Explain diets that don't count calories to me
Replies
-
I may start looking into this theory. If we look at trends in the US population, 2000 was when sugar and obesity peaked. I think the popular high carb and low fat diet that was previously dominant for decades also peaked. Almost all diet today and I mean in the last decade or so are generally based on consuming fewer carbs.
I was listening to Aragon in a pod cast talking about sugar and a few other things and he sort of hypothesized discreetly that there may be some truth in the last decade or so of the increase in protein correlating to slowing and stopping the obesity trend.......more protein and less carbs in a diet generally equates to more satiety. I thought it was interesting.Most everyone I know who's lost weight ANY way has gained it back.
Most folks gain it back when they stop being diligent with WHATEVER approach they've used.
Good point, not to mention anecdotal evidence like that is unreliable.
That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
I've heard similar, although I beleive this is probably about satiety, as you say. If you eat more protein, you feel more sated, and you eat less food later, so the total day's calorie count adds up to less, if that makes sense? I think there may have been some studies about this, although I can't remember any links to them off the top of my head.0 -
If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.0 -
This kinda makes no sense. Back to eating normally is what made people fat in the first place.If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
It does make sense. Once weight is lost, you arent likely to continue with a particular diet, are you? A 5:2 diet is a temporary eating plan, not a way of life, so the body readjusts to what it knew before, is the theory. The mentality is that the work is done. Dont need to diet any more, as opposed to just sticking to the same plan but varying portions slightly to control weight.0 -
How do diets like Atkins work if you're not counting calories? I don't think everyone that has followed it has been a flat out failure - otherwise the products wouldn't sell. Since weightloss seems to be all about calories in < calories out, how does weightloss happen if you're not counting calories?
(No I'm not interested in trying Atkins. I need my carbs. This is just pure curiosity.)
For Atkins, the simple fact that you are eliminating carbs, you are eliminating calories....
So unless you make those calories up with other foods.....then you are cutting calories.0 -
If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.
My post was meant to giverecommendations to eating structure. Besides, a calorie deficit plan would imply better eating habits. How would you make this in the first place. A 5:2 diet would also be pointless if the dieter was unable to break poor habits. No-one is going to be able to lose weight constantly gorging on oversized portions whatever the diet entails.
Atkins may not have meant to be a temporary diet, but following research medical experts only recommend this as a temporary fix or a danger to your health. Even people who do it in the short term feel the side effects of lethargy and tiredness, deprived of energy.0 -
In terms of weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
It has been shown in controlled studies that weight will be unchanged on the same calories regardless if those calories come from 10% fat or 70% fat.
See two minutes (49:40 to 51:49) of this video from Dr. Leibel at one the Grand Rounds lectures from the National Institute of Health:
http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=2993&bhcp=1
Low-carb diets like Atkins do nothing in terms of weight loss directly. What they may do is, at least temporarily, help with satiety.0 -
It has been shown in controlled studies that weight will be unchanged on the same calories regardless if those calories come from 10% fat or 70% fat.
Got a link to a paper ? sounds an interesting one. Couldn't get past a spinning thing on the video.0 -
It has been shown in controlled studies that weight will be unchanged on the same calories regardless if those calories come from 10% fat or 70% fat.
Got a link to a paper ? sounds an interesting one. Couldn't get past a spinning thing on the video.
What about the story of that man that lost weight eating only Twinkies/Hohos and such? If that's not a diet made up of mostly bad stuff I don't know what is.0 -
I think more research into macronutrient effects on overall adherence and health might be in order......You seem to be repeating some pretty standard propaganda regarding diets. The reason medical experts recommend this type of diet being temporary is because there are no long term studies on these types of diets to speak of, nothing more, no devil lurking.If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.
My post was meant to giverecommendations to eating structure. Besides, a calorie deficit plan would imply better eating habits. How would you make this in the first place. A 5:2 diet would also be pointless if the dieter was unable to break poor habits. No-one is going to be able to lose weight constantly gorging on oversized portions whatever the diet entails.
Atkins may not have meant to be a temporary diet, but following research medical experts only recommend this as a temporary fix or a danger to your health. Even people who do it in the short term feel the side effects of lethargy and tiredness, deprived of energy.0 -
Slimming World - Food combining - not calorie counting.
A lot of High protein diets don't require calorie counting (although it is advisable as it's easy to eat too much of a deficit).
By the way these are answers to the OP's questions I am not advocating not counting calories and that eating a deficit will help you lose weight.
In response to a calorie, is a calorie is a calorie - it's a bit more complex than to say you will loss weight the same regardless of calories you consume from different macronutrients. But that's a topic for a different thread I think.0 -
If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.
My post was meant to giverecommendations to eating structure. Besides, a calorie deficit plan would imply better eating habits. How would you make this in the first place. A 5:2 diet would also be pointless if the dieter was unable to break poor habits. No-one is going to be able to lose weight constantly gorging on oversized portions whatever the diet entails.
Atkins may not have meant to be a temporary diet, but following research medical experts only recommend this as a temporary fix or a danger to your health. Even people who do it in the short term feel the side effects of lethargy and tiredness, deprived of energy.
I wasn't refering to portion sizes, I was refering to the quality of the diet re: nutrition. A poor diet will usually lead to health problems regardless of weight.0 -
That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html
44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/140 -
That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html
44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14
Can you give the cliff notes on those....for the lazy (me). ???0 -
Ok, I was wrong, again.........the obesity epidemic didn't peak, it's still prevalent but at a slower rate of incline. What was interesting though is that people that were classified as obese have continued to go up pretty consistently, but with the demographic of extremely obese people thev've seemsed fairly consistant from the 60's on, not up much, still extremely obese though. People classified as overweight is trending downward since 2000 which is telling........People that are slightly higher in weight seem to have made a concerted effort to change their eating habits, or exercise protocol, or both.........wonder why that is comparatively speaking.......
I may start looking into this theory. If we look at trends in the US population, 2000 was when sugar and obesity peaked. I think the popular high carb and low fat diet that was previously dominant for decades also peaked. Almost all diet today and I mean in the last decade or so are generally based on consuming fewer carbs.
I was listening to Aragon in a pod cast talking about sugar and a few other things and he sort of hypothesized discreetly that there may be some truth in the last decade or so of the increase in protein correlating to slowing and stopping the obesity trend.......more protein and less carbs in a diet generally equates to more satiety. I thought it was interesting.Most everyone I know who's lost weight ANY way has gained it back.
Most folks gain it back when they stop being diligent with WHATEVER approach they've used.
Good point, not to mention anecdotal evidence like that is unreliable.
That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
I've heard similar, although I beleive this is probably about satiety, as you say. If you eat more protein, you feel more sated, and you eat less food later, so the total day's calorie count adds up to less, if that makes sense? I think there may have been some studies about this, although I can't remember any links to them off the top of my head.0 -
2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html
44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14
Can you give the cliff notes on those....for the lazy (me). ???
[/quote]
the second one :-
"Results
The mean bodyweight at the start of the initial study was 100.6 ± 14.7 kg. At six months it was 89.2 ± 14.3 kg. From 6 to 22 months, mean bodyweight had increased by 2.7 ± 4.2 kg to an average of 92.0 ± 14.0 kg. At 44 months average weight has increased from baseline g to 93.1 ± 14.5 kg. Of the sixteen patients, five have retained or reduced bodyweight since the 22 month point and all but one have lower weight at 44 months than at start. The initial mean HbA1c was 8.0 ± 1.5%. After 6, 12 and 22 months, HbA1c was 6.1 ± 1.0%, 7.0 ± 1.3% and 6.9 ± 1.1% respectively. After 44 months mean HbA1c is 6.8 ± 1.3%.
Of the 23 patients who have used a low-carbohydrate diet and for whom we have long-term data, two have suffered a cardiovascular event while four of the six controls who never changed diet have suffered several cardiovascular events.
Conclusion
Advice to obese patients with type 2 diabetes to follow a 20% carbohydrate diet with some caloric restriction has lasting effects on bodyweight and glycemic control."
Here's a one page about the Paleo one - http://thepaleodiet.com/long-term-scientific-verification-of-the-paleo-diet/0 -
2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html
44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14Can you give the cliff notes on those....for the lazy (me). ???
the second one :-
"Results
The mean bodyweight at the start of the initial study was 100.6 ± 14.7 kg. At six months it was 89.2 ± 14.3 kg. From 6 to 22 months, mean bodyweight had increased by 2.7 ± 4.2 kg to an average of 92.0 ± 14.0 kg. At 44 months average weight has increased from baseline g to 93.1 ± 14.5 kg. Of the sixteen patients, five have retained or reduced bodyweight since the 22 month point and all but one have lower weight at 44 months than at start. The initial mean HbA1c was 8.0 ± 1.5%. After 6, 12 and 22 months, HbA1c was 6.1 ± 1.0%, 7.0 ± 1.3% and 6.9 ± 1.1% respectively. After 44 months mean HbA1c is 6.8 ± 1.3%.
Of the 23 patients who have used a low-carbohydrate diet and for whom we have long-term data, two have suffered a cardiovascular event while four of the six controls who never changed diet have suffered several cardiovascular events.
Conclusion
Advice to obese patients with type 2 diabetes to follow a 20% carbohydrate diet with some caloric restriction has lasting effects on bodyweight and glycemic control."
Here's a one page about the Paleo one - http://thepaleodiet.com/long-term-scientific-verification-of-the-paleo-diet/
Thank you.0 -
The diet I recommend most to people is find 300-500 calories that you eat and remove it... No counting calories involved.
or
Eat smaller portions of everything you already eat.
Both are simply, easy to maintain and a lot less complicated than tracking calories. Not everyone has the willpower or dedication to track everything they eat.
eh...this wouldn't work for most.
if you are eating 700 calories over maintenance and you cut 500 you will still gain...only way that works is if you are maintaining.
"DIETS" work due to calorie deficet...and most who don't count are in a deficet when they are on a DIET...doesn't matter which one.
That being said they don't teach you portion control, nutrition or why you are overeweight or how to maintain it once you get to your desired goal...
Calorie counting when done as a lifestyle does all that...pretty easy.
You missed the boat.
You cut 300-500 calories... at a time... as to not introduce a dramatic lifestyle change.
Calorie counting is time consuming and impractical for the majority of people. Most people aren't going to count calories their whole lives...
Webster's defines diet as... the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats."
2nd definition is - "a special course of food to which one restricts oneself, either to lose weight or for medical reasons."
I'm saying to focus on number one while cutting pack portions. It works quite well, better than those who count calories would like to admit. It's an 80% solution, but in life 80% solutions will get you through life quite well. You don't need to be the best or elite at everything. Being the best calorie counter isn't going to make your life worthwhile...0 -
Here's a one page about the Paleo one - http://thepaleodiet.com/long-term-scientific-verification-of-the-paleo-diet/
The only thing that gives me pause with her write up....
She labels Paleo as "Superior" diet.....to various others....
I wonder how it would stack up to a person who just ate a balanced diet, consuming all macros.
But remained at or below "normal" body weight.....0 -
I think more research into macronutrient effects on overall adherence and health might be in order......You seem to be repeating some pretty standard propaganda regarding diets. The reason medical experts recommend this type of diet being temporary is because there are no long term studies on these types of diets to speak of, nothing more, no devil lurking.If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.
My post was meant to giverecommendations to eating structure. Besides, a calorie deficit plan would imply better eating habits. How would you make this in the first place. A 5:2 diet would also be pointless if the dieter was unable to break poor habits. No-one is going to be able to lose weight constantly gorging on oversized portions whatever the diet entails.
Atkins may not have meant to be a temporary diet, but following research medical experts only recommend this as a temporary fix or a danger to your health. Even people who do it in the short term feel the side effects of lethargy and tiredness, deprived of energy.
No. No research at all....
Of course there is, and the feedback is also there from people who have been dieters for years on end. They arent a way of life. Propaganda? Oh for goodness sake. By denying this you are supporting an industry which pretends to be the be all and end all in life where as arguably, all they care about is return custom from people who put on the weight afterwards.0 -
The paleo diet was effective initially, actually better health markers, but adherence was problematic going forward compared with the Nordic diet.....no surprise there.That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html
44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14
Can you give the cliff notes on those....for the lazy (me). ???
The other diet was 20% carb consumption and was maintained for 2 years and basically just comparing it to a low fat diet, which has always had a bad track record for adherence.
food choices matter.0 -
That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html
44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14
So fat loss was statically different at 6 months, but not at 24 months?0 -
Ok.
I think more research into macronutrient effects on overall adherence and health might be in order......You seem to be repeating some pretty standard propaganda regarding diets. The reason medical experts recommend this type of diet being temporary is because there are no long term studies on these types of diets to speak of, nothing more, no devil lurking.If you ask me, diets in general are load of old cobblers. Apparently you should eat in an irregular way in order to lose weight e.g. Atkins (temporary solution in any case), 5:2, cabbage-only, etc. but what they dont tell you is that because this is an irregular way of eating, when you go back to consuming normally, you easily go back to old habits. It is impossible to live without carbs, not feasible to starve yourself for 2 days a week for the rest of your life.....
Just stick to calorie control with normal eating habits...
The last line is only good advice if you had good eating habits, but were just eating too much. Eating less of a poor diet may get you thin, but it's unlikely to keep you healthy in the long run.
Also, I only know a little about 5:2, but Atkins is not meant to be a temporary diet for weight loss. It's a plan that is meant to be followed for life.
My post was meant to giverecommendations to eating structure. Besides, a calorie deficit plan would imply better eating habits. How would you make this in the first place. A 5:2 diet would also be pointless if the dieter was unable to break poor habits. No-one is going to be able to lose weight constantly gorging on oversized portions whatever the diet entails.
Atkins may not have meant to be a temporary diet, but following research medical experts only recommend this as a temporary fix or a danger to your health. Even people who do it in the short term feel the side effects of lethargy and tiredness, deprived of energy.
No. No research at all....
Of course there is, and the feedback is also there from people who have been dieters for years on end. They arent a way of life. Propaganda? Oh for goodness sake. By denying this you are supporting an industry which pretends to be the be all and end all in life where as arguably, all they care about is return custom from people who put on the weight afterwards.0 -
Here's a one page about the Paleo one - http://thepaleodiet.com/long-term-scientific-verification-of-the-paleo-diet/
The only thing that gives me pause with her write up....
She labels Paleo as "Superior" diet.....to various others....
I wonder how it would stack up to a person who just ate a balanced diet, consuming all macros.
But remained at or below "normal" body weight.....
Would probably have a very similar effect.
A lot of the diets out there which prioritise protein aren't that different from each other (some go to more extremes of reducing certain macros) but the end result is generally similar.
Still it gives everybody a good change to argue which shade of grey they prefer.
0 -
Adherence, went down the tube.That said, I wonder if there are any review studies on diet adherence (and predisposition to gaining weight back) when it comes to these diets that demonize or eliminate wide swaths of food products vs a more balanced approach. It makes logical sense to me, that less restrictive diets are easier to adhere to long term.
The only thing I can think of off hand was a study that focused on bread, and the results of weight loss were same, but the no bread group was significantly more likely to drop out.
Anyone know of any similar studies? maybe more long term?
2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html
44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14
So fat loss was statically different at 6 months, but not at 24 months?0 -
I just wanted to say that since the 'calorie' was invented/used as a tool to manage food obesity has risen. Now correlation is not causation but you must realise that since the beginning of time, people ate when food was plentiful, stopped when they were full and fasted during either droughts/lack of food.
All animals regulate their own body weight, not by counting calories but just by eating what they need and stopping.
Now i know that we have a emotional tie to food, unlike many other animals. At the same time animals only eat food that they are MEANT to eat in nature, over time humans have manufactured foods that we are not meant to eat a staple of our diet (wheat products, processed foods etc) which interfere with our natural regulation (be this be through hormone regulation and or other reasons)
Now, a human has 2 essentials that we need to survive. An essential amino acid (that we get from protein)
and essential fatty acids (which we get from fats) When we eat these foods our body regulates hunger/cravings. People who eat low fat are depriving the body of something essential, which may be a link to why we crave foods (our bodies are very clever!) As you can see, just counting calories pushes people to eat low-fat -because of the calories density of fat itself. This is why loosing weight by counting calories is even less effective then giving up smoking by going cold turkey. It is so unsuccessful that only a lucky 5% manage to do this easily and keep it off for more then a year, everyone else either never reaches the goal or puts all the weight back on (but its the 4% you will see on all the WW adverts/weight loss testimonials etc)
Also, fat is very satiating and eating more of them can keep us full for longer. If we eat a high fat low carb, low-ish protein diet our body starts to produce keynotes, it stops using glycogen as fuel and switches over to 'fat burning' mode these keyones suppress appetite and that another reason why people loose weight on a low carb diret.
Calories are really irrelevant but calorie 'lovers; will argue that by default we are eating less calories because we cutting a food group, but in all reality, we are just eating how humans are meant to eat and regulating weight/loosing weight that way.
This is obviously a HUGE overview of the complexity of human body. it really inst just as simple as calories in-calories out. That s a huge 'F you' to our amazing body!!!!!
I would only count calories as a general guide as to the volume of food one should eat (after lifetime of not eating naturally, we may need to use a calorie from time to time to measure the amount of food)
Eat real foods and your brain and body will take care of the rest 0 -
2 years of Paleo at http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejcn2013290a.html
44 months of 20% carbs in T2 diabetics http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/14
Thank you - have bookmarked both of these for personal reading but on a quick peek though not sure they apply to what I was curious about. But then again what I want may not exist.
Im looking for a peer reviewed systemic review that attempts to compare long term diet adherence. Something on a much larger scale than the 27 person sample size in first link, and not diabetic specific as in the second link.
I am not saying the above to challenge the results of the above studies at all (havent read them and am super glad you shared them)- just clarifying what I am looking for in case someone has ever come across it.0 -
Also, fat is very satiating and eating more of them can keep us full for longer. If we eat a high fat low carb, low-ish protein diet our body starts to produce keynotes, it stops using glycogen as fuel and switches over to 'fat burning' mode these keyones suppress appetite and that another reason why people loose weight on a low carb diret.
Calories are really irrelevant but calorie 'lovers; will argue that by default we are eating less calories because we cutting a food group, but in all reality, we are just eating how humans are meant to eat and regulating weight/loosing weight that way.
This is obviously a HUGE overview of the complexity of human body. it really inst just as simple as calories in-calories out. That s a huge 'F you' to our amazing body!!!!!
I would only count calories as a general guide as to the volume of food one should eat (after lifetime of not eating naturally, we may need to use a calorie from time to time to measure the amount of food)
Eat real foods and your brain and body will take care of the rest
Lol, first fat has been found not to be very satiating, although protein has
And once your body starts to burn "keynotes" it totally ceases to burn glycogen?
And humans are meant to eat low carb? Paleolithic diet reconstructions have them eating a lot of carbs ~300g a day0 -
were cows present in paleolithic times??0
-
Someone Try Intermitting Fasting.. and how much Is that Person loss fat,, Sry i am little low on English 0
-
Simple. It's all about creating a calorie deficit. The types of foods allowed in Atkins keeps you full longer and you eat less, thus there is your calorie deficit.How do diets like Atkins work if you're not counting calories? I don't think everyone that has followed it has been a flat out failure - otherwise the products wouldn't sell. Since weightloss seems to be all about calories in < calories out, how does weightloss happen if you're not counting calories?
(No I'm not interested in trying Atkins. I need my carbs. This is just pure curiosity.)0
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