Explain diets that don't count calories to me

ironanimal

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 day

Dat frugivore ancestry

... if we want to go further back in time

MityMax96

Someone Try Intermitting Fasting.. and how much Is that Person loss fat,, Sry i am little low on English

I am currently doing Intermittent Fasting, since Aug. 2013
Doing LeanGains protocol

tennisdude2004

They had Cows, but they were called UGGs back then.

VelveteenArabian

We must not have any bacon fiends in this thread if you're telling me you can eat bacon as a staple and keep it at a deficit.

tennisdude2004

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 day

Sorry Dude,

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (just one of the sources) has them eating mainly animal protein and fat. with a relatively small amount from carbs (although that was slightly different for the ones living nearer the equator).

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full

Acg67

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 day

Sorry Dude,

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (just one of the sources) has them eating mainly animal protein and fat. with a relatively small amount from carbs (although that was slightly different for the ones living nearer the equator).

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full

Sorry dude, Cordain is biased

here is a rebuttal to cordain's "study"

http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/6/1590.full

Also

Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf

Roadie2000

5 years out, virtually all diet-only approaches fail. People are OVER their starting weight.

Great business for the diet industry- a never-ending supply of customers.

Well metabolism also generally slows down with age, and people generally get fatter as they get older.

But that's also why a diet shouldn't be a diet, it should be more of a lifestyle change.

Sabine_Stroehm

5 years out, virtually all diet-only approaches fail. People are OVER their starting weight.

Great business for the diet industry- a never-ending supply of customers.

Well metabolism also generally slows down with age, and people generally get fatter as they get older.

But that's also why a diet shouldn't be a diet, it should be more of a lifestyle change.

Metabolism is part of it. Especially for yo-yo-ers. But most of it is folks returning to eating too many calories and not moving enough.

tennisdude2004

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 day

Sorry Dude,

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (just one of the sources) has them eating mainly animal protein and fat. with a relatively small amount from carbs (although that was slightly different for the ones living nearer the equator).

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full

Sorry dude, Cordain is biased

here is a rebuttal to cordain's "study"

http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/6/1590.full

Also

Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf

Thanks just read it. Man it was long.

Interesting. I would agree a lot makes sense. I think the one thing to take into consideration though is before the advent of farming, the human body had to rely on feast and famine.

Which is why we have evolved over the years to use body fat as a preferred fuel source (I say preferred as on a low carb diet we still constantly burn both sources, as some major organs and our brain do require a certain amount of glucose to function optimally). It's just that we only store a limited amount of glucose in our liver (glycogen) and muscles and can only produce a limited amount of glycogen via fatty acids daily.

So you would have to assume that hunter gatherers probably didn't have a constant source of glucose (except the ones living next door to the 7-11).

Anyway cheers for the studies - really good reading.

maillemaker

Got a link to a paper ? sounds an interesting one. Couldn't get past a spinning thing on the video.

Dr. Leibel is very well published so you may indeed be able to find his work in printed format. I'd recommend you try a different browser or something to watch the video though.

maillemaker

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.

No, that is not what Dr. Leibel is talking about in the segment of the video I cited.

He did a controlled study, 24-hour supervision, liquid diet, over some period of time, with about 30 patients, and varied their intake with the same calories but for part of the time having 10% fat content while other times 70% fat content. There was no change in weight. He specifically says, "a calorie is a calorie". In terms of weight loss, dietary content does not matter.

yarwell

So fat loss was statically different at 6 months, but not at 24 months?

At 24 months −4.6 and−2.9 kg P=0.095 with the bigger fat loss to Paleo.

So not statistically significant at 5%, but significant at 10%.

tennisdude2004

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 day

Sorry Dude,

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (just one of the sources) has them eating mainly animal protein and fat. with a relatively small amount from carbs (although that was slightly different for the ones living nearer the equator).

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.full

Sorry dude, Cordain is biased

here is a rebuttal to cordain's "study"

http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/6/1590.full

Also

Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf

Thanks just read it. Man it was long.

Interesting. I would agree a lot makes sense. I think the one thing to take into consideration though is before the advent of farming, the human body had to rely on feast and famine.

Which is why we have evolved over the years to use body fat as a preferred fuel source (I say preferred as on a low carb diet we still constantly burn both sources, as some major organs and our brain do require a certain amount of glucose to function optimally). It's just that we only store a limited amount of glucose in our liver (glycogen) and muscles and can only produce a limited amount of glycogen via fatty acids daily.

So you would have to assume that hunter gatherers probably didn't have a constant source of glucose (except the ones living next door to the 7-11).

Anyway cheers for the studies - really good reading.

The problem with glucose (that's what winds up in the serum from carbohydrates) is that it is an osmotically active particle. Too much glucose in the serum will cause fluid shifts that can be potentially disastrous. Most cells protect themselves by letting in glucose only when a cell surface protein is activated- which is dependent on insulin. The brain cells are different. Glucose is freely permeable and so a high intra-cellular concentration of glucose can cause problem.
The body also protects itself against high glucose levels by quickly converting excess glucose within the cell into long polymeric chains of glucose molecules that precipitate out at granules and remain stored in the cell until needed- this primarily being the muscle and liver cells.
High levels of glucose in the serum can also interact with other serum proteins, "glycosylating" them.
So which developed first- fat metabolism (aerobic- needs oxygen to work)or glucose metabolism (does not need oxygen).

We are talking about a billion years of evolution, here.

That the body protects itself against glucose suggests it developed later. That the brain needs glucose to function could mean that working with glucose gave the organism a competitive advantage neurologically despite the drawbacks.

Or God just created us that way six thousand years ago.

Man that was a big explanation about glucose (it was kinda lost on me - not sure what you were getting at).

We're you just doing biology wheelies!!

tennisdude2004

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.

No, that is not what Dr. Leibel is talking about in the segment of the video I cited.

He did a controlled study, 24-hour supervision, liquid diet, over some period of time, with about 30 patients, and varied their intake with the same calories but for part of the time having 10% fat content while other times 70% fat content. There was no change in weight. He specifically says, "a calorie is a calorie". In terms of weight loss, dietary content does not matter.

But not everything is digested with the same efficiency, so surely the source you get your calories from matters. Or do you calculate for your digestive efficiency when you read the side of the label?

maillemaker

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

Interesting article on the T2 diabetics.

However, only 5 of the 16 patients had stable weight maintenance at the end of 44 months. Most of the patients were on a steady up-trend, just like Dr. Leibel showed in his lecture slides.

I also found this interesting:

Five of 16 patients in the intervention group have had stable bodyweight 38 months after the conclusion of the 6 months study period without any special follow-up. Weight increase has been preceded by an increased intake of carbohydrates in those cases where it has occurred. It is clear that the high-carbohydrate diet followed before the study has been an important, probably the central, contributing cause of their condition.

What this means is that once you start a low-carb diet, you have to stick to it forever or the weight will come back. This of course has sustainability ramifications.

yarwell

Dr. Leibel is very well published so you may indeed be able to find his work in printed format. I'd recommend you try a different browser or something to watch the video though.

"Variations in fat intake
from 0% to 70% of total energy under conditions ofequal energy
intake produced no significant changes in body weight over periods of observation averaging 33 d."

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/55/2/350.full.pdf

Timmmy40

In theory yes. I was on Atkins 2 different times. First time I lost 65 lbs then gained it back because I didn't learn anything. The second time I lost 20 lbs then I couldn't lose a pound more so I started counting calories. Now 120 lbs lost I will stick to counting calories. When I was on Atkins I was eating well over 3000 calories a day. Who knows because I didn't count them. It does work to lose weight, but it doesn't work long term.

tennisdude2004

In theory yes. I was on Atkins 2 different times. First time I lost 65 lbs then gained it back because I didn't learn anything. The second time I lost 20 lbs then I couldn't lose a pound more so I started counting calories. Now 120 lbs lost I will stick to counting calories. When I was on Atkins I was eating well over 3000 calories a day. Who knows because I didn't count them. It does work to lose weight, but it doesn't work long term.

More power to your elbow!

tennisdude2004

I understand it, I don't get the relevance. Who's arguing carbs vs fats? Were talking both - just different volumes.

Commander_Keen

They're usually forbidding your from eating certain foods that are known to be overeaten by people. By cutting them out, you automatically take (much) fewer calories to you than you usually would, resulting in weight loss.

and then the flip side is this.. If I skipp two slices of bread, which 150 calories, I could still have 150 calories with Chicken. and still not loose weight.