOU: "The question shouldn't be 'How many calories do I need to lose weight?' The question should be, 'How do the *types* of calories I consume affect my ability to burn fat?'"

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:30 PM

Point two, When you consume sugars your insulin spikes. Yes you burn some of the sugars for energy, but most everything else gets stored as fat (that's the insulin does) and is not available to be transported to the muscles for fuel. Energy dense calories (like fat) do not cause insulin spikes. So you body can immediate use the vast majority of the calories you consume for fuel

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:26 PM

Dualhammers, yes it seems that way. This is very complicated subject that could take a long time to explain (longer than this). Read Primal Blueprint, and you will get the full answer. Here's the short answer. Your body can burn lots of stuff for fuel. Easiest to hardest -- Alcohol, Sugar, Carbs, Fat, Protein. Fat is out bodies preferred fuel source, but it will burn whatever is easiest. If you drink alcohol your body will not burn anything else for fuel until the alcohol is gone.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:47 PM

I've read the Primal Blueprint, the Paleo Solution, Eat Stop Eat, Good Calories Bad Calories, and Neanderthin. I've been doing Paleo for 2 years without losing weight. You're also completely misunderstanding how insulin works. It pushes excess glucose to muscle first, then fat once muscles are full. If you consumed less than the required amount of calories you wouldn't have excess blood glucose. The point I am getting at is that in these books when they describe the stuff you are repeating they don't actually provide much proof for it.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 27, 2012
at 06:56 PM

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. From what I know about biology, I think Primal Blueprint is the best layman explanation. Yes, insulin tries to convert glucose to glycogen, but it's fairly rare for us to have depleted glycogen stores since we now just have to drive down the street to get access to all the food we need. The excess is stored as fat. Eating fewer calories than you burn you may still have excess blood glucose because of burn rate. Take a cup of gasoline and burn vs a cup of wood see which burns longer. You can loose weight, but is it healthy?

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 06:56 AM

Eating a 100% fat diet would be just as destructive.

Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:23 PM

THANK YOU: "The question shouldn't be 'How many calories do I need to lose weight. The question should be, 'How do the *types* of calories I consume affect my ability to burn fat?'"

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:19 PM

"One of the benefits of paleo/primal eating is that you get your energy from calories that your body can immediately use for energy" Doesn't seem to jive with "if you get a lot of your calories from fluids (like beer and coke) your body absorbs those calories easily AND you don't get full! Whereas if you get your calories from Meat... Your body works to digest them (more calories burned) AND you are full so you don't have to eat that bag of french fries!" Slowing down the digestion of energy is part of what makes us feel full. You seem to contradict yourself.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 28, 2012
at 12:37 AM

being corrected WITH misinformation... Glucose is the gas, very energy dense... but it is not stable long term. Fat is the wood, takes a bit more to get it burning, but then it can hold the burn long term... less maximal energy, more average energy over time. Here's what I'd like you to do. Replace your calories with sugar... All of them. If all that matters is being hypocaloric then you should be able to control your insulin no problem. Let me know how it works out. Let me know if your energy and health are good on a hypocaloric pure sucrose diet.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 09:34 PM

Not sure how being corrected on misinformation is a pissing match but whatever. "Eating few calories than you burn may still have execess blood glucose because of burn rate" Makes sense if you only eat fewer calories once a week - long-term hypocaloric diets wouldn't have this problem. If you're constantly driving down the street to eat more than you need current wisdom says you will never lose weight. I am trying to figure out if this isn't true with a low carb diet. That analogy of gasoline vs wood is bizzare. Are you saying glucose is the wood and fat is the gas?

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:59 PM

...I never said ratios didn't matter. I asked if there is a magic number or ratio that causes thermodynamics to go out the window so you can eat more calories than required per a TDEE calculation and still lose weight. "But you are really asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be "How many calories do I need to loose weight" the question should be, "How does the types of calories I consume effect my ability to burn fat" You said this in your first post because you assumed I was some idiot noob. Prove to me it works first and then I will ask why.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 06:56 AM

Gas is actually very stable long-term, whereas wood rots; although I suppose the metaphor wasn't thought that far through then? As far as your sugar suggestion, I hope you understand how silly it sounds. It wouldn't prove anything since the destruction of my health could be blamed on any number of things; lack of essential amino acids, lack of vitamins and minerals, lack of EFAs. It'd be like trying to prove hydrogen is bad by trying to drinking liquid hydrogen instead of H2O.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:02 PM

First, the metaphors went way over your head, so let's pass on that. Second, thanks for making my point. the ratio do macronutrients do matter. There's more to it than just calories!

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:45 PM

...the question was whether one could eat a diet low enough in carbs to be hypercaloric and still lose weight. Energy levels are decidedly different from weight loss. I asked if there was a magic carb number that suddenly made calories stop mattering in regards to weight loss. I asked for evidence of that. Instead, you got all defensive that someone might threaten your world view and felt the need to defend it with silly arguments.

2
Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:18 PM

Are you using the term "hypercaloric" to just mean "a lot of food?" Because with all the calorie debates going on here recently, it seems that if someone is losing weight, then by definition, they're in a caloric deficit no matter how many calories they're eating. That is, if someone's eating 3000 calories per day and losing weight, we can assume they're expending more than 3000, right? (Regardless of how they're expending it -- whether through targeted exercise, overall activity level, or hormonal optimization.)

Normally, I'm inclined to think "hypercaloric" means taking in more calories than one expends, but if one is losing weight, it's obviously not more than is being expended. It's then just "a lot" of calories. (Or, at least a lot compared to what that person was previously used to, so it seems like they're eating a "hypercaloric" diet.)

I dunno. I frikkin' hate the notion of calories altogether. I think some people do need to get into the nitty gritty, but overall the numbers game just makes people neurotic.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:23 PM

I meant hypercaloric in the sense of more calories than the calculations would indicate the body needs. If eating enough meat for 'hormonal optimization' to account for an increased TDEE from 2000 to 4000 calories that is something that would really change the 'calories in calories out' weight loss principles. I am just trying to find hard data on the subject that someone on Paleohacks might already have.

2
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on July 27, 2012
at 02:51 PM

Dave Asprey's story is plausible, but not supportive of random people eating hypercalorically and actually losing weight. He was already at a good weight and those 4000 calories fueled a lifestyle. He did not sleep very much during that time, which would tend to increase a body's need for calories, and he always seems to be flying around doing the West Coast style business thing. There's also some question as to how much of these extra calories end up going into heat production.

But this is pretty moot for people with fat to lose. Eating high fat/low carb will encourage eating less, especially if one has a lot to lose. Now, in the immediate near term, perhaps an obese person with serious cravings would eat hypercalorically, and that would be fine, and short term because the appetite will be considerable reduced assuming something approaching a ketogenic state is produced. This is what a dieter wants- he may have achieved a hormone profile in which extra calories won't be added to fat stores, but it is the caloric restriction that is going to encourage all those calories already stored to come out.

Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

Still not sure what to make of Dave Asprey. Part of me thinks he's a total whackjob, but when I'm honest about it, I think I'm just jealous that he amassed enough money at such a young age to basically use himself as an experiment into all sorts of things. Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does take some pressure off!

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:34 PM

Probably the most reasonable answer, but these claims about hypercaloric weight loss keep floating around. I've done paleo for 2 years solid eating LC to VLC and haven't lost a pound. The desire for excess food never ceased and I can easily put away my current BMR (3500 calories at 347 lbs) every single day in the form of meat and oil.

2
F3fc2e0a9577e7e481a387d917904d1e

(1070)

on July 27, 2012
at 01:52 PM

Absolutely impossible, assuming reasonable nutrient absorption.

2
3dd59bff899261860c0bdaae8540cc70

on July 27, 2012
at 05:39 AM

It's all about context, IMO. I have no charts bc I never got into this for weight loss. I do sit at around 8% BF and I do (when I care to track it) have a caloric access sometimes.

Honestly I think that hormones play a bigger role than actual caloric intake, however, I also believe that people tend to eat less on a lower carb diet-which I believe is tied up with the hormonal balance. So to me, it's a strong mixture of both proper hormonal balance and a normal hunger response added to greater satiation, satiety, and nutrient profile of the foods eaten which naturally tend to lower caloric intake-or at the very least regulate it in a way that provides an easier avenue for fat loss.

Just my opinion.

That being said, yes, even in the glorious world of Paleo Dieting, some folks are apt to use hyperbole(aka bullshit) to sell books.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 08:00 AM

I would imagine this is the general case, although I find that I require a balance of hormonal satiation and meal-time fullness. As a recovering obese person it feels uncomfortable to not feel full and yet not feel hungry, so I opt to eat larger amounts of low-calorie carbs to fill me up.

0382fa263de4c83328dc34a56e25437f

(4238)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:33 PM

Hormones, yes. I find that the effects of sugar (any kind of sugar, including fruit) that impact insulin that impact the hormonal response, do matter greatly.

1
Ca1150430b1904659742ce2cad621c7d

(12540)

on July 27, 2012
at 02:46 PM

My situation's a little different than most. I am a former anorexic, 35 years post-treatment. At my lowest weight, I weighed about 92 lbs on a 5'5" frame. To get there, I ate between 300-400 calories a day, with NO fat.

Flash forward 20 years, and I was up over 450 lbs (we don't know how much over that -- it's as high as my doctor's scale would weigh), on a vegetarian, low-fat diet, taking in about 900-1200 calories a day (yes, it was mapped and documented, including having meals prepared by a nutritionist). I'd been dieting most of my adult life, because once I stopped starving myself, I blew up like the ever-touted balloon. It didn't help that I have a life-long autoimmune disorder that requires oral steroid treatment, and THEN, in my late 20s, I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and the ONLY treatment that doesn't cause Grade 3 or worse side effects for me is... guess what... oral steroids and immune suppressants!

3 years ago, I moved from vegetarian to, specifically, a low-carbohydrate (<60 g per day) version of primal nutrition with winters being "moderate carbohydrate" (100-150g per day) (not all primal is 'low-carb', but that's what my body seemed to function best using). It took me 2 years, but without counting calories or keeping detailed charts, I dropped over 150 lbs. When I -did- start logging, I found that I was eating about 35% higher caloric content than when I'd been 'dieting' before (~1200 when dieting, on vegetarian diet. ~1800-1900 on < 60 g per day carbohydrate, primal diet).

I'm not as active as some of these folks who write these blogs are. I swim (paddle around the pool) for half an hour, 4-5 days a week, on average, which is about all I can manage during the summers in Houston, without setting off my remitting-progressive MS or an autoimmune crash. I garden, and do work around our house. I hike and even do some rock-climbing and stuff when I visit my children... but I'm not this huge "workout queen"... and I'm STILL fat, by any measure.

I don't know what goes into losing weight, but I do know that it is definitely not as simple as Calories In- Calories Out.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:31 PM

I'd have to see the records to call this legitimate proof regarding the part where you ballooned to 450 lbs eating 1200 calories a day. For the part where you went from 450-300 calories eating 1800-1900 calories that isn't unusual at all. Your TDEE at 300 lbs would be around 2500, your TDEE at 450 would be 3500. Eating less than both of those ranges logically leads to weight loss and do anything but prove a simple calories in calories out theory.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on July 27, 2012
at 03:12 PM

Great story! I find similarly that I can take in about 400 more calories on a lower carb/higher fat diet than a low fat diet.

0
F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on July 27, 2012
at 06:51 PM

Anyone who consumes calories in excess of total energy expenditure will gain weight either as muscle or fat depending on the composition of the diet.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 06:58 PM

What composition would lead to muscle gain and not fat gain in a sedentary person?

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on July 28, 2012
at 08:36 PM

The George Bray overfeeding study from a few months ago showed that a high-protein diet added lean mass.

0
3ab5e1b9eba22a071f653330b7fc9579

on July 27, 2012
at 12:20 PM

I have lost weight too eating more than I ever have in my life. Not sure of calories but I consume an excess of food.

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:26 PM

Exactly right. I am looking for calorie counts, not food volume.

1407bd6152d9fdbc239250385159fea1

on July 27, 2012
at 03:40 PM

Volume and energy density are not the same thing. There are numerous trials in which an increased volume of food (measured in grams) accompanied by a decreased intake of overall calories resulted in weight loss despite participants feeling like they were eating more.

0
Fc25b41326b954c4e5b8ce0dabb889a6

on July 27, 2012
at 08:39 AM

Once doctors get their heads out of their a$*es and realize that a calorie Isn't equal to a calorie, then we might be able to reach a head on this subject. A calorie full of nutrient dense food is different than a calorie of nutrient devoid food. How our bodies deal with it has to be very different in both a micro and macronutrient sense. The thing people miss about Paleo/Primal is that its about getting evolutionarily back to how our genes meant for us to eat. It's about optimal gene expression. People who eat small 2000 calorie diets full of nutrient devoid foods rob their bodies of vital nutrients vital for optimal gene expression. It also has to do with things like, do you work out? Do you lift really heavy things, etc... because the CNS, Cortisol Levels, Testosterone, and Estrogen play vital regulator roles in caloric metabolism for the body.

Just my .02

PS - Can I reinforce line number one again? Someone told me that once trying to tell me that Paleo and Primal was dumb, and I about exploded. I handed them a crowbar to pull their head out of the a**

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:26 PM

Your .02 is very confusing. Wouldn't eating 2000 calories devoid of nutrients mean that someone would require MORE calories from foods like McDonald's to maintain weight whereas when you are eating nutrient complete foods you'd require more calories? If paleo foods are more nutritionally dense why could please get away with eating MORE of them and losing weight?

Fc25b41326b954c4e5b8ce0dabb889a6

(523)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:40 PM

More importantly, if you just eat REAL FOOD until you are full. Try to make as much of it as possible nutrient dense, you needn't worry about calorie intake. If you are exercising and eating adequately, it all comes out in the wash...

Fc25b41326b954c4e5b8ce0dabb889a6

(523)

on July 28, 2012
at 07:39 PM

We aren't talking purely weight. If your definition of health is defined as "Losing weight" or "Maintaining weight" maybe that argument might fair even a small chance of standing any ground. However, if you are talking about overall health, which includes metabolic rate, nutrient ratios (adequate amounts in the system at all times), as well as proper amounts of Omega 3:Omega 6 and many other variables. Pumping your body full of loads carbohydrates that your body will store (instead of use) is going to cause you to gain weight. Same with excess protein or fats when you aren't adapted.

0
E032bfc8626e3e4eca98c1d251e26b87

(80)

on July 27, 2012
at 05:56 AM

No BS for me. Paleo for 2 years now. Wasn't in it to lose weight, but lost 20, which is probably my optimal weight (145). Before paleo=about 2200/day Paleo=3200-4000/day Hyper-caloric? Maybe, but I've both lost weight (initially) & maintained the entire 2 years.

Dc8ec73989c7b37c006f2031dd648a61

on July 27, 2012
at 05:15 PM

+1, would love to see some info on this... I'm definitely not part of the "a calorie is a calorie" mantra but I am sometimes not sure of how much of a difference the quality vs quantity thing is... problem is studies are poorly done and anecdotal evidence is dismissed or lacking in documentation

091423a30c0188fbff51e39397e7e056

(384)

on July 27, 2012
at 07:58 AM

Can you provide links to some records?

-1
0b5d85b7bb527e1e6459401f39eed711

on April 05, 2013
at 09:14 PM

It's possible that while eating a hyper-caloric diet, the body will recognize that it is receiving plenty of calories, and as a result it will apply that extra energy toward tissue regeneration, detoxification, and also apply some extra energy toward thermal regulation (such that you might be less likely to frequently experience cold hands and feet).

I suspect that when the body is not receiving enough calories, then the body thinks that calories are scarce. As a result of this caloric scarcity, the body tries to conserve calories, which means body fat percentage is increased (as body fat is a major site of calorie storage for the body). In addition, detoxification pathways may be slowed down, which means that metabolic and other toxins have to be dealt with in other ways. The other ways may be tissue swelling (water retention) in effort to dilute the toxins, and also increases in fat storage because adipose tissue can be a location for storing toxins.

By the way, the body might perceive specific-nutrient scarcity too, and if not all macro and micro nutrients are present for efficient body functioning, then again the body may go into a scarcity mode which may have the effects stated above.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on April 05, 2013
at 11:40 PM

We don't store toxins.

Answer Question


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