bread/pasta carbs and fruit/veggie carbs??

Not quite. I know this is an n=1 experiment, and may be quite simplified, but it is an example of eating a surplus of calories from fats and proteins does not equate to weight gain. Remove the fats and add in carbs, and I think the results would be different.

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

Not quite. I know this is an n=1 experiment, and may be quite simplified, but it is an example of eating a surplus of calories from fats and proteins does not equate to weight gain. Remove the fats and add in carbs, and I think the results would be different.

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

That guy's diet was only 21 days long. Not nearly long enough for a reliable result. Also, see the poster above who stated that low carb dieters tend to lose a lot of water weight initially, which is likely what happened with that guy, he put on some fat stores and lost some water.

Simple carbs, like in processed foods are different from complex carbs, like in veggies. Simple carbs release energy instantly -- that is why it is so enjoyable to eat them. The problem is, all that energy is released and in not used up fast, turns to fat. And, your body releases insulin and other hormones to bring blood sugar down. So your sugar levels will come down just as fast, you won't like that feeling, and you natural response will be that soon you will want to reach for more simple carbs again. It can be a cycle for some people.

Complex carbs release energy slower, so you don't have those crashes. Most whole foods have a combination of both carbs.

Also, body resists burning fat stores. You have to reach certain threshold before that process activates. It would rather you eat something, so you will get a hunger signal.
It will first go for easiest energy - glucose in your blood steam. So slow release is more beneficial.

Also some methods in which calories are calculated (oxygen consumed in burning for example) don't account for the fiber you can't process and will poop out. So in reality you process even less calories from veggies than listed. Not so with bread or pasta. You get all of them, and very efficiently.

So this "a calorie is a calorie" mantra is a very oversimplified statement, to the point of being misleading.

Simple carbs, like in processed foods are different from complex carbs, like in veggies. Simple carbs release energy instantly -- that is why it is so enjoyable to eat them. The problem is, all that energy is released and in not used up fast, turns to fat. And, your body releases insulin and other hormones to bring blood sugar down. So your sugar levels will come down just as fast, you won't like that feeling, and you natural response will be that soon you will want to reach for more simple carbs again. It can be a cycle for some people.

Complex carbs release energy slower, so you don't have those crashes. Most whole foods have a combination of both carbs.

Also, body resists burning fat stores. You have to reach certain threshold before that process activates. It would rather you eat something, so you will get a hunger signal.
It will first go for easiest energy - glucose in your blood steam. So slow release is more beneficial.

Also some methods in which calories are calculated (oxygen consumed in burning for example) don't account for the fiber you can't process and will poop out. So in reality you process even less calories from veggies than listed. Not so with bread or pasta. You get all of them, and very efficiently.

So this "a calorie is a calorie" mantra is a very oversimplified statement, to the point of being misleading.

What is oversimplified is the belief that lack of control plays no part in weight gain. What happens if one doesn't "reach for more simple carbs" and remains in a caloric deficit? Will they magically gain weight because they ate a simple carb? And you are aware that ingesting protein causes insulin to be released as well?

Oversimplifying. The diet forces the body to burn fats rather than carbohydrates (because there are none). It is not merely cal in/cal out.

At its core, it is cals in vs. out. If you were eating a caloric surplus, then your body would store the excess fats and protein you are eating as fats. So yes, it is really that simple.

'at its core' does not mean 'this is the sole reason any diet works ever and therefore they are all the same'

Do you believe that eating say, 1300 calories of vegetables & meats would yield identical results to eating 1300 cals of mcdonalds?

In terms of weight loss? Yes. Absolutely.

I completely disagree. Please let me bore you with my story so you see why. I will try to keep it pretty brief.

I work at a very sedentary desk job. I spent 3 months eating lite n easy, a diet meal plan that's delivered weekly. I alternated between the 1500 and 1200 plans, hoarding snacks so that I was at 1350cals per day. I went to the gym for yoga, weights or cardio about 2-3 times a week. In those 3 months, I lost about 2-3 kg and every gram felt like a fight.

So I switched to paleo/primal. I ditched the diet food and filled up on fresh fruit, veg, meat & eggs. I cooked everything in butter. I ate about 1500-1600 cals daily. I stopped going to the gym because I didn't have time outside all the planning, prepping & cooking required - so lets say that the calorie deficit was a bit less than on lite n easy. In the first month, I lost 4kg easily.

I ate loads of carbs from fruit & veg, it definitely wasn't ketosis.

Now after the second month, I'm another 2kg down & my figure is changing as I've made time for the gym again. I'm back at my old plateau already, which I haven't been at for about 18 months.

so please explain why I managed to do so much better on one diet than another? By your reasoning, the lite & easy plan should have worked better as it had a more dramatic cals in/out ratio.

are you saying I pooped out 4kg?? :laugh: i wish.

my poop is just fine regardless of what i'm eating :ohwell: didn't notice a significant difference in that regard when I switched.


edit: also agree with the middle bit, its so hard to explain that all food is not equal, all people are not equal.

though with that last bit, there is a big bodybuilding thing going on in my town and when they're 'bulking' they definitely do eat a lot of Mcdonalds, haha. Not when cutting though.

Why do you wish to poop out 4 kilograms?

I wish it was that easy to lose weight. I imagine it wouldn't be very pleasant to do that in one go though.

Oversimplifying. The diet forces the body to burn fats rather than carbohydrates (because there are none). It is not merely cal in/cal out.

At its core, it is cals in vs. out. If you were eating a caloric surplus, then your body would store the excess fats and protein you are eating as fats. So yes, it is really that simple.

'at its core' does not mean 'this is the sole reason any diet works ever and therefore they are all the same'

Do you believe that eating say, 1300 calories of vegetables & meats would yield identical results to eating 1300 cals of mcdonalds?

In terms of weight loss? Yes. Absolutely.

I completely disagree. Please let me bore you with my story so you see why. I will try to keep it pretty brief.

I work at a very sedentary desk job. I spent 3 months eating lite n easy, a diet meal plan that's delivered weekly. I alternated between the 1500 and 1200 plans, hoarding snacks so that I was at 1350cals per day. I went to the gym for yoga, weights or cardio about 2-3 times a week. In those 3 months, I lost about 2-3 kg and every gram felt like a fight.

So I switched to paleo/primal. I ditched the diet food and filled up on fresh fruit, veg, meat & eggs. I cooked everything in butter. I ate about 1500-1600 cals daily. I stopped going to the gym because I didn't have time outside all the planning, prepping & cooking required - so lets say that the calorie deficit was a bit less than on lite n easy. In the first month, I lost 4kg easily.

I ate loads of carbs from fruit & veg, it definitely wasn't ketosis.

Now after the second month, I'm another 2kg down & my figure is changing as I've made time for the gym again. I'm back at my old plateau already, which I haven't been at for about 18 months.

so please explain why I managed to do so much better on one diet than another? By your reasoning, the lite & easy plan should have worked better as it had a more dramatic cals in/out ratio.

First, Congrats on your weight loss. That's awesome and keep it up.

However, you are missing the point again. Weight loss is about calories in vs out. No one here said it had to be dramatic. You answered your own question. People lose weight by increasing calories also. Did you ever hear the term "eat more to lose more"?You need fuel to burn food and energy. Your story is not unique. I increased my calories to 3100 from 2800 and I lost 2 pounds. And the increase came from mainly carbs! My body was able to function better and metabolize more energy because of more energy coming in. Seems crazy but that's how it works sometimes. You lost weight or gained weight due to calories, not the diet you follow.

Oversimplifying. The diet forces the body to burn fats rather than carbohydrates (because there are none). It is not merely cal in/cal out.

At its core, it is cals in vs. out. If you were eating a caloric surplus, then your body would store the excess fats and protein you are eating as fats. So yes, it is really that simple.

'at its core' does not mean 'this is the sole reason any diet works ever and therefore they are all the same'

Do you believe that eating say, 1300 calories of vegetables & meats would yield identical results to eating 1300 cals of mcdonalds?

In terms of weight loss? Yes. Absolutely.

I completely disagree. Please let me bore you with my story so you see why. I will try to keep it pretty brief.

I work at a very sedentary desk job. I spent 3 months eating lite n easy, a diet meal plan that's delivered weekly. I alternated between the 1500 and 1200 plans, hoarding snacks so that I was at 1350cals per day. I went to the gym for yoga, weights or cardio about 2-3 times a week. In those 3 months, I lost about 2-3 kg and every gram felt like a fight.

So I switched to paleo/primal. I ditched the diet food and filled up on fresh fruit, veg, meat & eggs. I cooked everything in butter. I ate about 1500-1600 cals daily. I stopped going to the gym because I didn't have time outside all the planning, prepping & cooking required - so lets say that the calorie deficit was a bit less than on lite n easy. In the first month, I lost 4kg easily.

I ate loads of carbs from fruit & veg, it definitely wasn't ketosis.

Now after the second month, I'm another 2kg down & my figure is changing as I've made time for the gym again. I'm back at my old plateau already, which I haven't been at for about 18 months.

so please explain why I managed to do so much better on one diet than another? By your reasoning, the lite & easy plan should have worked better as it had a more dramatic cals in/out ratio.

It depends on specific variables. The meals you were having delivered could have been higher in sodium, causing water retention. And the meals you're making for yourself now, are you measuring everything you eat on a food scale or eyeballing? It can definitely matter.

Last year I spent 3 months traveling for work and was eating fast food 3x per day. I lose 45lbs doing this.

Carbs are 50% my intake, and almost all my carbs are simple. Oh nooooo