6 ms·

Not really. There's a pretty clear connection between insulin levels and weight gain. Spiking your insulin levels by eating carbohydrates will effect how calo

by s_baby 14y ago

Not really. There's a pretty clear connection between insulin levels and weight gain. Spiking your insulin levels by eating carbohydrates will effect how calories are used for many if not all people.

dualogy 14y ago
I'm not denying that there certainly are such factors at play at some level, but not sure how decisive they are: I'd wager they won't make a dent if you consume 4500 calories of Paleo a day, and likewise won't if you consume 1200 calories of junk-food a day -- say for the average non-athlete rather-sedentary adult.
- dlytle 14y ago
  One of the primary arguments of a keto/paleo diet is that the different diets affect how many calories your body thinks it needs, how it uses them, and how it influences behavior as a result. (Disclaimer: using imaginary numbers below to illustrate the theory.) Let's say your body typically wants 1000 calories at breakfast, and you eat 1000 calories with a heavy load of carbs. Carbohydrates with a high glycemic index cause your insulin to spike. That signals fat cells that they should start storing energy, and they do so, tucking away 300 of the 1000 calories you ate. This means your body only gets to spend 700 of the 1000 calories you ate, and as such, it says "hey, I'm still hungry". You eat 300 calories worth of food. But your fat cells are still sucking up (X%) of what you eat into storage, due to the insulin reaction. So, your body gets 200 of those 300 it wants, and it stays a little bit hungry. (Or, more likely, your body wants 300, but you eat 500 to make it shut up.) Carbs have the unfortunate habit of converting useful calories into fat storage prior to processing them for the purposes of nutrition. This means carb-heavy diets tend to cause unconscious overeating, and also constant feelings of hunger/cravings/etc. One of the advantages of a paleo/keto diet is that they often avoid the type of carbohydrates that cause this problem, namely ones with a high glycemic index. This means when you eat 1000 calories, your fat cells don't skim any off the top before your metabolism gets to them, and you get the full 1000; this means you don't end up hungry after a meal, and don't suffer from the urge to snack/eat more. Because your body got all the energy it wanted, it doesn't start saying it's hungry again until it actually does need the nutrition, and you're more likely to eat closer to the correct amount for your body's needs. The difference between the examples you give, 4500 of Paleo and 1200 of junk food, is primarily how they'd make your body react. 1200 of junk food would certainly be a caloric deficit, but you'd be ravenously hungry at that level. (I've done 1000 calories a day for 6 months straight - it's pretty awful for the first few months.) But with keto, you could eat 4500 calories in a day, but you won't want to. When I'm done eating a keto-style meal, I am completely uninterested in food until the next. Those meals, for me, are typically 1-2 small/medium brats with no bun. But if I go out and cheat, and grab a burger and fries, I've got to fight the urge to follow it up with some ice cream, even though the fries and burger combined are drastically more calories than the brats I was satisfied with the meal before. It's really interesting stuff. The "calories-in, calories-out" model is completely right from a completely energy-based perspective, but it doesn't account for the side effects produced by the energy source, and how people react to them.
  - tjogin 14y ago
    This is pseudo science, there are droves of scientific literature that shows that meal timing is irrelevant and that as long as macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is a calorie.
    - sgift 14y ago
      And there are droves of scientific literature that show that meal timing is important and even if macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is not a calorie. The simple fact is: No one was able to prove anything beyond shallow platitudes ("If you eat three tons of flesh each day you will get fat too!" "If you eat nothing for month you will get lean!").
      - dalke 14y ago
        A quick search of PubMed finds some recent (within the last year) papers like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955 - "Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness" It starts "Background: There is emerging literature demonstrating a relationship between the timing of feeding and weight regulation in animals. However, whether the timing of food intake influences the success of a weight-loss diet in humans is unknown." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167985 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167985 - "Effects of exercise before or after meal ingestion on fat balance and postprandial metabolism in overweight men."; "It is unclear how timing of exercise relative to meal ingestion influences substrate balance and metabolic responses." These make me think that there isn't "droves of scientific literature" which show the importance of meal timing in humans, much less characterize the magnitude of the importance. (Eg, if there's a measurable 1% difference in overall effect on weight then it's statistically significant finding, but almost certainly not enough for most people to care about.)
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      Where is the parent saying anything about meal timing? It's about the effect on your body of a particular meal. Carbs and sugars spike insulin much more than fats or protein.
- s_baby 14y ago
  There's a reason Atkin's diet is so popular. It's because it's extremely effective at shedding weight. Sure there might be a point at which you're gaining weight due to the fact that it's an astronomical amount of calories and there are going to be differences in biology but over-all people find eliminating carbs will cut the weight even if they don't cut calories.
  - tjogin 14y ago
    The same argument could be, and often is used, to prove the existence of god.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Lots of things are popular. However, I thought the rough consensus was more like what's outlined in (pulling up a recent relevant paper) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/ "Successful weight loss can be achieved with either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet when coupled with behavioral treatment. A low-carbohydrate diet is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors at 2 years." "Data from several randomized trials over the past 6 years have demonstrated that low-carbohydrate diets produced greater short-term (6 months) weight loss than low-fat, calorie-restricted diets (1-5). The longer-term (1 to 2 years) results are mixed." "Implication: Overweight persons can achieve substantial weight loss at 2 years if they participate in a behavioral intervention combined with a low-fat or a low-carbohydrate diet." Also, attrition rates were about the same between the two.
hmbg 14y ago
Without having done much research I also find it easy to imagine that the sedentariness of the paleo-people where, on average, a lot less than of people nowadays.

by s_baby 14y ago

Not really. There's a pretty clear connection between insulin levels and weight gain. Spiking your insulin levels by eating carbohydrates will effect how calories are used for many if not all people.

dualogy 14y ago

I'm not denying that there certainly are such factors at play at some level, but not sure how decisive they are: I'd wager they won't make a dent if you consume 4500 calories of Paleo a day, and likewise won't if you consume 1200 calories of junk-food a day -- say for the average non-athlete rather-sedentary adult.

dlytle 14y ago
One of the primary arguments of a keto/paleo diet is that the different diets affect how many calories your body thinks it needs, how it uses them, and how it influences behavior as a result. (Disclaimer: using imaginary numbers below to illustrate the theory.) Let's say your body typically wants 1000 calories at breakfast, and you eat 1000 calories with a heavy load of carbs. Carbohydrates with a high glycemic index cause your insulin to spike. That signals fat cells that they should start storing energy, and they do so, tucking away 300 of the 1000 calories you ate. This means your body only gets to spend 700 of the 1000 calories you ate, and as such, it says "hey, I'm still hungry". You eat 300 calories worth of food. But your fat cells are still sucking up (X%) of what you eat into storage, due to the insulin reaction. So, your body gets 200 of those 300 it wants, and it stays a little bit hungry. (Or, more likely, your body wants 300, but you eat 500 to make it shut up.) Carbs have the unfortunate habit of converting useful calories into fat storage prior to processing them for the purposes of nutrition. This means carb-heavy diets tend to cause unconscious overeating, and also constant feelings of hunger/cravings/etc. One of the advantages of a paleo/keto diet is that they often avoid the type of carbohydrates that cause this problem, namely ones with a high glycemic index. This means when you eat 1000 calories, your fat cells don't skim any off the top before your metabolism gets to them, and you get the full 1000; this means you don't end up hungry after a meal, and don't suffer from the urge to snack/eat more. Because your body got all the energy it wanted, it doesn't start saying it's hungry again until it actually does need the nutrition, and you're more likely to eat closer to the correct amount for your body's needs. The difference between the examples you give, 4500 of Paleo and 1200 of junk food, is primarily how they'd make your body react. 1200 of junk food would certainly be a caloric deficit, but you'd be ravenously hungry at that level. (I've done 1000 calories a day for 6 months straight - it's pretty awful for the first few months.) But with keto, you could eat 4500 calories in a day, but you won't want to. When I'm done eating a keto-style meal, I am completely uninterested in food until the next. Those meals, for me, are typically 1-2 small/medium brats with no bun. But if I go out and cheat, and grab a burger and fries, I've got to fight the urge to follow it up with some ice cream, even though the fries and burger combined are drastically more calories than the brats I was satisfied with the meal before. It's really interesting stuff. The "calories-in, calories-out" model is completely right from a completely energy-based perspective, but it doesn't account for the side effects produced by the energy source, and how people react to them.
- tjogin 14y ago
  This is pseudo science, there are droves of scientific literature that shows that meal timing is irrelevant and that as long as macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is a calorie.
  - sgift 14y ago
    And there are droves of scientific literature that show that meal timing is important and even if macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is not a calorie. The simple fact is: No one was able to prove anything beyond shallow platitudes ("If you eat three tons of flesh each day you will get fat too!" "If you eat nothing for month you will get lean!").
    - dalke 14y ago
      A quick search of PubMed finds some recent (within the last year) papers like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955 - "Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness" It starts "Background: There is emerging literature demonstrating a relationship between the timing of feeding and weight regulation in animals. However, whether the timing of food intake influences the success of a weight-loss diet in humans is unknown." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167985 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167985 - "Effects of exercise before or after meal ingestion on fat balance and postprandial metabolism in overweight men."; "It is unclear how timing of exercise relative to meal ingestion influences substrate balance and metabolic responses." These make me think that there isn't "droves of scientific literature" which show the importance of meal timing in humans, much less characterize the magnitude of the importance. (Eg, if there's a measurable 1% difference in overall effect on weight then it's statistically significant finding, but almost certainly not enough for most people to care about.)
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Where is the parent saying anything about meal timing? It's about the effect on your body of a particular meal. Carbs and sugars spike insulin much more than fats or protein.
s_baby 14y ago
There's a reason Atkin's diet is so popular. It's because it's extremely effective at shedding weight. Sure there might be a point at which you're gaining weight due to the fact that it's an astronomical amount of calories and there are going to be differences in biology but over-all people find eliminating carbs will cut the weight even if they don't cut calories.
- tjogin 14y ago
  The same argument could be, and often is used, to prove the existence of god.
- dalke 14y ago
  Lots of things are popular. However, I thought the rough consensus was more like what's outlined in (pulling up a recent relevant paper) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/ "Successful weight loss can be achieved with either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet when coupled with behavioral treatment. A low-carbohydrate diet is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors at 2 years." "Data from several randomized trials over the past 6 years have demonstrated that low-carbohydrate diets produced greater short-term (6 months) weight loss than low-fat, calorie-restricted diets (1-5). The longer-term (1 to 2 years) results are mixed." "Implication: Overweight persons can achieve substantial weight loss at 2 years if they participate in a behavioral intervention combined with a low-fat or a low-carbohydrate diet." Also, attrition rates were about the same between the two.

hmbg 14y ago

Without having done much research I also find it easy to imagine that the sedentariness of the paleo-people where, on average, a lot less than of people nowadays.