Sisson is the man

BlueIsland

Read "primal blueprint" recently and absolutely believe anyone who comes on this board should be directed towards! I always knew that grains caused me to gain weight even when I exercised vigourously! But insulin production is niw on my radar!All the crap people talk about weight watchers and that would be put to bed with reading sisson's book! Just a thought! Primal is the way to go! Carbs and insulin are the first port of call for weightloss/ not calories!
Rant over

SteelyDanJalapeno

Been primal with about 8 months now, only good things have came from it.

boomtown84

BlueIsland wrote: »

Read "primal blueprint" recently and absolutely believe anyone who comes on this board should be directed towards! I always knew that grains caused me to gain weight even when I exercised vigourously! But insulin production is niw on my radar!All the crap people talk about weight watchers and that would be put to bed with reading sisson's book! Just a thought! Primal is the way to go! Carbs and insulin are the first port of call for weightloss/ not calories!
Rant over

LOL

BlueIsland

Reason you laugh?

rocky

Heil Sisson!

Mellor

BlueIsland wrote: »

Read "primal blueprint" recently and absolutely believe anyone who comes on this board should be directed towards! I always knew that grains caused me to gain weight even when I exercised vigourously! But insulin production is niw on my radar!All the crap people talk about weight watchers and that would be put to bed with reading sisson's book! Just a thought! Primal is the way to go! Carbs and insulin are the first port of call for weightloss/ not calories! Rant over

BlueIsland wrote: »

Reason you laugh?

Wel your last line is kind of funny tbh.
Cutting out carbs = cutting out calories.
The reason i think these diets work, is becasue they encourage you to under eat (or the the right amount). Protein, fats and low carb veggies. These make up a generally low cal meals. you'll eat less without knowing and books liek the above trick you into think carbs made you fat. They didn't. Eating too many carbs did.

Just to be clear, I don't eat carbs. I prob eat 20g-50g a day mon-fri. Most of that is stuff i can avoid, like trace amounts in certain meals. but i do this because i like a pro/fat diet, not because I am under the impression cavemen were healthy eaters.
I also eat dairy, obviously some people don't tolerate it well, but if you do then why not. It's prob the best source of protein.

I don't have a problem with the primal/paleo (is there a difference?) diet per se. but rather the way its portrayed, such as the post above or various articles. the fact that people are constantly bending the rules, further proves, to me, how weak the concept is.

gym bunny

totally agree with blueisland, the man knows his stuff grains do make you put on weight coz ppl have no idea with all this wholegrain is the way to go stuff so they eat grains at every meal,i myself did it and im a fitness instructor for crying out loud and i couldnt drop d lbs with all the exercise.been doing primal bout a month and down half a stone and its not at all like a diet,went from 10.4 to 9.9 so nearly to my goal weight already and tookme months to figure it out.....so big up Sisson

Hanley

gym bunny wrote: »

totally agree with blueisland, the man knows his stuff

Yup, his marketing knowledge is extensive and well applied.

grains do make you put on weight coz ppl have no idea with all this wholegrain is the way to go stuff so they eat grains at every meal,

Insofar as they have calories, yes they make you put on weight. But so does fat, and…. *gasp* protein. The reason people tend to put on more weight with a carb heavy diet is (IMO) satiety. It’s A LOT more difficult and less enjoyable to overeat on protein than it is carbs.

i myself did it and im a fitness instructor for crying out loud and i couldnt drop d lbs with all the exercise.

That means you were eating too many kcals, and says a lot about the state of the industry tbh.

been doing primal bout a month and down half a stone and its not at all like a diet,went from 10.4 to 9.9 so nearly to my goal weight already and tookme months to figure it out.....so big up Sisson

Are you familiar with the effects of glycogen depletion, water retention and the effects thereon by carbs?

BlueIsland

Obviously cutting out calories is same in way as cutting our carbs. as carbs contain calories! But how many people go on diets thinking of cutting out calories and they go after fats and even protein first????Thats the point I am making by first port of call!. I.e when weights watchers had saturated fat as the place to cut back on primarily!... I am not stubborn enough in the slightest to believe this is the only way in the entire world to loose or maintain weight. I just think after struggling ewith my weight for a long time and looking up piles and piles ( and trying piles and piles) of dietary advice it is the most advisable and best laid out.
EATING TOO MANY CARBS ETC ETC....IE THE MODERATION ARGUMENT... I dont buy into it. simply cos carbohydrates are different to fats and protein. They are like alcohol. The more and more you drink, the more and more you want. Thats why for people who struggle with weight cutting carbs will balance their insulin response and make long term weight loss and maintenance possible.

rocky

How long have you been on this diet? Are you male or female?

Carbs are like alcohol? Try eating rice or potatoes in excess, see how far that gets you. It's mostly the combination of fats and carbs that most people find highly palatable, not carbs on their own.

BlueIsland

rocky wrote: »

How long have you been on this diet? Are you male or female?

Carbs are like alcohol? Try eating rice or potatoes in excess, see how far that gets you. It's mostly the combination of fats and carbs that most people find highly palatable, not carbs on their own.

Male
Jan 2011 18 stone 7 pounds- 28% bodyfat
May 2011 15 stone 4 pounds- 16% bodyfat

I not stubborn but dont think the primal blueprint is a fad diet or something that people seem to be implying or hinting towards. The Body does not need carbohydrate to survive! simple as!

rocky

BlueIsland wrote: »

The Body does not need carbohydrate to survive! simple as!

I don't want to just 'survive' though

Transform

If you take out all the nutrition stuff from Marks book you are still left with a really good guide on other areas of health that many many people ignore completely

e.g.

- Stress
- Sleep
- Sunshine
- Move your butt
- Pick stuff up and put stuff down


he explains all these areas really well and yes you can go over the paleo/primal calories in/c out over and over again but the book is still one of the best non-BS ones currently available and focuses on food quality as a priority.


i have worked with a number of clients that will never attain the results they are looking for NOT because their nutrition is not on track but because they are stressed out all the time, not sleeping enough and barely move their butt from one end of the day to the other.

Overall the book is excellent and much like other books that have come up for discussion here before lets hear from the people that ACTUALLY read it.

BlueIsland

sorry right ill rephrase the body does not need carbohydrate to thrive..... Sisson is not advocating an atkins approach and yes he does demonise carbs... reason not atkins- get carbs from ample amounts of fruit and veg....

BlueIsland

Transform wrote: »

If you take out all the nutrition stuff from Marks book you are still left with a really good guide on other areas of health that many many people ignore completely

e.g.

- Stress
- Sleep
- Sunshine
- Move your butt
- Pick stuff up and put stuff down


he explains all these areas really well and yes you can go over the paleo/primal calories in/c out over and over again but the book is still one of the best non-BS ones currently available and focuses on food quality as a priority.


i have worked with a number of clients that will never attain the results they are looking for NOT because their nutrition is not on track but because they are stressed out all the time, not sleeping enough and barely move their butt from one end of the day to the other.

Overall the book is excellent and much like other books that have come up for discussion here before lets hear from the people that ACTUALLY read it.

Couldn't agree more..that was my point..if you have read it you will understand the point of my post....learned more in the couple hundred pages about many aspects of a healthy body and mind than have in 27 years previous!

Transform

this is the whole problem with nutrition and 'dieting' in general.

where is the focus on enjoying food, eating without being stressed and pleasure in all of this?

Mark does a great job of addressing all of the above and if it gets more people pulling away from a 'die-t' mentality then great.

BlueIsland

Transform wrote: »

this is the whole problem with nutrition and 'dieting' in general.

where is the focus on enjoying food, eating without being stressed and pleasure in all of this?

Mark does a great job of addressing all of the above and if it gets more people pulling away from a 'die-t' mentality then great.

Perfect example- made your paleo bars last night! All nutritious ingedients, quality ingedients! This is not a cheap shot but imagine going onto the ww thread and advising them as a healthy snack???

The Primal Blueprint has thought me about food...not specifically about food to loose weight.
Ate 2400 calories yesterday- eggs, chicken, veg, fruit, nuts, seeds, healthy fats. Not hungry, blood sugar levels good, insulin controlled...nutrition an enjoyable part of my life, not a fighting battle.

rocky

BlueIsland wrote: »

The Primal Blueprint has thought me about food...not specifically about food to loose weight.
Ate 2400 calories yesterday- eggs, chicken, veg, fruit, nuts, seeds, healthy fats. Not hungry, blood sugar levels good, insulin controlled...nutrition an enjoyable part of my life, not a fighting battle.

Are you testing your insulin ?

edit:
How primal are protein supplements:
http://primalblueprint.com/products/Primal-Fuel.html

79$ for 1.3kg of 'primal fuel'

Mellor

Transform, obviously this is a bit of a loaded question, but what sort of foods Will you eat before the CF regionals? Also i avoid milk (at least for now) due to carbs but why avoid cheese (fats and protein) or other dairy?

Hanley

rocky wrote: »

Are you testing your insulin ?

I was going to ask the same. I’ve been doing a bit of reading around insulin lately because it seems to be another one of those fitness myths that people toss out because it’s been around so long that it MUST be true.

Based off what I’ve read, and discussions I’ve had, I’d be skeptical to the all important role most people seem to think it plays. Anyone got any thoughts?

boomtown84

Hanley wrote: »

I was going to ask the same. I’ve been doing a bit of reading around insulin lately because it seems to be another one of those fitness myths that people toss out because it’s been around so long that it MUST be true.

Based off what I’ve read, and discussions I’ve had, I’d be skeptical to the all important role most people seem to think it plays. Anyone got any thoughts?

I think it's great...couldn't live without the stuff me!
OP have a read of this: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

SteelyDanJalapeno

boomtown84 wrote: »

I think it's great...couldn't live without the stuff me!
OP have a read of this: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

I don't get it...

you couldn't live with out insulin?

rocky

He'd be a type 1 diabetic without it, I'd say he wouldn't enjoy it

Hanley

rocky wrote: »

He'd be a type 1 diabetic without it, I'd say he wouldn't enjoy it

Obivously I'm talking about insulin effect and response in regards weightloss.

I'd be interested to see if anyone has seen studies for either side of the argument.

BlueIsland

Mellor wrote: »

Transform, obviously this is a bit of a loaded question, but what sort of foods Will you eat before the CF regionals? Also i avoid milk (at least for now) due to carbs but why avoid cheese (fats and protein) or other dairy?

As far as my reading of book went the blueprint doesnt disallow cheese from your diet. in fact its a list of 5 best forms of dairy. Now if your hardcore yeh cutting it out is prob high on your list. carbohydrate scale for a day goes like this...
less then 50g- Ketosis
50g-100g- weight loss sweet spot
100g-150g- effortless weight maintainance
150g plus- weight gain....
Cottage cheese is one of top ten snacks sisson gives!

Hanley

BlueIsland wrote: »

As far as my reading of book went the blueprint doesnt disallow cheese from your diet. in fact its a list of 5 best forms of dairy. Now if your hardcore yeh cutting it out is prob high on your list. carbohydrate scale for a day goes like this...
less then 50g- Ketosis
50g-100g- weight loss sweet spot
100g-150g- effortless weight maintainance
150g plus- weight gain....
Cottage cheese is one of top ten snacks sisson gives!

Is that based off any bodyweight or activity level?

BlueIsland

well he says in book anybody who insists on chronic cardio can test upping carb intake by 100g ( from primal foods) and see how body reacts...

Hanley

BlueIsland wrote: »

well he says in book anybody who insists on chronic cardio can test upping carb intake by 100g ( from primal foods) and see how body reacts...

Please tell me a 275lb 6 foot+ dude doesn't get the same carb recommendations as a 120lb 5 and a bit foot chick?

BlueIsland

I kinda dont wanna dig a hole for the book arguing something I probably wont be great at arguing for! But my take is that Mark Sisson takes a paleolithic man, looks at his lifestyle in which the only carbs he consumed really were from veg and fruit! This individual was constantly active- foraging for food, hiking miles each days for firewood and hunting. Grok (the paleolithic man) had to be extremely active every single day so therefore very fit. He didnt need processed carbs just cos he was more active than a 120lb female..The body can be trained to run on proteins and fats as our ancestors did. Conventional approaches will say ya need carbs for this, that and the other but they really arent that important!

gym bunny

@hanley how do you know if i ate to many cals,my problem was i was taking huge breaks inbetween my meals and not eating enough at wrong times and thats why my body was holding onto weight.Also im still failrly new as a fitness instructor so still learning,no need for the dig on my industry

BlueIsland

Well keeping to topic of the thread gymbunny...eating at different times of the day doesnt matter in slightest! Conventional wisdom will let ya believe ya gotta eat square meals with the old snacks in between to "keep the metabolism" burning argument. Our ancestors, a much fitter people, did not have the constant supply of food we have...They might have had to go long periods without food due to unavailability...Its about reprogramming your genes not to "HAVE TO" eat every couple hours.

Blatter

gym bunny wrote: »

@hanley how do you know if i ate to many cals,my problem was i was taking huge breaks inbetween my meals and not eating enough at wrong times and thats why my body was holding onto weight.Also im still failrly new as a fitness instructor so still learning,no need for the dig on my industry

It's been scientifically proven that the timing and frequency of your meals has no direct relationship with weight gain, all that matters is total calories.

boomtown84

gym bunny wrote: »

@hanley how do you know if i ate to many cals,my problem was i was taking huge breaks inbetween my meals and not eating enough at wrong times and thats why my body was holding onto weight.Also im still failrly new as a fitness instructor so still learning,no need for the dig on my industry

no it wasn't,do a search about it.there's been lots of discussion on that topic here.
"no need for the dig on my industry"....brilliant!:D

BlueIsland wrote: »

Well keeping to topic of the thread gymbunny...eating at different times of the day doesnt matter in slightest! Conventional wisdom will let ya believe ya gotta eat square meals with the old snacks in between to "keep the metabolism" burning argument. Our ancestors, a much fitter people, did not have the constant supply of food we have...They might have had to go long periods without food due to unavailability...Its about reprogramming your genes not to "HAVE TO" eat every couple hours.

please stop talking!

Hanley

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

It's been scientifically proven that the timing and frequency of your meals has no direct relationship with weight gain, all that matters is total calories.

gym bunny wrote: »

@hanley how do you know if i ate to many cals,my problem was i was taking huge breaks inbetween my meals and not eating enough at wrong times and thats why my body was holding onto weight.Also im still failrly new as a fitness instructor so still learning,no need for the dig on my industry

See above. If you're not losing weight, you're not creating a large enough calorie deficit. This is an incontrovertible fact. Please note I didn't say fat loss, as too much of a deficit there won't generate a good proportion of fat loss either.

If you didn't want to have "your" industry mentioned, then you shouldn't have brought it up. It comes across that you used your industry to add weight to the point you were making in your post, my point is, it does not.

I'm more involved and know a lot more high profile industry members than you might think. It wasn't a dig at the industry as a whole, just at those who think they know it all and have all the answers, and that's not a dig at you either.

And before anyone says anything, I don't think I've all the answers. The more I read and the more I research, the more questions I have to ask.

BlueIsland

boomtown84 wrote: »

no it wasn't,do a search about it.there's been lots of discussion on that topic here.
"no need for the dig on my industry"....brilliant!:D




please stop talking!

Throw in some opinions to the conversation chief instead of comments like that!

SteelyDanJalapeno

At the end of the day

Theres no perfect diet/lifestyle its gonna be different to everyone, if your trying to lose weight: think logically in what your doing and you'll be fine, eat what the earth provides veggies, fruits and meat, minimize processed high sugary foods there not gonna be great for you.

Primal/Paleo is great an all that but its just the flavour of the month,

It all comes down to cals in vs cals out!

foxyboxer

Horgan wrote: »

At the end of the day

Theres no perfect diet/lifestyle its gonna be different to everyone, if your trying to lose weight: think logically in what your doing and you'll be fine, eat what the earth provides veggies, fruits and meat, minimize processed high sugary foods there not gonna be great for you.

Primal/Paleo is great an all that but its just the flavour of the month,

It all comes down to cals in vs cals out!

How is the natural diet of our species flavour of the month?

El_Dangeroso

God, I just popped in to read this thread.

Why do all the them people feel the need to put other people down for something that is working for them? The FIRST thing people should say is well done, and then make their point, that's more cordial.

Also, ppl, please stop saying cals in cals out like it's a f*cking mantra or something. YES WE KNOW, we've heard it from birth. And you know what? It's never done any good for 99% of people trying to lose weight and keep it off. You might as well tell someone with type one diabetes that 'you know it's all about insulin in vs. insulin out.'. Totally pointless.

OK. that's my Friday rant over with, can you tell I've been working 12hr days this week?

Hanley

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

God, I just popped in to read this thread.

Why do all the them people feel the need to put other people down for something that is working for them? The FIRST thing people should say is well done, and then make their point, that's more cordial.

No one’s trying to put anyone down for what they’re doing or they success they’re having with it? The point is that it may not be working for the reason they think it’s working, and to mislead others by saying ‘it works because of X’ when it’s really working because of ‘Y’ isn’t cool.

This isn’t the 17th century. If I wanted cordial, I’d get some Robinsons

Also, ppl, please stop saying cals in cals out like it's a f*cking mantra or something. YES WE KNOW, we've heard it from birth. And you know what? It's never done any good for 99% of people trying to lose weight and keep it off.

I’ll stop saying it when people stop saying it doesn’t matter. Because it does. Saying anything else is just wrong.

If it’s not working for people, it’s not the mechanics of it that they need to change, it’s the application and emotional investment. Dieting’s tough f*cking work. If you approach it the wrong way, you’ll fail. If you need to be part of a ‘movement’ like paleo, WW or whatever to have support and feel like you’re part of something bigger, that’s cool, if it gets you results – awesome.

But don’t talk about it like it’s some magical system which has a free pass over the law of thermodynamics.

You might as well tell someone with type one diabetes that 'you know it's all about insulin in vs. insulin out.'. Totally pointless.

Don’t they take a proactive approach to controlling their insulin levels? And achieve a better quality of life a result?

OK. that's my Friday rant over with, can you tell I've been working 12hr days this week?

I’m only getting started on my traditional Friday afternoon awkwardness

Davei141

My biggest issue is people claiming they exercised loads and vigorously yet couldn't lose any weight and in the OP's case gained it because of some grains? Lets face it if people exercised as hard as claimed to be those grains/carbs would of been burned up so thats why the calories in/out argument is being brought in.

--Kaiser--

Hanley wrote: »

But don’t talk about it like it’s some magical system which has a free pass over the law of thermodynamics.

It's not a magical system, it's perfectly scientific. Saying calories in = calories out is at best a gross simplification of the way we metabolise food and at worst shows a complete lack of understanding of the bodies various metabolic processes.

Hanley

It's not a magical system, it's perfectly scientific. Saying calories in = calories out is at best a gross simplification of the way we metabolise food and at worst shows a complete lack of understanding of the bodies various metabolic processes.

In the vast, vast majority of cases it IS that simple. You can talk about TEF, insulin levels, GI response etc etc until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, lets just take a measuring tape out!?

When it comes to weight (and more specifically, fat) loss, especially at above normal body fat levels, it doesn’t need to be over complicated. Can macro manipulation go some way towards creating weight loss in the short term? Sure. But for long term sustainability you’re not going to continue to lose weight without eating below maintenance.

Or am I missing out on something completely obvious here? I’d actually like to know what you’re getting at! Are you talking about individuals levels of insulin resistance and sensitivity and their respective success on differing macro ratios? Are you talking about macros not being important, their ‘quality’ perhaps?

rocky

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's not a magical system, it's perfectly scientific. Saying calories in = calories out is at best a gross simplification of the way we metabolise food and at worst shows a complete lack of understanding of the bodies various metabolic processes.

As long as we get these kind of statemens from people that have read the paleo diet of the day, we need to point out the actual truth. Otherwise they'll believe they got results for different reasons than real ones, and next time they try they'll be stumped as to why it's not working anymore:

BlueIsland wrote: »

Read "primal blueprint" recently and absolutely believe anyone who comes on this board should be directed towards! I always knew that grains caused me to gain weight even when I exercised vigourously! But insulin production is niw on my radar!All the crap people talk about weight watchers and that would be put to bed with reading sisson's book! Just a thought! Primal is the way to go! Carbs and insulin are the first port of call for weightloss/ not calories!
Rant over

BlueIsland wrote: »

Obviously cutting out calories is same in way as cutting our carbs. as carbs contain calories! But how many people go on diets thinking of cutting out calories and they go after fats and even protein first????Thats the point I am making by first port of call!. I.e when weights watchers had saturated fat as the place to cut back on primarily!... I am not stubborn enough in the slightest to believe this is the only way in the entire world to loose or maintain weight. I just think after struggling ewith my weight for a long time and looking up piles and piles ( and trying piles and piles) of dietary advice it is the most advisable and best laid out.
EATING TOO MANY CARBS ETC ETC....IE THE MODERATION ARGUMENT... I dont buy into it. simply cos carbohydrates are different to fats and protein. They are like alcohol. The more and more you drink, the more and more you want. Thats why for people who struggle with weight cutting carbs will balance their insulin response and make long term weight loss and maintenance possible.

BlueIsland wrote: »

sorry right ill rephrase the body does not need carbohydrate to thrive..... Sisson is not advocating an atkins approach and yes he does demonise carbs... reason not atkins- get carbs from ample amounts of fruit and veg....

boomtown84

@Hanley-I think the point they are getting at and somebody correct me if i'm wrong here:simplified:
-people who are overweight find it very difficult to lose weight eating carbs because they never feel full after a meal.
-if they start a diet containing more fat and less carbs this will keep them full whilst reducing their overall cal intake.
--it's just a different way of dieting for people with little will power and those that are not bothered keeping track of calories.

there is nothing wrong with it really but the way some people go on you'd swear this diet was the second coming.

BlueIsland

rocky wrote: »

As long as we get these kind of statemens from people that have read the paleo diet of the day, we need to point out the actual truth. Otherwise they'll believe they got results for different reasons than real ones, and next time they try they'll be stumped as to why it's not working anymore:

Should have called the thread " in my view in the sense that it works for my body sisson is the man"!!! I am not and never will dispute that effectively weightloss is not about calories in versus calories out! Every person knows that! Eat less ( less calories) and you will drop weight! Ask Joe soap on street and he will tell ya that! I am of opinion that the food you get these calories from is more inportAnt and would solve the calorie thing! For me carbs are addictive! Whether that is mental or physical is irrelevant! I think that is the same for most overweight people! Obviously if my calories for day is 3000 and I eat 2500 of carbs or 2500 of protein it's a 500 deficit! But over time I believe carbs are more inflammatory to my body and will make me want to eat more! If people started with minimising carbs, the calories would sort itself out!

rocky

BlueIsland wrote: »

Should have called the thread " in my view in the sense that it works did my body sisson is the man"!!!

It's not about the thread title

I am not and never will dispute that effectively weightloss is not about calories in versus calories out!

Glad we could change your mind

For me carbs are addictive! Whether that is mental or physical is irrelevant! I think that is the same for most overweight people!

Why don't you eat a diet of potatoes and/or rice to see this is not the case. It's not the carbs that are addictive, it's the modern foods engineered for maximum palatability. And they don't contain only carbs!! But I guess if Sisson said carbs are addictive, it must be true?

But over time I believe carbs are more inflammatory to my body and will make me want to eat more! If people started with minimising carbs, the calories would sort itself out!

Or if people started with minimizing fat, the same thing would happen.
Or if people started with minimizing animal products/dairy/ sugar/ grains/ etc, the same thing would happen.

Do you know why all of these strategies will work? Because, even though the books will say it's not about calories, they'll give you rules to follow and you end up reducing calories anyway...

Gummy Panda

boomtown84 wrote: »

@Hanley-I think the point they are getting at and somebody correct me if i'm wrong here:simplified:
-people who are overweight find it very difficult to lose weight eating carbs because they never feel full after a meal.
-if they start a diet containing more fat and less carbs this will keep them full whilst reducing their overall cal intake.
--it's just a different way of dieting for people with little will power and those that are not bothered keeping track of calories.

Low carb is basically this. Monitoring and keeping carbs low will generally force you to eat a more clean diet. The high fat will make you feel full and you'll naturally create a calorie deficit.

I think you need a little will power as the low carb flu sucks and could make you give up at the start. Also you would need to monitor your calorie intake some what as you could easily overeat especially if you are fond of nuts.

BlueIsland

My mind not changed! I said carbs first port of call! This in my view is the truth! You should write a book on nutrition and weightloss! Chapter one- if you eat less than your body needs you will loose weight and be healthy! End of book! It is not that simple! If it was everybody would do it and we wouldn't be on a nutrition board discussing it! Carbs are not needed by the Human body! Quit acting as if I brainwashed or anything! In my opinion the primal blueprint is the most complete nutrition/ lifestyle approach I have come across!

rocky

BlueIsland wrote: »

Carbs are not needed by the Human body! Quit acting as if I brainwashed or anything!

ok then...

DULLAHAN2

BlueIsland wrote: »

sorry right ill rephrase the body does not need carbohydrate to thrive..... Sisson is not advocating an atkins approach and yes he does demonise carbs... reason not atkins- get carbs from ample amounts of fruit and veg....[/QUOTE

He doesnt demonise carbs, just the foods we get them in... wholegrains are the devil according to mark sisson.

BlueIsland wrote: »

well he says in book anybody who insists on chronic cardio can test upping carb intake by 100g ( from primal foods) and see how body reacts...

He hates chronic cardio thats not the primal way. If you must do Chronic cardio he would prefer you to up the fat intake and get your body trained in burning fat rather than carbs.

Hanley wrote: »

Please tell me a 275lb 6 foot+ dude doesn't get the same carb recommendations as a 120lb 5 and a bit foot chick?

It is not about carb intake it is about a balance of high fat, protein and low carb.

gym bunny wrote: »

@hanley how do you know if iate to many cals,my problem was i was taking huge breaks inbetween my meals and not eating enough at wrong times and thats why my body was holding onto weight.Also im still failrly new as a fitness instructor so still learning,no need for the dig on my industry

I bet you werent eating enough and your body taught there was a famine on so started storing fat.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Also, ppl, please stop saying cals in cals out like it's a f*cking mantra or something. YES WE KNOW, we've heard it from birth. And you know what? It's never done any good for 99% of people trying to lose weight and keep it off. You might as well tell someone with type one diabetes that 'you know it's all about insulin in vs. insulin out.'. Totally pointless.

The reason people tend to fail on diets is beacuse they cut too many calories from there food intake. That will work for a short time but not for a long time. If people educated themselves more on how to calorie count,weighed there food, and ate smaller portions then they would succeed.

boomtown84 wrote: »

@Hanley-I think the point they are getting at and somebody correct me if i'm wrong here:simplified:
-people who are overweight find it very difficult to lose weight eating carbs because they never feel full after a meal.
-if they start a diet containing more fat and less carbs this will keep them full whilst reducing their overall cal intake.
--it's just a different way of dieting for people with little will power and those that are not bothered keeping track of calories.
there is nothing wrong with it really but the way some people go on you'd swear this diet was the second coming.

Keeping track of cal's is a big part of being primal when you start out. Many people tend to stop when they get a grasp of what they need according to there goals.

BlueIsland wrote: »

My mind not changed! I said carbs first port of call! This in my view is the truth! You should write a book on nutrition and weightloss! Chapter one- if you eat less than your body needs you will loose weight and be healthy! End of book! It is not that simple! If it was everybody would do it and we wouldn't be on a nutrition board discussing it! Carbs are not needed by the Human body! Quit acting as if I brainwashed or anything! In my opinion the primal blueprint is the most complete nutrition/ lifestyle approach I have come across!

Carbs are needed by the body, they fuel the body in saying that there is big talk on marks forums about training your body to burn fat for fuel instead of carbs but this could take months to get used too. Not one person on the forums have done it in less than a month.

Of course, if you dont do too much acitivity you dont need alot of carbs to get you through the day But if you are into sports like running, playing football then you need to up your carb intake depending on hard you push yourself.

OP, The primal blueprint is a low carb, high fat and high protein diet. Eating wholegrains is bad. Some dairy is ok but not much.

Roger Marbles

The way people distort the calorie and thermodynamics argument when discussing weight loss is ridiculous.

A calorie deficit will encourage weight loss from a system, what this weight consists of though is more the point. It's not just about losing weight, but how body composition is changing.

Based on biochemistry we can hypothesise from various angles that dietary carbohydrate intake is the most significant contributor to bodyfat accumulation. Other macronutrients less so.

Unfortunately most feeding/nutrition studies only look at weight loss in an overall sense and not how subjects body composition changes.

It's more than just losing weight, it's about losing bodyfat for most which why the simplified calories in/out argument is an oversimplification and why hormones such as insulin/hormone sensitive lipase actually are important.