Mark's Daily Apple
sbarrett7171
Posts: 65 Member
Mark Sisson is the author of Primal Blueprint and owner of the internet newsletter and Facebook page "Mark's Daily Apple"
Anyone follow? I like his stuff
Anyone follow? I like his stuff
0
Replies
-
He's a joke. Seriously, some of the things he's said have just made me laugh. Like when he called a daily carb intake of 150+g per day as "insidious, steady weight gain."0
-
Mark is great. Very informative. He knows his stuff. There's a lot of primal eaters here on this website.
I have read his book and read his forum upon occasion.
Primal is a great way of life.0 -
Sisson is great. Get on his site daily.0
-
I like the fact he puts out a lot of free information about Primal/Paleo. You don't have to buy his books to follow the plan.0
-
Do you agree that 150+g carbs per day is "steady, insidious weight gain"?Mark is great. Very informative. He knows his stuff. There's a lot of primal eaters here on this website.
I have read his book and read his forum upon occasion.
Primal is a great way of life.0 -
right after my visit to MFP - I check out MDA!0
-
Do you agree that 150+g carbs per day is "steady, insidious weight gain"?Mark is great. Very informative. He knows his stuff. There's a lot of primal eaters here on this website.
I have read his book and read his forum upon occasion.
Primal is a great way of life.
Yes, for me it's exactly like that! If I keep my carbs around 100 gm/day, I'm losing weight. If my carbs go up, so does the scale.
And yes, I have experimented. I can increase my protein/fats with no increase in weight (provided of course that my calories are constant), but if I increase the carbs, even if my calories remain constant, I start to get that mush around the middle, and I will slooowly gain weight.0 -
1) Does this apply to the general population as his site did not specify?Yes, for me it's exactly like that! If I keep my carbs around 100 gm/day, I'm losing weight. If my carbs go up, so does the scale.
And yes, I have experimented. I can increase my protein/fats with no increase in weight (provided of course that my calories are constant), but if I increase the carbs, even if my calories remain constant, I start to get that mush around the middle, and I will slooowly gain weight.
2) Are you insulin resistant?
3) If the answer to #2 is 'no' - then you are miscalculating.
4) Do you realize that a single gram of CHO = contains 3-5g water? Of course higher carbs can mean a SHORT-TERM effect of higher weight as a diet in carbs naturally has more water weight. That has zero bearing on body composition and fat loss/gain, however.
5) I'm willing to bet $100 that "mush" is merely water weight, and if you maintained a caloric deficit regardless of carb intake for another 2-6 weeks, it would disappear.0 -
He's a joke. Seriously, some of the things he's said have just made me laugh. Like when he called a daily carb intake of 150+g per day as "insidious, steady weight gain."
He's not a joke but that carb chart needs to go away. There are way to many other factors to consider. I'm Paleo/Primal and have issues with that chart. I lost 6 pounds at 360g of carbs a day but that load did blow my triglycerides up(from 70 to 260). You can't fit all that's in play on a two dimensional chart. That chart would make more sense applied to sedentary people.0 -
The man was/is a world class athlete for many years. He has had a lot of experience with heavy training and carbs and the effects it has had on his own body. Although some of his suggestions might sound "goofy", I can't argue with my 8% fat loss in 4 months following his lifestyle plan. Carb intake vs. weigh increase varies from person to person. For me, I can stay around 100 and not gain weight. Around 50 I start melting fat. Above 150, I start to gain weight. If you are fine with eating a high carbohydrate diet and be able to keep your blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar in check then I envy you. However, for me, it is how I want to live and I am happy sites like Mark's Daily Apple are out there!0
-
The man was/is a world class athlete for many years. He has had a lot of experience with heavy training and carbs and the effects it has had on his own body. Although some of his suggestions might sound "goofy", I can't argue with my 8% fat loss in 4 months following his lifestyle plan. Carb intake vs. weigh increase varies from person to person. For me, I can stay around 100 and not gain weight. Around 50 I start melting fat. Above 150, I start to gain weight. If you are fine with eating a high carbohydrate diet and be able to keep your blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar in check then I envy you. However, for me, it is how I want to live and I am happy sites like Mark's Daily Apple are out there!
Couldn't have said it better myself. My body doesn't "do" carbs well and with my mom being diabetic I'm not taking any chances. Does that mean I won't end up with diabetes some day? Not necessarily but my energy levels are through the roof on <50g's carbs per day and I don't really get sick.0 -
MDA is def not a joke. It is a holistic way of living a healthy lifestyle - it's not about the eating. He covers all ascepts of life from eating to sleeping to how to move around and what to avoid. He offers understanable information for free ... so you don't need to buy anything to hear what he has to say - unlike other plans out there. And finally the results speak for themselves ... there are several success stories posts and threads on his site ... and me, having lost 44lbs since beginning of the year after years of low fat- high cardio; well proves to me PB is a sustainable natural lifestyle that works!
Bobby - I agree cookie cutter measurements don't work for all, but I think the carb curve really refers to the average person coming from eating the SAD not athletic people. And haven tested myself with this curve as I am one of the average persons going above 100g I did gain. So I think it is useful as a guide.0 -
I know the ~7lbs I dropped after going Primal wasn't water weight. I track that. I don't apply the exact % number since I know it's not accurate but I do track progress. My body fat number dropped while my body water number went up. I know it wasn't water retention. So I say the water number (as a % of total body weight) went up because the body fat went down (as a percentage of total body weight).0
-
Bobby - I agree cookie cutter measurements don't work for all, but I think the carb curve really refers to the average person coming from eating the SAD not athletic people. And haven tested myself with this curve as I am one of the average persons going above 100g I did gain. So I think it is useful as a guide.
Exactly, Yes, so the activity level part needs to be included. Primal Blueprint, and the fitness part that goes with it, put's ones activity level in the athletic range.
Anyone athletic that wants to eat healthier and picks Primal as an option may think MS has a screw loose when they see that carb chart. P90X get's great results, even from a complete noob(even people getting their thyroids righted), with carbs crazy high for 66.66% of the time on the program. The only time carbs is lower on P90X is at the start(high protein). Funny though, it's called the Fat Shredder phase. Funny how Fat Shredder comes with carbs being lowered. When millions upon millions have lost weight when at or above the "insidious weight gain" carb load, it doesn't help Mark's credibility.
If he made different charts for varying activity levels, it would make more sense.0 -
Bobby - I agree cookie cutter measurements don't work for all, but I think the carb curve really refers to the average person coming from eating the SAD not athletic people. And haven tested myself with this curve as I am one of the average persons going above 100g I did gain. So I think it is useful as a guide.
Exactly, Yes, so the activity level part needs to be included. Primal Blueprint, and the fitness part that goes with it, put's ones activity level in the athletic range.
Anyone athletic that wants to eat healthier and picks Primal as an option may think MS has a screw loose when they see that carb chart. P90X get's great results, even from a complete noob(even people getting their thyroids righted), with carbs crazy high for 66.66% of the time on the program. The only time carbs is lower on P90X is at the start(high protein). Funny though, it's called the Fat Shredder phase. Funny how Fat Shredder comes with carbs being lowered. When millions upon millions have lost weight when at or above the "insidious weight gain" carb load, it doesn't help Mark's credibility.
If he made different charts for varying activity levels, it would make more sense.
I agree with this. He does state somewhere on his site that for every extra hour of training add 100g of carbs (per day??). He could apply that to the diagram in some way and it would add some more depth to it even for the first time viewer.0 -
Yep, I'm on the mailing list. I like to read from a variety of sources and have found his stuff to be very interesting.0
-
I like reading some of his stuff. I have never and will never believe that there is any diet out there that is "one size fits all," but I think we can take something from his stuff and apply it to our own diets with success...even if that "something" is different for different people.
I currently am calorie and carb cycling and quite enjoying the results... 3 days I eat around 130 g of carbs and then on the fourth day it is much higher. But that works for me. I can sustain it for life. It might not work for you...but to call the guy who told me to do it a "joke" would be wrong, just as it was for the person who said that about Sisson. IMHO.0 -
If he made different charts for varying activity levels, it would make more sense.
very very true. One size doesn't fit all for sure.0 -
Actually, it wouldn't. Because if someone's caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and they eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, they would STILL lose weight.If he made different charts for varying activity levels, it would make more sense.
Yet according to MDA here, that qualifies as insidious, steady weight gain.
Activity level is irrelevant; caloric level is all that matters in regards to weight loss.0 -
Actually, it wouldn't. Because if someone's caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and they eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, they would STILL lose weight.If he made different charts for varying activity levels, it would make more sense.
Yet according to MDA here, that qualifies as insidious, steady weight gain.
Activity level is irrelevant; caloric level is all that matters in regards to weight loss.
Maybe you should read the book since it's not just about wait loss. Activity can play a huge role in regards to how certain sugar intake affects the body. 400g of sugar and sedentary can have severe health implications and will waste muscle just like any calorie deficit without giving the body a reason to spare muscle. 400g of sugar devoid of fat and protein even more trouble. We all get the Law of Thermodynamics point of view and I highly doubt anyone wants lifelong disease, wasted muscle, and poor health from such a simplistic use and example of that law.0 -
I don't need to read a book to tell you that anyone who thinks 150+g carbs is considered "steady, insidious weight gain" is bat**** crazy.Maybe you should read the book since it's not just about wait loss. Activity can play a huge role in regards to how certain sugar intake affects the body. 400g of sugar and sedentary can have severe health implications and will waste muscle just like any calorie deficit without giving the body a reason to spare muscle. 400g of sugar devoid of fat and protein even more trouble. We all get the Law of Thermodynamics point of view and I highly doubt anyone wants lifelong disease, wasted muscle, and poor health from such a simplistic use and example of that law.
He never talked about muscle or anything. That's like, reverse strawman you're pulling. He said 150+g carbs is insidious weight gain. THAT statement is so disgustingly wrong which does NOTHING but perpetuates the fears of dieters; an already emotionally vulnerable crowd of people.0 -
Actually, it wouldn't. Because if someone's caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and they eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, they would STILL lose weight.If he made different charts for varying activity levels, it would make more sense.
Yet according to MDA here, that qualifies as insidious, steady weight gain.
Activity level is irrelevant; caloric level is all that matters in regards to weight loss.
hormones0 -
Friend me if you're primal!0
-
This thread is 3 years old! The derp was strong back thenluv2laff45 wrote: »Friend me if you're primal!
0 -
This thread is 3 years old! The derp was strong back thenluv2laff45 wrote: »Friend me if you're primal!
Ironic.-2 -
I have a degree in anthropology and Mark is a joke..he really needs to enroll in a local college and take some anthropology classes0
-
His mobility articles are on point and reasonably researched and linked.0
-
Ack, tricked by the zombie thread again. I deleted, since there's no reason to try to start a discussion with someone likely not even here anymore.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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