72 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Yup, I said it.

If your metabolism is such that eating excess dietary fat slows it down, doing paleo could be detrimental to your goals.

Let's keep it on the real here. Most personal trainers do NOT do a paleo diet, and in fact prefer either a cyclical diet or one in which fat intake is kept at a minimum and they instruct their customers to do the same!

My own personal experience is that a higher carb, lower fat diet worked to shed the stubborn body fat. And it is my explicit belief that the only way to shed serious pounds (that is, six pack pounds) on a paleo diet is to do EXTREMELY HEAVY weight training!

But by the above logic, you can gain results on ANY DIET! That's right. ANY diet! And I have seen countless examples of guys on extremely high carb diets losing pound after pound of body fat, and gaining pound after pound in muscle.

What is spoken of on this website mostly is scientific speculation, not macroscopic results. yes, there are those who see results on paleo diets but these are DEFINITELY in the minority.

Most people who try, or who WOULD try a high fat and extremely low carb diet would fail due to energy in being greater than energy out. Why? Because most people who dispense with carbs entirely HAVE NO ENERGY OUTPUT!

Adaptation nothing! Tried it, never adapted. Carbs are needed for energy, period unless you are a genetic exception to the general rule.

Bottom line is this, moderate fat is fine, HIGH FAT isn't, at least for the majority of the population.

Go ahead, negative vote me, I don't care.

[scottknl]

Well, I've tried low carb, high carb and in the end the only thing that really worked for me was a balanced approach. Low carb failed due to joint deterioration inhibiting exercise. High carb failed due to bad cholesterol profile. It's possible that people at different stages of life require different dietary inputs, so no one solution will work for all. For instance, I can see that I'll need to increase my protein intake when I'm around 70 to compensate for my reduced ability to metabolize protein. At my stage of life I seem to have figured out a solution that gives me the a 20's body with a little less muscle. I don't do very much exercise at all. Instead I focus mostly on my diet which is posted in the CR forum.

It's a mistake to try and live like a top level athlete, because they all die young. My personal belief is that by promoting excessive growth and rebuilding thru constant high performance excercise, the stem cell supply is depleted sooner leading to earlier death. Edit: Also processing more calories leads to more junk clogging up the system on a cellular level which may also have an impact on reduced lifespan. There's also the ROS released from the mitochondria as they produce energy. In short form More Calories ==> More Death. Since this is a longevity oriented forum, I think any diet strategy should address that aspect, and not just talk about performance. Then, again, we all make some mistakes when we're young.

Edited by scottknl, 13 September 2011 - 08:05 PM.

[Brainbox]

Apart from your primary message I also interpret the following hypothesis.

Maybe the composition of diet depends on the energy output. For e sedative life, a major part of your diet is used as maintenance and repair material. For an active life, the basic need for maintenance material stays the same or is slightly increased because of more ware and tare. What increase linearly with output is the variable part of your diet input that is used to be burned for energy. Maybe this part could contain a relative high amount of carbs.

So maybe there is a basic need for protein for building blocks and a variable need for carbs for energy. And an amount of fat in both the basic and variable diet parts that mainly depends on genetics. With the result that protein, fat and carb ratio's change for one individual depending on energy output.

Maybe just a naive idea? I've been trying to find some research some time ago, but did not succeed.

[TheFountain]

I am sedentary during my job hours, but active whilst not working. I walk about 6-10 miles a week, work out with weights and cardio 4-5 times a week and am basically at a CR threshold on off days. What it boils down to is that I have less energy out when most of my energy in consists of fat calories. I tend to feel lazy, like I don't want to do anything, and my body just does not translate energy to very many physical functions. Moderation with fat helps a great deal, because I end up still getting essential fat without going overboard at the expense of energy metabolism and work out performance which, again, is lowered during higher fat, extremely lower carb diets. I don't care what ketogenic proponents say, what works for them doesn't work for me.

[niner]

If your metabolism is such that eating excess dietary fat slows it down, doing paleo could be detrimental to your goals.

But you aren't talking about paleo here, you're talking about ketogenic.

Let's keep it on the real here. Most personal trainers do NOT do a paleo diet, and in fact prefer either a cyclical diet or one in which fat intake is kept at a minimum and they instruct their customers to do the same!

I wouldn't ask most trainers for advice on nutrition.

What is spoken of on this website mostly is scientific speculation, not macroscopic results. yes, there are those who see results on paleo diets but these are DEFINITELY in the minority.

Macroscopic results? I think you're confusing paleo with ketogenic.

Bottom line is this, moderate fat is fine, HIGH FAT isn't, at least for the majority of the population.

Moderate fat = paleo. HIGH FAT = ketogenic. Where would paleo man even get that much fat? Killing animals is hard, and wild animals don't have much fat anyway. At any rate, I'm happy to see that we agree that a moderate fat (i.e. paleo) diet is fine for the majority of the population.

Go ahead, negative vote me, I don't care.

You asked, but hey, it wasn't me.

[TheFountain]

I like to flip the coin. There's too much extremism on this site.

But my point about personal trainers was results, results, results!

You don't need paleo to get results where low body fat+muscle are concerned. In fact the majority of people who get results are NOT on a paleo diet, but the way it is framed on this site makes it seem like everyone but paleo dieters are fat hopeless pigs.

Edited by TheFountain, 14 September 2011 - 08:37 AM.

[nowayout]

I think the confusion comes from an utter misconception that people have of what carbs are. What most people think of as high-carb foods (candy, pizza, burritos, chips, cake, donuts, even many breads here in the U.S.) are actually high-fat foods.

I eat a lot of clean carbs (that do not include any of the above foods) and never gain any excess body fat.

Edited by viveutvivas, 14 September 2011 - 11:24 AM.

[TheFountain]

There is an argument to be made against refined sugar and bleached grain products and I will always support that argument. But the idiotic, blanket statements made about carbohydrates, which stem from Gary Taubes book, do absolutely zero to end confusion and only make people into extremist pro-paleo nut jobs who speculate till they are blue in the face but come up with very little in support of that speculation besides their own educated guesses on things, which is actually bad science because it is nothing like a study environment at all. Nor do the most knowledgeable have the tools to reach the speculative conclusions they tend to reach. Again, only a professional study environment provides such tools, as in the case of broad spectrum effects of specific macronutrients on the entire biological system.

[niner]

But my point about personal trainers was results, results, results!

You don't need paleo to get results where low body fat+muscle are concerned. In fact the majority of people who get results are NOT on a paleo diet, but the way it is framed on this site makes it seem like everyone but paleo dieters are fat hopeless pigs.

Did you happen to see the "I want to be THAT guy" video? It was about an average guy who trained to become a bodybuilding competitor. His trainer put him on a diet that was impossible to maintain over time. In the first week after the competition, which he came close to winning, he gained ten pounds. That's just not the kind of results I'm looking for. His results-oriented trainer put him on a diet that made him miserable. My diet makes me happy, is easy to stick with, and gives me the body and energy that I want. My diet is driven by paleo concepts, but is hardly rigorous. I've reduced but not eliminated gluten grains, sugar, and industrial seed oils. It's "Paleo-ish", or maybe "Paleo-Lite". I suppose you could cook up a diet that was super low fat and high in grains and PUFAs, and as long as you got the macronutrient ratios and quantities right, you could look ok. I think you'd probably not enjoy it very much, and your long term health would suffer.

Most fat hopeless pigs would do better on a paleo diet than whatever was making them fat and hopeless. If you continue to insist that paleo = ketogenic, then you probably wouldn't agree with that statement. But then neither would I...

[TheFountain]

Did you happen to see the "I want to be THAT guy" video? It was about an average guy who trained to become a bodybuilding competitor. His trainer put him on a diet that was impossible to maintain over time. In the first week after the competition, which he came close to winning, he gained ten pounds. That's just not the kind of results I'm looking for. His results-oriented trainer put him on a diet that made him miserable. My diet makes me happy, is easy to stick with, and gives me the body and energy that I want. My diet is driven by paleo concepts, but is hardly rigorous. I've reduced but not eliminated gluten grains, sugar, and industrial seed oils. It's "Paleo-ish", or maybe "Paleo-Lite". I suppose you could cook up a diet that was super low fat and high in grains and PUFAs, and as long as you got the macronutrient ratios and quantities right, you could look ok. I think you'd probably not enjoy it very much, and your long term health would suffer.

Most fat hopeless pigs would do better on a paleo diet than whatever was making them fat and hopeless. If you continue to insist that paleo = ketogenic, then you probably wouldn't agree with that statement. But then neither would I...

Most elite level bodybuilders are never placed on diets which are conducive to long term health. That is an observed fact. How the hell could a 5000k diet be conducive to longevity in the first place?

No, my statement about guys seeing results on diets other than paleo was not a reference to 5000K diets, it was a reference to diets in which the macronutrient ration was not always (and in fact was VERY seldom) in favor of fats over carbs. This was not about elite level bodybuilders, whose diets and training regimen could use some moral guidance lessons, but the results of average men.

Yes I know that, on the average, most of those fat pigs we are discussing could benefit from a paleo diet. But the implication here is that those evil carbs are the cause of their obesity, ignoring context and the fact that, as another user stated, most junk foods are just as high in fat as they are in sugars. Yes, I will always criticize a diet high in refined sugar and bleached grain products. But how exactly does this entitle me (or anybody else) to the opinion that carbs are the ultimate cause of weight gain in individuals with no gene mutation or receptor abnormalities?

Unfortunately the Gary Taubes phenomenon has given rise to a certain arrogance in this community in which a lot of people believe they know best because they can keep up with the latest bloggers and read a few books referenced in GCBC. And as pointed out before, Gary Taubes fundamental lack of understanding with regard to how insulin works in healthy individuals has already been pointed out here...


http://wholehealthso...esity.html#more

Edited by TheFountain, 15 September 2011 - 12:09 AM.

[TheFountain]

Come on biased cowards who keep voting me down, show yourselves and explain your positions.

[stephen_b]

I eat paleo with quite a bit of carbs (sweet potatoes, white potatoes, parsnips, lots of fruit, and dare I say it a moderate amount of rice). Paleo == low carb is so 2009.

[TheFountain]

^^^ I eat a moderate amount of pasta. And sometimes on work out days i'll even have TWO SERVINGS OF IT! Oh my gooooooooooodd I will gain 300 pounds and become so lazy I won't be able to get out of my chair ever!!!

quick somebody call gary taubes and tell him i'm a convert! i'm just tooooo scaaaaarrredd of those nasty carbs!

Edited by TheFountain, 15 September 2011 - 09:26 PM.

[scottknl]

Fountain, maybe you should be scared of the pasta. I gained 60 lbs from my late teen years and I was doing exercise, had muscles and I thought my diet wasn't too bad. It kinda creeps up on ya over time and before you know it, you're ordering size 34+ waist pants because the 32's just don't fit anymore. Think you're so different from me?

Your body is a machine and the mechanisms are triggered by what you eat. So eat healthy stuff that's low in energy and high in nutrients and you'll do alright. Ignoring that will work for a while, then eventually you'll be wondering why you're fat and out of breath and can't climb hills like you used to be able to. Been there; done that! It's a slippery slope that only gets worse when you're busy, or in love, or have kids, or get injured, or sick, or have to care for another family member ... etc. Life and time will wear down the hardest resolve and in the end you'll only have your habits to fall back on. Make them good ones.

[TheFountain]

Fountain, maybe you should be scared of the pasta. I gained 60 lbs from my late teen years and I was doing exercise, had muscles and I thought my diet wasn't too bad. It kinda creeps up on ya over time and before you know it, you're ordering size 34+ waist pants because the 32's just don't fit anymore. Think you're so different from me?

Your body is a machine and the mechanisms are triggered by what you eat. So eat healthy stuff that's low in energy and high in nutrients and you'll do alright. Ignoring that will work for a while, then eventually you'll be wondering why you're fat and out of breath and can't climb hills like you used to be able to. Been there; done that! It's a slippery slope that only gets worse when you're busy, or in love, or have kids, or get injured, or sick, or have to care for another family member ... etc. Life and time will wear down the hardest resolve and in the end you'll only have your habits to fall back on. Make them good ones.

It's all about context.

Pasta in the presence of junk or as a main source of calories will certainly trigger metabolic changes, but one serving a day or two on certain days, moderate servings that is, in the presence of a lot of vegetables, healthy sources of protein and moderate amounts of healthy fats is an entirely different game.

Some people have mutations also which can give rise to carbohydrate binging and leading to subsequent weight issues. Other's have problems metabolizing large amounts of dietary fat (I suspect I may be one of them. Leptin receptor abnormality?) and so this becomes an issue. To be fair I don't eat pasta made with bleached flour, for what it's worth. Seriously though, context is the golden rule here with foods like pasta, rice, legumes, etc.

Edited by TheFountain, 16 September 2011 - 04:19 AM.

[TheFountain]

Again, will the cowards with the happy trigger fingers please speak up and explain your positions?

Explain why you disagree with the blog entry I referenced earlier, for example. Otherwise your votes make absolutely no sense. Gary Taubes fans are so irrational.

[niner]

I think the confusion comes from an utter misconception that people have of what carbs are. What most people think of as high-carb foods (candy, pizza, burritos, chips, cake, donuts, even many breads here in the U.S.) are actually high-fat foods.

Yes, if you look around on nutritiondata.com, you can see that most of the above have a fair amount of fat. In almost all the cases that I looked at, the carbs supplied more calories than fat, but the fat was non-trivial. This doesn't consider one of the largest junk food categories, though; soft drinks. They are nothing but sugar, and usually high fructose to boot. The soft drink category should also include fruit juices, which admittedly may have some slightly redeeming qualities, but as macronutrients they are essentially sugar. Americans drink a lot of soft drinks. Even foods that are ostensibly non-junky, like yogurt, are difficult to find in anything but non-fat versions.

The title of this thread is "If you have trouble burning body fat, don't do paleo", but I'm at a loss as to what it means to have trouble burning body fat. It would make more sense to say "If your Apo E genotype is E4, eat a very low fat diet". You could still eat a paleo diet, just a low fat one.

[Brainbox]

Any idea's on the hypothesis I posted above?

Input requirements <= movement energy + maintenance requirements.

The part of input energy used for movement energy (and of course brain energy for some people) can very well be obtained from carbs. The requirements for maintenance will pre dominantly be composed of protein. So, the carb protein ratio depends on activity. In this line of thought, I wonder if a ketogenic diet can provide sufficient energy for very active people?

The amount of fat someone can tolerate or use efficiently and effectively depends on individual genetics.

But the latter is the issue regarding paleo: can the high fat intake be recommended for a general population or is it to individually determined?

[niner]

The amount of fat someone can tolerate or use efficiently and effectively depends on individual genetics.

But the latter is the issue regarding paleo: can the high fat intake be recommended for a general population or is it to individually determined?

The Apo E genotype seems to be a critical determinant of which diet is best for you. This is a simplification, but it addresses the point:

E2: (11% of pop.) Low fat very bad. Alcohol good for HDL level.
E3: (64% of pop.) Moderate fat probably best, but low fat can work too. Alcohol good for HDL level.
E4: (25% of pop.) Moderate or high fat very bad. Alcohol bad for HDL level.

So yes, the ideal diet is genetically determined, but I have to take issue with the description of paleo as a 'high fat' diet. This thread is premised on confusion about the level of fat that is required for a diet to be paleo. A paleo diet is one in which neolithic and industrial age foods are reduced or avoided; in practice this means grains and seed oils are mostly out. It doesn't at all mean that you have to eat a lot of fat, but there's a crowd of "caveman" nuts (I think these are almost exclusively young males) that are into eating large quantities of high fat meat, sometimes raw. They more accurately should be called hyperlipid dieters. Their use of the "caveman" moniker has caused a lot of this confusion, I suspect.

Paleo just means avoiding the modern additions to our diet that we aren't optimally evolved for. It could be low, moderate, or high fat. A low fat paleo diet would be great for the unfortunate souls who are E4. The other three quarters of the population can have a moderate level of fat in their diet and do fine with it. I'm agnostic on ketogenic or hyperlipid diets. They work for some people, and are therapeutic for some situations. They seem like a boring hassle, imho.

[TheFountain]

The Apo E genotype seems to be a critical determinant of which diet is best for you. This is a simplification, but it addresses the point:

E2: (11% of pop.) Low fat very bad. Alcohol good for HDL level.
E3: (64% of pop.) Moderate fat probably best, but low fat can work too. Alcohol good for HDL level.
E4: (25% of pop.) Moderate or high fat very bad. Alcohol bad for HDL level.

So yes, the ideal diet is genetically determined, but I have to take issue with the description of paleo as a 'high fat' diet. This thread is premised on confusion about the level of fat that is required for a diet to be paleo. A paleo diet is one in which neolithic and industrial age foods are reduced or avoided; in practice this means grains and seed oils are mostly out. It doesn't at all mean that you have to eat a lot of fat, but there's a crowd of "caveman" nuts (I think these are almost exclusively young males) that are into eating large quantities of high fat meat, sometimes raw. They more accurately should be called hyperlipid dieters. Their use of the "caveman" moniker has caused a lot of this confusion, I suspect.

Paleo just means avoiding the modern additions to our diet that we aren't optimally evolved for. It could be low, moderate, or high fat. A low fat paleo diet would be great for the unfortunate souls who are E4. The other three quarters of the population can have a moderate level of fat in their diet and do fine with it. I'm agnostic on ketogenic or hyperlipid diets. They work for some people, and are therapeutic for some situations. They seem like a boring hassle, imho.

I agree with matt lollandei when he says that there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that we must try to emulate the macronutrient ration of paleo people, and that their health was questionable at best. But what else does he say? That context is most important when it comes to foods we are supposedly not adapted to eat. Like I said earlier, a moderate amount of legumes two or three times a week in the presence of a lot of vegetables and protein sources should be absolutely fine, even when considering the effect of anti-nutrients. Even mark sisson says he cheats on his primal blueprint with bread and things like that. The genotype (nutrigenomics) testing should become common practice in hospitals, but it probably won't be for a long time. So very few people have access to it. Till such people can be tested maybe they should consume a moderate everything diet.

[The Immortalist]

Yes I know that, on the average, most of those fat pigs we are discussing could benefit from a paleo diet. But the implication here is that those evil carbs are the cause of their obesity, ignoring context and the fact that, as another user stated, most junk foods are just as high in fat as they are in sugars. Yes, I will always criticize a diet high in refined sugar and bleached grain products. But how exactly does this entitle me (or anybody else) to the opinion that carbs are the ultimate cause of weight gain in individuals with no gene mutation or receptor abnormalities?

Isn't it just because they don't do any exercise and because most of their diet is fat and carbs(mostly carbs) and then the high amount of carbs raises their insulin levels which causes them to store more fat? I don't think carbs are the single reason for weight gain but it sure does help people to store fat.

I always thought a calorically deficit ketogenic diet was the best for fat loss because it kept insulin levels very low and it encourages the body to use your fat stores for energy.

[niner]

I agree with matt lollandei when he says that there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that we must try to emulate the macronutrient ration of paleo people, and that their health was questionable at best. But what else does he say? That context is most important when it comes to foods we are supposedly not adapted to eat. Like I said earlier, a moderate amount of legumes two or three times a week in the presence of a lot of vegetables and protein sources should be absolutely fine, even when considering the effect of anti-nutrients. Even mark sisson says he cheats on his primal blueprint with bread and things like that.

Paleo man's health may not have been spectacular, but that wasn't a result of his diet. The point to bear in mind is that we spent a million+ years evolving adaptations to the paleo diet, but we've only had less than one hundredth that amount of time to adapt to agricultural diets, and essentially no time at all to adapt to modern industrial foods. Whatever the health status of paleo man, agricultural man was probably worse. Skeletal evidence shows that humans lost six inches of height in the transition from hunter gatherer to agriculturalist. That height was only recovered relatively recently. A few weeks ago I was in a building in Delaware that dated to the 1600's. I had to duck to avoid hitting my head on ceiling beams and doorways, and I'm under six feet.

We haven't had a tremendous amount of time to adapt to agricultural diets, but we've had enough time to pick up those adaptations that would affect us during the time that we are bearing children and raising them to the point of self sufficiency. That's why nearly all of us can get away with an agricultural diet when we're young. There's been very little evolutionary pressure toward the adaptations that would allow us to thrive in this diet at older ages. Michael Rose says that we should start a paleo diet by the time we're 40, for this reason. We've all seen this; young people can eat all sorts of grains and refined carbs, but practically everyone eating an agricultural diet gets gradually fatter after somewhere around 30.

You are right that we can get away with cheating on a paleo diet. Hell, I cheat almost every day. I'm glad to hear that Even Mark Sisson admits to it. That's one of the things that makes the diet so easy. On the other hand, if you're trying to be ketogenic, cheating would break the ketosis, wouldn't it? I'd think you'd have to be really scrupulous in a keto diet, which is another reason it's not for me.

[natro]

Thanks for bringing this thread up, I'm trying to reach a 6 pack for a while now and it's fucking hard. I initially believed that by simply going paleo and eating low carbs (aka only vegetables and no fruits and sweet potatoes...) I would melt the fat off and reach under 10% body fat quickly. Sadly after like 4 months that never happened... Even if I skip a meal every now and then for IF. Anyway, now I'm controlling a lot more my calorie intake and raising carbs a bit and trying to reduce fat a lot (more chicken instead of porc, sometimes removing the yolk of the eggs). not sure yet if I will reach my under 10% body fat goal but I've lost about 8 pounds in the last 1-2 months thanks to controlling my caloric intake (going to ~2,000 calories/day) and doing 24 hours that cause major calorie deficits every 3-4 days.

I'm doing strength training once a week every week and I've been having slow gains, so I most likely am not losing muscle.

anyway ya, I was kinda in the Gary Taulbe idea of if I have low carb intake --> losing fat quickly but it's obviously not true of me... Even when I ditch fruits and starchy foods. Gotta go back to personal trainer basics (but still gonna avoid grains... I started adding a bit of yogurt/cheese/blueberries again though).

[TheFountain]

Isn't it just because they don't do any exercise

By that logic it doesn't mater what diet you're on then, as long as you are exercising, right?

and because most of their diet is fat and carbs(mostly carbs) and then the high amount of carbs raises their insulin levels which causes them to store more fat?

Please read the blog entry I posted a link to earlier to understand why it is important to stop parroting Gary taubes misconception of this subject.

I don't think carbs are the single reason for weight gain but it sure does help people to store fat.

yawn....

Edited by TheFountain, 18 September 2011 - 08:24 AM.

[TheFountain]

Paleo man's health may not have been spectacular, but that wasn't a result of his diet. The point to bear in mind is that we spent a million+ years evolving adaptations to the paleo diet, but we've only had less than one hundredth that amount of time to adapt to agricultural diets, and essentially no time at all to adapt to modern industrial foods. Whatever the health status of paleo man, agricultural man was probably worse. Skeletal evidence shows that humans lost six inches of height in the transition from hunter gatherer to agriculturalist. That height was only recovered relatively recently. A few weeks ago I was in a building in Delaware that dated to the 1600's. I had to duck to avoid hitting my head on ceiling beams and doorways, and I'm under six feet.

We haven't had a tremendous amount of time to adapt to agricultural diets, but we've had enough time to pick up those adaptations that would affect us during the time that we are bearing children and raising them to the point of self sufficiency. That's why nearly all of us can get away with an agricultural diet when we're young. There's been very little evolutionary pressure toward the adaptations that would allow us to thrive in this diet at older ages. Michael Rose says that we should start a paleo diet by the time we're 40, for this reason. We've all seen this; young people can eat all sorts of grains and refined carbs, but practically everyone eating an agricultural diet gets gradually fatter after somewhere around 30.

You are right that we can get away with cheating on a paleo diet. Hell, I cheat almost every day. I'm glad to hear that Even Mark Sisson admits to it. That's one of the things that makes the diet so easy. On the other hand, if you're trying to be ketogenic, cheating would break the ketosis, wouldn't it? I'd think you'd have to be really scrupulous in a keto diet, which is another reason it's not for me.

All these comments about the why and wherefore of how and when we should begin a paleo diet are really just speculation aren't they?

Now can we all admit that Gary taubes wrote a book in which he very convincingly gave bad information through much of it? I am sure his insulin misconception is just the beginning.

He also misquoted data on certain population studies apparently.

[TheFountain]

Thanks for bringing this thread up, I'm trying to reach a 6 pack for a while now and it's fucking hard. I initially believed that by simply going paleo and eating low carbs (aka only vegetables and no fruits and sweet potatoes...) I would melt the fat off and reach under 10% body fat quickly. Sadly after like 4 months that never happened... Even if I skip a meal every now and then for IF. Anyway, now I'm controlling a lot more my calorie intake and raising carbs a bit and trying to reduce fat a lot (more chicken instead of porc, sometimes removing the yolk of the eggs). not sure yet if I will reach my under 10% body fat goal but I've lost about 8 pounds in the last 1-2 months thanks to controlling my caloric intake (going to ~2,000 calories/day) and doing 24 hours that cause major calorie deficits every 3-4 days.

I'm doing strength training once a week every week and I've been having slow gains, so I most likely am not losing muscle.

anyway ya, I was kinda in the Gary Taulbe idea of if I have low carb intake --> losing fat quickly but it's obviously not true of me... Even when I ditch fruits and starchy foods. Gotta go back to personal trainer basics (but still gonna avoid grains... I started adding a bit of yogurt/cheese/blueberries again though).

Have you tried a cycle diet? For example, one week on higher fat, lower carb, one week on lower carb, higher fat? I have tried this a few times and it has somewhat helped.

Ultimately I decided that moderating all macronutrients (except protein on work out days) is the best approach to not emaciating what muscle I have, on a 2000+ calorie diet.

But there are still times I go back and forth and experiment.

One thing I am absolutely convinced of though is that taking in 150 grams a day of dietary fat is detrimental to MY goals. I don't know if lifting 300 pound weights would eliminate this problem but then wouldn't this be the case for just about any diet?

I don't like the kind of reasoning which insists that unless you work out like a gorilla you will never see results on a specific diet. I believe diet ultimately can provide much of these results, more than 50% even, while work out provides the rest. I just don't think paleo is that diet for me and many other's to the chagrin of many Gary taubes followers.

Edited by TheFountain, 18 September 2011 - 08:21 AM.

[niner]

Paleo man's health may not have been spectacular, but that wasn't a result of his diet. The point to bear in mind is that we spent a million+ years evolving adaptations to the paleo diet, but we've only had less than one hundredth that amount of time to adapt to agricultural diets, and essentially no time at all to adapt to modern industrial foods. Whatever the health status of paleo man, agricultural man was probably worse. Skeletal evidence shows that humans lost six inches of height in the transition from hunter gatherer to agriculturalist. That height was only recovered relatively recently. A few weeks ago I was in a building in Delaware that...

All these comments about the why and wherefore of how and when we should begin a paleo diet are really just speculation aren't they?

Now can we all admit that Gary taubes wrote a book in which he very convincingly gave bad information through much of it? I am sure his insulin misconception is just the beginning.

No, they aren't "speculation". Are you a Creationist? How do you think evolution works? Do you think that colonial Americans had six foot ceilings because of a wood shortage? Forget Taubes. I've never even read Taubes. Read Michael Rose.

[niner]

One thing I am absolutely convinced of though is that taking in 150 grams a day of dietary fat is detrimental to MY goals.
[...]
I just don't think paleo is that diet for me and many other's to the chagrin of many Gary taubes followers.

You're still laboring under the misconception that paleo = super high fat. I wish you would stop promoting that idea. Don't call it paleo. Call it hyperlipid.

[TheFountain]

No, they aren't "speculation". Are you a Creationist? How do you think evolution works? Do you think that colonial Americans had six foot ceilings because of a wood shortage? Forget Taubes. I've never even read Taubes. Read Michael Rose.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I am 100% a supporter of evolution, and I still think most of what people like you say is speculation at best. There are things we pretty much know definitively (simian lineage) and things arrogant know it alls think they know (specific dietary components, macronutrient ratios, etc).

You're preaching to the choir with this arrogant attitude. I don't care about it. Listen to some of what matt lollondei says. He's a paleo proponent that actually makes some sense.

[TheFountain]

You're still laboring under the misconception that paleo = super high fat.

That's because most of the users on this site continually promote it as such. I mean i've had guys here tell me they think 80 grams a day is extremely low fat.