Paleo = dying young?
Replies
-
I'll pose to you the same question I posed to Lindsey: can you show us the data from the period you were eating IIFYM/CICO and not achieving results? Were you on MFP during that period?
What makes you think someone's MFP food journal is at all persuasive evidence of eating a caloric deficit and not achieving results? If it was, CICO would be "disproven" on this forum on a regular basis, since there are posts all the time about someone unable to lose weight, where it's almost a given that that person isn't accurately logging what they eat. Their journal still shows a caloric deficit based on their expected TDEE, but that hardly demonstrates anything.0 -
I'll pose to you the same question I posed to Lindsey: can you show us the data from the period you were eating IIFYM/CICO and not achieving results? Were you on MFP during that period?
What makes you think someone's MFP food journal is at all persuasive evidence of eating a caloric deficit and not achieving results? If it was, CICO would be "disproven" on this forum on a regular basis, since there are posts all the time about someone unable to lose weight, where it's almost a given that that person isn't accurately logging what they eat. Their journal still shows a caloric deficit based on their expected TDEE, but that hardly demonstrates anything.
Well, it's more persuasive than nothing at all. But generally we can look at a person's entries and logging and identify where they made the mistakes that led to their failure to lose weight. If someone posted a very convincing diary that showed long-term calorie deficit without any weight loss I would have to sit back and think about it.
But it's never happened. And I suspect it won't happen.0 -
Everyone knows that cavemen died from being eaten by dinosaurs. Because Jesus. I read it on the internet so it has to be true.
I think Fred and Barny survived. Wilma sadly wasn't so lucky.0 -
I told you that it was a 700+ daily deficit as an average -- that's data. Showing you further underlying data supporting that is not necessary unless you don't believe it.
Let me make it clear: I do not believe that you were eating an average 700+ calorie daily deficit and not losing weight.
That's at least honest. Believe it or not. I lived it, so I know it to be true. Talk to others that have hypothyroid or insulin resistance issues and you'll find it to be pretty darn common. In fact, you'll far more extreme examples than just 700+ average daily calorie deficit.
I believe in his original statement he said to provide him with said data in 2 people that did not have any diagnosed medical conditions. I am no doctor, however Hypothyroid or insulin resistance sound like medical conditions to me. No?
And I believe if you read some of my responses, I said I didn't now about that. But for years, I could have been one of those people because for YEARS, I was undiagnosed, which is what I suspect is the case for a lot of people who have difficulty managing their weight and yet their calories in and out seem to be solid.
Well then why would you even respond to it? He asked to Prove that eating pizza and fast food does not result in the same amount of weight loss as someone who eats the "paleo or Primal" way at the same calorie allotance (THAT HAS NO MEDICAL CONDITIONS) What he asked for was pretty specific, you responding helps nothing, nor does it prove anything except that you like to argue. No?
No, the point I'm trying to make is that calories in and calories out does not work for a lot of people. There are likely a myriad of reasons why -- and likely most of them are unknown unless you have extreme symptoms. So, people with middle of the road symptoms especially probably just assume this is how their life is going to be -- always 30-50 lbs (or more) overweight, fatigued, digestive tract discomfort, joint pain, etc. (fill in whatever symptom you want). And that what may be triggering such reactions for many of these people is underlying diet - -or the underlying diet exacerbates it.
So, if they change the diet/nutrition they get, they may see marvelous results --- even more so than with the medications they may have been taking to treat some of the symptoms (like high cholesterol, blood pressure, anti-inflammatory drugs, etc.). And when they switch to Paleo/Primal, it clears up a lot of those issues for them. Do they have an underlying condition? Maybe. But only maybe when they're eating a lot of grains, bad fats, HFCS, etc. Perhaps when they don't eat those, the condition is within normal parameters or undetectable. This is what I suspect has happened to many people who have seen success, including myself to some degree, on primal. To me, that shows that we likely didn't evolve to tolerate such aspects of the modern diet for a reason.
and there it is ...I am a special snowflake, calories in vs calories out does not work for me. ....sorry, but at the end of the day - no matter the condition - you are going to have to consume less energy, in order to shed excess weight. It is basic math and thermodynamics and all that stuff.
If Primal makes it easier for you to create said deficit then by all means do it. But don't tell me it is some magical diet that defies that basic laws of math and thermodynamics...if that were the case.. I could eat "primal", eat 1000 calories over maintenance, and I would lose weight...which we all know is not going to happen...
Let me show you real world example. I agree with you that if you overeat on Paleo, you'll probably gain weight as the excess has to go somewhere. But you can eat a deficit and gain or lose weight depending on other biological factors. Okay, here's the example:
700 deficit of non-Paleo/Primal and non-low carb in insulin resistance individual: maintain or gain because their body does not metabolize glucose as it should. Rather than it going into the cells where it should, it gets stored as fat. They have awful fatigue. You also see this with people with Hashi's -- because grains (or something else) likely triggers the auto-immune response that creates a hypothyroid condition. And the body stores more blood glucose into fat because it gets the starvation/slow down metabolism signals from the thyroid.
700 deficit Paleo/Primal with restricted carbs: Exact same calories, but will lose weight because they're not spiking their insulin levels as dramatically with grains or processed carbs, thereby reducing the broken glucose-to-fat metabolism weight gain issue. For those with less severe IR, this may be enough (and it's likely the carb restriction that drives it most of all). With those with more severe IR, they may need medication to reverse this process or maintain proper glucose metabolism. If someone just has Hashi's, it's the content of the fat/protein/carbs that makes the difference because it's not triggering the auto-immune response on the thyroid and slowing down metabolism.
So, yes, in both cases, if you overeat, you'll likely gain. But there are scenarios where you eat at a deficit but don't lose and often suffer other symptoms - -like crippling fatigue. And I'm sure there are other issues out there than Hashi's and IR -- at the very least, there is PCOS, metabolic syndrome, Celiac, other food sensitivities, etc.
So, that's why calories in and calories out doesn't always work -- as many people are discovering.0 -
AsaThorsWoman, I went back and reviewed your diary back to 1/1 as instructed. It appears that you started on the new year with a more or less Primal diet. WIthin a few weeks it started turning from Primal into a more... omnivorous sort of calorie-counting diet. By the standards of Primal, the entirety of February has been an abject disaster, starting with February 1 where over 2/3 of your daily intake came from cake, pizza, ice cream bars, and cookies. It's been off and on since the 1300 calories of beer on January 30 but more off than on.
This is a common trajectory for New Years' Resolutions. I'm encouraged, however, that you are still logging even though your diet is decidedly non-Primal.
Look at it this way. Look Monday thru Friday. The only non-primal things listed are my 900 freakin' calorie peice of cake Monday and some frozen yogurt Wednesday night.
I guess Saturday and Sunday don't count? Then again there's all this:
Wednesday 2/12:
Alcohol - Peppermint Schnapps, 4 oz 500 32 0 0 0 0
Anheuser-Busch - Budweiser, 36 floz 435 32 0 4 60 0
Taco Bell - Nachos Bell Grande, 308 g 760 85 39 19 1,320 13
Thursday 2/13:
Long John Silver's - Battered Fish, 1 piece 230 14 15 12 580 0
Long John Silver's - (Tartar Sauce), 1 oz (28g) 90 5 7 0 230 0
Wendy's - Jr Bacon Cheeseburger (From Wendys Website), 1 burger 390 26 22 20 870 2
Walmart Bakery - Chocolate Cupcake W/ Frosting, 1 cupcake 240 35 12 1 140 0
Friday 2/14:
Hershey's Kisses - Milk Chocolate (Per Piece), 2 Kiss 46 6 3 1 8 0
Butterfingers - Valentine Hearts Candy 5 Pieces, 1 pieces 40 6 2 0 8 0
Hershey's - Reese's Peanut Butter Filled Hearts, 1 pieces 42 5 3 1 15 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Market Pantry Target - Mini Cupcake -- White Cake W/ White Frosting (Serving Size: 3 Cupcakes), 3 cupcakes 330 43 17 2 200 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Mcdonald's - Chicken Mcnuggets (10 Piece) W/ Sweet 'n Sour Sauce, 10 Nuggets 5.7 oz (190 g) 520 42 30 22 1,050 2
Butterfinger - Valentine Heart, 1 piece 160 23 8 2 45 0
Pearson's - King Size Mint Patties, 0.5 PATTIE 85 18 2 1 45 0
Ghirardelli Squares - Milk Chocolate With Carmel Filling, 0 oz (1 square) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Elmer's Chocolate Candy - Assorted Chocolates, 3 pieces (34g) 140 25 5 1 20 1
Barefoot Wine Merlot - Wine, 5 ozs 120 5 0 1 2 0
Monday 2/17:
the Bakery at Walmart - White Cake With Buttercreme Icing, 0.18585000000000002 cake 80g 915 130 41 6 413 0
I'm not attacking you with this information. But, seriously.... your diet doesn't even approach paleo. Or primal.
Johnny are you now the primal police - you're like those vegan dudes off of Scott pilgrim.0 -
Just throwing this out there, but in 2012, during my year of strict paleo, I added 20 pounds.
I did that by also counting calories and consuming enough additional calories over what I used to add 20 pounds. (In the year prior to this, I lost ~20 pounds eating SAD/IIFYM...but also counting calories and consuming calories at a deficit in which I lost ~20 pounds. I have the daily food and weight logs to back it up too. Science is awesome.)0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
I wish people like you could accept that after trying this lifestyle, I've been so blown away by the health improvements the I DO NOT WANT TO EAT FOODS THAT MAKE ME SICK. I don't care what you do. Enjoy all the food you want, but stop bashing a lifestyle that doesn't work for you. YOUR lifestyle doesn't work for ME. Trust me, I had almost 40 years of trying your way. For instance, look at the topic title. I am so sick and tired of SAD/IIFYM/calories in calories out crowd being so threatened by the lifestyle of other people that they feel the need to keep starting threads to bash those other lifestyles. I don't start threads to bash YOUR lifestyle. Please stop already. I love how I eat. If I don't want to eat wheat and I occasionally share my experiences with other sick/fat people having the same struggles that I used to have, does that really HURT YOU SO MUCH? It's the misinformation and BS against my lifestyle that is so darn offensive. Implying that the Paleo lifestyle is dangerous and killing people is just flat out UNACCEPTABLE and quite stupid actually.
APPLAUSE!!!0 -
Ok, it's unicorn dust and magic that makes people gain weight in a deficit. Just link 1 study where people that have metabolic dysfunction do not lose weight in a deficit. let alone add weight? There must be plenty considering your obviously more educated than I am about metabolism, should be easy. Or maybe it's your reading comprehension I'm not sure.
No, if someone is in a deficit they will lose weight, that's the way the universe works. What your talking about are metabolic dysfunctions that effect how the body burns it's fuel. People with these metabolic dysfunctions need to seek out medical intervention to help plan a course of action that helps them lose weight. PCOS, IR, MetS all respond well to lower carb, in the absenxe of exercise and weight loss....do all three and surprisingly enough they begin to lose weight with similar calorie consumption. Not magic.Maybe if we just replaced the word "Paleo" with "Natural/Unprocessed Food" diet it would keep people from attacking the concept?
But then no one would follow it. You can't market a restrictive diet without a catchy name.
You're eating a restrictive diet! Everyone on this site it! Just because we're not doing it your way, why does that upset you so much.
Maybe it's hug time????
Don't follow. My diet has no restrictions on which foods I may eat.
No but you're restricted on how much of your amazing range of food you can eat so therefore it's a restrictive diet, any diet with boundaries are!
Don't try to be logical. He's not a fan of the logic.
I think you may be the one that is not a fan of the logic. Seriously, let me spell it out for ya. He is NOT against people eating healthily. He is however not a fan of people claiming things without providing facts. He chooses to not restrict things from his diet but still eats at a deficit and he has lost a bunch of weight. He is not saying that any of ANYONES ways of doing things are wrong, he is simply stating that as long as you eat at a deficit you will lose weight. He is absolutely correct unless of course you have a MEDICALLY DIAGNOSED CONDITION but I believe we talked about this before. Please go back and READ everything before replying. It will make things much easier on everyone. Thanks.
That's the whole point though. There are plenty of people that won't lose at a deficit and yet don't have a medically diagnosed condition YET -- just like was my problem for YEARS. It was only after pushing doctors for YEARS and showing them things like my food diary and eventually trying out a few specialists, that I finally got the tests I needed and the underlying medical condition was found/diagnosed. And there may be other conditions that we don't really know about yet which are causing these issues as well. But strangely, things like the Paleo diet help them -- you'll find tons of people that will testify to that, and I suspect they have undiagnosed medical issues, whether certain vitamin deficiencies (like D, iodine or magnesium), hormone imbalances (like insulin resistance, thyroid issues, adrenal issues), food allergies/sensitivities/intolerances (Celiac, gluten sensitivities, etc.) or autoimmune disease.
I could have gone another 10-15 years fighting the whole calories in and calories out thing and being endless frustrated. And 4 doctors would have said everything was fine. But, it wasn't. And the Primal/Paleo diet was literally the only thing that helped me prior to figuring out the underlying cause/issue -- which I only learned about later.
Okay, if a deficit always works. How come you see so many people with those disease that eat at a deficit and don't lose, or eat at what should maintain results in gaining?
Oh, why? Because they're not metabolizing things as they should be. They're storing fat, when they should have the energy in the system for activity -- which is also why you see such people with awful cases of fatigue and sleeping issues. Some tend to eat more than they should because it's not metabolized correctly/efficiently. So stave off the fatigue, they have to eat more, which results in weight gain and obesity. You really should educate yourself more on metabolism before spouting off such things.0 -
Oh, and this:
0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
I wish people like you could accept that after trying this lifestyle, I've been so blown away by the health improvements the I DO NOT WANT TO EAT FOODS THAT MAKE ME SICK. I don't care what you do. Enjoy all the food you want, but stop bashing a lifestyle that doesn't work for you. YOUR lifestyle doesn't work for ME. Trust me, I had almost 40 years of trying your way. For instance, look at the topic title. I am so sick and tired of SAD/IIFYM/calories in calories out crowd being so threatened by the lifestyle of other people that they feel the need to keep starting threads to bash those other lifestyles. I don't start threads to bash YOUR lifestyle. Please stop already. I love how I eat. If I don't want to eat wheat and I occasionally share my experiences with other sick/fat people having the same struggles that I used to have, does that really HURT YOU SO MUCH? It's the misinformation and BS against my lifestyle that is so darn offensive. Implying that the Paleo lifestyle is dangerous and killing people is just flat out UNACCEPTABLE and quite stupid actually.
I'll pose to you the same question I posed to Lindsey: can you show us the data from the period you were eating IIFYM/CICO and not achieving results? Were you on MFP during that period?
He'll just call you a liar.0 -
AsaThorsWoman, I went back and reviewed your diary back to 1/1 as instructed. It appears that you started on the new year with a more or less Primal diet. WIthin a few weeks it started turning from Primal into a more... omnivorous sort of calorie-counting diet. By the standards of Primal, the entirety of February has been an abject disaster, starting with February 1 where over 2/3 of your daily intake came from cake, pizza, ice cream bars, and cookies. It's been off and on since the 1300 calories of beer on January 30 but more off than on.
This is a common trajectory for New Years' Resolutions. I'm encouraged, however, that you are still logging even though your diet is decidedly non-Primal.
Look at it this way. Look Monday thru Friday. The only non-primal things listed are my 900 freakin' calorie peice of cake Monday and some frozen yogurt Wednesday night.
I guess Saturday and Sunday don't count? Then again there's all this:
Wednesday 2/12:
Alcohol - Peppermint Schnapps, 4 oz 500 32 0 0 0 0
Anheuser-Busch - Budweiser, 36 floz 435 32 0 4 60 0
Taco Bell - Nachos Bell Grande, 308 g 760 85 39 19 1,320 13
Thursday 2/13:
Long John Silver's - Battered Fish, 1 piece 230 14 15 12 580 0
Long John Silver's - (Tartar Sauce), 1 oz (28g) 90 5 7 0 230 0
Wendy's - Jr Bacon Cheeseburger (From Wendys Website), 1 burger 390 26 22 20 870 2
Walmart Bakery - Chocolate Cupcake W/ Frosting, 1 cupcake 240 35 12 1 140 0
Friday 2/14:
Hershey's Kisses - Milk Chocolate (Per Piece), 2 Kiss 46 6 3 1 8 0
Butterfingers - Valentine Hearts Candy 5 Pieces, 1 pieces 40 6 2 0 8 0
Hershey's - Reese's Peanut Butter Filled Hearts, 1 pieces 42 5 3 1 15 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Market Pantry Target - Mini Cupcake -- White Cake W/ White Frosting (Serving Size: 3 Cupcakes), 3 cupcakes 330 43 17 2 200 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Mcdonald's - Chicken Mcnuggets (10 Piece) W/ Sweet 'n Sour Sauce, 10 Nuggets 5.7 oz (190 g) 520 42 30 22 1,050 2
Butterfinger - Valentine Heart, 1 piece 160 23 8 2 45 0
Pearson's - King Size Mint Patties, 0.5 PATTIE 85 18 2 1 45 0
Ghirardelli Squares - Milk Chocolate With Carmel Filling, 0 oz (1 square) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Elmer's Chocolate Candy - Assorted Chocolates, 3 pieces (34g) 140 25 5 1 20 1
Barefoot Wine Merlot - Wine, 5 ozs 120 5 0 1 2 0
Monday 2/17:
the Bakery at Walmart - White Cake With Buttercreme Icing, 0.18585000000000002 cake 80g 915 130 41 6 413 0
I'm not attacking you with this information. But, seriously.... your diet doesn't even approach paleo. Or primal.
Compared to this diary, I suspect that *you* are closer to "paleo/primal".0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
There is a difference between restricting caloric intake and restricting what kinds of food you eat.
Having certain macro percentages doesn't eliminate ANY particular food from your diet.
And primal doesn't restrict any macro nutrient from its diet.
Just like a calorie is a calorie - a restrictive diet is a restrictive diet!!????????✋
You do realize that there is a macronutrient breakdown associated with primal and paleo eating, right? Or have you not delved into the real literature that has been published about this type of eating?
That's actually incorrect (at least for Primal). It has to do more with activity level and carbs. The more energy you need for greater exercise, the more carbs you use. Protein tends to be linked to bodyweight more than anything (depending on your goals). For most people that means it ends up being high fat, moderate protein and either low or moderate carbs. If you're looking to lose body fat, usually you lower the total carbs.
But you can have macros across the charts depending on your goals and current body comp. Protein grams stay pretty consistent, but their percentage can shift dramatically depending on the carb input and goals (to maintain, to shred, to gain, etc.). The big thing with Paleo/Primal is usually the content of the macros -- the types of fat, protein and carbs.
Sorry dude it's not quite that way - close activity has a lot to do with it. It's mainly about manipulating the bodies insulin secretion. The goal of primal is best health - maintenance of lean mass and reduction of body fat.
Have a listen to his podcasts - last weeks one should explain it for you. And it will be his works and not the Chinese whispers that go around the PBS.
I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Those that are doing high activity seem to be eating a LOT more carbs -- good carbs, but carbs nonetheless and have a dramatically different macro input accordingly. Same for those looking to put on more muscle -- tend to have more protein (1+ gram per lb versus 0.7-0.7 per lb). Those looking to drop fat are reducing carb intake (less than 50 or 100 depending on how they affect them). Those looking to maintain, have much more generous carb allowances (100-250+), so their percentage fat and protein drop accordingly.0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
There is a difference between restricting caloric intake and restricting what kinds of food you eat.
Having certain macro percentages doesn't eliminate ANY particular food from your diet.
And primal doesn't restrict any macro nutrient from its diet.
Just like a calorie is a calorie - a restrictive diet is a restrictive diet!!????????✋
You do realize that there is a macronutrient breakdown associated with primal and paleo eating, right? Or have you not delved into the real literature that has been published about this type of eating?
That's actually incorrect (at least for Primal). It has to do more with activity level and carbs. The more energy you need for greater exercise, the more carbs you use. Protein tends to be linked to bodyweight more than anything (depending on your goals). For most people that means it ends up being high fat, moderate protein and either low or moderate carbs. If you're looking to lose body fat, usually you lower the total carbs.
But you can have macros across the charts depending on your goals and current body comp. Protein grams stay pretty consistent, but their percentage can shift dramatically depending on the carb input and goals (to maintain, to shred, to gain, etc.). The big thing with Paleo/Primal is usually the content of the macros -- the types of fat, protein and carbs.
Sorry dude it's not quite that way - close activity has a lot to do with it. It's mainly about manipulating the bodies insulin secretion. The goal of primal is best health - maintenance of lean mass and reduction of body fat.
Have a listen to his podcasts - last weeks one should explain it for you. And it will be his works and not the Chinese whispers that go around the PBS.
I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Those that are doing high activity seem to be eating a LOT more carbs -- good carbs, but carbs nonetheless and have a dramatically different macro input accordingly. Same for those looking to put on more muscle -- tend to have more protein (1+ gram per lb versus 0.7-0.7 per lb). Those looking to drop fat are reducing carb intake (less than 50 or 100 depending on how they affect them). Those looking to maintain, have much more generous carb allowances (100-250+), so their percentage fat and protein drop accordingly.
And here comes another problem associated with restricted diets: defining the boundaries of said diet. Nobody really knows what it is.0 -
Oh, why? Because they're not metabolizing things as they should be. They're storing fat, when they should have the energy in the system for activity -- which is also why you see such people with awful cases of fatigue and sleeping issues. Some tend to eat more than they should because it's not metabolized correctly/efficiently. So stave off the fatigue, they have to eat more, which results in weight gain and obesity. You really should educate yourself more on metabolism before spouting off such things.
That just means that they lose weight at a different calorie intake. The equation is still the same. You have to burn more calories than you eat, whatever that amount may be, regardless of medical condition.
Yes and no. Sure, you have to eat at a deficit to lose. But, for some the deficit is greatly different than others. And why they can eat at a deficit (and sometimes still a significant deficit) and not still not lose. but they change the content of those calories, and then they can lose at that deficit (or less sometimes). That's why calories in and calories out is not always true for everyone (except for possibly weight gain/excess).0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
There is a difference between restricting caloric intake and restricting what kinds of food you eat.
Having certain macro percentages doesn't eliminate ANY particular food from your diet.
And primal doesn't restrict any macro nutrient from its diet.
Just like a calorie is a calorie - a restrictive diet is a restrictive diet!!????????✋
You do realize that there is a macronutrient breakdown associated with primal and paleo eating, right? Or have you not delved into the real literature that has been published about this type of eating?
That's actually incorrect (at least for Primal). It has to do more with activity level and carbs. The more energy you need for greater exercise, the more carbs you use. Protein tends to be linked to bodyweight more than anything (depending on your goals). For most people that means it ends up being high fat, moderate protein and either low or moderate carbs. If you're looking to lose body fat, usually you lower the total carbs.
But you can have macros across the charts depending on your goals and current body comp. Protein grams stay pretty consistent, but their percentage can shift dramatically depending on the carb input and goals (to maintain, to shred, to gain, etc.). The big thing with Paleo/Primal is usually the content of the macros -- the types of fat, protein and carbs.
Sorry dude it's not quite that way - close activity has a lot to do with it. It's mainly about manipulating the bodies insulin secretion. The goal of primal is best health - maintenance of lean mass and reduction of body fat.
Have a listen to his podcasts - last weeks one should explain it for you. And it will be his works and not the Chinese whispers that go around the PBS.
I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Those that are doing high activity seem to be eating a LOT more carbs -- good carbs, but carbs nonetheless and have a dramatically different macro input accordingly. Same for those looking to put on more muscle -- tend to have more protein (1+ gram per lb versus 0.7-0.7 per lb). Those looking to drop fat are reducing carb intake (less than 50 or 100 depending on how they affect them). Those looking to maintain, have much more generous carb allowances (100-250+), so their percentage fat and protein drop accordingly.
It depends on the activity only carbing up on high endurance.
Anything 75% and generally not needing to add extra carbs. I'm personally eating about 100g but that fluctuates 50g both up and down depending on what I feel like eating.0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
There is a difference between restricting caloric intake and restricting what kinds of food you eat.
Having certain macro percentages doesn't eliminate ANY particular food from your diet.
And primal doesn't restrict any macro nutrient from its diet.
Just like a calorie is a calorie - a restrictive diet is a restrictive diet!!????????✋
You do realize that there is a macronutrient breakdown associated with primal and paleo eating, right? Or have you not delved into the real literature that has been published about this type of eating?
That's actually incorrect (at least for Primal). It has to do more with activity level and carbs. The more energy you need for greater exercise, the more carbs you use. Protein tends to be linked to bodyweight more than anything (depending on your goals). For most people that means it ends up being high fat, moderate protein and either low or moderate carbs. If you're looking to lose body fat, usually you lower the total carbs.
But you can have macros across the charts depending on your goals and current body comp. Protein grams stay pretty consistent, but their percentage can shift dramatically depending on the carb input and goals (to maintain, to shred, to gain, etc.). The big thing with Paleo/Primal is usually the content of the macros -- the types of fat, protein and carbs.
Sorry dude it's not quite that way - close activity has a lot to do with it. It's mainly about manipulating the bodies insulin secretion. The goal of primal is best health - maintenance of lean mass and reduction of body fat.
Have a listen to his podcasts - last weeks one should explain it for you. And it will be his works and not the Chinese whispers that go around the PBS.
I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Those that are doing high activity seem to be eating a LOT more carbs -- good carbs, but carbs nonetheless and have a dramatically different macro input accordingly. Same for those looking to put on more muscle -- tend to have more protein (1+ gram per lb versus 0.7-0.7 per lb). Those looking to drop fat are reducing carb intake (less than 50 or 100 depending on how they affect them). Those looking to maintain, have much more generous carb allowances (100-250+), so their percentage fat and protein drop accordingly.
And here comes another problem associated with restricted diets: defining the boundaries of said diet. Nobody really knows what it is.
So not really that restrictive then - needs to be more restrictive like say puting an actual figure on it!0 -
AsaThorsWoman, I went back and reviewed your diary back to 1/1 as instructed. It appears that you started on the new year with a more or less Primal diet. WIthin a few weeks it started turning from Primal into a more... omnivorous sort of calorie-counting diet. By the standards of Primal, the entirety of February has been an abject disaster, starting with February 1 where over 2/3 of your daily intake came from cake, pizza, ice cream bars, and cookies. It's been off and on since the 1300 calories of beer on January 30 but more off than on.
This is a common trajectory for New Years' Resolutions. I'm encouraged, however, that you are still logging even though your diet is decidedly non-Primal.
Look at it this way. Look Monday thru Friday. The only non-primal things listed are my 900 freakin' calorie peice of cake Monday and some frozen yogurt Wednesday night.
I guess Saturday and Sunday don't count? Then again there's all this:
Wednesday 2/12:
Alcohol - Peppermint Schnapps, 4 oz 500 32 0 0 0 0
Anheuser-Busch - Budweiser, 36 floz 435 32 0 4 60 0
Taco Bell - Nachos Bell Grande, 308 g 760 85 39 19 1,320 13
Thursday 2/13:
Long John Silver's - Battered Fish, 1 piece 230 14 15 12 580 0
Long John Silver's - (Tartar Sauce), 1 oz (28g) 90 5 7 0 230 0
Wendy's - Jr Bacon Cheeseburger (From Wendys Website), 1 burger 390 26 22 20 870 2
Walmart Bakery - Chocolate Cupcake W/ Frosting, 1 cupcake 240 35 12 1 140 0
Friday 2/14:
Hershey's Kisses - Milk Chocolate (Per Piece), 2 Kiss 46 6 3 1 8 0
Butterfingers - Valentine Hearts Candy 5 Pieces, 1 pieces 40 6 2 0 8 0
Hershey's - Reese's Peanut Butter Filled Hearts, 1 pieces 42 5 3 1 15 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Market Pantry Target - Mini Cupcake -- White Cake W/ White Frosting (Serving Size: 3 Cupcakes), 3 cupcakes 330 43 17 2 200 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Mcdonald's - Chicken Mcnuggets (10 Piece) W/ Sweet 'n Sour Sauce, 10 Nuggets 5.7 oz (190 g) 520 42 30 22 1,050 2
Butterfinger - Valentine Heart, 1 piece 160 23 8 2 45 0
Pearson's - King Size Mint Patties, 0.5 PATTIE 85 18 2 1 45 0
Ghirardelli Squares - Milk Chocolate With Carmel Filling, 0 oz (1 square) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Elmer's Chocolate Candy - Assorted Chocolates, 3 pieces (34g) 140 25 5 1 20 1
Barefoot Wine Merlot - Wine, 5 ozs 120 5 0 1 2 0
Monday 2/17:
the Bakery at Walmart - White Cake With Buttercreme Icing, 0.18585000000000002 cake 80g 915 130 41 6 413 0
I'm not attacking you with this information. But, seriously.... your diet doesn't even approach paleo. Or primal.
You're leaving out:
1) Everything else I've eaten on the days listed and the eating patterns in the past several months.
2) Hell no. 2/14/2014 was cheat day. It was my daughters birthday and V-day. It wasn't even remotely Paleo and was never supposed to be.
Trying to prove to me that I'm not Paleo doesn't support any of the points you're trying to make on this thread.
You're harping on a small portion of the normal diet. Care to list everything I've eaten in the past 2 months? Of course not! Everyone will see what a ridiculous liar you are!
And YES, if you're sticking to your Paleo diet on the regular, cheat days don't "count". When we "cheat" we go all the way because occasional times of excessiveness reset hormone (leptin) levels and we feel even better and burn even more fat!0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
There is a difference between restricting caloric intake and restricting what kinds of food you eat.
Having certain macro percentages doesn't eliminate ANY particular food from your diet.
And primal doesn't restrict any macro nutrient from its diet.
Just like a calorie is a calorie - a restrictive diet is a restrictive diet!!????????✋
You do realize that there is a macronutrient breakdown associated with primal and paleo eating, right? Or have you not delved into the real literature that has been published about this type of eating?
That's actually incorrect (at least for Primal). It has to do more with activity level and carbs. The more energy you need for greater exercise, the more carbs you use. Protein tends to be linked to bodyweight more than anything (depending on your goals). For most people that means it ends up being high fat, moderate protein and either low or moderate carbs. If you're looking to lose body fat, usually you lower the total carbs.
But you can have macros across the charts depending on your goals and current body comp. Protein grams stay pretty consistent, but their percentage can shift dramatically depending on the carb input and goals (to maintain, to shred, to gain, etc.). The big thing with Paleo/Primal is usually the content of the macros -- the types of fat, protein and carbs.
Sorry dude it's not quite that way - close activity has a lot to do with it. It's mainly about manipulating the bodies insulin secretion. The goal of primal is best health - maintenance of lean mass and reduction of body fat.
Have a listen to his podcasts - last weeks one should explain it for you. And it will be his works and not the Chinese whispers that go around the PBS.
I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Those that are doing high activity seem to be eating a LOT more carbs -- good carbs, but carbs nonetheless and have a dramatically different macro input accordingly. Same for those looking to put on more muscle -- tend to have more protein (1+ gram per lb versus 0.7-0.7 per lb). Those looking to drop fat are reducing carb intake (less than 50 or 100 depending on how they affect them). Those looking to maintain, have much more generous carb allowances (100-250+), so their percentage fat and protein drop accordingly.
And here comes another problem associated with restricted diets: defining the boundaries of said diet. Nobody really knows what it is.
That's sort of the point -- that they're more guiding principles for which you find out what works best for you as everyone's metabolism isn't the same. It's more customization than anything.0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
There is a difference between restricting caloric intake and restricting what kinds of food you eat.
Having certain macro percentages doesn't eliminate ANY particular food from your diet.
And primal doesn't restrict any macro nutrient from its diet.
Just like a calorie is a calorie - a restrictive diet is a restrictive diet!!????????✋
You do realize that there is a macronutrient breakdown associated with primal and paleo eating, right? Or have you not delved into the real literature that has been published about this type of eating?
That's actually incorrect (at least for Primal). It has to do more with activity level and carbs. The more energy you need for greater exercise, the more carbs you use. Protein tends to be linked to bodyweight more than anything (depending on your goals). For most people that means it ends up being high fat, moderate protein and either low or moderate carbs. If you're looking to lose body fat, usually you lower the total carbs.
But you can have macros across the charts depending on your goals and current body comp. Protein grams stay pretty consistent, but their percentage can shift dramatically depending on the carb input and goals (to maintain, to shred, to gain, etc.). The big thing with Paleo/Primal is usually the content of the macros -- the types of fat, protein and carbs.
Sorry dude it's not quite that way - close activity has a lot to do with it. It's mainly about manipulating the bodies insulin secretion. The goal of primal is best health - maintenance of lean mass and reduction of body fat.
Have a listen to his podcasts - last weeks one should explain it for you. And it will be his works and not the Chinese whispers that go around the PBS.
I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Those that are doing high activity seem to be eating a LOT more carbs -- good carbs, but carbs nonetheless and have a dramatically different macro input accordingly. Same for those looking to put on more muscle -- tend to have more protein (1+ gram per lb versus 0.7-0.7 per lb). Those looking to drop fat are reducing carb intake (less than 50 or 100 depending on how they affect them). Those looking to maintain, have much more generous carb allowances (100-250+), so their percentage fat and protein drop accordingly.
"good carbs"? :huh:
As for those reducing carb intake to lose fat, that is likely more a product of their overall calorie deficit than intentionally trying to eat low carb. Myself as an example, have been in a deficit for about ten days now. In order to hit my minimum protein target (~.9g/lb) and minimum fat target (~.45g/lb, I think), I have no choice but to be low carb. It isn't the low carbs that are resulting in my fat loss, it's my low calories. I can see how people could make the wrong connection though.0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
I wish people like you could accept that after trying this lifestyle, I've been so blown away by the health improvements the I DO NOT WANT TO EAT FOODS THAT MAKE ME SICK. I don't care what you do. Enjoy all the food you want, but stop bashing a lifestyle that doesn't work for you. YOUR lifestyle doesn't work for ME. Trust me, I had almost 40 years of trying your way. For instance, look at the topic title. I am so sick and tired of SAD/IIFYM/calories in calories out crowd being so threatened by the lifestyle of other people that they feel the need to keep starting threads to bash those other lifestyles. I don't start threads to bash YOUR lifestyle. Please stop already. I love how I eat. If I don't want to eat wheat and I occasionally share my experiences with other sick/fat people having the same struggles that I used to have, does that really HURT YOU SO MUCH? It's the misinformation and BS against my lifestyle that is so darn offensive. Implying that the Paleo lifestyle is dangerous and killing people is just flat out UNACCEPTABLE and quite stupid actually.
OMG No one bashed it!! Run along now and READ everything before you exert your pretty little fingers. He did not once bash it~~
???? meow0 -
And YES, if you're sticking to your Paleo diet on the regular, cheat days don't "count". When we "cheat" we go all the way because occasional times of excessiveness reset hormone (leptin) levels and we feel even better and burn even more fat!
Lol and how long does the leptin increases stay elevated after a refeed? And burn more fat?0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
There is a difference between restricting caloric intake and restricting what kinds of food you eat.
Having certain macro percentages doesn't eliminate ANY particular food from your diet.
And primal doesn't restrict any macro nutrient from its diet.
Just like a calorie is a calorie - a restrictive diet is a restrictive diet!!????????✋
You do realize that there is a macronutrient breakdown associated with primal and paleo eating, right? Or have you not delved into the real literature that has been published about this type of eating?
That's actually incorrect (at least for Primal). It has to do more with activity level and carbs. The more energy you need for greater exercise, the more carbs you use. Protein tends to be linked to bodyweight more than anything (depending on your goals). For most people that means it ends up being high fat, moderate protein and either low or moderate carbs. If you're looking to lose body fat, usually you lower the total carbs.
But you can have macros across the charts depending on your goals and current body comp. Protein grams stay pretty consistent, but their percentage can shift dramatically depending on the carb input and goals (to maintain, to shred, to gain, etc.). The big thing with Paleo/Primal is usually the content of the macros -- the types of fat, protein and carbs.
Sorry dude it's not quite that way - close activity has a lot to do with it. It's mainly about manipulating the bodies insulin secretion. The goal of primal is best health - maintenance of lean mass and reduction of body fat.
Have a listen to his podcasts - last weeks one should explain it for you. And it will be his works and not the Chinese whispers that go around the PBS.
I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Those that are doing high activity seem to be eating a LOT more carbs -- good carbs, but carbs nonetheless and have a dramatically different macro input accordingly. Same for those looking to put on more muscle -- tend to have more protein (1+ gram per lb versus 0.7-0.7 per lb). Those looking to drop fat are reducing carb intake (less than 50 or 100 depending on how they affect them). Those looking to maintain, have much more generous carb allowances (100-250+), so their percentage fat and protein drop accordingly.
It depends on the activity only carbing up on high endurance.
Anything 75% and generally not needing to add extra carbs. I'm personally eating about 100g but that fluctuates 50g both up and down depending on what I feel like eating.
I agree. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be low carb, but can be depending on what people are looking to accomplish. But regardless of the macro balance any one individual is looking to hit, the content of those macros are the same (or should be) -- the good carbs, fats and proteins.0 -
I told you that it was a 700+ daily deficit as an average -- that's data. Showing you further underlying data supporting that is not necessary unless you don't believe it.
Let me make it clear: I do not believe that you were eating an average 700+ calorie daily deficit and not losing weight.
That's at least honest. Believe it or not. I lived it, so I know it to be true. Talk to others that have hypothyroid or insulin resistance issues and you'll find it to be pretty darn common. In fact, you'll far more extreme examples than just 700+ average daily calorie deficit.
I believe in his original statement he said to provide him with said data in 2 people that did not have any diagnosed medical conditions. I am no doctor, however Hypothyroid or insulin resistance sound like medical conditions to me. No?
And I believe if you read some of my responses, I said I didn't now about that. But for years, I could have been one of those people because for YEARS, I was undiagnosed, which is what I suspect is the case for a lot of people who have difficulty managing their weight and yet their calories in and out seem to be solid.
Well then why would you even respond to it? He asked to Prove that eating pizza and fast food does not result in the same amount of weight loss as someone who eats the "paleo or Primal" way at the same calorie allotance (THAT HAS NO MEDICAL CONDITIONS) What he asked for was pretty specific, you responding helps nothing, nor does it prove anything except that you like to argue. No?
No, the point I'm trying to make is that calories in and calories out does not work for a lot of people. There are likely a myriad of reasons why -- and likely most of them are unknown unless you have extreme symptoms. So, people with middle of the road symptoms especially probably just assume this is how their life is going to be -- always 30-50 lbs (or more) overweight, fatigued, digestive tract discomfort, joint pain, etc. (fill in whatever symptom you want). And that what may be triggering such reactions for many of these people is underlying diet - -or the underlying diet exacerbates it.
So, if they change the diet/nutrition they get, they may see marvelous results --- even more so than with the medications they may have been taking to treat some of the symptoms (like high cholesterol, blood pressure, anti-inflammatory drugs, etc.). And when they switch to Paleo/Primal, it clears up a lot of those issues for them. Do they have an underlying condition? Maybe. But only maybe when they're eating a lot of grains, bad fats, HFCS, etc. Perhaps when they don't eat those, the condition is within normal parameters or undetectable. This is what I suspect has happened to many people who have seen success, including myself to some degree, on primal. To me, that shows that we likely didn't evolve to tolerate such aspects of the modern diet for a reason.
and there it is ...I am a special snowflake, calories in vs calories out does not work for me. ....sorry, but at the end of the day - no matter the condition - you are going to have to consume less energy, in order to shed excess weight. It is basic math and thermodynamics and all that stuff.
If Primal makes it easier for you to create said deficit then by all means do it. But don't tell me it is some magical diet that defies that basic laws of math and thermodynamics...if that were the case.. I could eat "primal", eat 1000 calories over maintenance, and I would lose weight...which we all know is not going to happen...
Let me show you real world example. I agree with you that if you overeat on Paleo, you'll probably gain weight as the excess has to go somewhere. But you can eat a deficit and gain or lose weight depending on other biological factors. Okay, here's the example:
700 deficit of non-Paleo/Primal and non-low carb in insulin resistance individual: maintain or gain because their body does not metabolize glucose as it should. Rather than it going into the cells where it should, it gets stored as fat. They have awful fatigue. You also see this with people with Hashi's -- because grains (or something else) likely triggers the auto-immune response that creates a hypothyroid condition. And the body stores more blood glucose into fat because it gets the starvation/slow down metabolism signals from the thyroid.
700 deficit Paleo/Primal with restricted carbs: Exact same calories, but will lose weight because they're not spiking their insulin levels as dramatically with grains or processed carbs, thereby reducing the broken glucose-to-fat metabolism weight gain issue. For those with less severe IR, this may be enough (and it's likely the carb restriction that drives it most of all). With those with more severe IR, they may need medication to reverse this process or maintain proper glucose metabolism. If someone just has Hashi's, it's the content of the fat/protein/carbs that makes the difference because it's not triggering the auto-immune response on the thyroid and slowing down metabolism.
So, yes, in both cases, if you overeat, you'll likely gain. But there are scenarios where you eat at a deficit but don't lose and often suffer other symptoms - -like crippling fatigue. And I'm sure there are other issues out there than Hashi's and IR -- at the very least, there is PCOS, metabolic syndrome, Celiac, other food sensitivities, etc.
So, that's why calories in and calories out doesn't always work -- as many people are discovering.
then how did they lose weight? Magic?0 -
And YES, if you're sticking to your Paleo diet on the regular, cheat days don't "count". When we "cheat" we go all the way because occasional times of excessiveness reset hormone (leptin) levels and we feel even better and burn even more fat!
Lol and how long does the leptin increases stay elevated after a refeed? And burn more fat?
And here he comes - mark says hi by the way????0 -
Oh, and this:
TOTALLY THIS!!!0 -
Oh, and this:
TOTALLY THIS!!!
The highest of fives ✋0 -
AsaThorsWoman, I went back and reviewed your diary back to 1/1 as instructed. It appears that you started on the new year with a more or less Primal diet. WIthin a few weeks it started turning from Primal into a more... omnivorous sort of calorie-counting diet. By the standards of Primal, the entirety of February has been an abject disaster, starting with February 1 where over 2/3 of your daily intake came from cake, pizza, ice cream bars, and cookies. It's been off and on since the 1300 calories of beer on January 30 but more off than on.
This is a common trajectory for New Years' Resolutions. I'm encouraged, however, that you are still logging even though your diet is decidedly non-Primal.
Look at it this way. Look Monday thru Friday. The only non-primal things listed are my 900 freakin' calorie peice of cake Monday and some frozen yogurt Wednesday night.
I guess Saturday and Sunday don't count? Then again there's all this:
Wednesday 2/12:
Alcohol - Peppermint Schnapps, 4 oz 500 32 0 0 0 0
Anheuser-Busch - Budweiser, 36 floz 435 32 0 4 60 0
Taco Bell - Nachos Bell Grande, 308 g 760 85 39 19 1,320 13
Thursday 2/13:
Long John Silver's - Battered Fish, 1 piece 230 14 15 12 580 0
Long John Silver's - (Tartar Sauce), 1 oz (28g) 90 5 7 0 230 0
Wendy's - Jr Bacon Cheeseburger (From Wendys Website), 1 burger 390 26 22 20 870 2
Walmart Bakery - Chocolate Cupcake W/ Frosting, 1 cupcake 240 35 12 1 140 0
Friday 2/14:
Hershey's Kisses - Milk Chocolate (Per Piece), 2 Kiss 46 6 3 1 8 0
Butterfingers - Valentine Hearts Candy 5 Pieces, 1 pieces 40 6 2 0 8 0
Hershey's - Reese's Peanut Butter Filled Hearts, 1 pieces 42 5 3 1 15 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Market Pantry Target - Mini Cupcake -- White Cake W/ White Frosting (Serving Size: 3 Cupcakes), 3 cupcakes 330 43 17 2 200 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Mcdonald's - Chicken Mcnuggets (10 Piece) W/ Sweet 'n Sour Sauce, 10 Nuggets 5.7 oz (190 g) 520 42 30 22 1,050 2
Butterfinger - Valentine Heart, 1 piece 160 23 8 2 45 0
Pearson's - King Size Mint Patties, 0.5 PATTIE 85 18 2 1 45 0
Ghirardelli Squares - Milk Chocolate With Carmel Filling, 0 oz (1 square) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Elmer's Chocolate Candy - Assorted Chocolates, 3 pieces (34g) 140 25 5 1 20 1
Barefoot Wine Merlot - Wine, 5 ozs 120 5 0 1 2 0
Monday 2/17:
the Bakery at Walmart - White Cake With Buttercreme Icing, 0.18585000000000002 cake 80g 915 130 41 6 413 0
I'm not attacking you with this information. But, seriously.... your diet doesn't even approach paleo. Or primal.
Compared to this diary, I suspect that *you* are closer to "paleo/primal".
This is not even close to my diary. Pull the report from 1/1/14-current if you want to see it.
He pulled everyone of my cheats to mis-represent me.0 -
Only look at January. And not weekends. So primal.0
-
AsaThorsWoman, I went back and reviewed your diary back to 1/1 as instructed. It appears that you started on the new year with a more or less Primal diet. WIthin a few weeks it started turning from Primal into a more... omnivorous sort of calorie-counting diet. By the standards of Primal, the entirety of February has been an abject disaster, starting with February 1 where over 2/3 of your daily intake came from cake, pizza, ice cream bars, and cookies. It's been off and on since the 1300 calories of beer on January 30 but more off than on.
This is a common trajectory for New Years' Resolutions. I'm encouraged, however, that you are still logging even though your diet is decidedly non-Primal.
Look at it this way. Look Monday thru Friday. The only non-primal things listed are my 900 freakin' calorie peice of cake Monday and some frozen yogurt Wednesday night.
I guess Saturday and Sunday don't count? Then again there's all this:
Wednesday 2/12:
Alcohol - Peppermint Schnapps, 4 oz 500 32 0 0 0 0
Anheuser-Busch - Budweiser, 36 floz 435 32 0 4 60 0
Taco Bell - Nachos Bell Grande, 308 g 760 85 39 19 1,320 13
Thursday 2/13:
Long John Silver's - Battered Fish, 1 piece 230 14 15 12 580 0
Long John Silver's - (Tartar Sauce), 1 oz (28g) 90 5 7 0 230 0
Wendy's - Jr Bacon Cheeseburger (From Wendys Website), 1 burger 390 26 22 20 870 2
Walmart Bakery - Chocolate Cupcake W/ Frosting, 1 cupcake 240 35 12 1 140 0
Friday 2/14:
Hershey's Kisses - Milk Chocolate (Per Piece), 2 Kiss 46 6 3 1 8 0
Butterfingers - Valentine Hearts Candy 5 Pieces, 1 pieces 40 6 2 0 8 0
Hershey's - Reese's Peanut Butter Filled Hearts, 1 pieces 42 5 3 1 15 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Market Pantry Target - Mini Cupcake -- White Cake W/ White Frosting (Serving Size: 3 Cupcakes), 3 cupcakes 330 43 17 2 200 0
Mcdonald's - Mcdouble (No Bun, No Ketchup), 2 Sandwich 460 6 34 36 1,060 2
Mcdonald's - Chicken Mcnuggets (10 Piece) W/ Sweet 'n Sour Sauce, 10 Nuggets 5.7 oz (190 g) 520 42 30 22 1,050 2
Butterfinger - Valentine Heart, 1 piece 160 23 8 2 45 0
Pearson's - King Size Mint Patties, 0.5 PATTIE 85 18 2 1 45 0
Ghirardelli Squares - Milk Chocolate With Carmel Filling, 0 oz (1 square) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Elmer's Chocolate Candy - Assorted Chocolates, 3 pieces (34g) 140 25 5 1 20 1
Barefoot Wine Merlot - Wine, 5 ozs 120 5 0 1 2 0
Monday 2/17:
the Bakery at Walmart - White Cake With Buttercreme Icing, 0.18585000000000002 cake 80g 915 130 41 6 413 0
I'm not attacking you with this information. But, seriously.... your diet doesn't even approach paleo. Or primal.
Compared to this diary, I suspect that *you* are closer to "paleo/primal".
This is not even close to my diary. Pull the report from 1/1/14-current if you want to see it.
He pulled everyone of my cheats to mis-represent me.
That sounds about right. Very deceitful.0 -
Oh, why? Because they're not metabolizing things as they should be. They're storing fat, when they should have the energy in the system for activity -- which is also why you see such people with awful cases of fatigue and sleeping issues. Some tend to eat more than they should because it's not metabolized correctly/efficiently. So stave off the fatigue, they have to eat more, which results in weight gain and obesity. You really should educate yourself more on metabolism before spouting off such things.
That just means that they lose weight at a different calorie intake. The equation is still the same. You have to burn more calories than you eat, whatever that amount may be, regardless of medical condition.
Yes and no. Sure, you have to eat at a deficit to lose. But, for some the deficit is greatly different than others. And why they can eat at a deficit (and sometimes still a significant deficit) and not still not lose. but they change the content of those calories, and then they can lose at that deficit (or less sometimes). That's why calories in and calories out is not always true for everyone (except for possibly weight gain/excess).
So basically, a bigger deficit than originally attempted, because their TDEE is lower than a typical person of their height, size, and energy level due to a medical issue. Weight is still lost in a deficit, medical condition notwithstanding. It's just a little harder to find that sweet spot of how many calories to consume in order to lose weight.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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