Low Carb, Paleo. Is this nonsense or science?
Replies
-
Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.0 -
Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.
Nearly NONE of the food we eat today is like what they ate back then. Fruits, vegetables, animals have been bred and cultivated to appeal to our palate.0 -
The fruits and vegetables aren't the same either...Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.0 -
who cares just eat0
-
Low carb does keep blood auger low but if you exceed your calories for the day you will gain weight.
Low carb while being on a low calorie diet works best for a cut or leanness.0 -
Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.
So they processed it. Just like we do today.
'Pretty much toxic to all living creatures'? I guess that is why our survival rate has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.
Wait...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Again, you're missing the point. 300 calories is the calories your body burns anyway during food digestion. It's not something above and beyond your TDEE. You boosted your protein by 200 calories (a significant amount) and in turn you will get a 30 calorie "boost" to your TEF. That's what? 2 teaspoons of sugar? Totally insignificant, especially taking into account the margin of error for both calories in (food intake) and calories out (TDEE) are on the scale of hundreds of calories either way.
The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.
It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.
There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.
- Lyle Mcdonald ProjectExcessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.
I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.
1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)
400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)
600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)
So that's about 301 calories for TEF.
Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.
400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)
600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)
1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)
So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.
Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.
Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.
Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.
Yes I am aware of lyle's point. My point in posting that was to show there is a significant thermogenic effect that he actually has to lower it. Using the numbers you provided, I converted them in to percentages.
carbs = 12.5%
Protein = 21.5%
Fat = 2.5%
My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)
Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories
TEF = 312.6 calories.
I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.
Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)
Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories
TEF = 349 calories
In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.0 -
Paleolithic era man actually ate a majority of their calories from grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables. Roughly 50% of their calories were carbs. They actually ate very similarly to today, which is one reason why we still eat that way today.Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.0 -
Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.
So you're asking for opinions without caring about opinions? That sounds like a fun game.0 -
A nice lecture on diet science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo&list=WL71596BA9A705B900 0 -
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.
[/quote]
Do you really believe that last sentence? I can show you livestock and wildlife that not only survive but thrive eating modern cereal grains. Whole grain foodstuffs are very nutritious and certainly can be safely consumed by humans. I believe your information sources are selling a concept that is not supportable by science. 0 -
I eat Keto, because my husband has inoperable stage IV cancer and his Oncologist at the Mayo Clinic wanted him to go on the diet. Obviously not for weight loss. Life is complicated enough right now so it was just easier for me to eat what he eats. As he has been on Keto longer his sleep has returned to normal, his appetite is back and best of all he is off all pain meds since Oct. He has also experienced very few of the usual Chemo side effects, no nausea, his energy is right back the day after a round and cold sensitivity is decreased. We will know in another week if if he has become operable. If nothing else he is feeling better than he has in months and really we will take whatever little positives we get.0
-
My friend did not lose weight on the Paleo eating plan, which her doctor put her on, but her body aches due to a disease she has were significantly reduced. That was good enough for her, and I was glad she found something to help with her pain.Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.0 -
interesting web site0
-
Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Oh for goodness sake. I just don't know what to say to this.
Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are. If you say you ate Paleo for 6 months and dropped 12 lbs and 3% body fat. Ok. But, that's a sample of one. It's meaningless. There are too many other factors. In a controlled study, they would look at the diets of a group of people. There would be separate groups, one eating Paleo, one eating normal, and then maybe another eating low fat or something. Then you compare the groups and come up with your findings. As I'm hearing this, there is no conclusive research on this specific topic with controlled groups. But, they may have started some testing on pigs, as I understand it. So, I guess it's too early.
If as an individual, you find that eating a certain way provides benefits over eating other ways, then have at it. But, this thread was really not intended to be about people's bias or opinion, but rather I was specifically asking about the research I cited in my original post. Or, if there's other research that specifies the benefits of low carb or Paleo eating. Apparently, what I am hearing, is this does not exist right now. 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I eat Keto, because my husband has inoperable stage IV cancer and his Oncologist at the Mayo Clinic wanted him to go on the diet. Obviously not for weight loss. Life is complicated enough right now so it was just easier for me to eat what he eats. As he has been on Keto longer his sleep has returned to normal, his appetite is back and best of all he is off all pain meds since Oct. He has also experienced very few of the usual Chemo side effects, no nausea, his energy is right back the day after a round and cold sensitivity is decreased. We will know in another week if if he has become operable. If nothing else he is feeling better than he has in months and really we will take whatever little positives we get.
Sorry to hear about this. I hope he gets better soon, with or w/o keto. Wishing you lots of strength.0 -
I eat Keto, because my husband has inoperable stage IV cancer and his Oncologist at the Mayo Clinic wanted him to go on the diet. Obviously not for weight loss. Life is complicated enough right now so it was just easier for me to eat what he eats. As he has been on Keto longer his sleep has returned to normal, his appetite is back and best of all he is off all pain meds since Oct. He has also experienced very few of the usual Chemo side effects, no nausea, his energy is right back the day after a round and cold sensitivity is decreased. We will know in another week if if he has become operable. If nothing else he is feeling better than he has in months and really we will take whatever little positives we get.
Sorry to hear about this. I hope he gets better soon, with or w/o keto. Wishing you lots of strength.
I too want to add my good wishes to you and your husband. I am glad he is feeling as well as can be expected, and am hoping for a good out come.
0 -
Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are.
Then there's a problem with the presentation of the question. The title says "low carb, paleo. is this nonsense or science?" not "here are some studies, please could you appraise these studies"
Why are people using words like "paleo diet" anyway? The diet does not even closely resemble actual palaoelithic diets, and if the diet that's being presented is healthy, or beneficial or whatever, the fact it's called "the paleo diet" and couched in ridiculously unscientific concepts like "eat like a caveman" just makes the person presenting a diet look like he or she doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. The original concept of paleo, i.e. eating like a hunter-gatherer (and hunter-gatherer is *not* synonymous with palaeolithic as you can be a hunter-gatherer using modern hunting weapons that use metal and bullets if that's your chosen way of life, and it's probably extremely healthy) has some basis in evolutionary biology but IMO is unnecessary (unless you happen to enjoy hunting and gathering enough to base your entire lifestyle on it). But the whole "eat like a caveman" is just utterly ridiculous and all psuedoscience, they seem to have obtained all their information on palaeolithic diets from watching the Flintstones. So it's extremely difficult to take anyone seriously when they utter the words "the paleo" diet. And even more so book titles that include puns on the word "neanderthal" that reveal the author doesn't actually know how to pronounce the word correctly.
Ditto "low carb" there's a whole boat load of pseudoscience surrounding that, including claims that the human body breaks the laws of physics. So again, it's really hard to take that one seriously, even though there are subsets of the population that definitely benefit from a lower carb diet (note the er on the end of lower, and attention to the types of carbohydrate is important for the people who have these specific problems from too much carbs).
If you wanted a discussion about that specific research, then your chosen title "Low Carb, Paleo. Is this nonsense or science?" is a really, really poor choice of title. If you want to discuss specific studies that people promoting low carb and paleo present as evidence for their diets, then you need to isolate them from the diets they're being used to promote.... in your own mind not just in how you phrase your questions, because most cases where actual studies are presented to support various diets, the studies are legitimate but they don't support the diet being promoted half as much as the one quoting them thinks they do.
Also, there's the fact that if someone is eating a diet that's way too high in fat and carbs and they're suffering from obesity and a bunch of related medical issues, any diet that gets them eating less than they burn off and with even slightly better balanced macros is going to improve their health quite a bit. That doesn't mean that the exact diet they're doing is the 100% best diet that's going to give them optimal results. So if someone who's morbidly obese goes on a low carb diet, they'll eat less, lose weight and improve their health markers. It's likely the same would have happened on the IIFYM approach, or even on a low fat diet or even the twinkie + vitamin pills and protein shake diet (not that I'd recommend the last two, but my point is that even sub-optimal diets will produce good results if they're a significant improvement on what the person ate before). Same as if a lifelong yo-yo dieter goes paleo + crossfit and gains muscle, loses fat and gets to maintain their weight on a decent amount of food, it does not mean that it was the paleo diet and crossfit that did it, any diet with a sufficient amount of protein and enough calories to support healthy fat loss plus an exercise plan that will cause them to gain muscle will help, rather than cycling between eating way too little and losing lean mass and eating way too much and gaining fat.... it's not the paleo diet or crossfit specifically, it's the extra protein, eating a decent amount of food plus exercise that works the muscles hard enough that did it. So again, when you have case studies and research that show great results from either low fat or paleo, in a lot of cases any diet that's significantly better than the previous diet is going to show the same results.
The studies may be legitimate studies (haven't read them, would have to read and evaluate each one individually and don't have time to do that), but the question you need to ask yourself, is whether they actually should be considered as evidence that these diets alone are what's helping, or if it's just a case of any improvement in diet is going to produce results, and the person could have got the same (or possibly even better) results on a diet that is easier for them to fit into their current lifestyle and stick to in the long term.
Also, just to add, I'm not a "hater" of the diets themselves. I hate the abuse of the term "paleo" in the paleo diet. I also get annoyed when these diets are presented as a panacea for all the health problems of the world (which should be a red flag for pseudoscience whenever anything's presented in this way) but that does not mean I hate the actual diets or am unable to see any benefit in them for certain subsets of the population. Such as the so-called "paleo" diet being good for people who are allergic to dairy, wheat and legumes, and lower carb diets being good for people with PCOS and pre-diabetes.0 -
Again, you're missing the point. 300 calories is the calories your body burns anyway during food digestion. It's not something above and beyond your TDEE. You boosted your protein by 200 calories (a significant amount) and in turn you will get a 30 calorie "boost" to your TEF. That's what? 2 teaspoons of sugar? Totally insignificant, especially taking into account the margin of error for both calories in (food intake) and calories out (TDEE) are on the scale of hundreds of calories either way.
The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.
It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.
There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.
- Lyle Mcdonald ProjectExcessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.
I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.
1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)
400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)
600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)
So that's about 301 calories for TEF.
Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.
400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)
600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)
1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)
So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.
Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.
Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.
Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.
Yes I am aware of lyle's point. My point in posting that was to show there is a significant thermogenic effect that he actually has to lower it. Using the numbers you provided, I converted them in to percentages.
carbs = 12.5%
Protein = 21.5%
Fat = 2.5%
My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)
Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories
TEF = 312.6 calories.
I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.
Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)
Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories
TEF = 349 calories
In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.
Where do the 300 calories come from?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
A rhetorical question. If you have a point feel free to make it at any time.
This was for the 300 calorie question. Phone bb'ing sux.0 -
Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.
So they processed it. Just like we do today.
'Pretty much toxic to all living creatures'? I guess that is why our survival rate has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.
Wait...
The toxicity is coming in the forms of chronic illnesses, hence the need for all these very expensive pharmaceuticals that these companies are making a killing off of..........and killing some people off too.
Wait.........0 -
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures. Do you really believe that last sentence? I can show you livestock and wildlife that not only survive but thrive eating modern cereal grains. Whole grain foodstuffs are very nutritious and certainly can be safely consumed by humans. I believe your information sources are selling a concept that is not supportable by science.
[/quote]
Yes, I do. Cows nor chickens are thriving eat grains they were never intended to eat. They are toxic to them and it is passed on to us through their meat, milk and the eggs.
Feeding livestock grains is not for their health. It is merely to fatten them up faster to send to the slaughter in the factory farming system.
We don't eat that crap.
This article does not sound like cows are striving at all.
https://www.lakeforest.edu/live/files/1135-graberreviewaprintpdf0 -
Jerry,
Oh for goodness sake. I just don't know what to say to this.
Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are. If you say you ate Paleo for 6 months and dropped 12 lbs and 3% body fat. Ok. But, that's a sample of one. It's meaningless. There are too many other factors. In a controlled study, they would look at the diets of a group of people. There would be separate groups, one eating Paleo, one eating normal, and then maybe another eating low fat or something. Then you compare the groups and come up with your findings. As I'm hearing this, there is no conclusive research on this specific topic with controlled groups. But, they may have started some testing on pigs, as I understand it. So, I guess it's too early.
If as an individual, you find that eating a certain way provides benefits over eating other ways, then have at it. But, this thread was really not intended to be about people's bias or opinion, but rather I was specifically asking about the research I cited in my original post. Or, if there's other research that specifies the benefits of low carb or Paleo eating. Apparently, what I am hearing, is this does not exist right now.
Good. Then I made my point. I didn't post here for opinions. From your post count, it looks like you post a bit, but I've never seen you here. I'm here a lot. This isn't a low carb debate. I'm asking specific question of the research, not people's opinion on if low carb works. Is that difficult? I'm trying to stave off all the anti low carb patriots here. This isn't about what anyone thinks or feels. It's about what the research suggests. I'm asking to discuss the research. Not how a bowl of rice makes your belly swell.
You've missed my point. You are adamant you are that opinion on the research in the link that you provided is not part of a good discussion.0 -
This content has been removed.
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
- 426 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