Paleo/Primal/Ancestral/Low-Carb Dietary Lifestyles

Quickleaf's Rule: Don't buy any book unless it calls you to buy it! unless I wrote it

Janx said:

In general barring wierd disease, fat people eat more than skinny people. When most fat people eat less, they become skinny.

Click to expand...

I realize you left room for exceptions. Do you consider obesity as the "most fat people" you describe or as an exception? I ask because the second assertion may actually be false for many people.

The 1998 Handbook of Obesity (Bray, Bouchard, and James) is still considered a seminal text on the matter and is used in the modern treatment of obesity. It adovcates caloric restriction. However it basically concludes that such restricted diets "are known to be poor and not long-lasting." A recent 2005 text, Joslin's Diabetes Mellitus (in a chapter by Jeffery & Terry Flier), re-examines the research on caloric restriction diets as a tool for weight loss, and while they consider it to be an important part of treatment they too conclude about e various caloric restriction diets they examined, "none of these approaches has any proven merit."

That's some pretty damning evidence for the claim that caloric reduction diet work for the obese!

Btw, by obese we're talking BMI in the 30+ range. It's also worth noting that while these studies focused on that range, there do cite failure of caloric restriction diets to sustain weight loss for people in the BMI 25-29 range (technically "overweight" and not "obese").

Morrus said:

I challenge those who are claiming that calories are "bad science" to a practical experiment:

1) Eat 5000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not put on weight.

Click to expand...

Maaaaybe when I was rowing crew and doing competitive karate in college I could put away 4000 calories a day, but 5000 is nuts. I don't think I could will myself to consume that much!

2) Eat 1000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not lost weight.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did something similar to this: a 30 day juice fast followed by a 10 day master's cleanse (basically a water/tea/lemonade fast). And I dropped from 196 to 169 (my lowest weight ever, I'm 6'1". I was exceedingly weak at the end of that experiment, probably couldn't have lasted any longer than another week before entering a medically critical condition, but I definitely got closer to God

I'd like to emphasize that fasting in this extreme shuts off the appestat mechanism for feeling hunger, and should only be done by the experienced or with medical supervision.

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] Anyhow, to get to your challenge, I think you've misunderstood the idea I'm trying to present. Where you see willpower (?) as what makes a diet succeed or fail, I suspect something in the physiology, probably induced by type of food consumed (or environmental toxin...but that's another discussion).

If say I eat fifty pounds of spare ribs, OF COURSE I will gain weight. Likewise if I don't eat food for several weeks. Well, until a point. Indigenous populations (eg. Taubes cites the Pima people of Arizona) suffer obesity while having very little food on their reservation...basically they are / were semi-starving and yet anthropologists observe(d) obesity.

What I'm pointing out is that fat people who calorie restrict or up their exercise for the large part don't successfully keep the weight off. IOW they are *compelled* to either eat more or conserve energy by something physiologically happening in their body which responds as if in a state of semi-starvation.

Maybe you consider that as an exceptional case? My understanding is that is may be quite prevalent in modern societies.

I'll accept that additional measures can adjust the results slightly; and that there is small minority of people will illnesses which change the game; I reject the premise that calorie-based intake and expenditure is in any way "bad science" and suggest that anyone claiming such is trying to sell you something.

Click to expand...

Yeah, calories aren't bad science, they're just a fact. What I'm calling "questionable" or "misapplied" science is the idea that calorie under/over consumption is the driving cause of weight loss/gain for obese people. And possibly overweight people...though I think more research is needed to clarify what precisely is going on.

Androlphas said:

I don't think I like what you're getting at here. I don't work for these guys, nor am I a shill for their works

Click to expand...

This would not be what I'm getting at.

You've pretty much answered your own question. If what you're doing works for you, and you're healthy, that's wonderful. I thought from your initial response that you were curious and/or interested in knowing more; my mistake.

Click to expand...

Hmm? What question (of mine) have I answered? I'm feeling slightly off-track here. I'm clearly not communicating well.

Quickleaf said:

Quickleaf's Rule: Don't buy any book unless it calls you to buy it! unless I wrote it


I realize you left room for exceptions. Do you consider obesity as the "most fat people" you describe or as an exception? I ask because the second assertion may actually be false for many people.

The 1998 Handbook of Obesity (Bray, Bouchard, and James) is still considered a seminal text on the matter and is used in the modern treatment of obesity. It adovcates caloric restriction. However it basically concludes that such restricted diets "are known to be poor and not long-lasting." A recent 2005 text, Joslin's Diabetes Mellitus (in a chapter by Jeffery & Terry Flier), re-examines the research on caloric restriction diets as a tool for weight loss, and while they consider it to be an important part of treatment they too conclude about e various caloric restriction diets they examined, "none of these approaches has any proven merit."

That's some pretty damning evidence for the claim that caloric reduction diet work for the obese!

Btw, by obese we're talking BMI in the 30+ range. It's also worth noting that while these studies focused on that range, there do cite failure of caloric restriction diets to sustain weight loss for people in the BMI 25-29 range (technically "overweight" and not "obese").


Maaaaybe when I was rowing crew and doing competitive karate in college I could put away 4000 calories a day, but 5000 is nuts. I don't think I could will myself to consume that much!


Actually, I did something similar to this: a 30 day juice fast followed by a 10 day master's cleanse (basically a water/tea/lemonade fast). And I dropped from 196 to 169 (my lowest weight ever, I'm 6'1". I was exceedingly weak at the end of that experiment, probably couldn't have lasted any longer than another week before entering a medically critical condition, but I definitely got closer to God

I'd like to emphasize that fasting in this extreme shuts off the appestat mechanism for feeling hunger, and should only be done by the experienced or with medical supervision.

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] Anyhow, to get to your challenge, I think you've misunderstood the idea I'm trying to present. Where you see willpower (?) as what makes a diet succeed or fail, I suspect something in the physiology, probably induced by type of food consumed (or environmental toxin...but that's another discussion).

If say I eat fifty pounds of spare ribs, OF COURSE I will gain weight. Likewise if I don't eat food for several weeks. Well, until a point. Indigenous populations (eg. Taubes cites the Pima people of Arizona) suffer obesity while having very little food on their reservation...basically they are / were semi-starving and yet anthropologists observe(d) obesity.

What I'm pointing out is that fat people who calorie restrict or up their exercise for the large part don't successfully keep the weight off. IOW they are *compelled* to either eat more or conserve energy by something physiologically happening in their body which responds as if in a state of semi-starvation.

Maybe you consider that as an exceptional case? My understanding is that is may be quite prevalent in modern societies.


Yeah, calories aren't bad science, they're just a fact. What I'm calling "questionable" or "misapplied" science is the idea that calorie under/over consumption is the driving cause of weight loss/gain for obese people. And possibly overweight people...though I think more research is needed to clarify what precisely is going on.

Click to expand...

Yikes, that's long; and I hate those point-by-point formats that forum discussions often devolve I to, so I'll try to address all that as a whole.

So you'll agree that eating craploads will put on weight, and eating little will lose it. You mention exercise as a factor, too. As far as I can tell, you've pretty clearly affirmed the calorie budget camp. It's claims which deny the basic mechanics of calories (except in cases of certain illnesses which screw it all up) that I object to.

Morrus said:

Yikes, that's long; and I hate those point-by-point formats that forum discussions often devolve I to, so I'll try to address all that as a whole.

So you'll agree that eating craploads will put on weight, and eating little will lose it. You mention exercise as a factor, too. As far as I can tell, you've pretty clearly affirmed the calorie budget camp. It's claims which deny the basic mechanics of calories (except in cases of certain illnesses which screw it all up) that I object to.

Click to expand...

Umbran said:

In physics, we have a useful notion: "to first approximation".

For example, Newton's Laws are correct, to first approximation. Einstein gives us corrections, but, for most folks, in most normal situations, Newton is good enough.

Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't mean to make the conversation feel like it was devolving! I felt it was getting richer, different perspectives I guess.

Anyhow, treat my viewpoint/hypothesis as one that might be worthwhile for all those for whom "to first approximation" (nutritionally speaking) doesn't cut it. And above all, stay healthy and sexy Getting your metabolism derailed just sucks, I don't recommend it for anybody, not even goblins.

Quickleaf said:

Oh, I didn't mean to make the conversation feel like it was devolving! I felt it was getting richer, different perspectives

Click to expand...

Devolving was a bad choice of words - I meant that your post contained a lot of points, but that I wanted to avoid that point-by-point quote-reply format that forum discussions often find themselves in. Thus my attempt to gather them all into one catch all reply!

There are a lot of reasons for obesity besides overeating. Especially when we are talking about very high obesity.

There is an issue of metabolism some very heavy people have such sluggish ones that a diet of 1000 calories won't budge the scale. Also studies are showing more and more that for very overweight people often their brain chemistry is not the same as normal weight people. For one the full signal does not work properly.

When they manage to lose weight their brain goes into famine mode and the body slows down the weight loss.

There is also psychological issues involved which is why the people who tend to lose weight and keep it off if they are very heavy have some kind of psychological help going on.

One of the things about low carb is that you can eat a lot which helps people stick to it also fat makes food more satisfying so dieters feel less deprived and more willing to stick to it.

The big problem is if they don't change the habits and deal with the issues that made them fat in the first place they gain back the weight and usually some extra.

My roommate has celiac which means no gluten and with the research we have done on it we have been finding studies showing the wheat grown today has a higher gluten content than heritage wheat. Some experts in the study of obesity thinks they may cause you to gain weight easier.

Also chemicals and fake food like high fructose corn syrup are in so many things and one of the bad things they are finding about HFCS is that it interferes with the body ability to recognize it is full.

I don't think it is any coincidence that they started putting this in our foods in the 1980s and this was about the time we started seeing a raise in childhood obesity. I know it is not the only reason but I do think it is part of it.

Girls are now maturing and getting their first periods earlier than they used to and this is directly related to the growth hormones in our meat.

One thing that the paleo diets encourages is buying and eating organic meat and meat raised on grasses not corn.

I am not making excuses for over weight people I am just pointing out that with very heavy people there may be more going on than just eating to much.

As it happens I have just finished 30 days of low-carb dieting. I'm doing the p90X exercise plan, and the nutritional guide for the first 30 days is high-protein, low-carb. It's the first time I've done this type of diet before. I have to say I haven't noticed much of a difference, in terms of energy or general well-beingness. I do feel good, and I've lost about 5 pounds and gained a bit of muscle. But I'm looking forward to upping the carbs in the next phase. I want a bowl of slow-cooked, steel-cut oats for breakfast (yum).

As far as the "Paleo" diet goes -- I think of these diets as narratives. They're stories that some people need to get jazzed enough to make a major change in their lifestyle. The Paleo diet has the whole uber-masculine thing where you pretend to be a caveman. I find that pretty cheesy, so I'm not into it, but if it's what turns you on enough to stop eating junk food and eat more plants, then rock on.

Of course if someone is gluten or lactose-intolerant, then I'm sure they'll feel much better with the paleo diet, or any diet where they eat less grains and dairy. But as far as I can tell I handle grains and dairy fine.

Morrus said:

Yikes, that's long; and I hate those point-by-point formats that forum discussions often devolve I to, so I'll try to address all that as a whole.

So you'll agree that eating craploads will put on weight, and eating little will lose it. You mention exercise as a factor, too. As far as I can tell, you've pretty clearly affirmed the calorie budget camp. It's claims which deny the basic mechanics of calories (except in cases of certain illnesses which screw it all up) that I object to.

Click to expand...

yeah, that was long and sciency. Don't contaminate my uninformed opinion with fact!

A majority of fat people who diet and regain the weight is because they drift back to their poor eating habits. That's a psychological problem/challenge, not a biological one. If you force them to be on diet, they loose weight. Clearly, the science confirms the observation. If you go off that formula, you'll go back to where you were.

It's a seperate problem to get them to adopt and stay on a controlled diet. That's probably the hardest part. Shows like the Biggest Loser emphasize that a lot (not discounting the other silly problems with that show). This paragraph should probably be emphasized. While people like me are probably right, "eat less crap, be less fat" is true. Doing it successfully and forever is a huge hurdle. The argument shouldn't be over my assumed fact, it should be over how best to help overweight people execute a plan to get them healthy.

Folks like the Pima indians (never heard of them), who apparently barely get any food and are fat? Obviously, that's an exception. Assuming their meal is sparse but healthy (not a 1/4 of butter every day), that's funky wierd and why we pay scientists to research that stuff.

It's possible/plausible that some fat people who start eating a healthy (ie smaller/restricted diet) go into hibernation preparation mode and their body still stockpiles fat, but that's likely not common. At some point, the body has taken in too little fuel and MUST burn its own local resources (fat, muscle). A body that doesn't do that, does have a different medical problem than "being fat". There are more examples of people who were starved/limited food who are scrawny than fat. Most human bodies respond to reduced food intake in a very predictable way.

Elf Witch said:

I am not making excuses for over weight people I am just pointing out that with very heavy people there may be more going on than just eating to much.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the extra incite in that.

While my principle of "eat less, weigh less" is true enough (a First Approximation), there are undoubtedly extra variables.

There are wierd things in our food. So what we think is "healthier" isn't as much as it used to be.

Apparently, about 50 years ago, the wheat grain was cross bred with another grass. Probably to make it yield better. The resulting grain has some form of opiate in it. In theory, we are "addicted" to bread because of it. This grain has been in heavy use for half a century apparently.

If you could fix that (or go back to a different grain), we might be eating less bread, and such.

While on the basic level, I don't mind science tinkering with genes and stuff to make better versions of stuff. We've been doing that on a primitive scale since people been breeding animals and stuff. I'm not so keen on wierd side effects that my food didn't used to have because it was "normal"

Morrus said:

This would not be what I'm getting at.

Hmm? What question (of mine) have I answered? I'm feeling slightly off-track here. I'm clearly not communicating well.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I don't think I'm communicating well at all here, either

I was referring to your question about why you would change your dietary habits. You don't have any (apparent) problems, so you don't need to. That's your answer.

When I say "check this stuff out", I don't mean for you to buy a book and take what the author is saying on faith. What I am saying is that the information is out there, there's a lot of it, and I can't possibly explain all of it to a convincing degree in this thread. Therefore, it's up to the individual to research and decide for themselves.


Quickleaf, Elf Witch, and Janx, thank you for explaining this better than I can

To sum up a few problems with "calories-in-calories-out" as a bottom line solution to weight (fat) accumulation:

- Amounts of food (conflated with "calories" here, I feel) matter, but calorie-counting is suspect, because not all calories are the same. By extension, so are standard serving sizes.

- All metabolic rates are not the same, so a standard amount of "calories out" activity required by a human being on a daily basis (as the fitness industry would like you to believe) is also supect. This is up for some debate. Please note that I feel sports and exercise are valuable for their own sake, just not as a complete solution to weight control.

- Equating a complex biological system with a mechanical one is problematic, which is what happens when one appeals to the Law of Thermodynamics. For example, the commonly-used car engine analogy. Even so, you don't fix your car's engine by putting in less gas and driving it more.

Under normal circumstances the body self-regulates how much food to eat (i.e. feeling hungry/full), and what to do with it (use, store, and/or waste). This is where "calories-in-calories-out" seems like the simplest solution. However, someone with a malfunctioning metabolism (usually, but not always, overweight/obese) can't do this, especially when continuing to eat the foods (processed carbohydrates and sugar), that are likely responsible in the first place. In this light, excess fat accumulation is not a disease, but a symptom. This is part of Taubes' alternative hypothesis on obesity.