7b5db799c33535bbefd7dcf7ffff42f6
4

Low-Carb Paleo Eating Ruined Matt Stone's Health?

by (30)
Updated 43 minutes ago
Created August 30, 2010 at 11:47 PM

After finding low-carb paleo diet to be perfect for me and my lifestyle I am so dissapointed to hear Matt Stone at 180-degree health refute what I beleive. Stone use to be low-carb paleo and suffered several health problems and talks about his client with the lowest body temperature being a guy after he went LC paleo. I understand people gaining weight after stopping LC paleo bc I beleive they shouldnt be eating foods that aren't LC paleo. But Stone says LC paleo ruins metabolisms. What do you think?

Thanks!

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb
4458 · October 22, 2013 at 5:01 AM

"The whole story, and all the underlying mechanisms, can't be found on Marks Daily Apple".

you may be able to find the 'whole story' over at perfecthealthdiet (if you have not already dug thru that site, or read the books). Paul Jaminet has done quite a few posts on the possible/potential dangers of zero carb diets & vlc diets. & the use of 'safe starches' for carbs...

The site is a bit of pain to navigate & find any relevant posts (using google with a site: search is usually easier)

Medium avatar
0 · October 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM

@Lisa 3 How long did it take for you to balance out your hormones, and did you go Paleo all the way?

Medium avatar
0 · October 21, 2013 at 6:41 PM

@thhq I have to defend Lisa here, it's different for us girls. Hormones are so much more involved in the metabolism in many women. If hormones get out of order you can actually starve your self and work out like a beast with no results what so ever.

7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9
245 · October 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

you knew i'd pop up ??? O.O

not sure what point you mean and or are trying to say.

0b3f80766aea8c9deee81f1a53436692
0 · October 21, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Definitely. And same here. Interestingly, adding starch back in seems to be the fix for me too. The dogmatism is really getting old.

0b3f80766aea8c9deee81f1a53436692
0 · October 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I knew you'd pop up. Feel better now? You may want to read the words starting from -- Other notes -- and ending in the same paragraph with "that."

7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9
245 · October 21, 2013 at 3:21 PM

if youre doing ketosis and not re-feeding and on top of that mixing it with high exercise youre just setting yourself up for some hurt. its not really the diets fault if you dont practice if correctly.

303da756656a877256622dd5dcf0a02e
157 · April 02, 2013 at 7:05 AM

Here's a great write up on Matt Stone antics. And check out the photos - a picture of health... not http://freetheanimal.com/2010/03/poor-poor-matt-stone.html

303da756656a877256622dd5dcf0a02e
157 · April 02, 2013 at 4:30 AM

Not all of them sell supplements. I've found a few that actually talk out against taking supplements at all. Elenas Pantry is one such blog. This Matt guy is 30 something and certainly doesn't look the picture of health to me. The pictures on his website are clearly photoshopped. I started reading his blog after hearing his talk on Healthy Living Summit and it was completely void of any real information. He's a marketing genuis for sure.. but not a health guru.

Medium avatar
10234 · April 01, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Some people relish the opportunity to be obscure. Me included.

Medium avatar
10234 · April 01, 2013 at 8:53 PM

For once GT is right! That's exactly what I did, consumed exactly 20 calories more than I burned for 30 years and gained 50 lbs. But, unfortunately he recommends an impractical solution to the problem. It would take you another 30 years to lose 50 lbs on 20 cal/day deficits. I lost my 30 year 50 lb gain in 6 months by applying 1000 cal/day deficits every day. @lisa I'm sorry you failed, BUT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE METHODOLOGY. By doing it the GT way, using 20 cal/day deficits, you were bound to fail.

74786bbe8254844304a33943290c4d6d
1663 · April 01, 2013 at 2:59 PM

We ultimately don't know much about ancestral eating. We know what they didn't eat: industrial seed oils, white sugar among other things. What about the Kitavans who's diet is primally carbs? http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-pacific-islands.html

74786bbe8254844304a33943290c4d6d
1663 · April 01, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Yeah, because every other paleo blogger selling supps *isn't* making money off of us?

7fc82eebafd44badc73c520f44660150
3280 · January 14, 2013 at 3:18 AM

thanks for reminding me of the 20-calorie thing. I read his book, but forgot that point. Interesting.

Medium avatar
10234 · September 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Being sedentary ruins more metabolisms than SAD, LC paleo or vegan.

Medium avatar
10234 · September 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Thank goodness our ancestors were dumb and macronutrient-blind. It only takes a few geniuses - food scientists designing cheap rewarding foods and people creating hubristic dietary theories - to screw up the entire village.

Medium avatar
10234 · September 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

My T2 diabetes symptoms included steady hyperglycemia. I could not induce hypo until I had lost some weight and was combining undereating with exercise. I ran through a lot of those blood test strips back in the bad old days.

Medium avatar
10234 · September 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

In the Slavic sense of the word, the body is a mindless WORKER. A reminder that CICO means output as much as it means input. The intake part is most important for the sedentary obese, for whom reducing intake can have a huge effect on weight loss. For the rest of us, output is far more important, because we can't reduce our eating without wasting away.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f
8933 · September 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM

This must be the thread on PaleoHacks with the most dogmatic answers :DDD.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1
18671 · August 17, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Contradicting is not refuting.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:32 AM

If the body was a mere input and output machine, with nothing in the middle, we wouldn't be unable to have this conversation. The vast complexity of your body would just not exist, and we would be mindless, undynamic robots, only spending energy on physical movement, at a fixed and totally predictable rate. Instead we spend energy at the cellular level, we distribute it using complex chemical exchanges and we store and utilise it using those same exchanges. It would take all the computers of the world to keep track of a tiny tiny segment of our bodies.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:20 AM

"If your calories have stayed the same, and you're not exercising at all (even no weight lifting?) then it can't be fat loss. " - This just shows you are not thinking at all. Loads of people have lost weight, without a deficit, on low carb paleo, or other low carb diets. Its cognitive dissonance to maintain a beleif in the face of reality. You simply have to think of _why_. There are a couple of obvious reasons - A) basal metabolic rate b) insulin sensitivity (involved in fat storage) c) liver health (involved in fat storage).

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:11 AM

So yes, calories in and calories "out", is true, but nobody has an equation that can accurately predict your basal metabolism in calories, let alone the total influence of diet apon that basal metabolism.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:10 AM

----> I think that points squarely to the ridiculous part of the calories as they are generally conceived - that is, it ignores what a large portion of your energy is spent on - your internal metabolism. On average that basal metabolism varies from person to person by around 30%, and beyond that, that leaves alot of room for outliers, who dont eat sad, or sit on the couch all day long. Its proven that diet (and probably activity) impact this metabolism. I mean you can literally lose weight because your body is spending lots of energy on body heating at a cellular level etc.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM

I have lost over ten kilos, mostly eating over calories by about 10% a day. Mind you I have been mildly hyperthyroid during some of that, since switching to paleo (with too much zinc and iodine, not enough copper, calcium and magnesium). But I think the fact that hypothryoid people gain weight automactically, hyperthyroid people lose weight automatically, some people can basically never bulk and some can eat hugely under and not lose weight: ----

696079a860ef54810406ae25e4650863
1623 · November 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM

While I don't ascribe to stone's ideas, I personally prefer not to label anyone a 'quack' - it's a tactic that has often been used in history to dismiss any ideas that were out of the norm for the staus quo belief systems (and yes, I do think we Paleos have our own set of general status quo beliefs). Even if I dont agree with his ideas, I think it is detrimental to us all to take that attitude of rejection and dismissal if we want to continue to evolve our ideas and health.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8
5132 · October 15, 2011 at 5:54 PM

What do u call tubers, which predate agriculture and co-evolved with hunting (or actually might predate hunting)? Hominids subsisted on tubers.

3020fb359dfbedaf90f1611b036d3432
1138 · October 28, 2010 at 12:48 AM

The first time I tried Paleo, or rather Faileo, I did VLC and restricted calories, eating mostly chicken breast and tuna, all while intensely exercising every single day. Needless to say I lost a lot of weight but felt like shit. I'm guessing Mr. Stone might have been on a similar Faileo regiment.

0d2dec01a5ed9363a9915e111ae13f7e
4553 · September 04, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Spencer, you must not be aware of how a "metabolic ward" study is conducted. Read up: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/ac-fat-loss-bible-critique-part-ii/

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107
15593 · September 04, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Diabetics can't produce glucagon? Then why do diabetic drugs like metformin target hepatic glucose production? Hypoglycemia 'in diabetics' describes a crash in BG from a relative excess of insulin, almost invariably brought on (if not by diabetic drugs) by excess carbs->hyperinsulinemia. (Cf Bernstein); that presupposed a glucose-driven metabolism. On a fat-burning metabolism it's a moot point. We clearly evolved experiencing periods of carb-restriction, but the main point is that it works: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/09/diabetics-on-low-carbohydrate-diet.html (also see part 2).

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c
2581 · September 04, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Low-carb may not be too good for diabetics. If their blood sugar gets too low, they're going to need to eat carbs. Hypoglycemia in diabetics is dangerous. Non-diabetics on low-carb diets may not go through this because they can produce glucagon, diabetics can't. It's very easy to break the low-carb limit (whether it's 50 or 100 g) even when you're avoiding grains and beans. A few pieces of fruit is enough. Clearly, a low-carb diet is not the diet we evolved to eat.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107
15593 · September 04, 2010 at 7:05 AM

Stancel, while it's analytically true that a calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, it's empirically true that macronutrient ratios can influence energy balance- e.g. carbohydrate>insulin>fat stores locked in. Macronutrient changes can't make one lose weight (without a deficit), but can make one lose weight by creating a deficit without eating fewer calories. LC must be superior to LF in "some ways": consider a diabetic, whose carb intake spikes blood glucose and requires masses of insulin- are you really saying that HC wouldn't be inferior this case. Many people are on this continuum.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4
9647 · September 02, 2010 at 12:01 AM

@Stancel: I'm sure you've read it already, but you might want to look again at Chapter 17 of Good Calories, Bad Calories. That was what really convinced me; it's really brilliant. I know you might still have some (mostly empirical?) disagreement, but the Taubes could make you think differently. My two cents.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921
4991 · September 01, 2010 at 8:00 AM

Well, I'm still eating 2000 / 2500 calories a day. And over the past 10 months I've lost 18 pounds - of fat. Proper, abdominal fat. Everyone keeps commenting on how much weight I've lost and how well I look. It feels to me that eating fat dissolves fat. I starting eating paleo to see if it would improve my asthma. It has. The weight thing was a bonus.

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c
2581 · August 31, 2010 at 9:35 PM

I'm not saying calories is the only factor. I believe metabolism can be influenced by various factors which may be dietary. But that should only give someone an "edge", not make them lose lots of weight on its own.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4
9647 · August 31, 2010 at 3:12 PM

This is Taubes 101, even if Taubes is slightly vague about it at times in his book: of course there's a caloric deficit, a difference between in and out. But that doesn't mean that your conscious reduction of calories and increase in activity is the *cause* of the weight loss. It could be that the hormonal changes are the *cause* and the effect is the caloric deficit: your body is satiated and you therefore eat less. It is also possible that your body will increase its activity as well: the skinny-people-are-warmer theory. But either way it's: cut out the garbage and your body takes over.

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64
11478 · August 31, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Matt Stone wishes in his wildest dreams that he could be "the glenn beck of paleo/health blogs." The market has spoken concerning Glenn Beck. I don't begrudge him his huge success. One needs no particular qualifications to be in media except that enough people actually want to watch or listen to you. Market forces have also kept Matt Stone in obscurity thus far (rightfully so, in my view).

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981
1676 · August 31, 2010 at 2:04 PM

And what, exactly, makes one "qualified?"

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094
78422 · August 31, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Andrew: Stancel has a point. Metabolic ward studies comparing hypocaloric diets using high-carb vs. low carb and equal protein don't usually show any significant differences in weight loss. But of course, the hormonal response to low-carb vs. high carb diets is a different story, especially under iso/hypercaloric conditions.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1
22913 · August 31, 2010 at 11:58 AM

His conclusions have left him looking pudgy

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c
2581 · August 31, 2010 at 9:38 AM

So do you subscribe to the theory that carbs contribute to fat gain? Because millions of pounds lost all over the world prove that high-carb diets do no such thing. If your calories have stayed the same, and you're not exercising at all (even no weight lifting?) then it can't be fat loss. In order for the body to use fat as energy there has to be a NEED for it to use it as energy. that means a calorie deficit. Doesn't matter if you're eating a carbs or fat centered diet.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921
4991 · August 31, 2010 at 7:18 AM

I actually don't agree that it's "fact". My calories have stayed about the same since I went Primal, but the balance has changed - more fat, no refined carb at all. And I have lost 18 pounds effortlessly and with no more exercise. Low carb with the same overall calorific intake has worked just fine for me.

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01
2520 · August 31, 2010 at 7:18 AM

Very true - and you could easily sub in names like 'Brad Pilon' and be equally true. That's the problem with people operating online and through ebooks - different standards of citation, and the work is spread over many different texts so it's harder to find the core ideas. Stone in particular has changed his stance a fair few times. I kind of like that though - he keeps reading and debating and adapting since he's looking to find the real answers (albeit so he can put them in an ebook and sell it).

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01
2520 · August 31, 2010 at 7:15 AM

"If you learn anything from Matt Stone, it's to experiment. It really takes some trial and error to figure out what style of eating makes you feel the best." So true! I worry about people who ignore health complaints etc after starting a new eating plan that they've been told is 'best', including Paleo. Stone's clients are people who watched their thyroids and metabolisms shut down and didn't do anything about it. Madness. So many can and do thrive on any version of Paleo - from zero carb to the hundreds - but some really don't thanks to upbringing and genetics.

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01
2520 · August 31, 2010 at 7:11 AM

An awful lot of 'qualified' people put diabetics on high-carb, sugar-fueled diets... Qualifications don't necessary mean anything. I respect the fact that Stone at least has spent a lot - a LOT - of time researching health and nutrition. His conclusions work for his and work for many of his followers. He still encourages the avoidance of neolithic agents, but he has noticed (as have many others, including Atkins) that prolonged adherence to >50g carbs per day (for example) can have a depressive effect on the metabolism. I read everyone and everything, and then see what works best for me.

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01
2520 · August 31, 2010 at 7:11 AM

An awful lots of 'qualified' people put diabetics on high-carb, sugar-fueled diets... Qualifications don't necessary mean anything. I respect the fact that Stone at least has spent a lot - a LOT - of time researching health and nutrition. His conclusions work for his and work for many of his followers. He still encourages the avoidance of neolithic agents, but he has noticed (as have many others, including Atkins) that prolonged adherence to >50g carbs per day (for example) can have a depressive effect on the metabolism. I read everyone and everything, and then see what works best for me.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
56616 · August 31, 2010 at 3:47 AM

Yeah, I have a friend who is LC paleo and eats ONLY CHICKEN! So many VLC people are completely irresponsible.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
56616 · August 31, 2010 at 3:45 AM

hahahah so perfect

  • Total Views
    12K
  • Recent Activity
    303da756656a877256622dd5dcf0a02e
  • Last Activity
    72D AGO
  • Followers
    2

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

17 Answers

0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f
24
4625 · August 31, 2010 at 12:08 AM

He has no qualifications. He is the glenn beck of paleo/health blogs

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
56616 · August 31, 2010 at 3:45 AM

hahahah so perfect

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01
2520 · August 31, 2010 at 7:11 AM

An awful lots of 'qualified' people put diabetics on high-carb, sugar-fueled diets... Qualifications don't necessary mean anything. I respect the fact that Stone at least has spent a lot - a LOT - of time researching health and nutrition. His conclusions work for his and work for many of his followers. He still encourages the avoidance of neolithic agents, but he has noticed (as have many others, including Atkins) that prolonged adherence to >50g carbs per day (for example) can have a depressive effect on the metabolism. I read everyone and everything, and then see what works best for me.

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64
11478 · August 31, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Matt Stone wishes in his wildest dreams that he could be "the glenn beck of paleo/health blogs." The market has spoken concerning Glenn Beck. I don't begrudge him his huge success. One needs no particular qualifications to be in media except that enough people actually want to watch or listen to you. Market forces have also kept Matt Stone in obscurity thus far (rightfully so, in my view).

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01
2520 · August 31, 2010 at 7:11 AM

An awful lot of 'qualified' people put diabetics on high-carb, sugar-fueled diets... Qualifications don't necessary mean anything. I respect the fact that Stone at least has spent a lot - a LOT - of time researching health and nutrition. His conclusions work for his and work for many of his followers. He still encourages the avoidance of neolithic agents, but he has noticed (as have many others, including Atkins) that prolonged adherence to >50g carbs per day (for example) can have a depressive effect on the metabolism. I read everyone and everything, and then see what works best for me.

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981
1676 · August 31, 2010 at 2:04 PM

And what, exactly, makes one "qualified?"

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1
22913 · August 31, 2010 at 11:58 AM

His conclusions have left him looking pudgy

8564091e3cf82ea53843c0dbcf57857a
20
970 · August 31, 2010 at 1:57 AM

I'm not sure Matt's experience on low carb paleo is a good example of it. From the sounds of it he was exercising heavily at the same time and not eating enough. I read his excerpt of the time he went off into the woods on his own. Doesn't sound paleo to me to be all alone hiking for days on end without enough food. I would be interested to see him try a lazier paleo approach. Sit around most of the time and do small bursts of activity infrequently, and eat more, all in the company of family and friends. Stress, lack of food, the elements, can all be very detrimental to anyone's health regardless of what macro-nutrient ratio they are eating.

Also realize people can be low-carb paleo and still not get enough nutrients. I see it all the time, people eating meat and fat. What about eating all the organ meats, most raw (vit c), seafood, etc. I'd be curious to see someone on low carb paleo who is technically getting enough nutrients, but is still having health issues.

Low carb paleo/primal (off and on, with mod-carb in between) helped me tremendously and gave me more energy than I've ever had. Others have reported the same. I don't think that alone can be the single cause of the problems some people have on this diet. If you learn anything from Matt Stone, it's to experiment. It really takes some trial and error to figure out what style of eating makes you feel the best.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
56616 · August 31, 2010 at 3:47 AM

Yeah, I have a friend who is LC paleo and eats ONLY CHICKEN! So many VLC people are completely irresponsible.

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01
2520 · August 31, 2010 at 7:15 AM

"If you learn anything from Matt Stone, it's to experiment. It really takes some trial and error to figure out what style of eating makes you feel the best." So true! I worry about people who ignore health complaints etc after starting a new eating plan that they've been told is 'best', including Paleo. Stone's clients are people who watched their thyroids and metabolisms shut down and didn't do anything about it. Madness. So many can and do thrive on any version of Paleo - from zero carb to the hundreds - but some really don't thanks to upbringing and genetics.

3020fb359dfbedaf90f1611b036d3432
1138 · October 28, 2010 at 12:48 AM

The first time I tried Paleo, or rather Faileo, I did VLC and restricted calories, eating mostly chicken breast and tuna, all while intensely exercising every single day. Needless to say I lost a lot of weight but felt like shit. I'm guessing Mr. Stone might have been on a similar Faileo regiment.

D60897b1c8f2a9e4fe1e94f1f56075ad
11
170 · September 04, 2010 at 4:18 AM

Disclaimer: I've only read Stone's free eBook. Maybe his evidence is stronger and his ideas better substantiated in his other eBooks (as he claims).

While Stone claims to be basing his ideas on scientific evidence, his dislike for low-carb seems to be based on anecodatal evidence--his own experience of eating moderate carb (100g/day) and anecdotal experiences of friends/acquaintances. As others have said, someone can eat low/mod carb (or paleo) and eat badly. And exercise too much, eat too much/little, sleep too little etc.; it's the whole picture that makes a difference. His experience doesn't mean that LC/paleo won't work for you CarnivorePrincess.

Two of the main differences I picked up bewteen his approach and paleo were 1/ the addition on vegetable starches such as potato, which he is a big fan of and 2/ the phase of weight-loss he advocates where you eat a lot of 'everything'. To deal with these two points individually: 1/ his 'scientific evidence' for this appears to be based on a fairly simplistic analysis of the change in diet of the Pima Indians and its affect on them (from 70% carb to 44% carb--in a different form; from no diabetes and obesity to very high rates of both). His take home message form this is that carbs (starchy vegies in particular) are OK, something else must be the enemy. On the surface this looks likew a reasonable argument, but there are a lot of other factors that could come into play. And who's to say that their previous diet was actually good for them, apart from the stated low diabetes and obesity? So his 'eat starchy vegies' message does not appear well substantiated.

2/ the 'high eveything diet' (HED) that he pushes as a first stage at first glance sounds ridiculous, but on further thought I'm coming around to the idea, at least for some people. Remember he's not advocating eating sugars, fructose, omega 6s, grains etc. it's really on the starchy vegies where his ideas about diet deviate from LC and paleo. So the eat everything actually means eat lots of (what he defines as) good stuff to get past the 'starvation mentality' that our brains can get into when we start to feel that food is scarce (e.g. afetr we go on a low calorie diet). As a cure for starvation brain, this might actually work for some people. I see the goal with eating as to eat 'naturally', including knowing what feels good, the amount that we need, etc. without needing to be preoccupied with eating too much or too little. If the HED gets one to that state of mind and body than that would be a good thing.

Remember that study where they took a bunch of healthy, active young men, put them on a low-calorie diet for a while, and they turned into wrecks? After the diet they became obsessed with food, found it hard to regulate their eating, and just couldn't get back to the state of mind (or body) where they were before: eating to live and enjoying it without being preoccupied. Instead they were living to eat, metabolism was messed up, stress hormones high etc. in short they developed 'starvation brain'. So for those of us who have experieinced starvatin brain, maybe the HED would help--dunno.

As for Stone himself, I support anyone who has a genuinely open mind and keeps learning and refining their ideas. Now that Stone has a vested interest in a particular paradigm (i.e. he has put down recommendations in eBooks, into which he has put time and hopes to make money), he now has a vested interest in that status quo. Most of us will tend to take in new info with blnkiers on once we have reached that stage. Let's see if that happens to Stone.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc
11
15976 · August 31, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Well, i would say that just about every other nutrition person i can think of (as well as any medical doctor I've asked) says that Stone's entire raison, the body temperature idea, is antiquated. That really does form the basis of almost every argument he makes so i take him with a big grain of sea salt.

46fa1375917ff826684235046fbf4115
10
128 · January 11, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Actually, calories in and calories out is debatable...very. I'm quoting Gary Taubes here in his new book:

"Describing what he calls ???the 20-calorie paradox,?????? [Taubes] points out that for a lean 25- year-old to gain 50 pounds by the time he is 50, all that is needed is to consume exactly 20 calories more that he burns per day, every day. This is ???less than a single bite of a . . . hamburger or croissant. Less than 2 ounces of [soft drink] or the typical beer. Less than three potato chips.?????? If calories in-calories out was all there was to it, ???you [would] need only to rein yourself in by this amount ??? undereat by 20 calories a day ??? to undo it.??????

I can tell you from my own experience that weight loss is much more complex than simply creating a calorie deficit. If that was the case programs like Weight Watchers wouldn't have a 99% failure rate. I believe the truth lies in nutrient deficiencies and imflamation of the gut and hormonal imbalances caused by low-level toxins from environmental factors and highly processed foods like gluten and industrial oils.

I have been unable to lose weight for years despite increasing exercise and decreasing calories. Now that I've eliminated gluten and switched to good quality foods and eliminated everything processed I'm finally able to lose weight - and am eating more calories than I ever was before.

7fc82eebafd44badc73c520f44660150
3280 · January 14, 2013 at 3:18 AM

thanks for reminding me of the 20-calorie thing. I read his book, but forgot that point. Interesting.

Medium avatar
10234 · April 01, 2013 at 8:53 PM

For once GT is right! That's exactly what I did, consumed exactly 20 calories more than I burned for 30 years and gained 50 lbs. But, unfortunately he recommends an impractical solution to the problem. It would take you another 30 years to lose 50 lbs on 20 cal/day deficits. I lost my 30 year 50 lb gain in 6 months by applying 1000 cal/day deficits every day. @lisa I'm sorry you failed, BUT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE METHODOLOGY. By doing it the GT way, using 20 cal/day deficits, you were bound to fail.

Medium avatar
0 · October 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM

@Lisa 3 How long did it take for you to balance out your hormones, and did you go Paleo all the way?

Medium avatar
0 · October 21, 2013 at 6:41 PM

@thhq I have to defend Lisa here, it's different for us girls. Hormones are so much more involved in the metabolism in many women. If hormones get out of order you can actually starve your self and work out like a beast with no results what so ever.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3
10
20787 · August 31, 2010 at 5:56 AM

When I read some of his writing, I felt his main interest was generating controversy. Also, he likes to talk about how others are wrong, but on key points, he fails to give any solutions of his own, but instead gets vague and belittling. I find that to be a turnoff. There are many who disagree with paleo more than him whom I actually have much more respect for. Because I respect those who I feel are sharing honestly and doing their best. I don't feel Stone is doing that.

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01
2520 · August 31, 2010 at 7:18 AM

Very true - and you could easily sub in names like 'Brad Pilon' and be equally true. That's the problem with people operating online and through ebooks - different standards of citation, and the work is spread over many different texts so it's harder to find the core ideas. Stone in particular has changed his stance a fair few times. I kind of like that though - he keeps reading and debating and adapting since he's looking to find the real answers (albeit so he can put them in an ebook and sell it).

Medium avatar
10234 · April 01, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Some people relish the opportunity to be obscure. Me included.

Ee45f4e70d58f7874616812993252bc8
5
160 · August 30, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Matt Stone is a quak, an annoying voice in the comments of Dr David's HeartScan Blog who is simply trying to make a name for himself by being controversial. He is a troll. The ancestral diet was NOT high-carb, it was low-carb, without agriculture and farming, there is no natural high/moderate carb diet, it's that simple. Please ignore him, we don't want him coming here and spamming everything with his irrelevant crap!

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8
5132 · October 15, 2011 at 5:54 PM

What do u call tubers, which predate agriculture and co-evolved with hunting (or actually might predate hunting)? Hominids subsisted on tubers.

696079a860ef54810406ae25e4650863
1623 · November 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM

While I don't ascribe to stone's ideas, I personally prefer not to label anyone a 'quack' - it's a tactic that has often been used in history to dismiss any ideas that were out of the norm for the staus quo belief systems (and yes, I do think we Paleos have our own set of general status quo beliefs). Even if I dont agree with his ideas, I think it is detrimental to us all to take that attitude of rejection and dismissal if we want to continue to evolve our ideas and health.

74786bbe8254844304a33943290c4d6d
1663 · April 01, 2013 at 2:59 PM

We ultimately don't know much about ancestral eating. We know what they didn't eat: industrial seed oils, white sugar among other things. What about the Kitavans who's diet is primally carbs? http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-pacific-islands.html

963322f175cdd4c5f7d52cc372b3a167
3
656 · August 17, 2012 at 6:04 AM

Best Matt Stone piece EVER: http://180degreehealth.com/2010/03/poor-poor-jimmy-moore.

Written a couple years ago, it's more relevant than ever now with Jimmy's latest absurd experiment in 'nutritional ketosis' (http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimmy-moores-n1-experiments-nutritional-ketosis-day-61-90/15125).

And how is this paleo, exactly?

Remember, this is the guy AHS considered qualified to moderate a panel on safe starches (and define the term, no less). And people honestly wonder why Kurt Harris took off.

Medium avatar
10234 · September 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Thank goodness our ancestors were dumb and macronutrient-blind. It only takes a few geniuses - food scientists designing cheap rewarding foods and people creating hubristic dietary theories - to screw up the entire village.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1
3
22913 · August 31, 2010 at 2:59 AM

Matt doesn't push paleo, because if he did he wouldn't have anything to sell, he has to be "different" to be able to trick people into giving him money.

I don't really like bashing people. He's no fructose, which I can see as it doesn't agree with me... He low O6 which I think is accurate, he anti processed, which is good but we already know that...

He selling vastly overeat, followed by cutting... Funny thing... This works fine without the overeat...

High carb all the time isn't really good, refeeds have benefits for extremely active people.

3491e51730101b18724dc57c86601173
2
8140 · September 30, 2012 at 4:33 AM

I've been doing a little n=1 this past week, adding a lot of fat into mmy diet WITHOUT reducing calories or other macronutrients (my usual diet is VLC paleo) or activity level. This is adding 500 or more calories per day, at least (I haven't done the math, to be really honest).

Under CICO, I should be gaining weight, but that's not the case. I've lost 4 lbs in the past week, after stalling at the same weight for over 2 months. Now I'm not ready to say that increasing fat leads to weight loss all other things being equal--not enough data to form any n=1 conclusion. But if CICO was true, the scale should definitely be going in the OTHER direction.

I am not diabetic but as close as you can be to it without the actual diagnosis. On SAD I was constantly going hypoglycemic multiple times a day. I'd wake up, eat my carby (but low fat and low calorie) breakfast, and within 2 hours I'd be shaky and agitated unless I ate something else (usually something carby and sweet, but low fat and low cal). By noon the symptoms of hypoglycemia would be baaaaack. I was working a health fair once and since they were testing blood sugars I got mine tested right before lunch when I was feeling pretty shaky and agitated, and it was 55! When I spoke to my doctor about it, "smaller, more frequent meals" was the suggestion. no help at all!

On low carb, my blood sugars are rock steady even, running in the 80's and low 90's all the time. I never have hypoglycemic symptoms (except when my non-paleo DH forgot to tell me he loaded some zucchini pancakes with flour because the batter was too wet!). I feel great all the time, no longer riding the blood sugar rollercoaster. If this is dangerous, then I guess I love to live dangerously.

Medium avatar
10234 · September 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

My T2 diabetes symptoms included steady hyperglycemia. I could not induce hypo until I had lost some weight and was combining undereating with exercise. I ran through a lot of those blood test strips back in the bad old days.

2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2
0
0 · October 21, 2013 at 6:49 PM

doesn't sound like a big deal because pre-historic-reenactment-paleo wasn't supposed to be low carb in the first place.

7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9
0
245 · October 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM

if youre doing ketosis and not re-feeding and on top of that mixing it with high exercise youre just setting yourself up for some hurt. its not really the diets fault if you dont practice if correctly.

0b3f80766aea8c9deee81f1a53436692
0 · October 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I knew you'd pop up. Feel better now? You may want to read the words starting from -- Other notes -- and ending in the same paragraph with "that."

0b3f80766aea8c9deee81f1a53436692
0
0 · October 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

First - Thanks to everyone for stating your opinions. You only know what your experience has been, and you operate based on your own mental models of these kinds of things. It's important to remember that.

That said, it's easy to see a couple people commenting that appear to have never run into the problems Matt has run into, and thus write comments that he's a quak, and writing about the complete opposite of Paleo to get attention. That's probably not the case. The guy had real issues w/ low carb. And they're about identical to the issues I've had on low carb.

Enter me: I'm a 29 year year old, former Army combat soldier, an entrepreneur now, and a CEO of a well known company. Am I a quak? Do I care about making money, marketing, or getting attention? Nope.

But I can tell you that going basically ketogenic for 2.5 months (which really, was low carb paleo), I ran into the same symptoms. It started as insane heart palpitations, dizziness, and fatigue. Of course, I tried to correct it all like the multitude of "experts" will force feed you: get more sodium, potassium, and magnesium. -- And I did, and I had my blood tested while having a heart racing dizzy spell, and electrolytes were perfect. That just wasn't the cause.

Added carbs back in, and ran into some problems too. Anything high glycemic index, basically set me up for a ride of reactive hypoglycemia for hours. Blood sugar would shoot up, insulin would seem a bit too efficient (or whatever the hell was going on there), and within 10-15 minutes blood sugar would be alarmingly low, and I'd have super hypoglycemic attacks (near unconsciousness, racing heart, extremely cold, shortness of breath, the whole nine).

Then, I realized that the only thing that helped, was to eat starch. I'm talking about a serving of white rice at dinner. 1/4 of a sweet potato in the morning, and potentially the rest of the SP later in the day around 3-4PM.

I'm still broken, for sure. Any high glycemic index carb sends me into hypoglycemia. I'm cold all of the time, and have just finally beaten the 3AM panic attacks that wake me up every night (probably hypoglycemic attacks). I did that by eating starch at night.

-- Other notes -- I'm a runner, and I'm sure this contributed to the problem. For the two months on low carb, I was trying to "fat adapt," and run on basically no carbs. It worked for a while, and there was some adaptation that seemed to be taking place, but in the end, it wasn't scalable. Again, my 2-3, 4-7 mile runs a week probably contributed to my problem here. I'm not blind to that.

-- I'm an entrepreneur, so my life is high stress - but I manage it well by meditating, and sleeping 8+ hours a night in total darkness. Of course, when the hypoglycemic attacks were happening in the middle of the night, my sleep was disturbed, but a bit of carbs, leveled out, and I was right back to sleep.

In the end, the facts are, I'm trying to fix my health now, from going extreme low carb. I payed attention to every macro/micro I could, and did everything pretty picture perfect. There's some growing research, and experiences from people, that there's both an insulin resistance piece going on here, after extreme low carb, and a disastrous hormonal change that takes place. I'm still trying to figure it all out, frankly, so I don't know the answer. But please - those of you who discount Matt's experiences, the same type of people that I'm allotting the room for you to reply (this guy works for Matt, or something) ((ya know, something ridiculous)), don't. Get to know the physiology behind a lot of this stuff a bit more. The whole story, and all the underlying mechanisms, can't be found on Marks Daily Apple.

For more Paleo Diet hacks: http://paleohacks.com/questions/21741/low-carb-paleo-eating-ruined-matt-stones-health.html#ixzz2iMwxWM2W Follow us: @PaleoHacks on Twitter | PaleoHacks on Facebook

0b3f80766aea8c9deee81f1a53436692
0
0 · October 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

First - Thanks to everyone for stating your opinions. You only know what your experience has been, and you operate based on your own mental models of these kinds of things. It's important to remember that.

That said, it's easy to see a couple people commenting that appear to have never run into the problems Matt has run into, and thus write comments that he's a quak, and writing about the complete opposite of Paleo to get attention. That's probably not the case. The guy had real issues w/ low carb. And they're about identical to the issues I've had on low carb.

Enter me: I'm a 29 year year old, former Army combat soldier, an entrepreneur now, and a CEO of a well known company. Am I a quak? Do I care about making money, marketing, or getting attention? Nope.

But I can tell you that going basically ketogenic for 2.5 months (which really, was low carb paleo), I ran into the same symptoms. It started as insane heart palpitations, dizziness, and fatigue. Of course, I tried to correct it all like the multitude of "experts" will force feed you: get more sodium, potassium, and magnesium. -- And I did, and I had my blood tested while having a heart racing dizzy spell, and electrolytes were perfect. That just wasn't the cause.

Added carbs back in, and ran into some problems too. Anything high glycemic index, basically set me up for a ride of reactive hypoglycemia for hours. Blood sugar would shoot up, insulin would seem a bit too efficient (or whatever the hell was going on there), and within 10-15 minutes blood sugar would be alarmingly low, and I'd have super hypoglycemic attacks (near unconsciousness, racing heart, extremely cold, shortness of breath, the whole nine).

Then, I realized that the only thing that helped, was to eat starch. I'm talking about a serving of white rice at dinner. 1/4 of a sweet potato in the morning, and potentially the rest of the SP later in the day around 3-4PM.

I'm still broken, for sure. Any high glycemic index carb sends me into hypoglycemia. I'm cold all of the time, and have just finally beaten the 3AM panic attacks that wake me up every night (probably hypoglycemic attacks). I did that by eating starch at night.

-- Other notes -- I'm a runner, and I'm sure this contributed to the problem. For the two months on low carb, I was trying to "fat adapt," and run on basically no carbs. It worked for a while, and there was some adaptation that seemed to be taking place, but in the end, it wasn't scalable. Again, my 2-3, 4-7 mile runs a week probably contributed to my problem here. I'm not blind to that.

-- I'm an entrepreneur, so my life is high stress - but I manage it well by meditating, and sleeping 8+ hours a night in total darkness. Of course, when the hypoglycemic attacks were happening in the middle of the night, my sleep was disturbed, but a bit of carbs, leveled out, and I was right back to sleep.

In the end, the facts are, I'm trying to fix my health now, from going extreme low carb. I payed attention to every macro/micro I could, and did everything pretty picture perfect. There's some growing research, and experiences from people, that there's both an insulin resistance piece going on here, after extreme low carb, and a disastrous hormonal change that takes place. I'm still trying to figure it all out, frankly, so I don't know the answer. But please - those of you who discount Matt's experiences, the same type of people that I'm allotting the room for you to reply (this guy works for Matt, or something) ((ya know, something ridiculous)), don't. Get to know the physiology behind a lot of this stuff a bit more. The whole story, and all the underlying mechanisms, can't be found on Marks Daily Apple.

7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9
245 · October 21, 2013 at 3:21 PM

if youre doing ketosis and not re-feeding and on top of that mixing it with high exercise youre just setting yourself up for some hurt. its not really the diets fault if you dont practice if correctly.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb
4458 · October 22, 2013 at 5:01 AM

"The whole story, and all the underlying mechanisms, can't be found on Marks Daily Apple".

you may be able to find the 'whole story' over at perfecthealthdiet (if you have not already dug thru that site, or read the books). Paul Jaminet has done quite a few posts on the possible/potential dangers of zero carb diets & vlc diets. & the use of 'safe starches' for carbs...

The site is a bit of pain to navigate & find any relevant posts (using google with a site: search is usually easier)

74786bbe8254844304a33943290c4d6d
0
1663 · April 01, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I think Matt may be on to something. I ate low carb for a long, long time and felt like hell. In the last month or so, I've scaled back my fat levels, and am eating a lot more starch. I feel better physically and mentally, my gastritis is gone and my digestion is much better.

If I eat too much fat in a meal, my energy levels drop, and my gastritis flares up something fierce.

The point is to experiment and let no eating method be dogmatic.

0b3f80766aea8c9deee81f1a53436692
0 · October 21, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Definitely. And same here. Interestingly, adding starch back in seems to be the fix for me too. The dogmatism is really getting old.

303da756656a877256622dd5dcf0a02e
0
157 · April 01, 2013 at 1:29 PM

As far as I can tell he???s just found a diet which is popular (the paleo diet) and started advocating the complete opposite ??? because he knows that will get him noticed, and it gives him a clear point of difference from his competitors.

He???s following marketing 101 by the book. He even uses paleo communities to promote his site, all the while discrediting the very people which write the blog. Even if he does in fact have something good to offer ??? this is just plain rude. Have a look at his youtube videos and you will see that he is CERTAINLY NOT the picture of health! Please don???t listen to this man. He just wants to make you doubt the paleo approach so that he can make money off you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yizsBhH_y6E

303da756656a877256622dd5dcf0a02e
157 · April 02, 2013 at 4:30 AM

Not all of them sell supplements. I've found a few that actually talk out against taking supplements at all. Elenas Pantry is one such blog. This Matt guy is 30 something and certainly doesn't look the picture of health to me. The pictures on his website are clearly photoshopped. I started reading his blog after hearing his talk on Healthy Living Summit and it was completely void of any real information. He's a marketing genuis for sure.. but not a health guru.

74786bbe8254844304a33943290c4d6d
1663 · April 01, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Yeah, because every other paleo blogger selling supps *isn't* making money off of us?

303da756656a877256622dd5dcf0a02e
157 · April 02, 2013 at 7:05 AM

Here's a great write up on Matt Stone antics. And check out the photos - a picture of health... not http://freetheanimal.com/2010/03/poor-poor-matt-stone.html

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c
-12
2581 · August 31, 2010 at 6:05 AM

The only proven way to lose weight is to cut calories and increase physical activity.

I don't consider it an opinion. It's fact. Low-carbers like Atkins and Taubes were wrong. Carbs don't make you fat.

People seem to think it's some huge battle between low-fat and low-carb. I don't follow either. Both are about restricting a macronutrient, but I believe in balance.

Low-carb ideology is fighting a losing battle, I don't think it is superior at all to low-fat in any way. Both these sides have it wrong.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4
9647 · August 31, 2010 at 3:12 PM

This is Taubes 101, even if Taubes is slightly vague about it at times in his book: of course there's a caloric deficit, a difference between in and out. But that doesn't mean that your conscious reduction of calories and increase in activity is the *cause* of the weight loss. It could be that the hormonal changes are the *cause* and the effect is the caloric deficit: your body is satiated and you therefore eat less. It is also possible that your body will increase its activity as well: the skinny-people-are-warmer theory. But either way it's: cut out the garbage and your body takes over.

0d2dec01a5ed9363a9915e111ae13f7e
4553 · September 04, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Spencer, you must not be aware of how a "metabolic ward" study is conducted. Read up: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/ac-fat-loss-bible-critique-part-ii/

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c
2581 · September 04, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Low-carb may not be too good for diabetics. If their blood sugar gets too low, they're going to need to eat carbs. Hypoglycemia in diabetics is dangerous. Non-diabetics on low-carb diets may not go through this because they can produce glucagon, diabetics can't. It's very easy to break the low-carb limit (whether it's 50 or 100 g) even when you're avoiding grains and beans. A few pieces of fruit is enough. Clearly, a low-carb diet is not the diet we evolved to eat.

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c
2581 · August 31, 2010 at 9:38 AM

So do you subscribe to the theory that carbs contribute to fat gain? Because millions of pounds lost all over the world prove that high-carb diets do no such thing. If your calories have stayed the same, and you're not exercising at all (even no weight lifting?) then it can't be fat loss. In order for the body to use fat as energy there has to be a NEED for it to use it as energy. that means a calorie deficit. Doesn't matter if you're eating a carbs or fat centered diet.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4
9647 · September 02, 2010 at 12:01 AM

@Stancel: I'm sure you've read it already, but you might want to look again at Chapter 17 of Good Calories, Bad Calories. That was what really convinced me; it's really brilliant. I know you might still have some (mostly empirical?) disagreement, but the Taubes could make you think differently. My two cents.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921
4991 · September 01, 2010 at 8:00 AM

Well, I'm still eating 2000 / 2500 calories a day. And over the past 10 months I've lost 18 pounds - of fat. Proper, abdominal fat. Everyone keeps commenting on how much weight I've lost and how well I look. It feels to me that eating fat dissolves fat. I starting eating paleo to see if it would improve my asthma. It has. The weight thing was a bonus.

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c
2581 · August 31, 2010 at 9:35 PM

I'm not saying calories is the only factor. I believe metabolism can be influenced by various factors which may be dietary. But that should only give someone an "edge", not make them lose lots of weight on its own.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094
78422 · August 31, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Andrew: Stancel has a point. Metabolic ward studies comparing hypocaloric diets using high-carb vs. low carb and equal protein don't usually show any significant differences in weight loss. But of course, the hormonal response to low-carb vs. high carb diets is a different story, especially under iso/hypercaloric conditions.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921
4991 · August 31, 2010 at 7:18 AM

I actually don't agree that it's "fact". My calories have stayed about the same since I went Primal, but the balance has changed - more fat, no refined carb at all. And I have lost 18 pounds effortlessly and with no more exercise. Low carb with the same overall calorific intake has worked just fine for me.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107
15593 · September 04, 2010 at 7:05 AM

Stancel, while it's analytically true that a calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, it's empirically true that macronutrient ratios can influence energy balance- e.g. carbohydrate>insulin>fat stores locked in. Macronutrient changes can't make one lose weight (without a deficit), but can make one lose weight by creating a deficit without eating fewer calories. LC must be superior to LF in "some ways": consider a diabetic, whose carb intake spikes blood glucose and requires masses of insulin- are you really saying that HC wouldn't be inferior this case. Many people are on this continuum.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107
15593 · September 04, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Diabetics can't produce glucagon? Then why do diabetic drugs like metformin target hepatic glucose production? Hypoglycemia 'in diabetics' describes a crash in BG from a relative excess of insulin, almost invariably brought on (if not by diabetic drugs) by excess carbs->hyperinsulinemia. (Cf Bernstein); that presupposed a glucose-driven metabolism. On a fat-burning metabolism it's a moot point. We clearly evolved experiencing periods of carb-restriction, but the main point is that it works: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/09/diabetics-on-low-carbohydrate-diet.html (also see part 2).

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:20 AM

"If your calories have stayed the same, and you're not exercising at all (even no weight lifting?) then it can't be fat loss. " - This just shows you are not thinking at all. Loads of people have lost weight, without a deficit, on low carb paleo, or other low carb diets. Its cognitive dissonance to maintain a beleif in the face of reality. You simply have to think of _why_. There are a couple of obvious reasons - A) basal metabolic rate b) insulin sensitivity (involved in fat storage) c) liver health (involved in fat storage).

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:11 AM

So yes, calories in and calories "out", is true, but nobody has an equation that can accurately predict your basal metabolism in calories, let alone the total influence of diet apon that basal metabolism.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:32 AM

If the body was a mere input and output machine, with nothing in the middle, we wouldn't be unable to have this conversation. The vast complexity of your body would just not exist, and we would be mindless, undynamic robots, only spending energy on physical movement, at a fixed and totally predictable rate. Instead we spend energy at the cellular level, we distribute it using complex chemical exchanges and we store and utilise it using those same exchanges. It would take all the computers of the world to keep track of a tiny tiny segment of our bodies.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM

I have lost over ten kilos, mostly eating over calories by about 10% a day. Mind you I have been mildly hyperthyroid during some of that, since switching to paleo (with too much zinc and iodine, not enough copper, calcium and magnesium). But I think the fact that hypothryoid people gain weight automactically, hyperthyroid people lose weight automatically, some people can basically never bulk and some can eat hugely under and not lose weight: ----

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5
5381 · August 17, 2012 at 8:10 AM

----> I think that points squarely to the ridiculous part of the calories as they are generally conceived - that is, it ignores what a large portion of your energy is spent on - your internal metabolism. On average that basal metabolism varies from person to person by around 30%, and beyond that, that leaves alot of room for outliers, who dont eat sad, or sit on the couch all day long. Its proven that diet (and probably activity) impact this metabolism. I mean you can literally lose weight because your body is spending lots of energy on body heating at a cellular level etc.

Medium avatar
10234 · September 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

In the Slavic sense of the word, the body is a mindless WORKER. A reminder that CICO means output as much as it means input. The intake part is most important for the sedentary obese, for whom reducing intake can have a huge effect on weight loss. For the rest of us, output is far more important, because we can't reduce our eating without wasting away.

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account

Get Free Paleo Recipes