Ad Widget

Collapse

appropriate calorie range?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Thanks for clarifying John Caton.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Orange View Post
      John Caton, can I quickly clarify something? You wrote in one of your posts: "if you keep your carbs at 50 or fewer grams per day, your body is going to start looking for fat to burn".

      Does that 50 grams of carbohydrates include counting the carbohydrates from non-starchy vegetables?

      Appreciate your help, I always find your posts so informative.
      Not John here, but may I butt in?

      These are my evolving thoughts: Dr. Atkins offered up the concept of net calories; carbs minus fiber. Seems right, but that was a long time ago and now we know that a lot of those fiber carbs get digested by bacteria in the colon. Hey, resistant starch! Something he never heard of, just look at the dates of his books and the discovery of RS.

      Resistant Starches, of which "fiber" often is in some amount, become short chain fatty acids, i.e., calories.

      So at one time, my carb counting was all about net. It was nice to see those lower carb numbers in my food plan. Now I just do total because I'd rather err on the side of high than low. And it's not like 50 grams good, 51 bad. It's all relative, better or worse.

      IIRC, Mark uses under 100 grams/day as good enough. Less is better, but don't get hung up on it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by oxide View Post
        If Ann eats 50 g carbs and 50 g fat, and, say 90 g protein, that's 1010 calories. Just sayin'.

        I do not agree that we should throw away ALL calorie thinking. In the PB book, Mark advocates calculating the rough total calories. Then you configure your macros to fit that total.
        That is succinct and spot on.

        A thousand (and ten) calories a day is probably a weight loss diet for almost anyone, even a small woman. The USDA uses a moderately active 132 pound female of unknown age to derive a nice, easy to do math intake of 2000 calories a day for labeling and calculating purposes. Said woman would, in theory, have a stable weight at that calorie level.

        So overlooking things like energy differences by change in surface area and mass, a thousand calories would probably sustain only a 65 pound person. All very rough and hypothetical, of course.

        Comment


        • #19
          Agree. But for weight loss, you DO need to look at total calories. If you eat 50 g carbs per day, but then eat a ton of fat, you still won't lose any weight. Primal/Paleo is a two step process. The low carb ramps up the fat burner hormones. But, even on low carb, your fat burning beast body won't burn body fat if it gets all its fat from meals. Therefore, in the second step, you need to cut your fat intake so that your body is forced to burn body fat. This is where the total calories come in. Fix your protein at .7 gram/pound ideal body weight. Fix your carbs at 50-100. Fill in the rest with fat up to your total calories (for me it's 1200).

          I agree with On the Bayou on net carbs. Better to overestimate carbs, and save on the math too.
          5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by OnTheBayou View Post
            Not John here, but may I butt in?

            These are my evolving thoughts: Dr. Atkins offered up the concept of net calories; carbs minus fiber. Seems right, but that was a long time ago and now we know that a lot of those fiber carbs get digested by bacteria in the colon. Hey, resistant starch! Something he never heard of, just look at the dates of his books and the discovery of RS.

            Resistant Starches, of which "fiber" often is in some amount, become short chain fatty acids, i.e., calories.

            So at one time, my carb counting was all about net. It was nice to see those lower carb numbers in my food plan. Now I just do total because I'd rather err on the side of high than low. And it's not like 50 grams good, 51 bad. It's all relative, better or worse.

            IIRC, Mark uses under 100 grams/day as good enough. Less is better, but don't get hung up on it.
            No. You should not count fibrous carbs in your daily carb target for multiple reasons.

            You cannot eat enough fibrous carbs to cause weight gain.

            Your beneficial gut bacteria need to be fed. Yes, after they digest those carbs, their cellular waste includes short chain fatty acids, but ...

            Your colon uses those short chain fatty acids for its own energy needs. Colonic health?

            So called 'Calories' from short chain fatty acids are not absorbed from the colon. They are far past the two portals for absorption to the rest of the body.

            Avoiding fibrous carbs for the sake of maintaining a carb target is as counterproductive as avoiding fat to hit a Calorie target. Bad idea.
            Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
            Old Paths ... New Journeys

            Comment


            • #21
              iirc, the "calories" from rs/rich foods are actually about 1/2 what nutrition calculators say anyway.
              As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

              – Ernest Hemingway

              Comment


              • #22
                And the SCFA produced from resistant starches aren't carbs anyway, they're fats. No need to include them in carb counting. I add Bob's Red Mill Potato Starch to salads, and when I used to log it, My Fitness Pal called it 40g of carb. In practice, it's a few grams of fat. I just don't even log it anymore.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hi Ann! Here is my advice, going form 218 to 140 is a task but is definitely doable. You aren't at the stage yet of cutting that last 10-20lbs which can take some creative eating and physical activity to burn off that last bit. The stage your at now though, I would only concern yourself with just going primal, don't worry about calories, and eat to fuel yourself.

                  If your're hungry, eat, but make sure you have some sort of protein at each meal, vegetables, and maybe a bit of fruit if your sweet tooth kicks in. If your exercising, gauge how your feeling and add a bit more carbs as necessary so you don't feel like something the cat dragged in. If you need a carb hit, stick to potatoes, squash or some other type of starch.

                  At this stage of the game, going primal your carbs will naturally fall, and your fat will be kept at whatever is sitting in the meat (plus whatever your cooking with). Because your carbs will drop, glycogen will deplete, water will go with it, you'll start losing weight quickly (this is water weight). The end goal with this is you're becoming more insulin sensitive which means your body should spend more time burning fat rather than carbs/glycogen. Then when you do eat carbs, your muscles will just suck them right up (you'll notice this because you'll become quite warm).

                  Your calorie range will probably fall anywhere from 1300-2000 during any given day. It will never be the same (and it shouldn't be). Some of the worst things people can do is eat when they aren't hungry, and not eat when they are. You'll basically trigger a stress/cortisol reaction which will practically halt fat burning (cortisol can trigger insulin resistance), so now your back at square 1.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X