Paleo Wars at AHS!

The Calorie Strikes Back

The Ancestral Health Symposium 2012 starts in a few days. Everyone who’s anyone in the Paleo world will gather in Boston.

My talk from last year is the most viewed one from AHS 2011. I’ll attempt to bring something interesting again. A new presentation called The Carb Controversy – and how Paleo could save America.

Pictured above is a slide from it. What’s this about “calories striking back” you ask? Well, check out the next slide:

Next slide


Let me explain this with a short story:

Paleo Wars IV: A New Hope

There is an obesity epidemic spreading everywhere. People are told to count their calories (while eating their fast food) yet they get more obese every year.

Luckily the Paleo movement shows up. All the “founding fathers” – like Loren Cordain, Robb Wolf and Mark Sisson – emphasized avoiding high glycemic load carbs (like sugar & flour) to avoid too much insulin and weight gain.

That’s revolutionary and unconventional advice. Also, it works. I think it’s one of the major reasons why Paleo has rapidly become so popular.

The Calorie Strikes Back

Some influential people in the Paleo blogosphere are now claiming that carbs, macronutrients or insulin have nothing to do with weigh gain. They say it’s really all about calories (again).

I think this is a return to the same old simplistic calories in/out thinking that has failed us during the entire obesity epidemic. Only this time the calories in/out idea is wrapped in something called the “Food Reward” theory.

The Return of Low Carb

In my talk I’ll show how there’s no reason to choose between insulin or food reward to explain obesity. These two theories work beautifully together.

I’ll also show how much insulin has to do with weight control and how the common objections keep missing the point.

Hopefully this way the galaxy can live happily (and thinner) ever after.

What do you say?

Who’s who in the picture above?


If you’re going to be at the AHS my talk is at 4:40 pm Saturday, August 11. Don’t worry, it will feature not only movie posters but some exciting science as well.

Hopefully a high-quality video of the presentation will be posted online later.

Earlier posts on this topic

The #1 Cause of Obesity: Insulin

Beyond gluttony and sloth

The Real Cause of Obesity

Guyenet, Taubes and why low carb works

AHS showdown: Gary Taubes vs Stephan Guyenet

Low Carb Made Easy How to Lose Weight Low-Carb Recipes Low-Carb Success Stories


Top Comments

  1. moreporkplease
    I find the widespread anger at Gary Taubes interesting. It's almost all concentrated among 2 groups: the Crossfitting young men who follow Guyenet and who, following his advice, are now adding lots of rice and potatoes back to their diet; and the middle-aged women (post-menopausal or with PCOS) who somehow blame Taubes for not solving all their health issues.

    It's as if both groups have off-loaded their health onto a science journalist. They're angry, angry, angry and for some reason choose to crucify Taubes. It's really irrational.

    Taubes' simple advice works for about 80% of the general population -the mass for whom his publisher aims his works. The remaining 20% have special health issues that they in general seem to complain about on blogs, but never seem willing to address.

    Dudes, if it's not working for you, get your genes and hormones tested. This is your responsibility not Taubes'! :)

    If you're post-menopausal and stop losing, go ketogenic - 85-88% fat. If that doesn't work, stay ketogenic and limit calories to 1600. If that doesn't work, then take hormones because you have a hormone problem, not a weight problem.

    If you're deeply, deeply insulin-resistant, also try ketogenic, and if that doesn't work, check to see if you have fatty liver or pre-diabetes. Then take metformin and start lifting weights.

    If you have PCOS, you're probably on metformin already; if not, check with your doctor.

    If you're diligent about low-carbing but your cholesterol skyrockets and doesn't come down within 6-12 months, get tested for FH or APOE4 and check your particles.

    If you're diligent about low-carbing but your blood pressure explodes, get a hormone test, a mineral balance test and a kidney ultrasound. Talk to your doctor to discover your health issue. Start yoga, meditation, biofeedback. If lowering stress doesn't help, get your genes tested - if you discover a genetic problem, talk to your doctor.

    If you're diligent about low-carbing and can't lose weight or gain muscle, get your hormones checked. You may have a thyroid problem; talk to your doctor about hormones.

    I very rarely see those with problems follow through on resolving these problems. Why is this? Why instead do they haunt the blogs stalking, complaining, and trolling? :) Why do people project their health problems onto Taubes? He's not Jesus - only you can save yourself. :)


    How much has changed in Paleo! Paleo as currently practiced by the majority of people is not low-carb. The overlap of the Crossfit community to the Paleo community is very large now. They are not low-carbing. As can be seen on Paleohacks, a good website to judge current Paleo practice, the majority appear to be eating more than 200 total carbs a day (moderate carbs), and many of the younger weight-lifting males are pushing that to 250.

    Further, the Paleo majority mocks you. Sorry to be blunt. They have zero interest in being associated with "broken" fat middle-aged women. They are more than happy to "hack" you in a mean-spirit, just as they do Jimmy Moore. Why don't you start Crossfit? ;) If you wish to heal the breach with Paleo, that's great; just know they are defining themselves as everything *not* you. So that will be a very hard, hard road.

    Best wishes, and I hope you resolve your weight issues.

    Read more →
  2. moreporkplease

    Of course i don't know you and I don't want to judge you. So may I ask if you supplement with B12? Because while the online interface is naturally brusque, please forgive me if I observe that you seem really really angry. Are you perhaps vegetarian?

    Otherwise, I agree with your point about insulin. People don't inject it for weight loss because - as every single biochemistry textbook says plainly - it's the fat-storage hormone, even more so than leptin. Those who say otherwise are in denial of established scientific fact.

    As an aside to Andreas about potatoes, you say insulin spikes are fine for "metabolically healthy" people. I think we now know that almost no one in any modern culture over 18 is really metabolically healthy any more. Do you honestly feel comfortable with this advice?

    Further, even if it were so, don't you worry about the long term effects of AGEs - cataracts, etc? Decades of "normal" insulin spikes may be the cause of many problems in the elderly. Wouldn't you want people to have a healthier old age?

    On your point about hunger, Andreas - that's precisely the problem. The "argument" about calories isn't scientific - it's a thin mask for a Calvinist hatred of fat people. Thin people are the naturally virtuous, chosen by God (given good genes). Fat people are damned lazy sinners (given bad genes) who must be punished, punished, punished if thin people want to stay in the Grace of God.

    The thin MUST make the fat SUFFER for their evil, fallen nature lest they share the pains of Hell with them. You will never end the fake debate until you directly address the irrational Calvinism underlying the calorie discussion. I suggest you bring scarlet letter Fs to your talk and pass them out for the fatties to wear. That will please the Paleo/Crossfit crowd.

    Make sure any mothers who can't quite shed the baby weight or women over 40 feel specially humiliated for their disgusting sinful carnal natures that have resulted in the disgusting Mark of Fat (Eve). Only you can uphold the moral order of Nature, Doc!


    "Because there's a difference between endogenous and exogenous insulin."

    And what is it, pray tell? They are similar enough to successfully function in the body and keep diabetics alive, but are suddenly somehow also simultaneously different in what way so as to cause obesity? Please do explain in detail. References to peer-reviewed research and biochem texts will be most appreciated.

    "potatoes were quite the staple in America"

    No, actually, they were not outside of wartime and they are not now: to conclude that something that comprises only about 3% of our calories is a staple surely cannot be correct (see 2012 consumption study below). The secret is that people really don't seem to like them much - throughout history. Really.

    Before the USDA pushed wheat, they pushed potatoes. There used to be ads on TV discussing the wonderful benefits of potatoes! This program is still going on, actually with the United States Potato Board. ( and The USDA has an official potato marketing plan (

    Your idea that potatoes were a staple food before the beginning of government programs is false and is exactly what the marketing program was established to lead you to believe. Altho' some potatoes were grown in the Eastern United States since colonial times, they were not a staple crop for most Americans, just as they were not for most Europeans until a couple of hundred years after their introduction there. And then only due to the force of sheer starvation.

    Remember, European people, esp. the English, were at first very suspicious of potatoes, as they were members of the nightshade family. In fact the Swiss botanist Caspar Bauhin warned of their poisonous and unhealthy nature in 1598.

    It took quite a while for Europeans to adopt the potato. They really weren't adopted widely in Europe until a disastrous winter in 1740 that caused a famine, and which only potatoes survived. Germans(!) were especially slow to adopt the potato until the famine of 1817, even tho' Frederick the Great had ordered them to be planted (mostly to feed his armies).

    Even the Irish didn't come to depend upon potatoes until they were forced to by changes to the "conacre" system, imposed upon them by their British landlords. Russians refused to plant potatoes as late as 1843, calling them Devil's Fruit. The czar had to send force to make the serfs plant them.

    So you see potatoes have a long history as an unloved food begrudgingly used only in times of utmost misery and sometimes planted only at the point of an emperor's bayonet! Seriously, I'm not making this up.

    The US government began encouraging potato agriculture in 1866. The varieties we know today like Early Rose and Russet actually didn't even arrive the in the USA until 1876 (Civil War times). Potatoes have been heavily subsidized in various ways at different times since the 1920s, altho' the current program goes back only to the 70s.

    Even today the government frets that Americans don't eat "enough" potatoes! ( We just don't love them, even as fries - they are only 3.3% of our calories. So now the government is seeking to find ways to make us eat "enough."

    You have to ask yourself why and how "Idaho" somehow became synonymous with "potato." It wasn't due to an inevitable law of physics, you know.

    The mountains of potato oversurplus we suffer from today, just as we suffer from oversurplus of corn, were intentionally created by government policy to buy farm votes and accidentally ended up allowing the creation and endurance of the fast food culture. 1/3 of the potato crop goes to animal feed and processed starches. . . again, think "corn."

    Read more →
1 2

All Comments

  1. Galina L
    @sten bj,
    I spent on a weight-loss plateau 2 years after initial loss of 20 lb during first year of LCarbing. I was holding to my diet anyway because I knew the alternative would be the creeping unstoppable weight-gain. I also experienced instant numerous health-improvements in LC diet (in allergies, resistance to infections, migraines and mood management, leg edema disappeared, pre-menopause symptoms stopped). I moved from the plateau with IF (6 - 8 hours eating window, no snacks, 22 - 24 fasting once a week, no eating ANYTHING after 7 pm.)
    Probably, it is not enough for many who started LCarbing for a weight management to settle for a smaller weight loss, but it pays to get concentrated on other diet benefits like the luck of hunger, better health, increased energy.
  2. Patrik Hägglund
    Doc #46,

    Sorry, I missed that.

  3. Patrik Hägglund
    "this time the calories in/out idea is wrapped in something called the “Food Reward” theory."

    Strange. I haven't followed the food reward ideas much (I don't find them interesting enough), but I would say that, strictly speaking, it is a contradiction to say that _only_ calories matter and at the same time say that food reward is the issue.

    The first law of thermodynamics only correlates weight loss and calories in/out, and to provide an explanation, we have to add _additional_ constructs to our model. Some may for example add highly theoretical ideas such as infinite willpower. Others may lean to more mundane ideas, drawn from human physiology. :-)

    Of course, both fat tissue regulation and the CNS hunger regulation are parts of the human physiology, that may be used to explain weight loss/gain. The question is, if the explanations overlap, which of them survive Occam's razor? I guess, this is what you talk will be about.

    Cases were they don't overlap significantly may for example be Anorexia nervosa and loss of hunger due to gastroenteritis?

  4. Bill42
    "I find your lack of carbs disturbing...."

    "The son of Skywalker must not become LCHF.
    If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.
    Yes. Yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
    He will join us or die, my master."

    "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is LCHF, and a powerful ally it is."

    "All right, I'll give LCHF a try.
    No. Try not. Do LCHF... or do not. There is no try."

    " Impressive. Most impressive. Gary Taubes has taught you well. You have controlled your hunger. Now, release your insulin. Only your carbs can destroy me."

    "No. *I* am LCHF.
    No. No. That's not true. That's impossible!
    Search your feelings, you *know* it to be true!"

    etc. ;-)

  5. murray
    Galina, my experience was similar. I was following the Guyenet/food reward/cross-fit approach. My weight would not go below 170 pounds, no matter how much I worked out. Then I got an injury and went LC and lost 10 pounds within 6 weeks. I went back to the previous diet and held steady for a year or two. Then I started noticing gray hairs appearing (in my late 40s) and started researching mitochondria. Then I went LCHF with intermittent fasting. Apart from losing even more weight, this has had numerous benefits. One, reversal of gray hair. (None six years later, now.) No cold sores since, whereas they were every few months before. No colds or flu since (despite the Canadian winters). Disappearance of tinnitus. Noticeably improved skin complexion and suppleness (especially after fasting) and disappearance of wrinkles. I have had an increase in fasting blood sugar (from 3.9 before to a range between 4.6 and 5.2) but I never experience blood sugar lows now, whereas before they were common. Now I eat breakfast at 6:30 a.m. and go without snacking through a lunch-hour workout until 2 and then eat lunch, so over 7.5 hours easily without snacking, notwithstanding the workout.
  6. Galina L

    Exactly, ketosis has more uses that to be an escape diet for people with broken metabolism and epilepsy. I have no one single seasonal flue or urinary tract infection (used to be a problem) for last 5 years, I am off my asthma medication and my allergy on cats is less severe now. My husband who is naturally lean and regularly rides his bicycle(we live in Florida, used to live in Alberta,Canada, I am familiar with your climate) on long distances with insane speed doesn't have such good immunity as me. He eats only the food I cook, doesn't drink soda, his diet fits all FR criteria, but I think mine has more benefits. Being thin is not the most important criteria of a good diet. After looking at me and his father, my son choose to eat Paleo-style diet , but when he feels he could get a flue, or there are tests in university, he eats LC food. He also claims it saves time and money to eat nothing but a stake twice a day. Faster that a fast food, price is pretty much the same for one meal, but he eats less frequently.

    I think that "war" is a temporary swing in opinions, when it comes to moods in society , there is always back and forth movement, almost never just a development in one single direction, If some guys do a lot of exercise, injuries are part of the package. Surprisingly or not, stomach discomfort is often a problem for awed exercisers. Eating food low in carbs infrequently helps in such trouble a lot. Also, how about raised endurance and avoiding ""bonking" completely due to you blood sugar never going low? Sounds like a good addition to the whole "paleo" package.

  7. Galina L

    Exactly, ketosis has more uses that to be an escape diet for people with broken metabolism and epilepsy. I have no one single seasonal flue or urinary tract infection (used to be a problem) for last 5 years, I am off my asthma medication and my allergy on cats isless severe now. My husband who is naturally lean and regularly rides his bicycle on long distances with insane speed doesn't have such good immunity as me. He eats only food I cook, doesn't drink soda, his diet fits a FR criteria, but I think mine has more benefits. Being thin is not the most important criteria of a good diet. After looking at me and his father, my son choose to eat Paleo-style diet , but when he feels he could get a flue, or there are tests in university, he eats LC food. He also claims it saves time and money to eat nothing but a stake twice a day. Faster that a fast food, price is pretty much the same for one meal, but he eats less frequently.

    I think that "war" is a temporary swing in opinions, when it comes to moods in society , there is always back and forth movement, almost never just a development in one single direction, If some guys do a lot of exercise, injuries are part of the package. Surprisingly or not, stomach discomfort is often a problem for awed exercisers. Eating food low in carbs infrequently helps in such trouble a lot. Also, how about raised endurance and avoiding ""bonking" completely due to you blood sugar never going low? Sounds like a good addition to the whole "paleo" package.

  8. tooticky
    I love the discussion and learning loads. It is so difficult to find information that applies especially women - can I say slighly mature women - so I really appreciate all the nuggets of information I'm finding here.
  9. Ken
    Here's a question for proponents of the so-called "food reward" hypotheses: how would these be tested for validity? I suggest no legitimate answers will be forthcoming. That's a "tell".
    GCBC offers up quite a few historical experiments (mostly in animals) that seem to largely disprove them. And much epidemiological evidence seems to be inconsistent with them. But I suppose since the conscious mind is involved (and we cannot reliably "read" minds -- even our own), such theories always offer an avenue (however ridiculous) of explanation for their advocates.
    That's really the attractiveness -- these characters are all involved in public or quasi-public "industries" (such as academia, government, medicine and other heavily government-funded/influenced areas) that subsist largely off of taxpayer dollars, both directly and indirectly. They sell untestable and untested "ideas". Studies are perpetual, always requiring "further study", and entirely useless for the society at large but very lucrative for the individuals so-employed.
    All the food-reward arguments that I have read are utter logical fallacies, at best setting up straw-men to knock down, in order to avoid any endocrinological or cellular considerations in favor of abstractions of conscious over-eating decisions and psychology. The psychology I would like explained is why the food-reward people continue to jump through hoops of denial of extensive, highly-tested science in favor of their own expensive nonsense. That's the elephant in the room -- vested interests in pretending to work on an alternative to long-established successful hypotheses (that arguably need no alternative).
    In addition, "homeostasis" is a deceptively intricate concept that most food-reward people probably do not actually understand. Endocrinology absolutely requires the full understanding of multiple feedback/closed-loop systems in a biological setting. These people just don't "get it" -- they are not really scientists of any sort. But in their chosen "field" they can pretend, unlike engineers (for example) who must produce physical products that can be tested and must work.
  10. Michael
    "These two theories work beautifully together."

    Of course they do because the food products labeled high reward are all high glycemic type of foods. It's not a coincidence and many people have noticed that. It's just that Guyenet was "mad" at Taubes for being "rude" at AHS last year so he attempted to build an alternative to Taubes' alternative hypothesis that would make Taubes' thesis irrelevant or something. But he was sloppy and kind of immature and he seems to have painted himself in a corner.

  11. Michael
    and about calories: here is a clear example that they do matter for many people - if they want to get seriously lean:

    You want to get down to 9% bodyfat? You're going to have to create a calorie deficit AND add more muscle mass. But guess what? It's easier to create a calorie deficit on a low carb diet or on VLC/ketosis because you're not hungry all the time.

    And plenty of people can go from 25-30% bodyfat to say 15% without paying attention to calories (and sometimes eating more food than before), without intense workouts and without experiencing hunger. And the role of insulin in explaining both the fat loss and the lack of hunger makes sense. If you keep your insulin elevated throughout the day by eating wheat 3 times a day for example, you're going to have a hard time losing fat even if you spend hours on the threadmill.

    and I approve moreporkplease # 47 's comment. I mean, Jimmy Moore has a couple of podcasts on thyroid issues so it's not like someone can honestly say the only thing the low carb websites talk about is insulin.

  12. Galina L

    The people who get insulin injections for a weight management are the ones who suffer from anorexia and need to gain weight and an increased appetite.

  13. Olivia
    Based on personal experience growing up in poverty, I recognized Guyenet's palatability causing overeating as the primary cause of obesity to be heart-breakingly ridiculous. When a human body needs protein and fat (and iron and calcium/phosphorus/magnesium/potassium etc) there isn't a plain-potato in the world that will satisfy the appetite. Considering there's no such thing as an "essential" carbohydrate how does it make evolutionary sense for an EFA and protein deficient human to stop hunting and munch on insulin-spiking tubers instead? In poverty the starches and vegetables are over-eaten in place of real food. So truly, malnourishment causes overeating. Whether driven by greedy fat cells starving lean mass or by nutrient deficient food. Obesity is a form of malnourishment. Taubes was the only one to ever nail that concept.
    With that said, looking at Pica and I think it's valid to recognize that appetite, cravings & the brain have a relationship that isn't well understood. I also think of the "perverted appetite". Like a kibble raised kitty skipping the package of meat to rip open a bag of bread to eat it and munching on a corn muffin... yeast-infected dog counter surfing/stealing sugar & yeast laden foods (candida mind control...)

    p.s. Also, the idea that guyenet is the leader of some cutting edge new concept is rather comical considering potatoes and rice with no salt and butter was what we ate frequently 25 years ago. And I'm sad for all those sugar-burners subjecting their body to constant sugar-spikes.

  14. Can I ask a question not related to anything on this thread please? I've just this week stopped eating oats (I have just 1/2 cup a day with coconut, nuts and seeds for breakfast), although I've stopped eating other grains. I've also stopped eating anything from dinner time (about 7.00pm) until breakfast (about 7.00am). But for the last three days I've had a headache on and off - and I never have headaches. I'm not overweight, but I would like to lose the last 4 pounds to get to 8st (I'm 5ft 3in). I'm also 60 so that might make a difference. I'm wondering whether I'm having oat withdrawal symptoms (I've eaten them for many years) or perhaps a bit of a blood sugar drop not eating for a long period (I usually have an orange and some nuts at about 9.00pm). Any ideas please?
  15. Zepp
    Initial side effects
    If you stop eating sugar and starch cold turkey (recommended) you may experience some side effects as your body gets used to it. For most people it is relatively mild and just lasts a few days. Also there are ways to minimize it.

    Common during the first week:

    •Heart palpitations
    The side effects rapidly subside as your body adapts and your fat burning increases. They can be minimized by drinking some extra fluid and temporarily increasing your salt intake somewhat. A good way can be some broth every few hours. Alternatively drink a few extra glasses of water and put some more salt on your food.

    The reason is that carbohydrate rich foods may increase the water retention in your body. When you stop eating that food you will lose excess water through your kidneys. That may give dehydration and lack of salt in the first week before the body has had time to adapt.

    Some prefer to decrease the intake of carbohydrates slowly, over a few weeks, to minimize side effects. But for most it is wise to take away most sugar and starch right away. A few extra pounds of fluids lost on the scale in the first days is great for the motivation.

  16. Thanks for that, Zepp. It's amazing that I would get that effect from just giving up a very small amount of oats, as I don't have sugar (except in some fruit), but that info is very helpful.
  17. Zepp
    If one eat to little one can have headache to!

    And if you is a beginner that not have a good fat burning capasity, then you can have headache by eating to seldom.

    When you have uppregulated your fat burning capability, then you dont need to eat as often.

  18. Yes, Zepp. I did wonder whether I wasn't eating enough. I've been low-carb for 4 years but only recently got involved with LCHF so I've often eaten some grains in very small amounts in the past and eaten pulses (plus nuts, seeds, eggs, fish and occasionally meat). I'm really only just getting used to having more meat and I'm still eating some pulses a few days a week.
  19. Zepp
    Then you probably not sufering from beginners problem, som few grams of carbs less shouldnt do such an harm.

    Take a calorie check.. one sideefect could be that you eat to little, becuse one seldom feel any hunger.

    You know, meat isnt that energy dense.. if its not realy fat.

  20. Galina L
    I used to have migraines if not eating every 3 hours at day time. One of reasons I eat a LC diet is a migraine management. However, when I tried to get used to IF I continued to have headaches after not eating longer that 4 hours, but each time it took longer to get a headache. Then in 4 - 5 days it was over. Human body is adjustable and adaptable. It takes time for a body to switch from using glucose as a primary source of fuel to fat and ketones. Now I eat two times a day, at 12 and at 6 pm without snacking, my energy level is very consistent and I love it. My age is 51 years old, I have been eating LC since November 2007
  21. Zepp, I don't think I've quite got the hang of eating much fat to be honest, athough I do have nuts, cheese and coconut.

    Galina: not sure what you mean by IF.

  22. Zepp
    If you eat low carb, small amounts of fat and seldom meat.. where do yo get your energy from?

    Low carb is about to eat less carbs, normal protein and to take the energy from fat.. to take the same energy as from thos carbs you cut out.. in the begining no more.. no less!

    After an adaption fase, one could/should try to go by ones apetite.

    If you dont get your energy, its starvation.

    Its about to switch energy source!

    Its about to get normal stabile glucose levels, and energy enough to feel fine.

    And if one needs to lose weight.. its about hormonial weight loss.. to uppregulat fatoxidation in your musclecells, uppregulate lipolysis in fatcells, and to promote ketosis and glukoneogenesis.

    Its not about starving.

    Well next question is how much fatt should one eat.. one should eat as one feel fine, and have energy to live.

    And thats one can do by eating full fat food, using butter to fry with and put som cream in the pan and boil it to an sauce.

    And to that eating veggies as one prefer.

    HF stand for that fat should be high in your energy demand.. not a lot on your plate!

  23. Zepp: well I'm still moving from a mostly vegetarian LC diet to LCHF, so for lunch I would have say, some tinned mackerel plus some veg; or two eggs plus veg/salad or some soup made with veg and pulses plus some cheese; evening meal fish or meat plus veg, or a vegetarian alernative (gradually reducing this).

    I usually have lots of veg and I use cream or creme fraiche sometimes, also nuts and seeds; I cook with coconut oil or olive oil. What's changed is my breakfast. I'm used to having a bowful of my home-made muesli plus coconut, seeds and nuts but changing it to an egg plus some the same without the oats doesn't seem to be filling me up. And the headache has only been this last few days so presumably connected in some way, or to the long period of not eating anything between evening meal and breakfast. I'm not starving and I'm not losing weight.

    I always feel that if I fill up on loads of fat I won't use my own fat stores to lose that last few pounds. But I'm also aware that I could add more meat generally to my diet - and possibly more fat, so I'll look into that. Thanks for all your help.

  24. Galina L
    Sorry, Jan,
    IF means intermittent fasting. Being in a fasted state at least as long as being in a fed state trains your body to use fat for energy even if you eat food higher in carbs and it is a valuable addition to LCarbing especially for people who stall on their fat loss. Famous Kitovan tribe often brought into the discussion about healthy eating because their diet is high in sweet potatoes, but often it is left out of the picture that they eat just once a day. After you eat, your fed state lasts 4 more hours after you stopped eating and an insulin prevents fat to be used as a source of energy. When people eat often and eat before they go to sleep and eat the first thing in the morning, they manage to burn fat only 4 hours out of 24, and have trouble to get switched to fat . When you practice IF, the minimal interval between the time you stop eating one day and start eating the next day should be at least 16 hours (12 +4), then you will be equal amount of time in fed and fasted states during 24 hours. During eating window of max 8 hours you should try to eliminate snacks between meals. Before I got adopter to LC diet fasting was out of question for me, I absolutely couldn't tolerate not eating longer than 3 hours. Nowadays I eat within 6 - 8 hours eating window and fast for 20 - 22 hours once a week.
  25. Thanks Galina. All very interesting - and clearly put.
  26. Zepp
    Well, one can eat LC on an vegetarian base altso.. its the same essential molecules one need, and to that some sort of energy.

    Its easyer to get all nutrients on an mixed diet, with meat, poultry, egg, dairy, fish ,shellfish, thou!

    And vegetable sources for protein is almost high in carbs altso.. if one dont eat soya products.. and that one should avoid anyhow.

  27. Galina L
    One more thing, Jan,

    The doctors who unprofessionally treated people for a weight-loss with a LC diet for many years such as Dr.Atkins and Drs. Eades, did not disregard the importance of calorie content of a diet for a weight loss altogether. It is difficult to gain fat on LC (but possible), but in order to loose weight, the calorie deficit is required. If you eat , for example, 5000 calories of food a day, drink heavy cream, do not get surprised if you you are not loosing. There were a lot of people complaining on diet problems who overaet high fat dairy and nuts. However, before you start to think about calories from macsarpone cheese, eliminate all pulses and seriously cut on fruits. Here is Dr.Eades website
    Fish around and find what he said about calories (probably in his discussion with Anthony Colpo). If you need more help to find it, tell it in comments here.

  28. Zepp: yes, this is why I want to move over to a more meat/fish-based diet. Thanks for all your advice.

    Galina: thanks also. I'm keeping a note of what you have said. Best wishes. I do appreciate everyone's input.

  29. Michael
    Murray: "Then I started noticing gray hairs appearing (in my late 40s) and started researching mitochondria. Then I went LCHF with intermittent fasting. Apart from losing even more weight, this has had numerous benefits. One, reversal of gray hair. (None six years later, now.)"

    Interesting. I'm 20 years younger than you and I have a couple of white hairs. Can you explain the mitochondria reference a little? Did you take supplements for your mitochondria? Did you do anything else beside going LCHF + IF?

  30. Bar Kohavi
    hey Doc,
    I've been trying to get a hold of your presentation from AHS 2012 but cant seem to find it anywhere any suggestions?

    is it possible to see it online?

1 2

Leave a Reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts