181–190 of 261 posts
Easy way to remember, something bodybuilders know intimately: for 1g, Carbs = 4 calories Protein = 4 calories Fat = 9 calories Alcohol = 7 calories.
But aren't alcohol calories "empty"?
As someone who's successfully lost a lot of weight on a low carb / no grain diet, this chart irks me. That a handful of almonds has the same calories as a certain amount of Captain Crunch is irrelevant. The latter will quickly convert to glucose in your body, however, (unlike almonds) and that will make a huge difference in your satiety levels, insulin response (Hello, Metabolic Syndrome!), etc... [1] Some good resou…
No, it really is relevant. It actually does matter. Your fad diet is not magical, just like every other fad diet was not magical.
>The latter will quickly convert to glucose in your body
This is irrelevant. There is no evidence at all to suggest "insulin spikes" (which are actually minor and totally normal) are a problem at all. And they occur when you consume any food, not just carbs.
>will make a huge difference in your satiety levels
For some people. As much as it pains true believers to hear it, many people do not lose weight on low carb diets. The only way the diet works is by making you feel full so you consume fewer calories. Many people feel very hungry without carbs, and can eat massive quantities of fat without feeling full. Those people gain weight on low carb diets.
I might be a nitpicker, but I really hate it when people say (or in this case write) "calorie" but mean "kilo calorie". There is a difference.
I have always asked myself why that is so? how did it happen that this "mistake" got into everyones mind? you don't say "meters" if you mean "kilometers"...
But even huge distances on Earth can be measured in km, and we don’t need megameters.
With calories however for all practical purposes we have a number range in which it is okay to use kcal. So here people just forgot that the k actually has a meaning. It makes not much sense to go down to the level of cal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze. Just because the idea came from the prehistoric doesn't mean it can't be a fad.
It's not an idea, it actually happened. People actually ate paleo style for millions of years from necessity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the explanation from an expert - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.htm... "Carbohydrates are rarely converted to fat (a process called de novo lipogenesis) under normal dietary conditions. There are exceptions when this occurs. One is with massive chronic overfeeding of carbs. I’m talking 700-900 grams of carbs per day for multiple days. Under those conditions, carbs max out glycogen sto…
A basic text on biochemistry will educate you more than this "expert". You really should educate yourself properly instead of following random web sites that confirm your own biases. Carbohydrates ARE converted to fat under normal dietary conditions, via insulin. If this metabolic process was "rare" as he states, then diabetics that require insulin injections wouldn't need them often. I don't know where this "expert"…
No, it will confirm what he said and that you are mistaken. You should try opening one and skimming through it before believing it will always support your assertions, regardless of their lack of factual basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cutting calories is the only way to lose weight. Cutting carbs typically means people end up eating less calories, because protein is more satiating. "Eating the same diet, just a lot less carbs" If you're eating less carbs, that's 4 calories less for every grab of carbs you've cut out. If previously you were eating around 200g of carbs everyday (probably on the low end, honestly) you've now removed around 800 calori…
I hope you aren't suggesting that the only ways to lose weight are by lowering intake of calories below your daily usage, or increasing your daily usage of them above your daily intake through some form of additional calorie burning activity... (cause you'll never sell a best-selling book like that )
Dieting is about tricking that system in one of various ways. Different things work for different people. For some people, no tricks are required but you can't just assume it's that easy for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almonds are mostly fat, and not very satiating either. I've done the paleo/lowcarb fad diets too. They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. Not to mention some versions of these diets are based on incorrect understanding of human physiology. For example, despite what the paleotards will tell you, carbs are very rarely converted into body fat. But when you e…
> They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. I eat more calories than before judging by the amounts of meat/butter/nuts that I eat. I lost 15 kilos in body weight accompanied by a 5% reduction in body fat (-> gained muscle). So at least on a personal level, I can really not confirm this. An interesting article backing the low-carb high-fat diets that has lin…
So, judging by guessing. That is not how you judge. Measure your food and see how many calories you actually consume. It is fewer.
>An interesting article backing the low-carb high-fat diets that has links to the matching double blind studies
Which confirm that the people who successfully lose weight on low carb diets do so by caloric reduction. Might want to pay attention when posting sources that contradict you.
Seeing as this usually turns into a low-carb diet thread, here is a great post about the common nutritional misconceptions of most modern diets and links to the accompanying scientific papers: http://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of ways to lose weight. Cutting calories is a very effective way of losing weight. This doesn't discount the fact that cutting carbs also works. In my case, it has been working spectacularly. I believe that I don't need to cut calories or cut the amount of food I eat, and still lose weight, by choosing food that is very low in carbs. I limit myself to 1 granola bar per day, plus whatever incidental a…
Cutting calories is the only way to lose weight. Cutting carbs typically means people end up eating less calories, because protein is more satiating. "Eating the same diet, just a lot less carbs" If you're eating less carbs, that's 4 calories less for every grab of carbs you've cut out. If previously you were eating around 200g of carbs everyday (probably on the low end, honestly) you've now removed around 800 calori…
It isn't that simple and a group of us has proved that isn't necessarily true.
Three times I have lead several people through the Whole30 Challenge laid out the Whole9 website mentioned above. We all ate a ton of food and lost fat and almost all of us lost weight. If anything, our caloric intake stayed the same or went up.
(BTW: the goal wasn't to lose weight. It was to become healthier. Last month, someone improved their cholesterol numbers by 93 points by eating that way.)
Assume there are 3,500 calories in 1 pound of body fat.
Then cut, say, 300 calories daily out of your diet for, say, 3 years.
That's 109,500 calories a year or 328,500 calories over 3 years.
328,500 calories divided by 3,500 calories/pound is 93 pounds.
The math isn't that straight forward, but many people use the very math to explain weight loss, at least in the short term. I just can't buy into the math that 'calories in' equals 'calories out'.
That said, I've done the 30-day challenge three times, not restricted my caloric intake, and still lost weight (lost fat quicker than I gained muscle mass). So, even in the short-term, you can lose weight without restricting calories.
* Cutting carbs typically means people end up eating less calories*
Mostly true, but ore specifically, cutting carbs means that you are sending less sugar into your body. Less sugar means it is more difficult for the body to produce fat. Fat is more dense than muscle and the reason most people diet is to lose the fat.
I am not sure this is scientifically accurate, but this is how I make sense of it:
When I eat Paleo, my body thinks it is surround by high quality energy sources. It gets fed those energy sources frequently. The body recognizes that there is low risk that it will go a short period of time without high quality energy. It determines that it has little use for the fat it has stored on the body. The body then converts the fat into energy. Your body enters into a phase where you go for weeks (or months) of high energy because of all the fat you are burning by eating a lot of high quality food---food a caveman would eat.
Pre-historic or not, paleo is a fad. People with self control are going to lose weight no matter what method they chose. People with no self control are going to stay fat no matter what they do.