Low Carb, Paleo. Is this nonsense or science?

Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.

Of course, eat what you want.

Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....

Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.

And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.

Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.

Of course, eat what you want.

Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....

Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.

And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.

The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.

It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.

The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)

There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.

Excessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.

- Lyle Mcdonald Project

I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.

1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)

400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)

600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)

So that's about 301 calories for TEF.

Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.

400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)

600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)

1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)

So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.

Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.

Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.

Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.

Yes I am aware of lyle's point. My point in posting that was to show there is a significant thermogenic effect that he actually has to lower it. Using the numbers you provided, I converted them in to percentages.
carbs = 12.5%
Protein = 21.5%
Fat = 2.5%

My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)

Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories

TEF = 312.6 calories.

I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.

Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)

Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories

TEF = 349 calories

In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.

Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.

I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.

I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.

I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.

What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?

Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.

Thanks.

Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.

I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.

I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.

I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.

What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?

Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.

Thanks.

here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…

Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..

you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…

calories in vs calories out...

This isn't about losing weight.

It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..

Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk

No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.

i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...

I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.

I eat Keto, because my husband has inoperable stage IV cancer and his Oncologist at the Mayo Clinic wanted him to go on the diet. Obviously not for weight loss. Life is complicated enough right now so it was just easier for me to eat what he eats. As he has been on Keto longer his sleep has returned to normal, his appetite is back and best of all he is off all pain meds since Oct. He has also experienced very few of the usual Chemo side effects, no nausea, his energy is right back the day after a round and cold sensitivity is decreased. We will know in another week if if he has become operable. If nothing else he is feeling better than he has in months and really we will take whatever little positives we get.

Sorry to hear about this. I hope he gets better soon, with or w/o keto. Wishing you lots of strength.

The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.

It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.

The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)

There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.

Excessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.

- Lyle Mcdonald Project

I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.

1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)

400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)

600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)

So that's about 301 calories for TEF.

Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.

400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)

600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)

1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)

So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.

Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.

Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.

Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.

Yes I am aware of lyle's point. My point in posting that was to show there is a significant thermogenic effect that he actually has to lower it. Using the numbers you provided, I converted them in to percentages.
carbs = 12.5%
Protein = 21.5%
Fat = 2.5%

My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)

Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories

TEF = 312.6 calories.

I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.

Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)

Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories

TEF = 349 calories

In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.

Again, you're missing the point. 300 calories is the calories your body burns anyway during food digestion. It's not something above and beyond your TDEE. You boosted your protein by 200 calories (a significant amount) and in turn you will get a 30 calorie "boost" to your TEF. That's what? 2 teaspoons of sugar? Totally insignificant, especially taking into account the margin of error for both calories in (food intake) and calories out (TDEE) are on the scale of hundreds of calories either way.

Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....

Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.

And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.