paleo vs. calorie counting healthy foods
Replies
-
ssjones999 wrote: »Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.ssjones999 wrote: »Can some one give me any tips on the MACROS way? I have done great counting calories and don't feel deprived of any food group, but feel like there is more I need to be doing.
what are your goals?
if primarily fat loss then you just need to be in a deficit and macro adherence is not as important..
if body comp, overall health and fitness, then macro adherence and calorie counting are important.
Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.
what kind of weight training?
how may days do you weight train and how many do you run?
Is your weight training a home made program or one that was designed by a trainer or something like that...
Running 4-5 times a week, my weight training was with free weights and some pulley machines. Home made program.... I just want more definition. I'm 44 years old with 2 kids. Don't plan to do any body competitions....just want to look fit.0 -
ssjones999 wrote: »Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.ssjones999 wrote: »Can some one give me any tips on the MACROS way? I have done great counting calories and don't feel deprived of any food group, but feel like there is more I need to be doing.
what are your goals?
if primarily fat loss then you just need to be in a deficit and macro adherence is not as important..
if body comp, overall health and fitness, then macro adherence and calorie counting are important.
Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.
Definition = low body fat levels. Of course you also need to at some point actively build muscle if there isn't anything there. So if you've gotten reaaally lean, I'm talking anywhere below 20% body fat, and you didn't have muscle definition.. then that's when you'd bulk and look to weight training as your primary exercise (since it's practically impossible to emphasize both running and weights, from what I've seen and read). Protein minimums are important, as is eating enough.ALl of this varies for individual people though.0 -
ssjones999 wrote: »Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.ssjones999 wrote: »Can some one give me any tips on the MACROS way? I have done great counting calories and don't feel deprived of any food group, but feel like there is more I need to be doing.
what are your goals?
if primarily fat loss then you just need to be in a deficit and macro adherence is not as important..
if body comp, overall health and fitness, then macro adherence and calorie counting are important.
Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.
Definition = low body fat levels. Of course you also need to at some point actively build muscle if there isn't anything there. So if you've gotten reaaally lean, I'm talking anywhere below 20% body fat, and you didn't have muscle definition.. then that's when you'd bulk and look to weight training as your primary exercise (since it's practically impossible to emphasize both running and weights, from what I've seen and read). Protein minimums are important, as is eating enough.ALl of this varies for individual people though.
So basically, I need to lean up, and drop body fat composition.....
BTW, never been THAT lean....Not fat, but not that LEAN0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »Summrbunni wrote: »ssjones999 wrote: »Need advice. Paleo vs calories counting with healthy foods??? Opinions please. my sister in law is basically eating paleo, no white foods, dairy etc. the weight is falling off. I'm over here losing weight, but much slower. I just don't think I could do the paleo lifestyle forever.
Do you think you can count calories forever? I know I couldn't so I am doing a low carb lifestyle. I like it because I can eat rich, low carb, high fat foods and as much as I need to...and I feel so satisfied. I admit, it's a lot of work cooking and kind of expensive but you are worth it. I really prefer this way of life verses low cal!
Too most of the posters here, you might as well have said the earth is flat. Calories in, calories out, there can be no other way.
even low carb is CICO …
what other way is there?
I don't know about that. If you eat a big steak every night I don't think it's low calorie.
You sure can eat steak every night. Not 16 ounces of steak, but a good 8 ounces can still be eaten if it fits in your daily calorie allotment. I do it quite a bit and still lose.0 -
I agree with you on definition=low body fat levels. However... A healthy body fat level for a woman is slightly above 20%. I'm under 20%, about 17% right now, and I didn't get there by dieting and losing weight. I exclusively got there from 25% body fat by lifting weights and eating at maintenance, rarely ever any 'regular' cardio, some HIIT and circuit training with weights.ssjones999 wrote: »Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.ssjones999 wrote: »Can some one give me any tips on the MACROS way? I have done great counting calories and don't feel deprived of any food group, but feel like there is more I need to be doing.
what are your goals?
if primarily fat loss then you just need to be in a deficit and macro adherence is not as important..
if body comp, overall health and fitness, then macro adherence and calorie counting are important.
Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.
Definition = low body fat levels. Of course you also need to at some point actively build muscle if there isn't anything there. So if you've gotten reaaally lean, I'm talking anywhere below 20% body fat, and you didn't have muscle definition.. then that's when you'd bulk and look to weight training as your primary exercise (since it's practically impossible to emphasize both running and weights, from what I've seen and read). Protein minimums are important, as is eating enough.ALl of this varies for individual people though.
While this is my personal experience on the nutrition part of the issue, the exercise part is no coincindence. You can't diet down the percentage of body fat to this level. The previous poster who is a runner, made the point already. You can 'cardio' all you want to, in the end, you'll just be a lighter version of probably the original body composition. That' why it's called 'percentage'...some fat will melt, but also lean muscle mass.
To the OP's question, if you look at it, 10 tbs of peanut butter are also 'paleo'...and would pretty much use up most of my calorie allowance for one day, without nutritional benefits for me personally. Some 'bodies' respond better to a certain nutrition, others won't. In the end, all that counts is the energy balance that's required to fit your fitness goals. Some need to gain, some need to lose, and in my case, I'm maintaining well on high protein/moderate carbs. I'm still gaining lean muscle mass, but I also work my little hind end off in the process. And this is even harder, being under this popular 'healthy' level of body fat.
Don't be fooled or discouraged by your in-law's current success. It might change next month. And then there's the possibility that she might not be truthful with what she's telling you. I've known someone who was eating well, too, but never kept it in.... Exercise and eat well to keep yourself happy and healthy in your body and your mind! Good luck!0 -
I agree with you on definition=low body fat levels. However... A healthy body fat level for a woman is slightly above 20%. I'm under 20%, about 17% right now, and I didn't get there by dieting and losing weight. I exclusively got there from 25% body fat by lifting weights and eating at maintenance, rarely ever any 'regular' cardio, some HIIT and circuit training with weights.ssjones999 wrote: »Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.ssjones999 wrote: »Can some one give me any tips on the MACROS way? I have done great counting calories and don't feel deprived of any food group, but feel like there is more I need to be doing.
what are your goals?
if primarily fat loss then you just need to be in a deficit and macro adherence is not as important..
if body comp, overall health and fitness, then macro adherence and calorie counting are important.
Well initally fat loss is primary goal, but I'm a runner and I have never been able to get any definition even when at my best weight. BTW, I do weight training as well.
Definition = low body fat levels. Of course you also need to at some point actively build muscle if there isn't anything there. So if you've gotten reaaally lean, I'm talking anywhere below 20% body fat, and you didn't have muscle definition.. then that's when you'd bulk and look to weight training as your primary exercise (since it's practically impossible to emphasize both running and weights, from what I've seen and read). Protein minimums are important, as is eating enough.ALl of this varies for individual people though.
While this is my personal experience on the nutrition part of the issue, the exercise part is no coincindence. You can't diet down the percentage of body fat to this level. The previous poster who is a runner, made the point already. You can 'cardio' all you want to, in the end, you'll just be a lighter version of probably the original body composition. That' why it's called 'percentage'...some fat will melt, but also lean muscle mass.
To the OP's question, if you look at it, 10 tbs of peanut butter are also 'paleo'...and would pretty much use up most of my calorie allowance for one day, without nutritional benefits for me personally. Some 'bodies' respond better to a certain nutrition, others won't. In the end, all that counts is the energy balance that's required to fit your fitness goals. Some need to gain, some need to lose, and in my case, I'm maintaining well on high protein/moderate carbs. I'm still gaining lean muscle mass, but I also work my little hind end off in the process. And this is even harder, being under this popular 'healthy' level of body fat.
Don't be fooled or discouraged by your in-law's current success. It might change next month. And then there's the possibility that she might not be truthful with what she's telling you. I've known someone who was eating well, too, but never kept it in.... Exercise and eat well to keep yourself happy and healthy in your body and your mind! Good luck!
Thank you and your point is on spot with the in-law0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I eat mostly paleo. Probably about 80/20 right now, trying to get to 90/10. YOU STILL HAVE TO COUNT CALORIES. But for me (and many others), eating at a deficit is way way easier when I am on paleo. There are a ton of reasons why, and they can vary for the individual, and some people on this site will get angry when you bring it up, but there it is.
Try it out, keep counting calories, see if you like it and/or if it is sustainable for you. If so, go paleo! If not, try something else! Check out the paleo/primal group on here for more info. Good luck!
Thread winner.0 -
freqzinbigd wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I eat mostly paleo. Probably about 80/20 right now, trying to get to 90/10. YOU STILL HAVE TO COUNT CALORIES. But for me (and many others), eating at a deficit is way way easier when I am on paleo. There are a ton of reasons why, and they can vary for the individual, and some people on this site will get angry when you bring it up, but there it is.
Try it out, keep counting calories, see if you like it and/or if it is sustainable for you. If so, go paleo! If not, try something else! Check out the paleo/primal group on here for more info. Good luck!
Thread winner.
I don't know how. Every person on that follows a fancy name diet or even a particular diet will say it's easier. I did 6 months of Paleo and you know how much I lost... 0 lbs. You know why, because it cut all the foods I loved and I binged. Do you which diet is the best? It's the one you can adhere to. For some it's paleo, others its low carb, vegetarian/vegan, IIFYM or etc... For me, it's 80-90% whole foods and the rest enjoyment.
0 -
Paleo is the biggest joke ever. If you are going to do 100% paleo, then you need to study op on what our paleolithic brethren really ate = semi raw meat, grubs, insects, etc…
YOur sister in law is lowing weight because she is restricting entire food groups, which has lead to a drastic reduction in calories.
IMO you will be much happier enjoying all the foods you love, tracking your calories, and hitting macros…
I would be miserable if I could not eat brad..
with respect to fat loss Paloe is not superior to any other "method/tool" because at the end of the day fat loss = calorie deficit...
So you've never tried and have no experience with it but you're certain it's "the biggest joke ever"?
Sigh.0 -
Summrbunni wrote: »ssjones999 wrote: »Need advice. Paleo vs calories counting with healthy foods??? Opinions please. my sister in law is basically eating paleo, no white foods, dairy etc. the weight is falling off. I'm over here losing weight, but much slower. I just don't think I could do the paleo lifestyle forever.
Do you think you can count calories forever? I know I couldn't so I am doing a low carb lifestyle. I like it because I can eat rich, low carb, high fat foods and as much as I need to...and I feel so satisfied. I admit, it's a lot of work cooking and kind of expensive but you are worth it. I really prefer this way of life verses low cal!
Counting calories is a lot more sustainable than eating low-carb.
Most can calorie count for their whole life, most cannot eat low-carb for their whole life.0 -
freqzinbigd wrote: »Paleo is the biggest joke ever. If you are going to do 100% paleo, then you need to study op on what our paleolithic brethren really ate = semi raw meat, grubs, insects, etc…
YOur sister in law is lowing weight because she is restricting entire food groups, which has lead to a drastic reduction in calories.
IMO you will be much happier enjoying all the foods you love, tracking your calories, and hitting macros…
I would be miserable if I could not eat brad..
with respect to fat loss Paloe is not superior to any other "method/tool" because at the end of the day fat loss = calorie deficit...
So you've never tried and have no experience with it but you're certain it's "the biggest joke ever"?
Sigh.
yes, because I have no desire to eat like a caveman and restrict whole food groups..
and the whole concept that eating like paleolithic man did 10,000+ years ago is somehow healthier is ridiculous..
but feel free to enlighten me as to where I am going wrong...
and you have to experience something to have an opinion on it?0 -
freqzinbigd wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I eat mostly paleo. Probably about 80/20 right now, trying to get to 90/10. YOU STILL HAVE TO COUNT CALORIES. But for me (and many others), eating at a deficit is way way easier when I am on paleo. There are a ton of reasons why, and they can vary for the individual, and some people on this site will get angry when you bring it up, but there it is.
Try it out, keep counting calories, see if you like it and/or if it is sustainable for you. If so, go paleo! If not, try something else! Check out the paleo/primal group on here for more info. Good luck!
Thread winner.
I don't know how. Every person on that follows a fancy name diet or even a particular diet will say it's easier. I did 6 months of Paleo and you know how much I lost... 0 lbs. You know why, because it cut all the foods I loved and I binged. Do you which diet is the best? It's the one you can adhere to. For some it's paleo, others its low carb, vegetarian/vegan, IIFYM or etc... For me, it's 80-90% whole foods and the rest enjoyment.
At least you tried it. I don't think you have an unreasonable position at all.
People should generally try something different if what they're doing isn't working. If the only thing you've ever tried is "eat less, move more" then it doesn't make much sense to continue that.
I think it's terrible advice to tell people that can can eat anything they want so long as they count calories-- for a large percentage of the population (if not an outright majority) it's a recipe for failure. It works for some folks. Bully for them. If it doesn't you need to go find what does.
Which is the long way of what squirrelzzrule22 said.
0 -
and the whole concept that eating like paleolithic man did 10,000+ years ago is somehow healthier is ridiculous..
Not to mention how paleo-man ate is dependent upon the region of the world in-which he lived. Additionally, there is some indication that grains were consumed.
What it boils down to is basically what can somebody stick to for long-term weight management? If you can only do Paleo for a month or two before you get sick of it, why do it? At a basic level it is definitely about calories in/out, but there is something to not all calories are created equal. There is evidence of this in research related to the affect of low-glycemic & high-glycemic carbs on body-fat. Different food can impact our hormones differently which can affect our weight management. Bottom line, you can eat all of the "best" foods possible and still not lose weight if your calorie deficit isn't managed correctly. Exercise helps augment results as well.
RE Thermodynamics: A Scientific law is a law for a reason and doesn't suddenly cease to be relevant for one topic or another; unless we're talking about religion and then everything is out the window.
0 -
freqzinbigd wrote: »People should generally try something different if what they're doing isn't working. If the only thing you've ever tried is "eat less, move more" then it doesn't make much sense to continue that.
Counting calories appears to be working for OP, however, and she doesn't seem to think paleo would be personally appealing other than her sis in law is losing more quickly (and we don't have details about that, like is the SIL heavier or eating a low calorie diet as a result of her limitations beyond what might be recommended).
I did try paleo (and have no bad feelings towards it) because I found certain aspects personally appealing and I don't really like bread or cereal (with certain exceptions for really good bread) and can take or leave pasta and beans, for the most part. So I figured it might be an easy way to lower my calories with no meaningful sacrifice. That was the case, except I missed dairy badly and I couldn't explain to myself why I was giving up foods I don't think are bad for me and which caused some inconvenience (I'd like to be able to buy lunch at Pret or the like once in a while). Plus, I figured if the foods I was giving up weren't ones I cared about (because otherwise why give them up), I could manage not to eat an excessive amount of them without any special diet. So I decided just to limit my consumption of foods that don't add significantly nutrients and which I don't care much about. This, for me, means I still don't eat a lot of grains, although I eat them from time to time (and fresh, local corn in season will never be given up by me). Not a screed against paleo, but an explanation of where I'm coming from and elaboration on my advice to OP.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Counting calories is a lot more sustainable than eating low-carb.
Unfortunately, there is no actual evidence for this. And anecdotally, we see a LOT more people on MFP failing, than succeeding.
There is no one answer that works for everybody. Most of these conversations would go a lot more smoothly if people accepted that reality.
For me, personally, it's a combination of calorie counting, IF and restricting food groups/items PLUS significant exercise that works. And even then, every 6-8 months I need to take a 2-3 month maintenance break.0 -
freqzinbigd wrote: »freqzinbigd wrote: »squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »I eat mostly paleo. Probably about 80/20 right now, trying to get to 90/10. YOU STILL HAVE TO COUNT CALORIES. But for me (and many others), eating at a deficit is way way easier when I am on paleo. There are a ton of reasons why, and they can vary for the individual, and some people on this site will get angry when you bring it up, but there it is.
Try it out, keep counting calories, see if you like it and/or if it is sustainable for you. If so, go paleo! If not, try something else! Check out the paleo/primal group on here for more info. Good luck!
Thread winner.
I don't know how. Every person on that follows a fancy name diet or even a particular diet will say it's easier. I did 6 months of Paleo and you know how much I lost... 0 lbs. You know why, because it cut all the foods I loved and I binged. Do you which diet is the best? It's the one you can adhere to. For some it's paleo, others its low carb, vegetarian/vegan, IIFYM or etc... For me, it's 80-90% whole foods and the rest enjoyment.
At least you tried it. I don't think you have an unreasonable position at all.
People should generally try something different if what they're doing isn't working. If the only thing you've ever tried is "eat less, move more" then it doesn't make much sense to continue that.
I think it's terrible advice to tell people that can can eat anything they want so long as they count calories-- for a large percentage of the population (if not an outright majority) it's a recipe for failure. It works for some folks. Bully for them. If it doesn't you need to go find what does.
Which is the long way of what squirrelzzrule22 said.
In all fairness, I don't need to try cocaine to understand it's not good for me (so the same extrapolation can apply to certain diets if you understand science). And while, my view aren't exact like NJD, i agree in concept. And in fact, I would suggest that Alan Aragon has some of the best justifications against paleo as well as many diets. Many diets inherently eliminate foods that are nutrient dense for no particular reason and if you are not careful, you can cause long term issues. Also, generally, most diets eliminate foods that have the smallest amount of allergies associated with it (ex - wheat vs shellfish).
Below is an article to expand on what I mean.
http://paleomovement.com/alan-aragon-paleo-critic/
edit: one last thing. I don't expect, and neither do many calorie counters, expect to be doing it for life. The expectation is doing it for a period of time in which you can teach yourself how to follow portion control. A perfect example of that is what I am doing now. I have been starving by the end of the dead, so what did I do? I cut out breakfast in favor of increased volume for lunch and dinner. This has enabled me to stay in my deficit. So when I want to maintain, all I have to do is add in breakfast again. I know I can maintain easy as long as I maintain my exercise because I know strategies to be able to do it.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions