Paleo = dying young?

lindsey1979

Primal Bull ****?

Anyway, did anyone answer me why I should eat Primal/Paleo because of Hashimoto's? I tried combing through the thread, but it's gotten massive.

Many thanks.

I did -- I'll see if I can go back and find the post.

Here was my response (on page 9 I think):

I think it's because a lot of people with auto-immune disorders have reactions to certain things -- gluten, casein, lactose and lechtins probably being the most notable -- which trigger the auto-immune reaction. Gluten is in wheat and other grains (and other items too), lactose and casein are in dairy products (less in full fat versions) and lechtins are in a bunch of things like lentils, peanuts, etc. The idea is that those with auto-immune issues are triggered by these things, whether it's Hashi's, Celiac, etc. More extreme cases like celiac can tolerate very little or no gluten. I don't think it's as extreme for people with Hashi's generally. So, if you don't eat these things, or reduce the amount you eat them, you don't end up with as many flare ups, running from hypo to hyper.

Some can tolerate the dairy and others can't -- it seems to be fine for me personally, but I don't really drink milk. The full-fat stuff like cheese, butter and cream is fine by me. Others with Hashi's notice issues with even that so they cut out all dairy too (which I think is inline with strict Paleo observers).

Also, if you have Hashi's you may also be insulin resistance (same if you have PCOS). It's something that they tend to see hand-in-hand, though there is a debate and which causes which. For that, Primal if it's lowish carb, also helps, especially if the carbs are low glycemic (i.e. not grains and certain fruits and veggies).

I can tell you personally, I feel much better on Primal/Paleo and have far less fatigue in general and even when I hit the swings, they're not as dramatic, which is HUGE for me. I also notice when I eat stuff with a lot of gluten in it -- have bread or a slice of pizza, my lymph glands swell on my neck, which is likely an indication of an auto-immune response and I get hit with the fatigue shortly thereafter (more extreme than just a sugar crash, though that is probably part of it too).

Not everyone with Hashi's feels better on Primal. But I do know a lot of people with Hashi's that do feel better on it. When I was eventually diagnosed with it, it was what my specialist recommended, but I'd already been eating that way for a while.

Achrya

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.

Trust me I don't believe a word that guy says!!!

Why not? He's given excellent advice a number of times in numerous threads, and calls people out on their BS.

I can't speak to his advice in this thread. But, from what I've seen, he's intellectually dishonest. He misrepresents and plays with semantic and touts them as being fact. Hard to have a legit discussion with someone that is intellectually dishonest.

Well I can speak to his advice in this thread (and others) and while he may be a bit...um, dogged about his pursuits I've never seen any manner of dishonesty. He does seem to appreciate if people practice what they preach and he may go after semantics and small details like a dog after a bone (NTTAWWT) but it's because semantics and small details matter in discussions like this.

You can't expect a person to not nitpick at every detail when the small nuances are what mark the difference between a valid claim and something akin to nonsense.

smittybuilt19

Why don't you view my diary back from 1/1/2014 - current. I strive for 80/20 under my primal diet, sometimes I come close or better, other times not as much. I do beer as part of my Primal diet. But pretty much you're going to find a huge salad every day (or multiple), a meat a veggie dish for dinner, eggs, nuts, diary and tea.

You're not proving anything by calling out the %20 of my 80/20, except that Paleo can be fun because it's designed to allow for treats and cheats. Nevermind the fact that last weekend was Valentines day and my daughter's birthday which is a great reason to have your Primal cheat day!

Unlike your diary which shows something to the tune of 3,000+ calories of drive-thru a day, now that we're throwing stones.

I don't actually care what you eat, but according to this definition, myself and about 3/4 of my friends list is "paleo." If this is a paleo diet, how is that word meaningful? You eat *less* fast food than some others? That just sounds like personal taste, I honestly don't get why it needs a name.

This is.... impressive.

Also, can you please define what you mean by "PBS please"?

Peanut Butter Sandwich

Mmm peanut butter (no bread though) heavily laden with grain. Very few nutrients and sometimes difficult to digest fibre, but that's the answer to an earlier post.

For real? I win? sort of...

Congrats!

You must be very...uh...proud.

God, if only I hadn't spent the last two hours reading this non-sense...


But, since there is now a trophy involved, yes I am very proud!!!



and, to answer the burning question, yes...I'm going to Disney World!

AsaThorsWoman

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.

It has 100% percent restriction on how much you can eat.

RESTRICTIVE DIET!!!!!!!!

It's calorie restrictive, not food restrictive >>
Your diet consists of WHAT you it, not how many calories.

The term restrictive diet - which gets banded around when the primals come on the forum means exactly what is says

Restrictive diet and I'm sorry but means calorie restricted as well as food choice.

They both have their boundaries.

Mmmm cheetos.

FWIW, Cheetos Puffs are gluten-free.

Yes, but they're not food.

jonnythan

lindsey1979

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.

I think for some, the caloric deficit will be enough. But for others, they need more than the deficit -- they will need the deficit in a very specific way (usually by low carbs or at least low glycemic carbs).

But I don't think the research supports this conclusion. It defies understanding to suggest that macronutrient percentages (within a reasonable, non-extreme range) materially affect the CO side of the CICO equation. Inflammation, water retention, other things that might lead to scale weight but not necessarily fat weight? Yeah, I might still be open to those possibilities...but macros materially affecting metabolism? Nope, I don't see it.

Also, I'd still like to know what makes a good carb "good" and a bad carb "bad". (And it had better be more than just fiber unless we're evaluating each of these foods in an unrealistic vacuum.)

I believe the macros affect it for those with metabolism issues. Insulin resistance is a good example. The body excretes excess insulin because the cells do not take up glucose as they should (they're insulin resistant). So, the body reads that as not having enough glucose in the blood (since the cells aren't getting it properly), the pancreas secretes insulin that triggers a hunger response to eat more carbs and you either eat more carbs than you really need to due to this broken metabolism (and end up gaining weight as more are converted into fat than normally would be), or deal with fatigue from the low glucose in the cells and have strong carb cravings. You can eat at a caloric deficit and still not lose weight if you have these issues because your body isn't metabolizing glucose properly.

A few things have been shown to reduce insulin sensitivity: (1) exercise, (2) weightloss, (3) low carb diet and (4) certain medications. However, it can be very difficult for some people to lose weight through just diet and exercise -- though if they switch to low carb, this can help significantly. And from some, they still need the medications, either temporarily or permanently, because the insulin resistance in them, for whatever reason, doesn't reverse - -stays permanently broken.

The carb part this macro equation is important because that's what spikes insulin (or at least is a major factor in insulin spiking). So, if you already have an exaggerated insulin response, limiting carbs (especially high glycemic index carbs) can make a HUGE difference in managing or reversing insulin resistance.

Look for people that often have insulin resistance -- diabetes, PCOS, metabolic syndrome, Hashi's,etc. -- and you'll see this quite a bit. Especially with type 2 diabetes research.

parkscs

But I don't think the research supports this conclusion. It defies understanding to suggest that macronutrient percentages (within a reasonable, non-extreme range) materially affect the CO side of the CICO equation. Inflammation, water retention, other things that might lead to scale weight but not necessarily fat weight? Yeah, I might still be open to those possibilities...but macros materially affecting metabolism? Nope, I don't see it.

Also, I'd still like to know what makes a good carb "good" and a bad carb "bad". (And it had better be more than just fiber unless we're evaluating each of these foods in an unrealistic vacuum.)

Studies I've seen reach different conclusions on this topic. I've seen a number of studies that concluded participants eating a low carb diet ended up losing more fat at the same number of calories than the control participants that were not eating low carb. One theory I've seen floated around is that it's actually more work for your body to burn fat for energy than carbs, and so this inefficiency/extra work leads to additional calories out (and earlier study speculated on the order of 200-300 calories/day). I've also seen other studies where there was no significant weight loss delta between the two groups and they concluded there was no demonstrable metabolic advantage to a low carb diet.

So, I think there's at least the possibility that macros can affect CO in a significant way but there's no consensus on the subject from what I've seen. As for what's good and bad, I couldn't tell you.

tennisdude2004

Why don't you view my diary back from 1/1/2014 - current. I strive for 80/20 under my primal diet, sometimes I come close or better, other times not as much. I do beer as part of my Primal diet. But pretty much you're going to find a huge salad every day (or multiple), a meat a veggie dish for dinner, eggs, nuts, diary and tea.

You're not proving anything by calling out the %20 of my 80/20, except that Paleo can be fun because it's designed to allow for treats and cheats. Nevermind the fact that last weekend was Valentines day and my daughter's birthday which is a great reason to have your Primal cheat day!

Unlike your diary which shows something to the tune of 3,000+ calories of drive-thru a day, now that we're throwing stones.

I don't actually care what you eat, but according to this definition, myself and about 3/4 of my friends list is "paleo." If this is a paleo diet, how is that word meaningful? You eat *less* fast food than some others? That just sounds like personal taste, I honestly don't get why it needs a name.

This is.... impressive.

Also, can you please define what you mean by "PBS please"?

Peanut Butter Sandwich

Mmm peanut butter (no bread though) heavily laden with grain. Very few nutrients and sometimes difficult to digest fibre, but that's the answer to an earlier post.

For real? I win? sort of...

You never said it was a competition, I would have tried harder. like technically peanut butter no - because peanuts are legumes lol.

branflakes1980

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.

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.

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.

Yes, those people with "diseases" as you say should see a physician, but the majority of people AGAIN that say they eat at a deficit and don't lose weight do not have any disease.

jonnythan

Studies I've seen reach different conclusions on this topic. I've seen a number of studies that concluded participants eating a low carb diet ended up losing more fat at the same number of calories than the control participants that were not eating low carb.

Links?

AsaThorsWoman

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.

Trust me I don't believe a word that guy says!!!

Why not? He's given excellent advice a number of times in numerous threads, and calls people out on their BS.

I can't speak to his advice in this thread. But, from what I've seen, he's intellectually dishonest. He misrepresents and plays with semantic and touts them as being fact. Hard to have a legit discussion with someone that is intellectually dishonest.

exactly!

Edited because all caps are rude.

lindsey1979

Why is anyone attacking anyone at all? She freely admitted that she had unusual events for which she deviated from Primal eating -- mainly a birthday party, v-day and a funeral. Based on that, you're going to call someone non-Primal?

The rigidity and holier-than-thou-ness of some people is just distasteful. Like a different way of life threatens you so much that you have to attack others.

I only looked at her diary because it became such a topic of discussion, but I'm not referring to the birthday/Valentine's Day/funeral days. I don't understand how items like "Fat free raspberry cheesecake yogurt" fit the Paleo/Primal model. There are several days in a row in January where there are brownies, rice, and ice cream sandwiches. There are plenty of days in January with something like pizza, donuts.

I guess my understanding of the diet is off. I thought it was about minimally processing and very close adherence to an avoided food list. That eating pizza or brownies would be considered cheating full-stop, not a built in part of the diet. (Not making the cheater a terrible person, just not a strict Primal adherent.)

Like most things, I think there is a significant spectrum. Strict Paleo is far more restrictive than Primal or permissive Paleo (the latter both allow dairy if you tolerate it well). They essentially look for foods the mimic the caveman times profile, even if they are more modern -- like full fat yogurt or butter -- which also means that limit a lot of the additives, artificial stuff, etc. But Primal generally aims for an 80/20 balance at the very least -- some go for 95/5 or full 100/0 adherence. Many start 80/20 and later find themselves more like 95/5.

But, generally, it's about progress not perfection. Have those non-Primal/Paleo things on occasion, but really try to get 80% of your stuff from Primal/Paleo sources. Even more so if you're looking to lose weight/fat or manage a specific issue (insulin resistance, Hashi's, gluten sensitivity, etc.).

tennisdude2004

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.

Trust me I don't believe a word that guy says!!!

Why not? He's given excellent advice a number of times in numerous threads, and calls people out on their BS.

I can't speak to his advice in this thread. But, from what I've seen, he's intellectually dishonest. He misrepresents and plays with semantic and touts them as being fact. Hard to have a legit discussion with someone that is intellectually dishonest.

Well I can speak to his advice in this thread (and others) and while he may be a bit...um, dogged about his pursuits I've never seen any manner of dishonesty. He does seem to appreciate if people practice what they preach and he may go after semantics and small details like a dog after a bone (NTTAWWT) but it's because semantics and small details matter in discussions like this.

You can't expect a person to not nitpick at every detail when the small nuances are what mark the difference between a valid claim and something akin to nonsense.

Bias!!!! your probably also a member.

AsaThorsWoman

Why is anyone attacking anyone at all? She freely admitted that she had unusual events for which she deviated from Primal eating -- mainly a birthday party, v-day and a funeral. Based on that, you're going to call someone non-Primal?

The rigidity and holier-than-thou-ness of some people is just distasteful. Like a different way of life threatens you so much that you have to attack others.

Well.. yes. She had about a month of mostly Primal eating, and about a month of distinctly non-Primal eating. Claiming that eating Primal cleared up a host of medical problems with that as your track record is more than a bit disingenuous.

That's your opinion.

And my opinion is that you are either mistaken or dis-honest.

I believe the latter, but that is my opinion.

jonnythan

Let's rewind a bit:

I really don't want to divulge how using MFP paired with Primal diet has cured cronic symptoms, given me more energy and the fat loss is icing on the cake of not being sick. Because they'll start trash talking calorie restriction and Paleo and telling me how much I inspired them in the same sentence.

As far as I can tell, you've only been "Primal" since January 1, 2014, and the last ~3 weeks have had significant (like 50+% of calories from non-Primal food) deviations from the Primal diet.

And yet you claim that Primal has cured you of chronic symptoms, given you more energy, and made you not sick?

That's what this whole argument has been about.

ndj1979

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.

He did say you did well in January, or did you miss that part?

is yogurt and pork rinds paleo/primal?

I don't recall caveman having access to Yoplait...

Yes, yogurt is very natural and great for your gut and pork rinds are pork skin and salt.

Both primal.

who knew...cavemen ate yogurt...you learn something new everday...

tennisdude2004

Studies I've seen reach different conclusions on this topic. I've seen a number of studies that concluded participants eating a low carb diet ended up losing more fat at the same number of calories than the control participants that were not eating low carb.

Links?

naughty - follow your own rules, yesterday you were asking for us to produce evidence to dispute your claims. You can't have it both ways - do your own research - most of the rest of us have.

marshrowan

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.

Trust me I don't believe a word that guy says!!!

Why not? He's given excellent advice a number of times in numerous threads, and calls people out on their BS.

Because he's calling THEM out on THEIR bs. If he was agreeing with them they'd love him.

yup, you got me, lol

parkscs

Studies I've seen reach different conclusions on this topic. I've seen a number of studies that concluded participants eating a low carb diet ended up losing more fat at the same number of calories than the control participants that were not eating low carb.

Links?

I don't have them offhand, as it's been a few months since I read it. I do recall at least one of the papers postulating it was due to the body having to perform additional work when breaking down dietary fat for energy rather than carbohydrates, with the counterpoint there being it's not necessarily a good thing that your body has to do that additional work every day even if the resulting effect is increased caloric output. I'll see if I can dig at least one of those papers up sometime when I'm not at work.

jonnythan

Studies I've seen reach different conclusions on this topic. I've seen a number of studies that concluded participants eating a low carb diet ended up losing more fat at the same number of calories than the control participants that were not eating low carb.

Links?

naughty - follow your own rules, yesterday you were asking for us to produce evidence to dispute your claims. You can't have it both ways - do your own research - most of the rest of us have.

So yesterday I was asking someone to produce evidence..... and today I'm asking for someone to produce evidence.

Yeah I'm all over the place!