Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

3

1

Not trying to stir any trouble, but I have an honest question about LC eating.

Many on Paleo or LC sites seem to think that carbs are the devil as the carbs are eventually just are stored as fat in the body. However, it seems like these people are forgetting that dietary fat is also stored as fat much more easily than carbs. Therefore, replacing carbs with fat really solves no fat storage problem. I understand that reducing carbs burns more fat, but if you are just replacing the burned fat with more dietary fat (which is stored as fat), are you really losing that much overall fat? (Sorry for confusing wording)

As a personal anecdote, I was already in low body fat range but could not lose last pounds on low carb. Then I reduced my dietary fat intake, added more starchy carbs, while still eating tons of protein, and voila -- I began losing. I am not saying I don't eat fat -- I just reduced it a ton and replaced it with protein. That was the trick for me. Just sharing my experience in case others are having same problem

Any ideas about this?

flag	asked May 9 2012 at 21:13 Peter 39●1

The fat that paleo dieters eat is always processed food. Ancestor diet did not include butter, lard, tallow, seed oils or nut oils. – thhq May 14 2012 at 12:57

pbo · Answer 1 · 2012-05-09 21:36:25Z UTC

8

"Carbs are the devil as the carbs are eventually just are stored as fat in the body."

Sure, some people still believe that, but it is not true. Your body rarely stores excess carbs as fat, so not sure why people would say carbs are eventually stored as fat. Instead, when you have an excess of carbs in the diet, your body will then store all dietary fat first before it attempts de novo lipogenesis. It's just more efficient.

In any case, eating too many calories, at the end of the day will make you gain weight and vice versa.

When going low carb, to me, you are using a strategy to help you get into a caloric deficit. I know for me, eating more fat keeps me satiated longer, and I can go longer between meals. For some, going into ketosis helps them eat less and help promote their body to ketones for fuel, thus decreasing hunger.

Of course there are other factors, but please don't fall into the type that carbs are evil and equal fat gain. One macronutrient is not good or evil. Sticky with safe starches, healthy fats, good sources of protein. Tinker with lowering fat or carb when trying to lose weight. In you example, cutting back on fat did the trick. We are different and thrive on different ratios.

answered May 9 2012 at 21:36

pbo
2,765●3●11

2

"When going low carb, to me, you are using a strategy to help you get into a caloric deficit." You know, I've heard a lot of people say this, but what I don't understand is how then do you explain the people who lose weight on the same amount (or more) calories when they are low carb, but when they eat more carbs at the same (or lower) calories, gain rapidly? By your theory, someone should be losing if eating at a caloric deficit even if they are high carb, but many don't. They also should be gaining when they are eating more calories when low carb, but they still don't. – A at Grain Free Diet May 10 2012 at 1:51

2

To the best of my knowledge, this has shown study after study when these test are done in metabolic ward setting, calories are king. Most people do not accurately enough measure their intake. They think they are eating x amount, but really are either over/under eating. Listen people can believe what they want, and some people might have real issues with their metabolism, but for most, counting calories can put in their right perspective and give you a place to start either cutting back on, or adding. – pbo May 10 2012 at 13:05

3

Yeah, I'm also getting a little tired of hearing that people don't know how to measure their own food. I am not talking about people who guesstimate their food intake. I am talking about people who measure and track every single morsel they eat (as many of us in the weight loss world do) and still find this to be the case. It saddens me that whenever someone finds that this (or some other dietary anomaly) is the case with them, people just assume that person is doing something wrong instead of seeing what we can learn from it. – A at Grain Free Diet May 10 2012 at 18:02

1

You can believe what you want. The metabolic ward studies is the best proof where in a controlled environment where we know exactly how much people are eating, we see that calories matter. Different people do different things with their calories. Some people easily add more muscle, some more easily gain fat, some burn it off easily via NEAT. Some people may have hormonal problems. The point is find out about how many calories you ingesting to be at the weight you are know. Then tinker with that. That will work for most people. The other cases are the minority. – pbo May 10 2012 at 21:53

2

People say that, because they misunderstand Taubes. LC doesn't work because carbs are stored whereas fat isn't, and it doesn't work because it causes a caloric deficit. It works because of the hormonal effects that don't happen when you don't eat carbs, and the caloric deficit happens automatically because you are losing fat. – Ambimorph May 10 2012 at 22:21

Ambimorph · Answer 2 · 2012-05-10 22:15:03Z UTC

5

It's not that carbs are stored and fat isn't, it's that carbs cause a hormonal cascade that favours fat gain.

answered May 10 2012 at 22:15

Ambimorph
19.7k●18●66

that is pretty much the same as insulin (hormone) shuttling carbs into fat storage. I ate copious amounts of both fat and carbs for many many years and never gained any weight at all..in fact I was always told I was too slim..and then it began to creep up. Carbs are not "bad". Carbs are also not necessary. Fat is actually not stored more readily than carbs. If you are low carb and keto-adapted you will burn fat. – jo60 May 13 2012 at 20:25

Carbs not necessary? That's the Neolithic diet geek in you speaking. All nutrients are necessary with survival at stake. And our ancestors did not shun them. – thhq May 14 2012 at 12:40

That makes no sense. You're confusing necessary with sufficient. That's like saying humans can't survive without drinking blood, because if blood was the only thing available, the human would have to drink it to survive. – Ambimorph May 14 2012 at 15:46

Carbs are neither necessary, nor sufficient in the long run, since protein and fat are necessary for purposes other than energy. – Ambimorph May 14 2012 at 15:48

1

What are you talking about, thhq? I'm not talking about what diet people should eat, I'm talking about physiology. Get a grip on yourself. People don't need dietary carbohydrates to live. That's all I said. – Ambimorph May 16 2012 at 14:21

show 4 more comments

TruthinessInc · Answer 3 · 2012-05-09 21:42:22Z UTC

Fuels for the body in the order your body uses them are carbs, fat and protein. The reason your body uses the carbs first (at least as I've come to understand it) is that it doesn't need carbs to survive (though you're still getting carbs from vegetable obviously)...if you remove carbs as a source of fuel and give it something besides the refined carbs i.e. fat...It has no choice and burns the fat for fuel...fat goes in...Fat is burned away...I could be totally wrong, but this is how I see it working in my brain under a factory type setting. This theme song plays in my head….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9-7uLg-DZU. Truth

LianeMJ · Answer 4 · 2012-05-09 22:56:26Z UTC

Have you tried working out with a trainer? That's been kicking my butt. I'm new to Paleo but not to low-carbing. In the same boat - at a standstill. I feel like our bodies have a "set point" and breaking it is sometimes hard. Try counting calories too perhaps.

diletta · Answer 5 · 2012-05-15 22:14:02Z UTC

if paleo/LC diets was only about the oversimplification carbs=stored/ fats=burned [which is false], I wouldn't be on paleo whatsoever.

What "convinced" me, was a list of other hormonal/biochemical facts. I cannot say it is the "holy truth", but it is largely supported by physiology studies and mechanisms. Here's the list:

carbs are insulinogenic, unlike fats, insulin switches on lypogenesis and switches off all those wonderful catabolic pathways that makes us leaner and burner-organisms.

-carbs are pro-inflammatory and drive the glication process. Glicated proteins are impaired proteins, suboptimally functioning. Enzymes are proteins as well, our metabolic machines.

Carbs do not satisfy us as fats and proteins do. We are likely to fall hungry easier and earlier after a meal: when gluconeogenesis and glicolysis produce glucose for your blood, glicemia is steady. When glucose is eaten, bad.carbs in particular, glucose levels are more unsteady and cravings,hunger,energy drops ensue.
for sugar-sensitive people (like I am...) "the more carbs you eat, the more you crave".

These are good points to me, physiology- based. "Absolute" truth?don't think so. Genes can add lot of different outcomes indeed, not to mention that a single hormonal inbalance could affect metabolism.

Generally speaking, if the goal is to lose weight, you can do in thousands different styles with the condition to stay on HYPOCALORIC mode. If the goal is to "heal" the metabolism, the "burning system" and get rid of the skinny-fat body type (kind outcome of all my low fat diets...), I'd go for something different.

last: 1g carbs=4.5 Kcal; 1g fat=9 kcal. I wouldn't be surprised by the weight loss after replacing fats with carbs. That's not the point, the point is the switch to less calories.

Within isocaloric intake (life long/no hungry all day), 25% carbs make the difference...for me).

JRAC · Answer 6 · 2012-05-09 21:47:14Z UTC

0

Low carb Taubesian paleo is veganism mirrored.

They both live in a delusion.

answered May 9 2012 at 21:47

JRAC
1,464●3●5

1

Why so harsh and mean? Paleo comes in all levels of carbs, and low carb paleo works for plenty of people. No need to alienate part of this community just because carbs are currently "in." There's enough divisiveness already. – January May 10 2012 at 3:31

2

It's not Alienation; I never said anything about LC paleo but of Taubsian 'you can eat all the fat you want just keep carbs low' pseudoscience. They are delusional like vegans. – JRAC May 10 2012 at 6:49

1

@JRAC please point out the REAL science (if you can find it) It sounds like you have not actually read Taubes-for if you had you would see the over abundant over the top list of cites and references like no other. I thinketh you know not of what you speak. – jo60 May 13 2012 at 20:31

Paleos and vegans diverge on protein. Meat is the best source. Both diets are high fat compared to what our ancestors ate. – thhq May 14 2012 at 12:43

hahaha sorry Taubes is real science? I've read TheDietDelusion (GCBC's name in the UK) 3 times. jo60 just because Taubes lists lots of references does that make him right? Is it worrying to you he ignores modern research and uses 40 year old references when modern research shows how wrong he is? – JRAC May 16 2012 at 12:53

show 4 more comments

MArk · Answer 7 · 2012-05-09 22:52:07Z UTC

I lost 35-40 pounds since going paleo.. I ate high fat and very little carbs, till I flat lined at 190 lbs.. I tried to shake it up and eat some carbs .. and i didn't gain a pound i just felt sluggish.. I tried to go real strict and I didn't lose a pound... I switched to lower fat .. nothing...I switched to higher fat.. nothing I stuck where I was ... I would like to lose another 30 which would be ideal as a 5'4" male, I know Ideal is a meaningless term but for once in my 32 years on the earth i would like to say I know what the FDA says I should be and what a crock it is. Frankly I can't diss the medical records till I prove them wrong, I know i still have High body fat. I still have a large keg belly and man boobs ..

I know its going to take a cleanse, some time with out carbs at all, with low fat, maybe a liquid fast, a raw veggie fast and full time exercise, but I would to know what that is like while still young enough to feel it ..

any one else

jo60 · Answer 8 · 2012-05-13 20:35:41Z UTC

How long did you try alternate diets each? How long did it take on your low carb to lose the initial weight?

Do you consume any sweetners/diet drinks etc.. anything other than whole real food? What was your % of dietary fat/carbs on LC?

What are you doing now?

sandy A · Answer 9 · 2012-05-13 20:52:46Z UTC

0

If you want to know the science behind proteins, fats and carbohydrates, there are numerous chemistry sites online that display the molecular structure of the different fats and carbohydrates.

answered May 13 2012 at 20:52

sandy A
856●1●5

	sources please! anything that a non-chemist can understand? – PaleoVenus May 14 2012 at 14:04
	users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/F/… At the bottom there is also a link to a page on the same site about how humans utilize fats – sandy A May 15 2012 at 11:09

thhq · Answer 10 · 2012-05-14 12:37:18Z UTC

Actual preneolithic diets could not possibly have been high fat. Read the following summary by Matesz:

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/05/who-said-paleo-diet-had-high-fat.html?m=1

Fat was not easily retained before cooking vessels. Matesz speculates on a 55% carb, 25% fat diet in Paleolithic Africa. Even modern low fat diets contain that much. The macronutrients in the paleo diet were similar to the Med diet.

Dietary Fat and LC Eating

10 Answers