Ad Widget

Collapse

Really confused about calorie intake

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by j3nn;1040061
    [B
    The body is most willing to burn glucose and then lean body mass before fat. [/B]Hence why it's so common for anorexia sufferers to have a relatively high BF %. Weight (fat) loss would be much simpler if fat was the body's first fuel choice. Simply cut back on calories and the body dips into fat savings. Not so fast. In reality, it's not that linear. Ketosis may manipulate the body into burning fat at the expense of added stressors and lowered metabolic rate, but I don't see how it's preferred when it's so hard to get into that state due to the body's and brain's preference for glucose, and then sustain it when the body will so easily pop out of ketosis from eating something as simple as a large potato. If ketosis is preferable, why does the body fight against it and abandon it at the first incoming fruit smoothie? When there's no or little incoming glucose, we evolved a mechanism to produce it (gluconeogenesis). That is proof right there that the body prefers glucose, ideally through dietary intake (plan a) or plan b: gluconeogenesis, the secondary means of getting its preferred fuel. Ketones are a last resort in order of preference.

    Alcohol shouldn't really be a consideration as its not typically found in nature or relied on for sustenance.
    Wasn't really speaking to ketosis specifically but....Well rather than rehashing, my point was that you will always need to burn both. Your hormones will dictate which one is predominately being burned at any point, and this can be manipulated through the construct of your diet and your activities.

    Some reading.....

    How ketosis affected Peter's energy partitioning during exercise:

    The interplay of exercise and ketosis

    Mark of course:

    Why Fat, Not Carbs, Are the Preferred Fuel for the Human Body | Mark's Daily Apple

    Interesting read from Gnolls:

    Why Humans Crave Fat - GNOLLS.ORG

    The bolded part is a fine example....its completely false. You will not always preferentially burn lean mass over fat. True that lean mass is metabolically expensive, but all it takes is eating enough protein and doing some resistance exercise to create an environment in which you could retain almost 100% of your lean mass even in a caloric deficit and preferentially burn fat.

    Oh the added stressors part? Meh, I'm not in ketosis and wasn't really talking about that. I was talking about a diet that relied on sufficient fat with some carbs and protein...the Primal Blueprint, but here is some interesting info for you regarding ketosis and stress How calorie restriction influences longevity: Protecting cells from damage caused by chronic disease

    However, any low calorie diet can be considered a "stressor" and will lower your metabolic rate so thats not saying much.

    And yes the body can produce its own glucose or get it exogenously. You are correct.

    The OP has repeatedly told of his fear that he is eating too much fat so some of the previous comments are in that context. But if you read some of the previous recs he's only getting 2000 calories....make up to 150g carbs and thats 30%.....just about up to zone levels and in line with the PB and PHD guidelines.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-23-2012, 08:33 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Phillykid View Post
      Ok, I was getting the feeling I'm eating too much
      Gadsie? Is that you?
      Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
        Wasn't really speaking to ketosis specifically but....Well rather than rehashing, my point was that you will always need to burn both. Your hormones will dictate which one is predominately being burned at any point, and this can be manipulated through the construct of your diet and your activities.
        By default, glucose is the predominant one the overwhelmingly majority of the time. Now, preferred doesn't equate to always or never or even perfect, but the body and brain do have a hierarchy and will adapt to our manipulations but will also revert to its preferential fuel given the opportunity, hence why it's so hard to sustain ketosis without specific macros.

        The bolded part is a fine example....its completely false. You will not always preferentially burn lean mass over fat. True that lean mass is metabolically expensive, but all it takes is eating enough protein and doing some resistance exercise to create an environment in which you could retain almost 100% of your lean mass even in a caloric deficit and preferentially burn fat.
        This is on par with specific macros, like I just mentioned above. In an ordinary deficit that doesn't take extra precautions to reduce LBM loss, the body will indiscriminately waste lean body mass and the loss will be a mixture, by default. You can prevent or minimize muscle loss, but it's not common knowledge for most people to be macro-specific. And in low-protein, low-resistance training deficits, weight loss for many leaves them with a relatively high body fat % (skinny fat) because the body does not like to part with its savings. Again, dietary manipulations are essentially hacking one's metabolism. Left to our "factory settings" and we are almost always preferred sugar burners and LBM-wasters. Is it even possible for someone to be a natural "fat burner" without dietary manipulation? I'd say very rarely. The outliers who may be born with extraordinary genes.

        However, any low calorie diet can be considered a "stressor" and will lower your metabolic rate so thats not saying much.
        Indeed. That's why we should take all measures to reduce stress as much as possible. I think chronic ketosis is perpetual stress evidenced by the body's eagerness to abandon it at the slightest chance.

        The OP has repeatedly told of his fear that he is eating too much fat so some of the previous comments are in that context. But if you read some of the previous recs he's only getting 2000 calories....make up to 150g carbs and thats 30%.....just about up to zone levels and in line with the PB and PHD guidelines.
        I wasn't really posting with regard to the OP, but to preferential metabolic processing in general. I think switching to preferential fat burning takes specific planning and upkeep, something the body typically won't do organically.
        | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

        “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by j3nn View Post
          By default, glucose is the predominant one the overwhelmingly majority of the time. Now, preferred doesn't equate to always or never or even perfect, but the body and brain do have a hierarchy and will adapt to our manipulations but will also revert to its preferential fuel given the opportunity, hence why it's so hard to sustain ketosis without specific macros.



          This is on par with specific macros, like I just mentioned above. In an ordinary deficit that doesn't take extra precautions to reduce LBM loss, the body will indiscriminately waste lean body mass and the loss will be a mixture, by default. You can prevent or minimize muscle loss, but it's not common knowledge for most people to be macro-specific. And in low-protein, low-resistance training deficits, weight loss for many leaves them with a relatively high body fat % (skinny fat) because the body does not like to part with its savings. Again, dietary manipulations are essentially hacking one's metabolism. Left to our "factory settings" and we are almost always preferred sugar burners and LBM-wasters. Is it even possible for someone to be a natural "fat burner" without dietary manipulation? I'd say very rarely. The outliers who may be born with extraordinary genes.



          Indeed. That's why we should take all measures to reduce stress as much as possible. I think chronic ketosis is perpetual stress evidenced by the body's eagerness to abandon it at the slightest chance.



          I wasn't really posting with regard to the OP, but to preferential metabolic processing in general. I think switching to preferential fat burning takes specific planning and upkeep, something the body typically won't do organically.
          We're just going to have to agree to disagree then. Just based on the facts....The brain and body "needs" very little glucose/day. We are preferentially fat burners and would not have survived as a species if we were required to continually top off our glucose reserves with exogenous sources. Anything under something like 75% effort is almost entirely fat burning....heck think less than 5g/hour of glucose for walking and such (quite realistically its 0 for fat adapted). It should be relatively obvious what the body prefers by its reserves and composition. We have almost a million calories available via fat and only something on the order of 2000 calories of glucose in the body. Only 100g or so of which is in liver glycogen and available to the brain. It's easy...we have ways of making it when necessary.

          You seem to see adequate protein and physical exertion as some sort of "hack" to preserve lean mass. Again I'm going to have to disagree and point out that these are the norms. Your anorexic individual sitting around sipping on a diet soda becoming skinny fat is not.

          And I think chronic ketosis is not chronic stress based on there being no indication that it is and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, some of which I linked. Doesn't mean anyone needs to be in chronic ketosis. I like to eat seasonally myself.

          Sure it does it organically....we are carbon based organisms after all . Its really not that hard to be a fat burner if your not perpetually spiking your insulin or suffering from hyperinsulinemia. Its a relative term, not absolute....and many things in the body happen to degrees. You don't even have to be in ketosis.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
            We're just going to have to agree to disagree then. Just based on the facts....The brain and body "needs" very little glucose/day. We are preferentially fat burners and would not have survived as a species if we were required to continually top off our glucose reserves with exogenous sources. Anything under something like 75% effort is almost entirely fat burning....heck think less than 5g/hour of glucose for walking and such (quite realistically its 0 for fat adapted). It should be relatively obvious what the body prefers by its reserves and composition. We have almost a million calories available via fat and only something on the order of 2000 calories of glucose in the body. Only 100g or so of which is in liver glycogen and available to the brain. It's easy...we have ways of making it when necessary.
            How can we be sure with all certainty that we are preferential fat burners if we so easily revert back to burning sugar? That certainly doesn't suggest a certain evolutionary preference for burning fat if we can so easily not after eating as little as one average meal. Wouldn't there be more resistance to abandoning a fat-burning metabolism? Comparatively, getting the body to use ketones is typically a struggle and lengthy conversion, including withdrawal symptoms, compared to reverting back to sugar-burning, which is typically not as "painful" or dramatic. Is it not possible that both fat and glucose are equally preferential depending on the current state of the body? Breast milk is evidence of that comprised of 50+% fat but also 40% carbs. At rest is different than running; hormonal imbalance at age 40 is different than balanced hormones at age 20, and so on. What we need today may not be what we need tomorrow.

            When I temporarily dropped my fat intake to virtually nonexistent levels a few weeks ago, I'd equate that to painful and non-preferential. I think a close or somewhat even balance of all macros is preferable and the least stressful to the body; the most basic starting point for a healthy diet. The breakdown varies of course based on individual needs and activity. I think all macros are equally important and mechanisms to compensate for inadequate dietary intake, such as gluconeogenesis, are generally suboptimal even if livable. There's little scientific data on the effects of long-term ketogenic diets, but there are long-lived people on relatively high-carb diets, which is evidence that to some degree there are optimal levels somewhere in their dietary habits.

            You seem to see adequate protein and physical exertion as some sort of "hack" to preserve lean mass.
            Only if your results rely on avoiding one specific macro more than all the others and performing specific activity. If your protein intake is on the low side and you don't do RT, by default, LBM will likely be wasted before fat is burned exclusively. If you consciously avoid certain foods with high macros, you are hacking your metabolism. Not necessarily a bad thing, but evolutionarily speaking, that's a luxury of civilization.
            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

            Comment


            • #66
              This is a brilliant thread. Really enjoying the debate

              Originally posted by Zach View Post
              As for using it for fat loss, the main thing people lose is water weight and thats why low carb is so popular because you get the big woosh at the beginning. Sure you will lose fat but no faster then a diet with sufficient carbs
              That's actually a really good point. I became totally carb-phobic when I got into this diet, but the reality is that any diet works if you adhere to it. The difficulty is in keeping off the weight once you lose it and return to your regular eating habits, and maybe that's where Primal (not specifically low carb) has an advantage, cos people view it as a lifestyle, and an education.
              "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

              In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

              - Ray Peat

              Comment


              • #67
                Okay so I have a question for everyone who stuck to the primal lifestyle, focusing mainly on diet because exercise is always important. Has eating primal changed the way you guys look and feel? I started primal mainly for fat loss, but after reading a lot of success stories, not only did people lose body fat, they felt healthier and better than before. I have noticed that i'm rarely hungry and from these threads, i found out that i've been eating so little for so long because of the calories/calories out rule. I used to keep my calories at 1500, now i'm learning to just not en count calories, but just eat until satisfied and not overstuffed
                Last edited by Phillykid; 12-23-2012, 01:46 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Yes, it definitely has changed a lot about how we feel.

                  We spend a lot less time thinking and/or obsessing about food. That's very nice. It's made our kitchen-life simpler as we just have and need the basics in terms of supplies (we don't do fancy stuff in the kitchen to be honest).

                  And then, overall, we feel happier and look good and have lots of energy. The only time I don't is when I' stressed and unmotivated (like, my ILs arrive in two days and I'm not happy about it). But, that has nothing to do with teh food.

                  It's also easy to maintain. Honestly, if you just eat the healthy foods, the body does it's thing. It's nice.

                  And, I have been able to basically overcome emotional eating, which is great.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Phillykid View Post
                    Okay so I have a question for everyone who stuck to the primal lifestyle, focusing mainly on diet because exercise is always important. Has eating primal changed the way you guys look and feel? I started primal mainly for fat loss, but after reading a lot of success stories, not only did people lose body fat, they felt healthier and better than before. I have noticed that i'm rarely hungry and from these threads, i found out that i've been eating so little for so long because of the calories/calories out rule. I used to keep my calories at 1500, now i'm learning to just not en count calories, but just eat until satisfied and not overstuffed
                    I don't count calories but estimate that I am eating more than when I embarked on my weight loss and health gain program. I am averaging around 2500 cals a day.

                    I lost fat and built muscle while consuming a lot more calories from fat than from carbs. Now that I only have around 10 lbs or so of fat to lose I am finding it more beneficial to cut fat in favour of primal starch. That is also helping me gain a lot of muscle strength very quickly. Not sure where my final macros will lie - but probably balanced and certainly not eating excessive amounts of protein to support gluconeogenesis which would bring no obvious benefit, and just put unnecessary strain on my liver and bank balance. No ta to that!
                    F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Phillykid View Post
                      Okay so I have a question for everyone who stuck to the primal lifestyle, focusing mainly on diet because exercise is always important. Has eating primal changed the way you guys look and feel? I started primal mainly for fat loss, but after reading a lot of success stories, not only did people lose body fat, they felt healthier and better than before. I have noticed that i'm rarely hungry and from these threads, i found out that i've been eating so little for so long because of the calories/calories out rule. I used to keep my calories at 1500, now i'm learning to just not en count calories, but just eat until satisfied and not overstuffed
                      It's helped a lot of people feel better for many reasons including:
                      - Unknown gluten intolerances or other food intolerances fixed
                      - More nutritious food
                      - Eating foods that no longer trigger GERD, IBS, asthma, high blood pressure, etc.
                      - Getting chronic diseases under control including Type II diabetes, epilepsy, MS, etc.
                      - No longer needing to count calories
                      - Relief of binge eating problems
                      - Relief of depression

                      I could go on.

                      My personal issue was that after I hiked the Pacific Crest I could not get my hunger under control. I was gaining weight even before I finished the 2600 mile trail. After the hike I was gaining weight visibly in the mirror every day. I wanted to exercise but any exercise triggered massive hunger. I tried to just eat less but I gained weight anyway. I heard eating more fat and a low carbohydrate diet could fix me. It did. I was able to get my appetite under control enough to lose some weight. Meanwhile, I felt like my mood and sense of well-being and happiness improved. My blood pressure is lower. Chronic pain from the hiking is all better. I feel a lot better, more better than just what you might feel with a little weight loss.
                      Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                        This is a brilliant thread. Really enjoying the debate



                        That's actually a really good point. I became totally carb-phobic when I got into this diet, but the reality is that any diet works if you adhere to it. The difficulty is in keeping off the weight once you lose it and return to your regular eating habits, and maybe that's where Primal (not specifically low carb) has an advantage, cos people view it as a lifestyle, and an education.
                        The water weight is just the INITIAL weightloss. You do lose REAL, honest-to-God body fat on a lower carb diet if you stick to it long enough. This is not to say that this kind of diet is for everyone but it's not simply a woosh of water weight. That's what happens at the beginning (even Mark admits as much), but then again, you won't lose any kind of fat on any diet if you aren't able to stick to it.

                        Sticking to the plan has significantly lowered my body fat and I've seen it do the same for a good number of other people as well. The point is, no diet gives instantaneous weightloss. If that's what you want, then too bad, it's not happening. Low carb works, but not overnight. Although I don't see what's wrong with shedding a few pounds of unnecessary water from your body anyway.
                        "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Yea i did lose some weight and i noticed i had more energy. I'm usually drained before work is about to end, now i'm not as tired. I think it has mostly to do with eating a lot more. I have to admit though, the first few days i counted calories, but after reading threads and asking questions, people we're shocked when they saw my first sample eating plan that totaled 1300 calories, now i'm aiming for 1900-2100. I still do think calories matter in a way, but i'm not stressing/counting every meal anymore

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Calories are important. Eat to lose. I tend to think 90% of weightloss is diet and the remaining 10% is activity level and exercise.

                            But you don't have to obsess about it at all. You kind of get into a "grove" that just feels right and that is all you need to be at a proper caloric intake. Your body is sort of able to self-regulate itself that way. Cool, no?

                            You might want to eat closer to the upper end of that scale (2,100 calories) on heavy workout days though. But beyond that, just eat until you are full.
                            "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by sbhikes View Post

                              1. I thought you were a girl when I read this. You eat like a girl on a diet.
                              Boom.

                              Originally posted by sbhikes
                              2. Your food contains too much "diet food" and not enough real food. Eat the whole egg. Don't buy egg whites in a carton. Eat bacon, not bacon bits. Eat actual turkey that you roasted in the oven, not turkey bits. Eat some beef and salmon, not just chicken breast. And for crying out loud, you actually count your cherry tomatoes? Stop doing that.
                              Seriously. I've cut down to 130 to fight MMA at your same height and I was eating actual food in much larger quantities than you're talking about.

                              Originally posted by sbhikes
                              3. You are a 135lb man who is 5'6" tall. You are way too small for a grown man. You need to build a manly body. You should get some manly exercise. Either do the Primal Blueprint fitness program or go lift some weights. Eat WAY more food so you can grow. Put on some weight as muscle. Whatever fat you have now can be ignored because it probably isn't very much. It's just that you have so little muscle to balance it out.

                              Good luck.
                              You have become a wise lady. I hope the OP gets the message.
                              The Champagne of Beards

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I was used to following meal plans from reading men's health and they always said multiply weight x 10 and that was how many calories i had to eat. Pretty sure i'm not the only one which is why i made this thread to learn more about PB

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X