[PhDre]

(01-12-2016 10:13 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

With all of the foods that contain phytoestrogens, are there any foods that are phytoandrogens?

It seems everything out there wants to feminize us. There have to be a few foods that have phytoandrogenic effects.

Apparently pine pollen is a phytoandrogen.

[Khan]

(01-12-2016 11:29 AM)CocoBoy Wrote:  

I've been on and off Paleo for the last 5 years, I've never been overweight but I just feel awesome when I cut out all unnatural shit.

I mostly did it for my skin, when I carb it up (especially wheat) my skin turns to shit. When I go strict paleo I have perfect clear skin, I think that's my bodies way of telling me how I should be eating.

Also in terms of weight loss, it almost works too well, I find it hard to bulk up without carbs but I'm not any less stronger. I just don't look it, which is a bit of a shame.

To put it simply you should cut out vegetable oils, sugar and wheat as the worst 3 offenders.

If you need carbs then your best choice is sweet potatoes, whilst white rice and white potatoes are ok in moderation on workout days. They are not toxic but it's still not good to over consume them as they will turn to sugar.

Get most of your calories from healthy fats like olive oil, coconut oil, eggs, avocados, nuts, fatty fish, nut butters, cheese etc...

Alongside that eat plenty of vegetables, meat and fruits in moderation.

I guarantee if you stick to that you will lose weight and feel great.

What works for you wont necessarily work for others. I've been on Paleo for a year and it didn't do much good for me. During the first several months I lost a couple of pounds, but then I plateaued. This led me to a point where after a year I felt like shit eating all that fat and protein with very little carbs. Then I discovered weightlifting and balanced nutrition and I feel much better now.

The more I learn about nutrition the more I see Paleo as a fad, a classic example of the Appeal to nature fallacy. If cutting out everything 'unnatural' and consuming only 'natural' is great for everyone, then being a homeless drug addict must be great - cocaine is perfectly natural, while urban housing is unnatural and man made.

Hannibal Wrote:

You can actually eat a caloric deficit every day on sugar and still get fatter.

What you wrote here violates the first law of thermodynamics.

[PhDre]

(01-12-2016 12:05 PM)Khan Wrote:  

Hannibal Wrote:

You can actually eat a caloric deficit every day on sugar and still get fatter.

What you wrote here violates the first law of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't.
Your body can down regulate your immune system, lose muscle mass, down regulate organ functioning, decrease tissue regeneration, drop in temperature...
One of the first things to shut down when in true caloric deficit will be your reproductive system, i.e. no more boners and no more sex drive.
The energy from ingested calories is used for far more processes than simply regulating your bodymass.

As for strict paleo being a fad, I tend to agree with you.

[Uncircumcised Coke Can]

^Are you saying a guy on a 500 calorie a day diet of dextrose is going to pack on fat?

I'd love to see a clinical study showing that.

[PhDre]

^That's a reductio ad absurdum.

No someone will not gain fat on a 500 calorie diet.
But there's a very high chance that someone will gain more fat/lose less fat on a 2000 calorie dextrose diet than on a 2500 meat/fat/vegetables diet.

Look at it this way: total calories in = normal body function + tissue regeneration + muscle mass + fat mass

If someone is below maintenance calories, at least one of these parameters needs to go down.
If someone is above maintenance calories, at least one needs to go up.

Which one goes up and which one goes down largely depends on how hormonally healthy you are.
Unhealthy = preference for fat gain/retention above all others

[Uncircumcised Coke Can]

^So what you're saying is...fancy Latin terms aside...the law of thermodynamics still stands?

Thanks. A lot of physicists will be relieved to hear that.

In all seriousness, nobody is saying eat a pure carb/sugar diet. That is an absurdum.

Nutrient macros are quite insignificant compared to caloric intake though. That's why the whole low carb/paleo crowd just doesn't get taken too seriously. They think they have a monopoly on fat loss, and it just ain't so.

[PhDre]

^Please read the above posts carefully.

Nowhere did I say that the first law holds or doesn't hold.
You are taking all things I say to a ridiculous extreme to disprove them (=reductio ad abdsurdum).

[Uncircumcised Coke Can]

(01-12-2016 01:01 PM)PhDre Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:05 PM)Khan Wrote:  

Hannibal Wrote:

You can actually eat a caloric deficit every day on sugar and still get fatter.

What you wrote here violates the first law of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't.

I rest my case...

[Captain Gh]

(01-12-2016 12:05 PM)Khan Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 11:29 AM)CocoBoy Wrote:  

I've been on and off Paleo for the last 5 years, I've never been overweight but I just feel awesome when I cut out all unnatural shit.

I mostly did it for my skin, when I carb it up (especially wheat) my skin turns to shit. When I go strict paleo I have perfect clear skin, I think that's my bodies way of telling me how I should be eating.

Also in terms of weight loss, it almost works too well, I find it hard to bulk up without carbs but I'm not any less stronger. I just don't look it, which is a bit of a shame.

To put it simply you should cut out vegetable oils, sugar and wheat as the worst 3 offenders.

If you need carbs then your best choice is sweet potatoes, whilst white rice and white potatoes are ok in moderation on workout days. They are not toxic but it's still not good to over consume them as they will turn to sugar.

Get most of your calories from healthy fats like olive oil, coconut oil, eggs, avocados, nuts, fatty fish, nut butters, cheese etc...

Alongside that eat plenty of vegetables, meat and fruits in moderation.

I guarantee if you stick to that you will lose weight and feel great.

What works for you wont necessarily work for others. I've been on Paleo for a year and it didn't do much good for me. During the first several months I lost a couple of pounds, but then I plateaued. This led me to a point where after a year I felt like shit eating all that fat and protein with very little carbs. Then I discovered weightlifting and balanced nutrition and I feel much better now.

The more I learn about nutrition the more I see Paleo as a fad, a classic example of the Appeal to nature fallacy. If cutting out everything 'unnatural' and consuming only 'natural' is great for everyone, then being a homeless drug addict must be great - cocaine is perfectly natural, while urban housing is unnatural and man made.

Hannibal Wrote:

You can actually eat a caloric deficit every day on sugar and still get fatter.

What you wrote here violates the first law of thermodynamics.

It does not because the body is wayyy to smart to let that weight loss strategy work! If you eat like shit, your body will respond accordingly by slowing down your metabolism, therefore requiring less calories to run on! By eating a low amount of bad calories, the body will simply stock everything as bodyfat since it'll think it's in starvation mode! It's hard to believe, but most of the chubby to overweight people you see actually under eat. Some women eat barely 700-800 shit calories daily, and then go crazy once in a while, and wonder why they get nowhere

[Captain Gh]

(01-12-2016 03:21 PM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  

^So what you're saying is...fancy Latin terms aside...the law of thermodynamics still stands?

Thanks. A lot of physicists will be relieved to hear that.

In all seriousness, nobody is saying eat a pure carb/sugar diet. That is an absurdum.

Nutrient macros are quite insignificant compared to caloric intake though. That's why the whole low carb/paleo crowd just doesn't get taken too seriously. They think they have a monopoly on fat loss, and it just ain't so.

Complex carbohyrates, simple carbohydrates, Amino Acids, Saturated fats, Polysaturated fat, Transfat, Protein etc... they all their function in a Balanced diets! You are vastly underestimation how smart your body is. Our body is a machine that's optimize to make it difficult for us to lose weight and keep it off! Paleo might be extreme, but you don't see too many paleo fatties walking around tough!!

[Designate]

(01-12-2016 01:26 AM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  

If you're not going to do basic research into the endocrine system, it's probably best you don't post on the subject. Telling guys to dodge perfectly healthy foods is irresponsible.

Don't tell us what is irresponsible when you don't even post links or actual references to your claims. Or are you trolling us, Dr. Bro Scientist?

(01-12-2016 01:26 AM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  

Glucose also plays a vital role in resetting leptin levels - which in turn elevates testosterone levels. Low carb diets cause low testosterone. (There's umpteen studies showing that.)

Can you post where you have seen this? Because this research seems to contradict what you wrote.

Cardiovascular and Hormonal Aspects of Very-Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diets

Quote:

Study 2: Very Low Carb Ketogenic Diet Effects on Testosterone and Insulin: Using the data from the same study, we have reported fasting and postprandial hormonal responses to a VLCKD rich in monounsaturated fat and supplemented with ω3-fatty acids (4). Fasting and postprandial total testosterone, free testosterone, cortisol, leptin, and insulin responses to an oral fat tolerance test were determined before and after the 8-week VLCKD. There were no significant changes in fasting total testosterone, free testosterone, and cortisol, but there were significant decreases in insulin (−28%) and leptin (−64%) concentration after the VLCKD. Postprandial insulin responses immediately after the fat-rich meal were significantly lower after the VLCKD.

Shouldn't the testosterone levels have gone down as well?

Quote:

Study 4: Body Composition and Hormonal Responses to Very Low Carb Ketogenic Diet:
The few studies that have examined body composition after a VLCKD have reported enhanced fat loss and preservation of lean body mass (6, 7, 8). Because insulin and leptin were significantly reduced on a VLCKD and these hormones have a role in regulation of protein and triacylglycerol balance (4), we have decided to look at the effects of VLKCDs on testosterone, cortisol, insulin, leptin, glucagon, thyroid, and insulin-like growth factor-1. The objective was to see whether a VLCKD could alter the hormonal environment and affect protein and lipid kinetics, which over time could lead to decreased fat mass or increased lean body mass.

We have examined the effects of an isoenergetic VLCKD on body composition (assessed using DXA) and fasting hormone concentrations (9). Twelve healthy normal weight men switched from their habitual diet (48% carbohydrate) to a VLCKD for 6 weeks, and eight men served as controls, consuming their normal diet. Body composition and fasting blood samples were assessed before and after the VLCKD. If active, subjects maintained their normal level of physical activity.

Fat mass was significantly decreased (−3.4 kg), and lean body mass was significantly increased (+1.1 kg) after the VLCKD. There was a significant decrease in serum insulin (−34%), and an increase in total thyroxine (+11%) and the free thyroxine index (+13%). Approximately 70% of the variability in fat loss on the VLCKD was accounted for by the decrease in serum insulin concentrations. There were no significant changes in glucagon, total or free testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, insulin-like growth factor-I, cortisol, or triiodothyronine uptake. Thus, a VLCKD resulted in a significant reduction in fat mass and a concomitant increase in lean body mass in normal weight men, which may be partially mediated by the reduction in circulating insulin concentrations.

(01-12-2016 01:26 AM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  

As for phytoestrogens...

Eating these is not akin to injecting yourself with estrogen. Phytoestrogens can actually BOOST testosterone.

Just look at that chart. Most of those foods are good for you. Olive oil and nuts are loaded with monounsaturated fats - a proven test booster.

Sure most of those foods are nutrient rich and good for you. No disputes with that. I eat various tree nuts and olive oil, and I also drink beer and wine and will continue to do so on a small scale.

The problem is that science doesn't seem to have a definitive answer as to what the effects are of phytoestrogens on males. That being said, there some strong indicators that they are mostly negative for men and the male endocrine system. I've even posted here about my own negative personal anecdotes of a time when I had high consumption level of phytoestrogens.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/

Quote:

9. Conclusions
Phytoestrogens are intriguing because, although they behave similarly to numerous synthetic compounds in laboratory models of endocrine disruption, society embraces these compounds at the same time it rejects, often with vigor, use of synthetic endocrine disruptors in household products. Thus, phytoestrogens both expand our view of environmental endocrine disruptors and propound that the source of the compound in question can influence the direction and interpretation of research and available data. While the potentially beneficial effects of phytoestrogen consumption have been eagerly pursued, and frequently overstated, the potentially adverse effects of these compounds are likely underappreciated. The opposite situation exists for synthetic endocrine disruptors, most of which have lower binding affinities for classical ERs than any of the phytoestrogens but can sometime produce similar biological effects. Animal data reveal that the isoflavones have a wide range of molecular, cellular and behavioral effects at doses and plasma concentrations attainable in humans. In vivo isoflavone responses have been reported for a wider range of tissues and processes than the endpoints generally used to evaluate most synthetic EDCs [293], yet only minimal concern has been raised about their increasing use. Infants fed soy formula have the highest exposure to any nonpharmacological source of estrogen-like compounds, yet we know virtually nothing about how the use of these phytoestrogen-rich formulas might impact their future reproductive health. Although relative few adverse effects have been detected, that may simply be because a surprising paucity of large-scale, comprehensive studies have been undertaken to address this issue, especially in boys. That may change in the near future because the health effects of endocrine disrupting compounds in general are receiving more attention from public health agencies, and the public at large.

If there is anything to be learned from that chart, just avoid soy like the plague:

Hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction associated with soy product consumption

An unusual case of gynecomastia associated with soy product consumption

[cascadecombo]

(01-11-2016 07:55 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

I think coriander is one of them.

From my experience, that is actually something linked to genetics. It is disliked by most people in Japan, and from what I hear back in the states for the people who dislike it it generally tastes like soap.

For the OP, muffins aren't healthy at all of course but some of the substitutions are geared towards a less unhealthy style of muffin. The apple sauce substitute is in there as a substitution for oil for example.

Not healthy, but less unhealthy at least. If they used those less unhealthy foods as cheat foods vs their weekly staple breakfast food it wouldn't actually be so bad. But we all know that they will be woofing down on them even more since they are "healthy" in their mind.

(01-11-2016 02:24 PM)Hannibal Wrote:  

-Eat more wasabi. It contains a chemical (diidolymethane), which helps inhibits aromatase aka the conversion of testosterone to estrogen.


-If you eat lots of sugar, stop. Sugar nukes your testosterone. No man should eat more than thirty grams of it a day.

Makes me wonder why wasabi was so popular in Japan despite the country being huge on consuming soy.
Not to mention the sweets here taste bland to the typical American tongue. By now I had learned to appreciate "sweets" that aren't pure sugar crackers.

[Uncircumcised Coke Can]

Designate,

Here ya go bro:

Young men placed on a low-carb diet have 36% less free testosterone than their high-carb counterparts.

Glucose plays vital role in gonadotropin-releasing hormone production...the precursor hormone to testosterone.

The low-carb/Paleo nonsense has been disproven time-and-time again. I'm not sure why people insist on clinging to something that has no basis in science.

But if you want to send your test levels into the dumper, then by all means...

[Joga Bonito]

There's some interesting case studies regarding weight loss and the effect of certain foods on achieving that goal. Below is an article that details a professor that ate a calorie restricted, but all-junk food diet and actually shed pounds since he was eating well below is maintenance calories. The TLDR summary of the article is that in the scenario of purely losing weight(not necessarily optimal hormonal function), that nothing else matters other than being in a caloric deficit.

Quote:

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twi...professor/

Another science teacher lost significant weight and improved some choice biological markers,purely eating off the menu at McDonalds(albeit in caloric deficit), with the conclusion being the same.

Quote:

Remember the 2004 documentary Super Size Me and its blatant lack of a twist ending? Guy eats only highly processed, high-fat McDonald’s food for one month. Guy’s health deteriorates. The end.

Science teacher John Cisna tried out a similar experiment, but saw drastically different results. After eating nothing but McDonald’s for three months, the Iowa man lost 37 pounds and saw his cholesterol level drop significantly, local TV station KCCI reports.

Cisna enlisted his students to help him plan out a 2,000-calorie daily diet plan consisting only of food sold by the fast food giant. They also tried not to exceed recommended allowances of nutrients like carbohydrates, proteins, fat calories and cholesterol.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teac...alds-diet/

This would help explain why people have trouble losing weight even if they 'eating clean', since you can easily overeat on calorie-dense foods like coconut oil and almonds.

[Hades]

The keto community does have the monopoly on weight loss, because carbs are not an essential nutrient. You can eliminate carbs and start burning fat like a motherfucker while sparing muscle. Start at "fat fuck" and get beach body ready in like six weeks with no lifting.

So what if it reduces test in (probably) detrained youth after ten straight days of no refeed or cheat meal? CKD is a viable approach for anybody who wants to have it all. If you want to lift weights, get shitfaced every week, have weekly diet breaks, and stay lean year-round, then do that.

(01-12-2016 03:51 PM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:01 PM)PhDre Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:05 PM)Khan Wrote:  

Hannibal Wrote:

You can actually eat a caloric deficit every day on sugar and still get fatter.

What you wrote here violates the first law of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't.

I rest my case...

Notice nothing was mentioned about gaining or losing weight.

You can eat a sugary caloric deficit and still get fatter. The number on the scale might be going down, but that's not relevant if you're just losing LBM.

If fat is becoming a greater percentage of your overall body weight, you're getting fatter.

[Uncircumcised Coke Can]

Hades,

You can't store fat in a caloric deficit. Period.

Muscle and fat are both a form of energy "storage", and neither can happen without caloric surplus. We're going up against thermodynamics again here...

Now, if you're arguing that a "sugary" caloric deficit might lead to LESS fat loss than a "low carb" caloric deficit --- then maybe. It's still a trifle compared to caloric intake.

[roberto]

Call it bro science, call it what you will. Different things work for different people. That's what we're here to discuss- since when has this forum been mainstream?

I over-ate like you wouldn't believe when switching from SAD to Keto and I still lost fat.

Paging Giovonny...

[Khan]

Hades Wrote:

The keto community does have the monopoly on weight loss, because carbs are not an essential nutrient. You can eliminate carbs and start burning fat like a motherfucker while sparing muscle.

Yes you can, but this is not caused by the absence of carbs from your diet. The reason people lose fat on Paleo diets is very simple - food rich in fat is very satiable. This makes you less hungry, so you unconsciously eat less and go into a caloric deficit, which then causes weight loss. This effect is especially pronounced for people who were having a nutrition rich in simple carbs prior to switching to Paleo.

Hades Wrote:

Start at "fat fuck" and get beach body ready in like six weeks with no lifting.

No offense, but this sounds like an ad for one of those bogus weight-loss products.

I ate Paleo for nearly a year, while simultaneously doing the Insanity fitness program. I lost around 6-7 kgs, improved my endurance considerably, but still remained a fatass. I suspect the combination of a caloric deficit and lack of resistance training even caused me to lose muscle.

[germanico]

(01-12-2016 10:42 PM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  

The low-carb/Paleo nonsense has been disproven time-and-time again.

There are a few low carb paleo dudes here oin the forum. Im waiting for them to chime in.

[The Beast1]

(01-12-2016 11:37 AM)PhDre Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 10:13 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

With all of the foods that contain phytoestrogens, are there any foods that are phytoandrogens?

It seems everything out there wants to feminize us. There have to be a few foods that have phytoandrogenic effects.

Apparently pine pollen is a phytoandrogen.

Thanks for the tip. Woulda thought eating plant sperm would have test in it

[CocoBoy]

(01-12-2016 11:00 PM)Joga Bonito Wrote:  

This would help explain why people have trouble losing weight even if they 'eating clean', since you can easily overeat on calorie-dense foods like coconut oil and almonds.

lol coconut oil will NEVER make you fat no matter how much you take in, you could guzzle the stuff down all day if you want. It's a special fat that is just burnt for energy straight away that's why it's so bloody great.

(01-13-2016 03:55 AM)Khan Wrote:  

Yes you can, but this is not caused by the absence of carbs from your diet. The reason people lose fat on Paleo diets is very simple - food rich in fat is very satiable. This makes you less hungry, so you unconsciously eat less and go into a caloric deficit, which then causes weight loss. This effect is especially pronounced for people who were having a nutrition rich in simple carbs prior to switching to Paleo.

Yeah you probably have a point, that a high protein and fat diet makes you full more easily and that's because it's fucking full of nutrients, something which carbs cannot claim to be. Isn't that a good thing though? Rather than constantly spiking your blood sugar, crashing and then craving your carb fix all day.

But I will say the weight loss of a paleo diet is not because of the reduced calories, I actually make a conscious effort to get at least 2500 per day, which should be enough to gain weight for my height (yeah I'm pretty short) but instead I lose fat, become lean and my abs start showing. If I consume a high carb 2500 calories I will have a skinny fat thing going on with a bit of a belly.

[PhDre]

(01-13-2016 01:07 AM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  

Hades,

You can't store fat in a caloric deficit. Period.

Muscle and fat are both a form of energy "storage", and neither can happen without caloric surplus. We're going up against thermodynamics again here...

Now, if you're arguing that a "sugary" caloric deficit might lead to LESS fat loss than a "low carb" caloric deficit --- then maybe. It's still a trifle compared to caloric intake.

Coke Can, at first I thought you were trolling the thread but it seems that you are here for the actual discussion.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, thus:
calories in = body function + tissue regeneration + muscle mass + fat mass

Think of the first two terms as work being done by your body. Indeed, your body requires energy to keep warm, to digest food, to synthesize hormones, neurotransmitters, blood cells, to regenerate tissue...
The last two terms can be thought of as "energy storage".
It is your hormones who decide whether an ingested cal is spend on doing work or on storage, and in which form of storage.

Take a hypothetical person who is in perfect equilibrium at an intake of 2000 kcal/day.
These can be split as: 500+500+500+500.
Now if this person starts injecting test and GH, this can become: 450+500+650+400. Still 2000 kcal/day, but this person is gaining muscle, losing fat and gaining total body mass since his body spends less energy manufacturing hormones.

Let's place our theoretical test subject in a calorie deficit of 400 kcal/day.
He can swing to 1600 = 450+450+350+350.
If he is insulin insensitive and has low test and growth hormone, he will rather swing to 1600 = 400+400+300+500, thus he is losing muscle while he doesn't lose any fat.
If he gets hormonally screwed even more, he can become 1600 = 400+400+100+700, he is gaining fat mass.

As you see, in theory, the first law can also predict that you gain total mass while in a caloric deficit due to severe downregulation of the normal bodily functions. However, your body is not that stupid and will probably use all energy storage before using vital functions.

So if you want to argue that your total bodyweight will not go up when in caloric deficit, I think your statement is fairly accurate, although it is not an illustration of the first law of thermodynamics which allows the opposite.
If you state that your total fat mass cannot go up when in caloric deficit, I disagree.

[Uncircumcised Coke Can]

^Lol why on earth would you think I was trolling?

Yes - the human body can down-regulate metabolism significantly. But if you're gaining fat, then you're no longer in caloric deficit. It's called a DEFICIT for a reason. You're taking in less calories than your body needs to maintain mass. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this...

You're going to lose fat and muscle in a deficit. With heavy weights, adequate protein intake (and preferably some AAS) - you can keep muscle loss to a minimum (but you'll still lose some).

I think you're struggling with the notion that caloric deficits are dynamic. If your metabolism downregulates to 1500 calories a day from 2,000. Then the new deficit is 1499 calories.

[Hades]

(01-13-2016 01:07 AM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  

Hades,

You can't store fat in a caloric deficit. Period.

Muscle and fat are both a form of energy "storage", and neither can happen without caloric surplus. We're going up against thermodynamics again here...

Now, if you're arguing that a "sugary" caloric deficit might lead to LESS fat loss than a "low carb" caloric deficit --- then maybe. It's still a trifle compared to caloric intake.

Nobody is arguing the bolded.

The granddaddy of nutrition, the first law of thermodynamics, regularly shits on the first grade math of most nutritionists because calories in/calories out is a gross oversimplification. It ignores the thermic effect of food and loss due to heat excretion.

(01-13-2016 03:55 AM)Khan Wrote:  

Hades Wrote:

The keto community does have the monopoly on weight loss, because carbs are not an essential nutrient. You can eliminate carbs and start burning fat like a motherfucker while sparing muscle.

Yes you can, but this is not caused by the absence of carbs from your diet. The reason people lose fat on Paleo diets is very simple - food rich in fat is very satiable. This makes you less hungry, so you unconsciously eat less and go into a caloric deficit, which then causes weight loss. This effect is especially pronounced for people who were having a nutrition rich in simple carbs prior to switching to Paleo.

Fat and protein satiate, yes.
However the absence of muscle glycogen removes the barrier to fat loss.

Lots of dietary experiments exist correlating with this. For instance, GLL ate a diet of fried cheese for a week, something in excess of 5k calories per day. After a week he still managed to lose a pound.

Quote:

Hades Wrote:

Start at "fat fuck" and get beach body ready in like six weeks with no lifting.

No offense, but this sounds like an ad for one of those bogus weight-loss products.

I ate Paleo for nearly a year, while simultaneously doing the Insanity fitness program. I lost around 6-7 kgs, improved my endurance considerably, but still remained a fatass. I suspect the combination of a caloric deficit and lack of resistance training even caused me to lose muscle.

That's the real beauty of a well executed PSMF. You won't believe the results either.

I'm sort of surprised that you remained a fatass while eating paleo for about a year. No refeeds or anything? This might be a question for Lyle MacDonald's forum if you're thick skinned enough.

[Uncircumcised Coke Can]

^The TEF should be factored in when calculating your caloric maintenance. I'll agree with you that most nutritionists are too retarded to do that.

But the fact is - calories in/calories out is responsible for 99% of the changes in body composition. Macro manipulation is almost inconsequential. It's basically a fitness gimmick sold to Asperger people who enjoy counting things.

Quote:

Fat and protein satiate, yes.
However the absence of muscle glycogen removes the barrier to fat loss.

The body can and does burn fat with full glycogen stores. While resting - and doing low-intensity exercise - adipose tissue is the body's primary fuel source.

Quote:

Lots of dietary experiments exist correlating with this. For instance, GLL ate a diet of fried cheese for a week, something in excess of 5k calories per day. After a week he still managed to lose a pound.

When going on a keto diet like that, most people will lose weight due to glycogen depletion and water loss. Doesn't make it any more effective for fat loss.