Does quality of food matter if you remain within calories?

Ah so now the Paleo zealot is revealed!

someone else who needs reading comprehension. Im no "Zealot" for Paleo. i know proper nutrition because I know the body, and I said I use that as a BASE template, loosely, and modified, similar to the way Kris Cresser recommends in his book. there are a thousand dif ways people can eat and still be considered to follow "paleo" concepts. and using the 80/20 principle allows for things like white rice etc based on background. its actually SUCH a good nutrition protocol for humans they are using it in tests to heal autoimmune disease and Functional Medicine Practitioners are using this nutrition base for healing clients, u can argue with me and make fun, call me names but u can't refute the actual science that has been done on Paleo and Paleo like diet like Weston Price. I'm not talking about "Science" like vegans use, performed by vegan agenda based scientists for their purpose either, Paleos only "Agenda" is human health, no one can intelligently argue otherwise, I've read more than 30 dif books mostly by doctors on this and functional medicine, even "Functional Diagnostic Nutrition" uses Paleo as a base template. its really sad how close minded and ignorant people chose to be when the research is all out there.

Please provide reptuable (i.e., peer reviewed, published) evidence of any and all of your claims. And before you say it, "do your research", and "it's all out there" are not valid responses.

do you realize how long it takes to type and quote ONE resource ? haha, thats funny, there are literally hundreds in the one book called either "The Smarter Science of Slim" OR his new book "The Calorie Myth" by Jonathon Bailor, get the book, read it, get others, read them, "The Fat Switch" is another one, or "Its Hormones not Calories". those are but a FEW easy reads, I'm not going to spend the time to type out hundreds of paragraphs so you don't have to do anything, because whether you believe me or not is not my concern, keep ahold of OLD theories and myths until your media tells u otherwise, your weight concerns are yours, if you want the knowledge, do what I did, go get it yourself, I have given a couple references back in like page 1 or 2 about the cdc and the Harvard study on calories and body fatness being an inverse relationship.

They are asking for a copy pasta of a link.

I understand that too, however, do you think I have all of the studies I have read in front of me to link to ? nor would I spend a day or two to find them. read the books and then come back and tell me Im wrong after you follow the references he gives in his book, or you may be intrigued and find out something you thought u once knew is complete bull**** just like I did when I found out calorie method of fat loss is wrong and doesn't work long term or healthy.

ok, I dare you to experiment, if you eat "real food", and balanced meals, eat only enough grams of carbs a day to replenish glycogen lost, INCREASE everything else besides carbs, eat as much as u can, do HIIT cardio and lift and I promise the more food you eat the leaner you will get. will you take this challenge ? prob not, fear will likely stop you from trusting me.

No, your lack of making a coherent point is stopping us from trusting you.

Also, how do you know how many carbs you need to replace lost glycogen>?

Can I drink a bottle of oil on this plan?

You did not answer this question of mine

ok, I dare you to experiment, if you eat "real food", and balanced meals, eat only enough grams of carbs a day to replenish glycogen lost, INCREASE everything else besides carbs, eat as much as u can, do HIIT cardio and lift and I promise the more food you eat the leaner you will get. will you take this challenge ? prob not, fear will likely stop you from trusting me.

I have a BMR of 1707 (determined through an oxygen consumption test) so no, of course I'm not going to take on your "challenge" and eat 2500+ calories because I know damn well I will gain weight- whether I eat whole foods or junk food.

By the way, I already eat strictly whole foods (Mediterranean diet, low carb, moderate protein, moderate fat) due to insulin resistance and hypoglycemia.

In other words, your theory has been debunked.

Ok, so your BMR is 1707, do you think it STAYS at that ? and eating less will cause a permanent deficit ?, it will create a deficit for about two weeks, then you will hit a plateau because your 1707 BMR WILL drop to just under what you are eating per day. If you DO take my challenge however, eating MORE than you need will A: RAISE your metabolic rate and thermogenisis (only 1 of the 5 ways we burn calories btw) B: your body will utilize more of the excess calories to build and repair muscle and the body in general, C: it costs 10% roughly of what you eat just to digest the food so you end up with only 90% at most. your body ramps UP fat burning enzymes and hormones. result is you WILL lose more fat than before and perform better. calories are no different that water, you drink more you piss more out, drink less, you retain more. like I said, its called a "Negative Feedback Loop". think of it as a fire, you are feeding your fire less fuel than it needs to keep burning hot, it gets smaller and less hot, the metabolism does the same thing. see, you all think that your BMR remains the same no matter your calorie intake, this is not true, the body will try to match by lowing or raising it. so you will lose fat AND muscle tissue until your BMR is say 1200, then you stop losing and can actually gain/retain body fat and lose more muscle. its sad that no one really understand this.

You will hit a plateau in 2 weeks? Really?

You do realize that your BMR is not your TDEE?

Also, please could you show where eating at a deficit causes a permanent drop in your BMR outside what it would due to weight lose. Also, please show me how you will lose weight if not at a deficit?

And again, please stop making assumptions.

im not talking about "Losing Weight" here, Im talking about a positive shift in body comp. you know, more muscle and less fat AT THE SAME TIME, yes its possible. tell me if calories count, how could I have a 190 pound athlete eating 4,500 calories ( 20 whole egg omelets and piles of bacon at one meal sometimes) right up to a physique show, steadily losing body fat percentage and gaining LBM ? his BMR was prob only 2000-2200 plus his daily TDEE may have been 3500-4000 at most in expenditure. the REASON that you lose FAT while over consuming calories from real food, no sugar, and controlled carbs only, is that our body has a "Calorie conservation" mode and it also has a "calorie wasting" mode. we also burn calories in 5 diff pathways. Mechanical is but 1 path. Thermoregulation is 2, Hormonal (production and utilization of them) is 3, Chemically ( digestion etc) is 4 and Neurological is 5, the more calories we consume the higher our nervous energy usage is, creating more energy for exercise. you are SO fixated on fat loss being your TDEE - intake= fat loss. in reality what has to happen in our body during a deficit is not necessarily fat utilization, you assume that is what happens, what really happens is lower calories lowers TOTAL weight, meaning you lose MUSCLE, other tissues, some fat, and you don't recover as well and also lose bone tissue if done long enough. I'm not talking "Weight loss" once again, Im talking Body Composition change. the excess calories, if healthy, will be utilized for healthy tissue building, not fat storage, thats a very simplistic idea of the body, its not cause and effect. you eat MORE of anything and the body tries to maintain a physiological "Normal" level, like sodium/potassium balance and water, or Oxygen to Carbon Dioxide ratio in the blood controls breathing rate. hell, did you know you will die if you breath PURE oxygen ? it will make you stop breathing due to the "hypoxic drive", until you get a breath with carbon dioxide in it to stimulate the hypoxic drive, O2 in blood gets low, breathing goes up, it gets too high, breathing goes down. you get too hot, you sweat to return to homeostasis, what makes you think calories are any different ? it is ALL controlled by Negative Feedback Mechanisms. true biological actions/reactions are medically known. look into the book "the calorie myth" and he give more than enough medical reference proving my words. as well as "the fat switch" by a doctor or Dr. Jack Kruse's works/website. its all out there.

You are talking about recomping. Then why did you just not say that?.

Are you suggesting that for everyone?

YES !!! why not ? isn't that what EVERYONE is looking for ? less fat more muscle, a fast metabolism and high performance and recovery and the ability to eat WHATEVER and burn it right off ? eating this way, Ive had clients lose FAT even faster than lowering calories ! with the bonus that they don't have to worry about slipping or falling off their "diet" , its just "healthy eating" and abundance of food, its a positive relationship with food, not seeing it as the fat storing enemy. this is how you maintain healthy weight over a LIFETIME not just for 10 or 30 years having to ALWAYS count calories and bull**** that don't matter. THIS is the right way and healthy way.

So, someone significantly overweight should recomp and not actually try to lose weight?

For someone who has been slamming people for not willing to think of anything outside their current ideas and beliefs, the statement "THIS is the right way" is a little hypocritical don't you think?

And again, with the assumptions - maybe not everyone is looking for more muscle.

Also, are you saying that I can eat 6,000 calories and not gain weight?

yes thats what Im saying. hell, phelps ate 12,000 per day of a lot of junk and got leaner, and he didn't burn it all thru exercise, think about it. you have a food warehouse and are in charge of rationing out food to the village, you get a big shipment each day, you give out a bit extra to people….not one day something happens and they only can deliver ONE shipment of food per week to you, are u still gonna give out extra ? or will you be giving out LESS food until shipments are increased ? thats how the body sees fat. I'm trying to put this in terms u will "get". yes, the "right way" to lose weight (they will still lose weight due to more pounds of fat being shed than there are pounds of muscle being built, women build muscle slowly), its not "close minded" for me to say that this is the healthier way, the long term way, because there are only two ways to do this, short term thru caloric deprivation (95% failure rate) or healthy eating of an abundance of food, which is long term sustainable, its how people ate before we started tinkering with "Calories" and screwing things up by over thinking things and sticking our hands in trying to manipulate nature like the arrogant humans we are. Im betting if you eat healthy, limit carb intake to say 300 grams per day (enough to replace lost glycogen but not overflow) and eat as much as u can of everything else, ESP Fats like saturated fat from natural fed animals (healthiest for the human body, being solid at room temp means its the most stable against oxidative damage and free radical production in the body) and the more u eat, the leaner u will get. I have done this on many clients and friends as well.

Enough with the patronizing. You are talking about metabolic adaptation, and yes it works both ways - but there absolutely is an upper limit.

Also, you mention in your other post about choosing foods based on ethic backgrounds and metabolic type - please share studies or even respectable articles that show that you can actually do this and to the degree that is positively impacts your BMR.

Good luck with recomping a woman who is 300lb and getting their body fat to a healthy level!

You totally lost me at the food warehouse analogy - it made less sense than the fire one.

ETA: you keep throwing the 95% statistic around - do you have one that shows that following your suggestions (which I am not sure exactly what they are other than to recomp), shows a higher success rate.

im not trying to patronize you. I'm simply trying to get you to understand an obviously foreign concept. who is more apt to throw money away and randomly spend it and who is likely to save their money, a Rich man or a poor man ? the correct answer is the RICH man, because he makes so much he don't NEED to save it, the poor man will do what he can to make enough cuts in his life to be able to SAVE his little income. you can find the calorie diet success rate of 95% Anywhere online , its really not hard if you know how to use google. its proven, even the company (which i don't agree with on most things, uses that in their certification training) I HAVE recomped women 275-300lbs down to 160 and 20% body fat , u want more proof like that, go to some cross fit boxes and find plenty of ladies who lost tons of fat by eating MORE. its biology not rocket science man. the only "Upper limit" is your appetite, once they recover their BMR from caloric dieting and are eating like 3000 cal a day, they can start going off of hunger at that point and the body will self regulate and lose excess fat. it will reach a "happy fat" percent eventually and at that point if they want to lean out more, they adjust carbs and eat MORE calories so the body is then "OK" with allowing the loss of more precious fat energy. the only drive for the body to rid itself of stored energy is to let it see more than enough coming in, if it sees less than it needs coming in it will begin to make changes to conserve that energy, and the less you eat and harder u work to "burn calories" the worse this gets. Like I said, I do this daily with men and women who are plenty obese, they love being able to eat as much as they can of good food and lose more fat, blows their minds, hell it still blows my mind, I use to count calories and macros and do this crazy dance, but I'm telling you its not needed and backwards anyway.

so you think the people on here who initially responded to me with attacks and jokes deserve my respect ? few have even attempted to engage me with the slightest intelligence and open-mindedness on this topic, they are So brainwashed in the calorie world that I'm just a heretic to them, its fine, i KNOW the truth and how a body really responds to food intake, i don't have the best comm skills ok, not that its anyones business but that comes with being "high functioning aspergers", and if anyone knows aspergers, they take their field of study SERIOUSLY and tend to learn WAY more than most others, like tesla, einstein, etc, no I'm not saying I'm on their level, but i am saying that i know what I'm doing when it comes to this and try to spread the word so people can stop the calorie madness. but i don't care about the attacks, i will talk to those who are willing to question their beliefs and humor me in what I'm saying.

I would like to take this moment to point out that any good scientist needs to be able to communicate their findings, both to their peers, and to the general public in a clear and concise manner. Now admittedly, this is sometimes difficult given the complexity of scientific topics, but all credibility is lost when the presenter fails to even attempt coherent dialogue.

And that is all I will say on this matter, because while I understand the premise put forward, I refuse to engage an individual who has demonstrated an inability to discuss a concept with a minimum of common courtesy and a respect for the intelligence of their audience.

ok, I dare you to experiment, if you eat "real food", and balanced meals, eat only enough grams of carbs a day to replenish glycogen lost, INCREASE everything else besides carbs, eat as much as u can, do HIIT cardio and lift and I promise the more food you eat the leaner you will get. will you take this challenge ? prob not, fear will likely stop you from trusting me.

I have a BMR of 1707 (determined through an oxygen consumption test) so no, of course I'm not going to take on your "challenge" and eat 2500+ calories because I know damn well I will gain weight- whether I eat whole foods or junk food.

By the way, I already eat strictly whole foods (Mediterranean diet, low carb, moderate protein, moderate fat) due to insulin resistance and hypoglycemia.

In other words, your theory has been debunked.

Ok, so your BMR is 1707, do you think it STAYS at that ? and eating less will cause a permanent deficit ?, it will create a deficit for about two weeks, then you will hit a plateau because your 1707 BMR WILL drop to just under what you are eating per day. If you DO take my challenge however, eating MORE than you need will A: RAISE your metabolic rate and thermogenisis (only 1 of the 5 ways we burn calories btw) B: your body will utilize more of the excess calories to build and repair muscle and the body in general, C: it costs 10% roughly of what you eat just to digest the food so you end up with only 90% at most. your body ramps UP fat burning enzymes and hormones. result is you WILL lose more fat than before and perform better. calories are no different that water, you drink more you piss more out, drink less, you retain more. like I said, its called a "Negative Feedback Loop". think of it as a fire, you are feeding your fire less fuel than it needs to keep burning hot, it gets smaller and less hot, the metabolism does the same thing. see, you all think that your BMR remains the same no matter your calorie intake, this is not true, the body will try to match by lowing or raising it. so you will lose fat AND muscle tissue until your BMR is say 1200, then you stop losing and can actually gain/retain body fat and lose more muscle. its sad that no one really understand this.

You will hit a plateau in 2 weeks? Really?

You do realize that your BMR is not your TDEE?

Also, please could you show where eating at a deficit causes a permanent drop in your BMR outside what it would due to weight lose. Also, please show me how you will lose weight if not at a deficit?

And again, please stop making assumptions.

im not talking about "Losing Weight" here, Im talking about a positive shift in body comp. you know, more muscle and less fat AT THE SAME TIME, yes its possible. tell me if calories count, how could I have a 190 pound athlete eating 4,500 calories ( 20 whole egg omelets and piles of bacon at one meal sometimes) right up to a physique show, steadily losing body fat percentage and gaining LBM ? his BMR was prob only 2000-2200 plus his daily TDEE may have been 3500-4000 at most in expenditure. the REASON that you lose FAT while over consuming calories from real food, no sugar, and controlled carbs only, is that our body has a "Calorie conservation" mode and it also has a "calorie wasting" mode. we also burn calories in 5 diff pathways. Mechanical is but 1 path. Thermoregulation is 2, Hormonal (production and utilization of them) is 3, Chemically ( digestion etc) is 4 and Neurological is 5, the more calories we consume the higher our nervous energy usage is, creating more energy for exercise. you are SO fixated on fat loss being your TDEE - intake= fat loss. in reality what has to happen in our body during a deficit is not necessarily fat utilization, you assume that is what happens, what really happens is lower calories lowers TOTAL weight, meaning you lose MUSCLE, other tissues, some fat, and you don't recover as well and also lose bone tissue if done long enough. I'm not talking "Weight loss" once again, Im talking Body Composition change. the excess calories, if healthy, will be utilized for healthy tissue building, not fat storage, thats a very simplistic idea of the body, its not cause and effect. you eat MORE of anything and the body tries to maintain a physiological "Normal" level, like sodium/potassium balance and water, or Oxygen to Carbon Dioxide ratio in the blood controls breathing rate. hell, did you know you will die if you breath PURE oxygen ? it will make you stop breathing due to the "hypoxic drive", until you get a breath with carbon dioxide in it to stimulate the hypoxic drive, O2 in blood gets low, breathing goes up, it gets too high, breathing goes down. you get too hot, you sweat to return to homeostasis, what makes you think calories are any different ? it is ALL controlled by Negative Feedback Mechanisms. true biological actions/reactions are medically known. look into the book "the calorie myth" and he give more than enough medical reference proving my words. as well as "the fat switch" by a doctor or Dr. Jack Kruse's works/website. its all out there.

You are talking about recomping. Then why did you just not say that?.

Are you suggesting that for everyone?

YES !!! why not ? isn't that what EVERYONE is looking for ? less fat more muscle, a fast metabolism and high performance and recovery and the ability to eat WHATEVER and burn it right off ? eating this way, Ive had clients lose FAT even faster than lowering calories ! with the bonus that they don't have to worry about slipping or falling off their "diet" , its just "healthy eating" and abundance of food, its a positive relationship with food, not seeing it as the fat storing enemy. this is how you maintain healthy weight over a LIFETIME not just for 10 or 30 years having to ALWAYS count calories and bull**** that don't matter. THIS is the right way and healthy way.

So, someone significantly overweight should recomp and not actually try to lose weight?

For someone who has been slamming people for not willing to think of anything outside their current ideas and beliefs, the statement "THIS is the right way" is a little hypocritical don't you think?

And again, with the assumptions - maybe not everyone is looking for more muscle.

Also, are you saying that I can eat 6,000 calories and not gain weight?

yes thats what Im saying. hell, phelps ate 12,000 per day of a lot of junk and got leaner, and he didn't burn it all thru exercise, think about it. you have a food warehouse and are in charge of rationing out food to the village, you get a big shipment each day, you give out a bit extra to people….not one day something happens and they only can deliver ONE shipment of food per week to you, are u still gonna give out extra ? or will you be giving out LESS food until shipments are increased ? thats how the body sees fat. I'm trying to put this in terms u will "get". yes, the "right way" to lose weight (they will still lose weight due to more pounds of fat being shed than there are pounds of muscle being built, women build muscle slowly), its not "close minded" for me to say that this is the healthier way, the long term way, because there are only two ways to do this, short term thru caloric deprivation (95% failure rate) or healthy eating of an abundance of food, which is long term sustainable, its how people ate before we started tinkering with "Calories" and screwing things up by over thinking things and sticking our hands in trying to manipulate nature like the arrogant humans we are. Im betting if you eat healthy, limit carb intake to say 300 grams per day (enough to replace lost glycogen but not overflow) and eat as much as u can of everything else, ESP Fats like saturated fat from natural fed animals (healthiest for the human body, being solid at room temp means its the most stable against oxidative damage and free radical production in the body) and the more u eat, the leaner u will get. I have done this on many clients and friends as well.

Enough with the patronizing. You are talking about metabolic adaptation, and yes it works both ways - but there absolutely is an upper limit.

Also, you mention in your other post about choosing foods based on ethic backgrounds and metabolic type - please share studies or even respectable articles that show that you can actually do this and to the degree that is positively impacts your BMR.

Good luck with recomping a woman who is 300lb and getting their body fat to a healthy level!

You totally lost me at the food warehouse analogy - it made less sense than the fire one.

ETA: you keep throwing the 95% statistic around - do you have one that shows that following your suggestions (which I am not sure exactly what they are other than to recomp), shows a higher success rate.

im not trying to patronize you. I'm simply trying to get you to understand an obviously foreign concept. who is more apt to throw money away and randomly spend it and who is likely to save their money, a Rich man or a poor man ? the correct answer is the RICH man, because he makes so much he don't NEED to save it, the poor man will do what he can to make enough cuts in his life to be able to SAVE his little income. you can find the calorie diet success rate of 95% Anywhere online , its really not hard if you know how to use google. its proven, even the company (which i don't agree with on most things, uses that in their certification training) I HAVE recomped women 275-300lbs down to 160 and 20% body fat , u want more proof like that, go to some cross fit boxes and find plenty of ladies who lost tons of fat by eating MORE. its biology not rocket science man. the only "Upper limit" is your appetite, once they recover their BMR from caloric dieting and are eating like 3000 cal a day, they can start going off of hunger at that point and the body will self regulate and lose excess fat. it will reach a "happy fat" percent eventually and at that point if they want to lean out more, they adjust carbs and eat MORE calories so the body is then "OK" with allowing the loss of more precious fat energy. the only drive for the body to rid itself of stored energy is to let it see more than enough coming in, if it sees less than it needs coming in it will begin to make changes to conserve that energy, and the less you eat and harder u work to "burn calories" the worse this gets. Like I said, I do this daily with men and women who are plenty obese, they love being able to eat as much as they can of good food and lose more fat, blows their minds, hell it still blows my mind, I use to count calories and macros and do this crazy dance, but I'm telling you its not needed and backwards anyway.

Point in case re assumptions (and condescending)....what you are trying to say is not a foreign concept to me at all. However, I calories assuming you eat certain foods.

You have not shown one shred of evidence to support your claims.

Ans stahp with the analogies. We are talking about the human physiology - not a car, fire, food warehouse or rich man.

I did not ask about the 95% success rate - I am aware of it - reread my question. And if you want to make a credible argument, do not tell someone to google something to support *your* assertion.

Please look up what recomp means - it does not mean taking someone from 300lb to 160lb.

sorry but at that moment someone respectfully asked me a question, instead of just being ignorant like most of you.

i think someone is bored.

That's what happens when mom and dad are out for the evening and you get to stay up late.

haha, nice attempt at a personal attack (once again), I'm 36, and Ive studied the human body prob as long as you have been alive, at least 20 years, I was a Combat Medic in the Army and have had PLENTY of training and experience gained in REAL WORKING CONDITIONS, with great Doctors, not a little "College" frat house. ever wonder, maybe I'm NOT a "heretic" and possibly understand the body a little better than you ?, oh god forbid ANYONE knows the body better than you !! lol. man, never have I met so many close minded people in one place, refusing to even attempt to wonder if what they think they know may be wrong, I'm sorry but if you aren't questioning EVERYTHING you learn from ANYONE then you are never going to know that you didn't know.

Your posts do not exactly scream maturity. But congrats on mastering the quote function.

As Sara has been saying, you make an awful lot of assumptions.
To be completely honest, I can't even begin to consider your posts because they are almost illegible.

what "assumptions" do you think I'm making ? because they may be assumptions to you and just something I know that you don't to me…..im curious…..

You are assuming everyone who is opposed to you is close minded and that they haven't done their research.
You assume people's objections to your posts are just about your opposition to calories in/calories out.
You also assume you are absolutely correct.
You assume you are smarter than everyone here.

This is actually a well balanced read regarding the Paleo diet imo.

It does actually indicate that it is good for weight loss - not surprising - it is high protein (good satiety and high TEF), has fruits and veggies and nuts and seeds. Also satiating. Few calorie dense but not very satiating foods. Its a way to restrict calories.

What it does not do, and there is nothing out there to indicating otherwise, is allow you to eat unlimited foods and therefore consume calories, without ever putting on weight.

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet

i don't have the best comm skills ok, not that its anyones business but that comes with being "high functioning aspergers", and if anyone knows aspergers, they take their field of study SERIOUSLY and tend to learn WAY more than most others, like tesla, einstein, etc, no I'm not saying I'm on their level, but i am saying that i know what I'm doing when it comes to this and try to spread the word so people can stop the calorie madness. but i don't care about the attacks, i will talk to those who are willing to question their beliefs and humor me in what I'm saying.