For weight loss, no. For fat loss, yes. You have to make sure you're getting adequate protein to feed your muscles so your weightloss isn't also muscle loss. I also agree with the above re: too many carbs causing me to overeat.

I don't claim to violate the "laws" of physics, but I do think there is much we humans still do not know, including about our own bodies. For me the macros are all important. For instance, if I go all crazy with sugar and carbs, I can store every calorie I eat as fat (I gained 7 pounds in 10 days at Christmas-I don't have any other explanation for that since I did not eat TONS of food).

Interestingly, I can't say what happens if I eat my macros but eat higher calories than I burn because when I eat low carb, high fat I lose the ability to over-eat. Some days I do eat over 2000 calories with no ill effect. Our body will regulate fat storage without us expending so much time worrying about it and second guessing it, but I do think keeping carbs, especially sugar, low/moderate is part of that (depends on one's personal situation of course!). Healthy, adequately nourished people do not store excess fat. That's a sign of metabolic disorder. We don't have to consciously count every single calorie because if we feed our body properly it will manage itself!

^ this plus..

my thoughts. calorie deficits matter
Catch is, you have to maintain them. Low fat is disastrous for me (and I believe most people) as you are left unsatiated AND it totally messes with your hormones such as leptin , testosterone and others. also screws with your lipids.

Higher fat and cleaner foods promote better hormone balances, better metabolism.
This is why I say paleo in general is a livable lifestyle and not just a diet.

I've posted an article by Taubes before. In it, there is a great analogy that helps the understanding of calories in-calories out::

"But now imagine that instead of talking about why we get fat, we’re talking about a different system entirely. This kind of gedanken (thought) experiment is always a good way to examine the viability of your assumptions about any particular problem. Say instead of talking about why fat tissue accumulates too much energy, we want to know why a particular restaurant gets so crowded. Now the energy we’re talking about is contained in entire people rather than just the fat in their fat tissue. Ten people contain so much energy; eleven people contain more, etc.. So what we want to know is why this restaurant is crowded and so over-stuffed with energy (i.e., people) and maybe why some other restaurant down the block has remained relatively empty — lean.

"If you asked me this question — why did this restaurant get crowded? — and I said, well, the restaurant got crowded (it got overstuffed with energy) because more people entered the restaurant than left it, you’d probably think I was being a wise guy or an idiot. (If I worked for the World Health Organization, I’d tell you that “the fundamental cause of the crowded restaurant is an energy imbalance between people entering on one hand, and people exiting on the other hand.”) Of course, more people entered than left, you’d say. That’s obvious. But why? And, in fact, saying that a restaurant gets crowded because more people are entering than leaving it is redundant –saying the same thing in two different ways – and so meaningless."

Full article:
http://garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/

3 - Some studies seem to indicate that your macro ratios could impact your metabolism. One study shows that individuals eating high-fat, low-carb seemed to burn an additional 300 calories a day compared to those who ate high-carb, low-fat. Obviously, more research needs to be done there, but it could be a consideration.

Interesting! If this actually is the case, would help answer my question as to why I am losing weight while eating 2400-2500 cals/day when my TDEE is supposedly around 2200. I'm bulking and just upped my calories further to 2600/day.

Ya, the study came out a year or two ago. When I have time, I'll see if I can dig it up. I think it was from Harvard.

They were assessing different things and not just caloric expenditure. The most frustrating thing about the study is that they found that the low-carb group had slightly higher stress hormones (really, scientifically negligible), but for some reason they really focused on that as a reason not to go low-carb rather than highlight the point that you burn an extra 300 calories, which to me, is a huge finding.

Edit:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

It's extremely frustrating because even though low-carb did much better except for on the c-reactive protein, they claimed at the end that low-glycemic was the better choice because it's easier to stick to.

So then you had all the health news sources come out saying that low-glycemic won out against low-carb and low-fat.

It's extremely frustrating because even though low-carb did much better except for on the c-reactive protein, they claimed at the end that low-glycemic was the better choice because it's easier to stick to.

So then you had all the health news sources come out saying that low-glycemic won out against low-carb and low-fat.

That's lame because I have no problem sticking to low carb. Increasing my carbs has been one of the biggest problems with my bulk. I'm getting better at it, but it was a struggle at first!

I don't claim to violate the "laws" of physics, but I do think there is much we humans still do not know, including about our own bodies. For me the macros are all important. For instance, if I go all crazy with sugar and carbs, I can store every calorie I eat as fat (I gained 7 pounds in 10 days at Christmas-I don't have any other explanation for that since I did not eat TONS of food).

If you increased your carbs during that period then it may not have been fat gain, but instead your glycogen stores rebuilding. Which would then come off relatively quickly too once you went back to low carb. If you wanted/needed to increase your carbs in the future you will probably have an initial gain, then plateu and then be able to lose/maintain again. I have thyroid issues and VLC messed with my thyroid function, so I increased from <50 to about 100-125 a day. At first I gained, but now I am able to lose again.

I have to agree though, I can eat more than my "allowed" calories on a lower carb diet (including keeping them sort of "higher' now) than I could before paleo. I used to eat 1200-1400 a day andnot lose, but now I can lose at a respectable 1500-2200 depending on the type of food I eat.

It's extremely frustrating because even though low-carb did much better except for on the c-reactive protein, they claimed at the end that low-glycemic was the better choice because it's easier to stick to.

So then you had all the health news sources come out saying that low-glycemic won out against low-carb and low-fat.

I always wonder if it is hard for people to stick to it because the read or hear that it is hard, so they give up. Or is it the "all or nothing" mentaility? "I ate a piece of birhtday cake, so I blew it and I have to quit paleo now."

I suffered this "all or nothing" syndrome for years. I blew it with that piece of cake or whatever and went into a self-defeating frenzy of eating until I could work up the mental energy to start again. (Call it "first thing Monday morning" thinking.)

But after eating paleo/primal style for months (and mostly low carb), I don't have the same reaction. For example, I ate buttered homemade toast on Sunday -- first in six months -- (road trip, little diner in the middle of nowhere that made everything from scratch including the bread they toasted for breakfast plates) and neither felt like a failure nor triggered strong (irresistible) cravings. I think it may be because I'm fat-adapted now. I know better than to continue eating grains and more than 50-80g carb a day, because I doubt it would take long for my body to go back to carb burning again.

Now that we're home and I can cook again I'm being a bit more careful this week to get back into the flow.

You're vegan and paleo?